Amos Hosea Exploring Ways Message Prophets Rooted

¶ … Amos Hosea exploring ways message prophets rooted theological narrative traditions Israel. What light texts shed modern-day readers question God's objectives church human society

Amos and Hosea -- a contemporary understanding of prophets during eight-century B.C.'s Israel

While the contemporary society is accustomed to associating the concept of religion with prophets living in the a.D. era, Old Testament is actually particularly influential when considering present day religious ideas. Amos and Hosea were both prophets in Israel in the eight-century, a period when the state experienced a variety of more or less fortunate events. These two are considered Minor Prophets because of the short length of their books, given that their works are much shorter in comparison to the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. They focused on putting across a traditional view in regard to the Empire of Israel and they emphasized the fact that one of the principal reasons for its fall was the fact that people had abandoned God and spirituality.

Amos and Hosea were interested in providing their people and the world as a whole with an explanation regarding suffering experienced by Israel and its people. They acknowledged the fact that individuals had lost their interest in religious matters and embraced sinful lifestyles. As a consequence, God was no longer willing to support them in their dealings with neighboring states and they would end up being persecuted by these respective nations.

In order to have a better understanding of the attitudes that Amos and Hosea employed in their attempt to present people with God's interests, one would have to be presented with the social, economic, and political factors related to Israel during the eight-century B.C. Amos and Hosea focused on providing the public with a moral message and they did not necessarily relate to the supernatural aspect of being a prophet.

Amos did not consider himself to be an actual prophet because most prophets were believed to be educated at the time. Moreover, they would normally be seen around influential people and they would stay near the king's court, as kings apparently considered their advice to be particularly important. From a modern perspective, one might regard Amos as being a moral commentator of affairs occurring in his vicinity. He was concerned about having people understand the importance of spirituality and of believing in God. He was particularly disturbed with people's behavior and considered that something needed to be done in order for the people of Israel to experience as little suffering as possible in the near future.

Amos used drama with the purpose of emphasizing the wrongness in the behavior of Israelites and his work represented a shift from typical prophetic works written before him. In spite of his later tendencies, he initially followed tradition in writing, as "the early Amos already exhibits both simplicity and intensity in his utterances, and he may be singled out in his bold outlines to exemplify the activity of the prophet in general" (Cook, 1996, p. 16). It is very probable that his interest in detaching himself from typical prophets is not actually an attempt to have people perceive him as being inferior to these respective individuals. It is likely that he intended his personality and his works to be distinguished from mainstream prophecies and thus focused on highlighting his background, his thinking, and his perspective in regard to the world. While many people living contemporary to him believed that only a true prophet could receive word from God, Amos wanted to change their opinion and to simply provide them with his theories (Koch, 1983, p. 9).

Laws were particularly harsh to prophets who were found to put across false prophecies and this was probably a reason for which Amos managed to express his thinking without being criticized, as he and his community did not consider him to be a prophet. Amos seemed unconcerned about how people would see him, as he principally wanted them to understand his teachings and focus on leading more spiritual lifestyles (Koch, 1983, p. 9).

Amos presented the world with a new kind of prophecy and with a new kind of prophet. The fact that he was different from other prophets apparently made it possible for him to see things from an objective point-of-view. "Moving from South to North, he is a native Hebrew but also something of a stranger, which suggests that he occupies the formal status of the ger, the "resident alien," a regular role in the society" (Cook, 1996, p. 17). As a consequence, Amos was not only different from prophets, as he was also different from the people of Israel. While this influenced Israelites in discriminating him, it also provided him with a general image of Israelite behavior and tendencies. He was practically enabled to see that Israel did not treat all of its inhabitants equally and that particular groups were inclined to persecute others. Amos considered that the job of a true prophet was not necessarily related to him prophesying the future, as he also needed to understand events happening contemporary to him and the effect that these respective events will have on the future. "A prophet deserves honor not because he foresees the coming event but because he sees the meaning within the current event. It is the prophet's gift of insight, not his foresight, that sets him apart" (Blank, 1961, p. 4).

Amos practically understood the political and economic context that made it possible for Israelites to experience a period of prosperity and realized that they were wrong because they did not focus on maintaining it. By simply enjoying life to the fullest these people ignored imminent threats and were unable to respond effectively when neighboring nations rose against them. Amos perceived his society as a building that was standing on unstable pillars represented by Israelites. The fact that these people were reluctant to appreciate spiritual values made it difficult for them to foresee threats. They virtually took advantage of the time they spent without being persecuted to exploit resources in their territory. It is not necessarily that Amos was angry with Israelites for their behavior, as he was disappointed and realized that there was little that he could do to help them, considering that they were determined to go on with their self-destructive lifestyle (Sawyer, 1993, p. 124).

Amos was also infuriated with the behavior of religious people living contemporary to him. He blamed them because they did not support him in criticizing immoral behavior and because many of them actually contributed to making Israel a sinful place. There were priests at the time who promoted pagan rituals and who believed that sacrifice was the only way to please the gods. Amos knew that this was wrong but he could not intervene because of his social status. Both Amos and Hosea trusted that Israelites would eventually be able to recover from the dark period that they were experiencing because they were familiar with Jewish tradition. They knew that most pagan rituals and the inclination to appreciate material values more than spiritual ones resulted from the fact that Israelites had been influenced by Canaanite tradition. By worshipping Canaanite gods, priests and people in general had rebelled against what Amos and Hosea considered to be the true God (Barstad 1984, p. 5).

While Israelites were prosperous during the reign of Jeroboam, they were reluctant to divide power equally in the state and were determined to create upper and lower castes with the purpose of having particular individuals superior to others. Upper class individuals expressed no interest in the needs of the poor and primarily focused on exploiting them as much as possible. Amos was disturbed with their attitude and did not hesitate to criticize them for their behavior. "You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine" (Amos 5:11). He was well aware of the fact that people were blinded by material values and that they could not see that they were in danger of falling victim to society's pressures.

Israelites believed that God favored them and that they could do anything that they wanted and God would not be mad in regard to their behavior. The early decades of the eight-century B.C. saw a flourishing Israel and an Israelite public that had access to more and more resources. While Israelites considered that this was a sign that they were truly appreciated by a divine force, the truth was that neighboring nations were weakened by internal conflicts and could not afford the luxury of attacking Israel. The Assyrians were too busy to control conditions on other fronts and did not consider Israel to be particularly important for them during the first half of the eight-century B.C. King Jeroboam II took advantage of this and expanded the nation's borders while people were becoming more and more prosperous. Israel's suffering did not necessarily come as a result of the fact that neighboring tribes started to express interest in its resources, as it started from within the state. "On Jeroboam's death, Israel fell into near anarchy as almost everyking was assassinated by his successor. This, combined with the rise ofan invigorated Assyria under Tiglath Pileser III (745-727 B.C.) and hissuccessors Shalmanesar V (727-722 B.C.) and Sargon II (722-705 B.C.),sealed the fate of Israel" (Garret 1993, p. 2).

Similar to Amos, Hosea is principally recognized for how he described himself, as there is little to no outside information relating to him. Amos focused on prophesying in regard to the southern part of Israel while Hosea concentrated on the north. Even with this, they both saw similar attitudes in Israelites and realized that a period of great suffering would begin. It is difficult to determine the exact period that Hosea lived in, as he related to the fall of Israel but he did not speak about it as if it had already happened.

Hosea's book is much more difficult to decipher because of the multitude of events that he relates to and because he did not employ a cursive approach at writing it. It is very probable that much of it has been put together by a series of disciples consequent to his death. Similar to Amos, Hosea wanted to impress people through his writings and did not hesitate to employ poetic attitudes in describing conditions in the state of Israel. As a consequence, he exaggerated events with the purpose of influencing people in acknowledging the desperate state they are in (Garret 1993, p. 5).

The book of Hosea is the longest book written by the twelve minor prophets and even with the fact that it can be difficult to understand at times, it is characteristic to thinking expressed during the eight-century B.C. Consequent to reading it, one is likely to understand the complete image of society during the period and Hosea's determination to raise public awareness through his words. Hosea and Amos can practically be considered to be ethical idealists, as they were actually thinking that they could change people's understanding of the world through emphasizing the fact that material values are not important. They discovered that it was difficult and almost impossible for them to do so and thus started to focus on explaining the atmosphere in Israel before it entered a state of anarchy and before it came to be seen as a significant source of wealth by neighboring states (Garret 1993, p. 5).

In comparison to Amos, Hosea experienced the immoral behavior in Israel from a first-hand perspective. His wife, Gomer, left him with the purpose of seeing other men and thus provided him with a cruel experience that taught him more concerning Israel's sins. The fact that Amos was an outsider provided him with the ability to employ a detached attitude in speaking in regard to Israel and its people. In contrast, Hosea was particularly in love with his homeland and was especially sorry that he had to see his people behave immorally. He felt that he was directly subjected to Israel's immorality through the relationship that he had with Gomer. His wife left him in spite of the fact that he loved her, similar to how his people and Israel as a whole expressed no interest in ethics in spite of the fact that he provided people with teachings meant to influence them in behaving morally. Hosea compared his wife to the nation of Israel and emphasized that none of them were capable of understanding the importance of faithfulness. His wife cheated on him similar to how Israel cheated on God by favoring other gods and by losing interest in spiritual matters.

Hosea is more passionate in comparison to Amos because he feels that he is the direct victim of Israel's sins. Either way, both prophets acknowledge the fact that Israelites are capable of reform but that they are uninterested in improving their lives from a spiritual point-of-view. The moment when Jeroboam's dynasty ends is representative for Israel, considering that it presents the local community with the real aspect of matters. Everyone is determined to come in control of Israel regardless of the immoralities that he or she commits in the endeavor. Murder is a common sight in a state where power is all that matters and people are well-aware that power equals well-being, considering that they also know that power is especially destructive when it is in the hands of their enemies (Garret 1993, p. 10).

Although both Amos and Hosea are pessimistic concerning Israel's chances to emerge out of the crisis that it is in victoriously, the latter prophet appears to trust in God's love for the people of Israel. It is not that Hosea was not aware of the suffering that was going to come to Israelites, as he simply knew that matters would change in the future and that the relationship between people and God would once again be strong (Sawyer, 1993, p. 121).

Amos and Hosea acted as individuals who addressed people in regard to proper political attitudes and to morality. Amos observed affairs in the state and in neighboring states and concluded that conditions were especially fragile. He wanted to help people in spite of the fact that they were hypocritical and focused on having them understand the bigger picture. "His task was to widen their horizons and open their eyes, on the one hand, to the plight of the poor in their land, and at the same time to the vulnerability of Israel in the world of eighth-century BC international politics" (Sawyer, 1993, p. 124).

Amos was particularly unenthusiastic in regard to Israel's future. The prophet believed that the moment when God would be reunited with his people was not going to be a glorious moment. He considered that God was especially mad in regard to values respected across Israel and that he would be unforgiving at the time when each person would be judged in accordance with his or her behavior. To a certain degree, the prophet was not hopeful in regard to the chances that Israelites had to restructure their society and their beliefs. He believed that no one could forgive them for their sins and for their ignorance. Their approach concerning foreign relations was even more frustrating for Amos because he watched as they expressed no interest in the imminent threat represented by neighboring communities. He was unable to understand how these people could believe that God favored them for who they were instead of appreciating them for what they did. It is very probable that Amos believed that Israelites were wrong because they combined pagan rituals with God worshipping and believed that they could use these respective customs with the purpose of pleasing divine forces and influencing them in expressing support concerning Israel (Blank, 1961, p. 208).