Amos's Oracles Against the Nations

by John Barton

In the first two chapters of the book of Amos, the prophet denounces a number of neighbouring nations for committing atrocities in war and then declares Israel to be equally blameworthy in view of the social injustices prevailing in his time (the eighth century BC). Amos is widely held to be ahead of his age, not only in recognising the idea of 'war crimes' but also in attributing to the God if Israel any concern with or power over other nations. In this detailed study of Amos 1 and 2, Dr Barton shows that the book in fact presupposes both these notions; there were already accepted conventions of warfare in the ancient Near Eastern cultures and there was already recognition in Israel of the universality of God's power. The essential contribution of Amos to Old Testament theology is to be found in his radical criticism of Israel and in his prediction that it is about to be destroyed by its own God.

96 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1980

About the author

John Barton is Oriel & Laing Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford. His publications include The Theology of the Book of Amos (Cambridge University Press, 2012) and Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (2007).

For the Canadian poet, see John Barton.

Reviews

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting exegesis of the first two chapters of Amos. Barton asserts that Amos is appealing to behavior that would have been assumed to be improper, at least in the ears of his hearers, on the part of other nations. This sets up a surprise when he describes everyday injustices on the part of Israel as parallel to these obvious "war crimes" on the part of other nations.

While I tend to agree with Barton's thesis, I might push a little on his understanding of international convention. I'm not sure why it's necessary to appeal to some sense of "the way nations should treat each other" when it would be simple to describe these things as "inhumane behavior."

Certainly, though, he makes some excellent points--particularly in the appendix--about the way the Edom and Tyre bits differ from the rest.

If his thesis is correct, and it seems generally to be so in my opinion, one then wonders why Amos believes (and with him, his hearers, or at least Amos thinks his hearers would agree) that Yahweh should, in fact, be the one to carry out justice toward other nations. Don't they have their own gods? Or is our understanding of the development of monotheism in Israelite thought somewhat flawed?