¹ sn The next vision clearly shows the technique of using a sound play. In 8:1 and 7:7 (cf. Jer 1:11-14) God shows the prophet an object, then asks what he sees. When the prophet responds, the last word becomes the jumping off point for the prophetic word. Based on the similar structure to the vision in 8:1-2 we expect a sound play here as well. But exactly how it works is uncertain. Possibly the term אֲנָךְ (ʾanakh) in v. 8b is a homonym meaning “grief” (this term is attested in post-biblical Hebrew). In this case God is saying that he will put grief in the midst of Israel, meaning that he is sending judgment. Judgment was also threatened in the first two visions of Amos 7. See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos (AB), 759. Another possibility is that אֲנָךְ is supposed to sound like a pronominal suffix on the verb. While it would not fit the normal verb paradigm exactly, it is close to how a second person masculine singular suffix could sound (more typical of the pausal second masculine singular suffix on nouns or prepositions). In this case God is saying to Amos, “I am about to place you in the midst of Israel.” In the next section of the chapter, Amos relates how God sent him to preach to Israel (7:15). Amaziah the priest rejects Amos’ message, leading to God declaring the “end” (8:2) for Israel.

¹ sn The dating of the book of Joel is a matter of dispute. Some scholars date the book as early as the ninth century b.c., during the reign of the boy-king Joash. This view is largely based on the following factors: an argument from silence (e.g., the book of Joel does not mention a king, perhaps because other officials de facto carried out his responsibilities, and there is no direct mention in the book of such later Israelite enemies as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians); inconclusive literary assumptions (e.g., the eighth-century prophet Amos in Amos 9:13 alludes to Joel 3:18); the canonical position of the book (i.e., it is the second book of the Minor Prophets); and literary style (i.e., the book is thought to differ in style from the postexilic prophetic writings). While such an early date for the book is not impossible, none of the arguments used to support it is compelling. Later dates for the book that have been defended by various scholars are, for example, the late seventh century or early sixth century or sometime in the postexilic period (anytime from late sixth century to late fourth century). Most modern scholars seem to date the book of Joel sometime between 400 and 350 b.c. For a helpful discussion of date see J. A. Thompson, “The Date of the Book of Joel,” A Light unto My Path, 453-64. Related to the question of date is a major exegetical issue: Is the army of chapter two to be understood figuratively as describing the locust invasion of chapter one, or is the topic of chapter two an invasion of human armies, either the Babylonians or an eschatological foe? If the enemy could be conclusively identified as the Babylonians, for example, this would support a sixth-century date for the book.

² tn The meaning of these last two lines is somewhat uncertain. The keys are the two verbs סָחַר (sakhar) and יָדַע (yadaʿ). סָחַר (sakhar) most commonly occurs as a participle meaning “trader” or “merchant.” As a finite verb (only elsewhere in Gen 34:10, 21; 42:34) it seems to refer to “trading; doing business,” though DCH understands it only as “traveling around” and proposes “wander” in this verse. The common verb יָדַע (yadaʿ) means “to know.” Among homophonous roots DCH includes יָדַע II (yadaʿ) meaning “be quiet, at rest; be submissive” (cf. Job 21:19; Prov 5:6; Hos 9:7; Isa 45:4). The primary options in the first portion are that they “wander about” or “trade” “throughout the land.” In the second portion they “do not rest,” “are not humbled,” “are not submissive (to the Lord),” or “are ignorant.” Whether they wander without rest, have turned tradesmen without submitting to the Lord, or treat their religious duties as items for trade while ignorant of what God really says, the point is that they are absent from their proper duties of teaching the people to know God. The current translation sees the priests and prophets as disadvantaged, forced into peddling, yet still not humbled so as to return to God. The text has been interpreted to mean that priest and prophet have gone into exile, “journeying into” (cf., e.g., BDB 695 s.v. סָחַר Qal.1). This seems unlikely since it would suppose that the people are in hardship because of a punishment that has happened to their religious leaders, rather than for the failure of their leaders. (On the failure of the prophets and priests see 2:8; 5:13; 6:13; 8:10.) See also W. McKane, Jeremiah (ICC), 1:330-31 for a more thorough discussion of the issues.

¹ tn Or “he raved.” This same construction appears in 1 Sam 10:10 “the spirit of God rushed upon him and then he prophesied in their midst.” It is important to consider the agent affecting Saul, the verb describing his actions, and the broader cultural background. The phrase רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים (ruakh ʾelohim) could mean “a divine wind/spirit,” “a spirit from God,” or “the spirit of God.” Unlike 1 Sam 10:10, this case involves a harmful, or evil, spirit. The range of meaning of רָעָה (raʿah) can mean either harm or evil, and here indicates that this spirit’s purpose is to afflict Saul. The verb וַיִּתְנַבֵּא (vayyitnabbeʾ) is a Hitpael of the root נָבָא (nabaʾ) which means “to prophesy” in both the Niphal and the Hitpael. The difference may well be that the Niphal refers primarily to acting as a spokesman, while the Hitpael reflects an accompanying ecstatic experience on the part of the prophet (cf. 1 Sam 10:6; 19:24). 1 Kgs 18:29 also describes the antics of the prophets of Baal with the Hitpael of the root נָבָא (nabaʾ). Ecstatic experiences or expressions were sometimes associated with prophecy in the broader West Semitic culture as well as in the Israel. Some translations focus on the presumed outward effects of the afflicting spirit on Saul and render the verb “he raged” or “he raved” (NASB, ESV, NLT, NRSV). Although most biblical references to Israel’s prophets do not involve ecstatic experiences, the original audience would probably not have made a distinction here, that is, “raving” and “prophesying” would not have been considered alternatives.

² tn Grk “dreaming.” The participle ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι (enupniazomenoi, “dreaming”) is adverbial to the pronoun οὗτοι (houtoi, “these”), though the particular relationship is not clear. It could mean, “while dreaming,” “by dreaming,” or “because of dreaming.” This translation has adopted the last option as Jude’s meaning, partially for syntactical reasons (the causal participle usually precedes the main verb) and partially for contextual reasons (these false teachers must derive their authority from some source, and the dreams provide the most obvious base). The participle ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι was sometimes used of apocalyptic visions, both of true and false prophets. This seems to be the meaning here.

⁶ tn Heb “Its place is not known—where are they?” The form אַיָּם has been taken in various ways: (1) an interrogative adverb with third person masculine plural suffix (“where are they?”; GKC 296-97 §100.o; BDB 32 s.v. אַי 1.a); (2) an interrogative particle אֵי (ʾey, “where?”) lengthened to אַיָּה (ʾayyah) and written with the enclitic particle ־ם (mem; GKC 295 §100.g), similar to ayyami (“where?”) in Assyrian (CAD 1.1.220); see W. A. Maier, Nahum, 356; R. D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (WEC), 111; T. Longman, “Nahum,” The Minor Prophets, 2:826.

³ tn Or “has come up.” Used in reference to an army, the verb עָלָה (ʿalah, “to go up”) means “to advance; to march against” (HALOT 829 s.v. 3.d; see 1 Sam 7:7; 1 Kgs 20:22; Isa 7:1; 21:2; Jer 46:9; Joel 1:6; Mic 2:3). Appearing in a prophetic vision, the suffix (perfect) conjugation can denote a future action, but it is reported from the point of view of the vision in which it has been seen, thus the perspective is past.

³ tc The BHS editors propose revocalizing the MT מֹטֵהוּ (motehu, “his yoke bar”) to מַטַּהַוּ (mattahu, “his scepter”). The threat of breaking an enemy’s scepter was a common ancient Near Eastern treaty curse (see D. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets [BibOr], 61). This proposed revocalization has no external support. The MT is supported by the use of the parallel word pair מוֹטָה/מוֹסֵר (motah, “scepter”/moser, “bonds”) elsewhere (Jer 27:2). The term מַטֶּה is never used in parallelism with מוֹסֵר elsewhere.

¹ tn The particle וְעַתָּה (v^eʿattah, “And now”) often introduces a transition in a prophetic oracle (HALOT 902 s.v. 3.a). It often draws a contrast between a past condition (as described in v. 12) and what will happen in the immediate future (as described in v. 13; see, e.g., Gen 11:6; 2 Sam 2:6; 2 Kgs 12:8). See H. A. Brongers, “Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des adverbialen weʿattah im Alten Testament,” VT 15 (1965): 289-99.

¹ tn Heb “‘Do not foam at the mouth,’ they foam at the mouth.” The verb נָטַף (nataf) means “to drip.” When used of speech it probably has the nuance “to drivel, to foam at the mouth” (HALOT 694 s.v. נטף). The sinful people tell the Lord’s prophets not to “foam at the mouth,” which probably refers in a derogatory way to their impassioned style of delivery. But the Lord (who is probably still speaking here, see v. 3) sarcastically refers to their impassioned exhortation as “foaming at the mouth.”

² tc If one follows the MT as it stands, it would appear that the Lord here condemns the people for their “foaming at the mouth” and then announces that judgment is inevitable. The present translation assumes that this is a continuation of the quotation of what the people say. In this case the subject of “foam at the mouth” is the Lord’s prophets. In the second line יִסַּג (yissag, a Niphal imperfect from סוּג, sug, “to remove”) is emended to יַסִּגֵנוּ (yassigenu; a Hiphil imperfect from נָסַג/נָשַׂג, nasag/nasag, “to reach; to overtake”).

⁶ sn This refers to a well-known earthquake that occurred during the first half of the 8th century b.c. According to a generally accepted dating system, Uzziah was a co-regent with his father Amaziah from 792-767 b.c. and ruled independently from 767-740 b.c. Jeroboam II was a co-regent with his father Joash from 793-782 b.c. and ruled independently from 782-753 b.c. Since only Uzziah and Jeroboam are mentioned in the introduction it is likely that Amos’ mission to Israel and the earthquake which followed occurred between 767-753 b.c. The introduction validates the genuine character of Amos’ prophetic ministry in at least two ways. First, Amos was not a native Israelite or a prophet by trade. Rather he was a herdsman in Tekoa, located in Judah. His mere presence in the northern kingdom as a prophet was evidence that he had been called by God (see 7:14-15). Second, the mighty earthquake shortly after Amos’ ministry would have been interpreted as an omen or signal of approaching judgment. The clearest references to an earthquake are 1:1 and 9:1, 5. It is possible that the verb הָפַךְ (hafakh, “overturn”) at 3:13-15; 4:11; 6:11, and 8:8 also refers to an earthquake, as might the descriptions at 2:13 and 6:9-10. Evidence of a powerful earthquake has been correlated with a destruction layer at Hazor and other sites. Its lasting impact is evident by its mention in Zech 14:5 and 2 Chr 26:16-21. Earthquake imagery appears in later prophets as well (cf. D. N. Freedman and A. Welch, “Amos’s Earthquake and Israelite Prophecy,” Scripture and Other Artifacts, 188-98). On the other hand, some of these verses in Amos could allude to the devastation that would be caused by the imminent military invasion.

³ tn Heb “they languished together.” The verbs אָבַל (ʾaval, “to lament”) and אָמַל (ʾamal, “languish, mourn”) are often used in contexts of funeral laments in secular settings. The Hebrew prophets often use these terms to describe the aftermath of the Lord’s judgment on a nation. Based on parallel terms, אָמַל (ʾamal) may describe either mourning or deterioration and so makes for a convenient play on meaning when destroyed objects are personified. Incorporating this play into the translation, however, may obscure the parallel between this line and the deterioration of the gates beginning in v. 9.

³ tn The verbs in this verse and v. 30 are all in the past tense in Hebrew, in the tense that views the action as already as good as done (the Hebrew prophetic perfect). The verb in v. 31a, however, is imperfect, viewing the action as future; the perfects that follow are all dependent on that future. Verse 33 looks forward to a time when Babylon will be harvested and trampled like grain on the threshing floor, and the imperatives imply a time in the future. Hence the present translation has rendered all the verbs in vv. 29-30 as future.

³ tn Heb “Hamath and Arpad.” There is no word for people in the text. The cities are being personified. However, since it is really the people who are involved, the present translation supplies the words “people of” both here and in v. 24 to aid the reader. The verbs in vv. 23-25 are all to be interpreted as prophetic perfects, the tense of the Hebrew verb that views an action as though it were as good as done. The verbs are clearly future in vv. 26-27, which begin with a “therefore.”

³ tn Heb “Woe to Nebo for it is destroyed.” For the use of the Hebrew particle “Woe” (הוֹי, hoy), see the translator’s note on 22:13. The translation has taken this form because the phrase “Woe to” probably does not convey the proper meaning or significance to the modern reader. The verbs again are in the tense (Hebrew prophetic perfect) that views the action as if it were as good as done. The particle כִּי (ki) probably is causal, but the asseverative works better in the modified translation.

³ tn Heb “the Lord will thrust them down.” However, the Lord is speaking (cf. clearly in v. 18), so the first person is adopted for the sake of consistency. This has been a consistent problem in the book of Jeremiah, where the prophet is so identified with the word of the Lord that he sometimes uses the first person and sometimes the third. It creates confusion for the average reader who is trying to follow the flow of the argument. So the pronoun has been shifted to the first person like this on numerous occasions. TEV and CEV have generally adopted the same policy, as have some other modern English versions at various points.

¹ tn There appears to be a deliberate shift in the pronouns used in vv. 2-5. “You” refers to the people living in Egypt who are being addressed (v. 2) and to the people of present and past generations to whom the Lord persistently sent the prophets (v. 4). “They” refers to the people of Jerusalem and the towns of Judah who have suffered disaster (v. 2) because of the wickedness of sacrificing to other gods (vv. 3, 5). The referents have been explicitly identified in the translation for the sake of clarity.

¹ sn Shaphan had been the royal secretary under Jehoiakim’s father’s rule. During the course of his official duties the book of the law had been discovered, and he had read it and reported its contents to Josiah, who instituted sweeping reforms on the basis of his obedience to it. (See 2 Kgs 22 and note especially vv. 3, 8, 10.) If the Shaphan mentioned in 22:14 is the same person as this, Gemariah would have been the brother of the man who spoke up on Jeremiah’s behalf when the priests and prophets sought to have him killed.

¹ sn Jer 32:2-5 are parenthetical, giving the background for the actual report of what the Lord said in v. 7. The background is significant because it shows that Jeremiah was predicting the fall of the city and the kingdom and was being held prisoner for doing so. Despite this pessimistic outlook, the Lord wanted Jeremiah to demonstrate his assurance of the future restoration (which has been the topic of the two preceding chapters) by buying a field as a symbolic indicator that the Israelites would again one day regain possession of their houses, fields, and vineyards (vv. 15, 44). (For other symbolic acts with prophetic import see Jer 13, 19.)