Amos 4:2

2. This shameful conduct has aroused the anger of Jehovah.

Hath sworn An anthropomorphism. As a man affirms a statement by an oath and thus makes certain its fulfillment, so Jehovah is represented as having affirmed the sentence of doom by an oath (Amos 6:8; Amos 8:7; compare Genesis 15:9-18).

By his holiness Mitchell renders, “by his sacred, awe-inspiring personality.” Jehovah has pledged his holiness that he will fulfill his threat. The expression is practically equivalent to “by himself” (Amos 6:8). A.B. Davidson says, “The two phrases have virtually the same sense.” “Holy as applied to Jehovah is an expression that in some way describes him as God, either generally or on any particular side of his nature, the manifestation or thought of which impresses men with the sense of his Godhead.” For a discussion of holiness see on Hosea 11:9.

That, lo, the days shall come Better, Lo, the days are about to come (see on Amos 2:13). The conjunction translated “that” serves here to introduce the direct address (G.-K., 157b). He will [“they shall”] Literally, one shall take you you shall be taken (G.-K., 144d). The prophet expects the punishment to take the form of an exile (Amos 5:27; Amos 6:7; Amos 7:17).

With hooks Both words so translated mean primarily thorns; probably the latter served as fishhooks to primitive man. The figure apparently changes in Amos 4:2 to that of catching fish. As fish are taken by fishermen with hooks, so the women are to be carried away by the foreign invader (Habakkuk 1:14). The picture may be based upon the Assyrian custom alluded to also in Isaiah 37:29; Ezekiel 29:4 (compare Rawlinson, Seven Great Monarchies, i, plate 35). Some, to retain the figure of Amos 4:1, understand it to allude to the putting of hooks into the nostrils of unruly cattle, “but so many should the cattle of Samaria be, that for the last of them fishhooks must be used.” Marti understands both words to designate hooks in general, and he thinks that the prophet has in mind the removal of the carcasses of the fat cattle with hooks put in the nose and the hinder part. Whatever the basis of the picture, the figure is one of absolute helplessness.

Posterity R.V., “residue.” Posterity cannot be correct, since the prophet looks for the judgment in the immediate future (Amos 7:17); the thought is “every last one of you”; not one shall escape.

In Amos 4:3 the figurative language is abandoned.

Ye shall go out As captives.

At the breaches Made by the besiegers.

Every cow at that which is before her Better, R.V., “every one straight before her,” which some interpret to mean that there will be no need of looking for a gate, since the breaches are so numerous (Joshua 6:5; Joshua 6:20); others, without turning to the right or to the left; hurriedly they will be driven away “as a herd of cows go one after another through a gap in a fence.”

Ye shall cast them The context fails to indicate who is addressed. This difficulty was felt by the Revisers, who translate, without warrant in the Hebrew, “ye shall cast yourselves,” and state in the margin, “The text (including the next two words) is obscure.” The difficulty vanishes if one vowel point is altered; then it may be translated “ye shall be cast,” that is, by your captors.

Into the palace R.V., “into Harmon.” A.V. is incorrect. The word is the name of the city or district to which the women are to be exiled. Concerning the identification of the locality there exists disagreement both among the ancient versions and among modern commentators. A few of the latter consider the case hopeless; many attempt emendations, but none are quite satisfactory. In all probability the text is corrupt. If it is the name of a city or district it must lie “beyond Damascus” (Amos 5:27). The district suggested by three of the ancient versions (Peshitto, Targum, Symmachus), and by Jerome in a note, namely, Armenia, would meet this condition, and this translation might be defended on linguistic grounds without serious difficulties.