It is universally recognized today that in order to understand the content and message of a biblical passage, it is necessary to grasp the text itself, the historical background of the passage or the events within it, and the context before and after ...
It is universally recognized today that in order to understand the content and message of a biblical passage, it is necessary to grasp the text itself, the historical background of the passage or the events within it, and the context before and after the passage. Studies that delve into the background of the Bible, both internal and external, help rectify misunderstandings or misconceptions that modern individuals may have and enable a more precise understanding of the overall theme and emphasis of a passage within the framework (the various sections or units) present in the Scriptures. This type of research aids in the interpretation of biblical teachings.
An important aspect of this process is to verify whether the diverse directions of commentary, including studies of the background within and outside the Scriptures and the study of the passage’s context, harmonize. Many interpreters of Scripture seem to exhibit haste in defining the scriptural message based on a specific commentary perspective. While the interpretation of a verse or a portion of text may impact the entire passage, different opinions regarding a particular commentary can become evident and clarified through the entirety of the passage. Therefore, the examination of the relationship between the parts and the whole is essential in the task of scriptural commentary.
With this perspective in mind, I sought to revisit the content of Amos 1:1-2:16. Why does the book of Amos, which deals with activities in northern Israel, begin with a verbose oracle against the nations (1:3-2:5) and then shift its focus to the judgment against northern Israel (2:6-16)? If the beginning of the Book of Amos starts with a discussion of the nations, excluding the superscription (1:1), what exactly is the content of verse 1:2, and what is it portraying within its preceding and succeeding context? If all these verses are situated within a certain context, what is the content and reason behind it? This paper aims to answer these questions and reassess the background and meaning of the passage.