וַיַּעֲמֵ֣ד כְּמִשְׁפַּ֣ט דָּֽוִיד־אָ֠בִיו אֶת־מַחְלְק֨וֹת הַכֹּהֲנִ֜ים עַל־עֲבֹדָתָ֗ם וְהַלְוִיִּ֣ם עַל־מִ֠שְׁמְרוֹתָם לְהַלֵּ֨ל וּלְשָׁרֵ֜ת נֶ֤גֶד הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ לִדְבַר־י֣וֹם בְּיוֹמ֔וֹ וְהַשּׁוֹעֲרִ֥ים בְּמַחְלְקוֹתָ֖ם לְשַׁ֣עַר וָשָׁ֑עַר כִּ֣י כֵ֔ן מִצְוַ֖ת דָּוִ֥יד אִישׁ־הָאֱלֹהִֽים׃
솔로몬이 또 그 부친 다윗의 정규를 좇아 제사장들의 반차를 정하여 섬기게 하고 레위 사람에게도 그 직분을 맡겨 매일에 합의한 대로 찬송하며 제사장들 앞에서 수종들게 하며 또 문지기로 그 반차를 좇아 각 문을 지키게 하였으니 이는 하나님의 사람 다윗이 전에 이렇게 명하였음이라
Ibn Ezra
The son of Amoz. There exists an opinion, though a solitary one,2This is the opinion of R. Johanan (comp. Midrash Rabba, Leviticus 6), and Ulla (comp. Talmud Babli, Megilla 15a). that when the father of a prophet is mentioned by name, he also was a prophet; another3R. Levi said, ‘ We know by tradition that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers.’ (Talmud Babli, Megilla 10b.) opinion is, that Isaiah was a member of the royal family, that his father Amoz and Amaziah4Amaziah was king of Juda, before Uzziah, 835—806. were brothers, and that the evil-disposed of Israel were unable on that account to do harm to Isaiah, as they did to Jeremiah (vid. Jer. 38); but in fact Isaiah did not escape persecution, for he says, I gave my back to smiters, etc. (1. 6). Irrespectively of all traditional explanations, we may say that the father of a prophet, if mentioned by name, was a man of some distinction, whose character rendered him conspicuous among his fellow-men; sometimes he was himself a prophet, at others not, e.g., David, the son of Jesse (2 Sam. 23:1). David was the man of God (2 Chron. 8:14), Jesse was not. It is with prophecy as with royalty; comp. Jehu, king of Israel, the son of Nimshi (1 Kings 19:16); Nimshi was not a king. We read, it is true, In the vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, the prophet5A. V. The prophet, the son of Amoz. (2 Chron. 32:32), where the qualifying term, the prophet, may as well be referred to Amoz as to Isaiah; but from the words, To Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz (2 Kings 19:2), we learn that Isaiah was the prophet. 6This is not so evident as I. E. seems to believe; since from the same two verses just the opposite inference is made, Midrash Rabba (Leviticus 6); namely, that both Isaiah and Amoz were prophets, because the epithet, the prophet, is in the one verse closely joined to the former, in the other to the latter. Ibn Ezra, who recommends the accents as an excellent guide for the reading and understanding of the Bible (comp. 5:9), should have gathered better evidence from the accents. אמוץ has a disjunctive accent, and is to be separated from the following הנְביא ; were they to be joined, their accents would be in the following way, ישעיה֨ו בן־אמ֣וץ הנביא Thus the forefathers of Zephania are named (Zeph. 1:1), because the king Hezekiah was one of them.