John Calvin, Commentary on Amos



Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets by John Calvin.

Now first translated from the original Latin, by the Rev. John Owen,
vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire.

Volume Second. Joel, Amos, Obadiah

WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1950, Michigan.
Printed in the United States of America.





The Commentaries of John Calvin on the Prophet Amos


Lecture Forty-ninth.
    
    He shows himself the time when he began to discharge his office
of a teacher; but it does not appear how long he prophesied. The
Jews indeed, think that his course was long; he continued his
office, as they write, under four kings. But he mentions here only
the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam. His purpose was to mark the time
when he began to execute his office of a Prophet, but not to express
how long he labored for God in that office; and why he mentions only
the beginning, we shall in its proper place notice. It is, indeed,
certain, that he commenced his work under king Uzziah, and under
king Jeroboam: and this also is to be noticed, that he was appointed
a Prophet to the kingdom of Israel. For though he arose from the
tribe of Judah, yet the Lord, as we shall see set him over the
kingdom of Israel. He sometimes turns his discourse to the tribe of
Judah, but only, as it were, accidentally, and as occasion led him;
for he mainly addressed the Ten Tribes. I now come to his words.


Chapter 1.

Amos 1:1
The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw
concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the
days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before
the earthquake.
    
    Amos boasts not here, in speaking of his own words, that he
adduced anything as from himself, but avows himself to be only the
minister of God; for he immediately adds that he received them by a
vision. God himself raised up the Prophets and employed their
labour; And, at the same time, guided them by his Spirit, that they
might not announce anything but what had been received from him, but
faithfully deliver what had proceeded from him alone. These two
things then, well agree together, - that the prophecies which follow
were the words of Amos and that they were words revealed to him from
above; for the word "chazah" which Amos uses, properly means, to see
by revelation; and these revelations were called prophecies.
    But he says, that he "was among the shepherds of Tekoa". This
was a mean towns and had been shortly before surrounded by walls and
had ever been previously a village. He then mentions not his
country, because it was celebrated, or as though he could derive
thereby more authority or renown: but, on the contrary he calls
himself a Tekoan, because God drew him forth from an obscure place,
that he might set him over the whole kingdom of Israel. They are
therefore mistaken, as I think, who suppose that Amos was called one
of the shepherds on account of his riches, and the number of his
flocks; for when I weigh every thing, I see not how could this be. I
indeed allow that "nokdim" are not only shepherds who do the work,
but men possessing flocks, carrying on a large business; for the
king of Moab is said to have been a "noked", and that he fed large
flocks; but it was by hired shepherds. As to the Prophets I do not
see how this can be applied to him; for Tekoa was not a place famous
for wealth; and as I have said, it was a small town, and of no
opulence. I do not then doubt, but that Amos, by saying that he was
a shepherd, pours contempt on the pride of the king of Israel, and
of the whole people; for as they had not deigned to hear the
Prophets of God, a keeper of sheep was sent to them.
    It must be further noticed, that he is not called a shepherd of
Tekoa, but "from Tekoa"; and interpreters have not observed this
preposition. We shall see in chapter seven, that though Amos sprang
from the tribe of Judah, he yet dwelt in the kingdom of Israel: for
the priest, after he had slandered him before the king, bade him to
go elsewhere, and to eat his own bread, and not to disturb the peace
of the country. He therefore dwelt there as a stranger in a land not
his own. Had he been rich, and possessing much wealth, he would have
surely dwelt at home: why should he change his place? Since then it
appears evident, that he was a sojourner in the land of Israel, he
was, no doubt, one of the common people. So that his low condition
was intended for this purpose, - that God might thereby repress the
arrogance of the king of Israel, and of the whole people; for we
know how much inflated they were on account of the fruitfulness of
their land and their riches. Hence Amos was set over them as a
Prophet, being a shepherd, whom God had brought from the sheepfolds.
    The time also is to be observed, when he is said to have seen
these prophecies; it was "in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, two
years before the earth-quake, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son
of Joash". What the state of that time was, I described in
explaining the prophecies of Hosea. Sacred history relates that the
kingdom of Israel flourished under the second Jeroboam; for though
he was an ungodly and wicked man, yet God spared then his people,
and caused that not only the ten tribes should remain entire, but
also that Jeroboam should enlarge his kingdom; for he had recovered
some cities which had been lost. The state of the people was then
tranquil, and their prosperity was such as filled them with pride,
as it commonly happens. Uzziah also so reigned over the tribe of
Judah, that nothing adverse prevailed there. Shortly after followed
the earthquake. The time this earthquake happened, sacred history
does not mention. But Josephus says, that it was when Uzziah seized
on the priestly office, and was smitten with leprosy. He therefore
makes that stroke of leprosy and the earthquake to be at the same
time. But Amos, as well as other Prophets, spoke of it as a thing
well known: thus Zechariah, after the people's return, refers to it
in chapter 14:, 'There shall be to you a terror, such as was in the
earthquake under king Uzziah.' He states not the year, but it was
then commonly known.
    Then the Prophet meant nothing more than to show by this event,
that he denounced God's vengeance on the Israelites, when they were
in prosperity, and were immersed, as it were, in their pleasures.
And satiety, as it ever happens, made them ferocious; hence he was
not well received; but his authority is hereby more confirmed to us;
for he did not flatter the people in their prosperity, but severely
reproved them; and he also predicted what could not be foreseen by
human judgment, nay, what seemed to be altogether improbable. Had he
not then been endued with the heavenly Spirit, he could not have
foretold future calamities, when the Jews, as I have already said,
as well as the Israelites, and others, promised themselves all kinds
of prosperity; for God then spared the kingdom of Israel and the
kingdom of Judah, nor did he execute his judgment on neighboring
nations.
    We must now observe this also, that the words which he "saw"
were "concerning Israel". We hence learn, as I have already said
that the Prophet was specifically appointed for the Israelites,
though born elsewhere. But how and on what occasion he migrated into
the kingdom of Israel, we know not; and as to the subject in hand,
it matters not much: but it is probable, as I have said before, that
this was designedly done, that God might check the insolence of the
people, who flattered themselves so much in their prosperity. Since,
then, the Israelites had hitherto rejected God's servants, they were
now constrained to hear a foreigner and a shepherd condemning them
for their sins, and exercising the office of a judge: he who
proclaims, an impending destruction is a celestial herald. This
being the case, we hence see that God had not in vain employed the
ministry of this Prophet; for he is wont to choose the weak things
of the world to confound the strong, (1 Cor. 1) and he takes
Prophets and teachers from the lowest grade to humble the dignity of
the world, and puts the invaluable treasure of his doctrine in
earthly vessels, that his power, as Paul teaches us, may be made
more evident (1 Cor. 4.)
    But there vas a special reason as to the Prophet Amos; for he
was sent on purpose severely to reprove the ten tribes: and, as we
shall see, he handled them with great asperity. For he was not
polite, but proved that he had to do with those who were not to be
treated as men, but as brute beasts; yea, worse in obstinacy than
brute beasts; for there is some docility in oxen and cows, and
especially in sheep, for they hear the voice of their shepherd, and
follow where he leads them. The Israelites were all stubbornness,
and wholly untamable. It was then necessary to set over them a
teacher who would not treat them courteously, but exercise towards
them his native rusticity. Let us now proceed; for of the kingdom of
Uzziah and of Jeroboam the son of Joash, the second of that name, we
have spoken on the first chapter of Hosea. It now follows -

Amos 1:2
And he said, The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from
Jerusalem; and the habitations of the shepherds shall mourn, and the
top of Carmel shall wither.
    
    He employs here the same words which we explained yesterday in
the last chapter of Joel; but for another purpose. By saying,
'Jehovah from Zion shall roar,' Joel intended to set forth the power
of God, who had been for a time silent, as though he was not able to
repel his enemies. As God was then despised by the ungodly, Joel
declares that he had power, by which he could instantly break down
and destroy all his enemies and defend his Church and chosen people.
But now Amos, as he addresses the Israelites, does here defend the
pure worship of God from all contempt and declares to the
Israelites, that how much soever they wearied themselves in their
superstitions they still worshipped their own devices; for God
repudiated all the religion they thought they had. There is, then,
to be understood an implied or indirect contrast between mount Zion
and the temples which the first Jeroboam built in Dan and Bethel.
The Israelites imagined that they worshipped the God of their
feather Abraham; and there were in those places greater pomps than
at Jerusalem. But the Prophet Amos pours contempt on all these
fictitious forms of worship; as though he said, "Ye indeed boast
that the God of Abraham is honored and worshipped by you; but ye are
degenerate, ye are covenant breakers, ye are perfidious towards God;
he dwells not with you, for the sanctuaries, which you have made for
yourselves, are nothing but brothels; God has chosen no habitation
for himself, except mount Zion; there is his perpetual rest: Roar
then will Jehovah from Zion."
    We now see what the Prophet had in view: for he not only shows
here, that God was the author of his doctrine, but at the same time
distinguishes between the true God and the idols, which the first
Jeroboam made, when by this artifice he intended to withdraw the ten
tribes from the house of David and wholly to alienate them from the
tribe of Judah: it was then that he set up the calves in Dan and
Bethel. The Prophet now shows that all these superstitions are
condemned by the true God: "Jehovah then shall roar from Zion, he
will utter his voice from Jerusalem". He no doubt wished here to
terrify the Israelites, who thought they had peace with God. Since,
then, they abused his long-suffering, Amos now says that they would
find at length that he was not asleep. "When God then shall long
bear with your iniquities, he will at last rise up for judgment."
    By roaring is signified, as we said yesterday, the terrible
voice of God; but the Prophet here speaks of God's voice, rather
than of what are called actual judgments really executed, that the
Israelites might learn that the examples of punishments which God
executes in the world happen not by chance, or at random, but
proceed from his threatening; in short, the Prophet intimates that
all punishments which God inflicts on the ungodly and the despisers
of his word, are only the executions of what the Prophets
proclaimed, in order that men, should there be any hope of their
repentance, might anticipate the destruction which they hear to be
nigh. The Prophet then commends here very highly the truth of what
God teaches, by saying that it is not what vanishes, but what is
accomplished; for when he destroys nations and kingdoms, it comes to
pass according to prophecies: "God then shall utter his voice from
Jerusalem".
    Then it follows, "And mourn shall the habitations of
shepherds". "'Aval" means to mourn, and also to be laid waste, and
to perish. Either sense will well suit this place. If we read,
"mourn", &c., then we must render the following thus, "and ashamed
shall be the head, or top, of Carmel". But if we read, "perish",
&c., then the verb "bosh" must be translated, "wither"; and as we
know that there were rich pastures on Carmel, I prefer this second
rendering: "wither then shall the top of Carmel"; and the first
clause must be taken thus, "and perish shall the habitations of
shepherds".
    As to what is intended, we understand the Prophet's meaning to
be, that whatever was pleasant and valuable in the kingdom of Israel
would now shortly perish, because God would utter his voice from
Zion. The meaning then is this, - "Ye now lie secure, but God will
soon, and even suddenly, put forth his power to destroy you; and
this he will do, because he denounces on you destruction now by me,
and will raise up other Prophets to be heralds of his vengeance:
this will God execute by foreign and heathen nations; but yet your
destruction will be according to these threatening which ye now
count as nothing. Ye indeed think them to be empty words; but God
will at length show that what he declares will be fully
accomplished."
    With respect to Carmel, there were two mountains of this name;
but as they were both very fertile, there is no need to take much
trouble to inquire of which Carmel the Prophet speaks. Sufficient is
what has been said, - that such a judgment is denounced on the
kingdom of Israel as would consume all its fatness; for as we shall
hereafter see, and the same thing has been already stated by the
Prophet Hosea, there was great fertility as to pastures in that
kingdom.
    We must, at the same time, observe, that the Prophet, who was a
shepherd, speaks according to his own character, and the manner of
life which he followed. Another might have said, 'Mourn shall the
whole country, tremble shall the palaces,' or something like this;
but the Prophet speaks of mount Carmel, and of the habitations of
shepherds, for he was a shepherd. His doctrine no doubt was
despised, and many profane men probably said, "What! he thinks that
he is still with his cows and with his sheep; he boasts that he is
God's prophet, and yet he is ever engrossed by his stalls and his
sheepfolds." It is then by no means improbable, but that he was thus
derided by scornful men: but he purposely intended to blunt their
petulance, by mingling with what he said as a Prophets those kinds
of expressions which savored of his occupation as a shepherd. Let us
now proceed -

Amos 1:3-5
3 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for
four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they
have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron:
4 But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall
devour the palaces of Benhadad.
5 I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant
from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the
house of Eden: and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto
Kir, saith the LORD.
    
    It is singular that Amos said that his words were concerning
Israel, and that he should now turn to speak of Damascus and the
country of Syria. This seems inconsistent; for why does he not
perform the office committed to him? why does he not reprove the
Israelites? why does he not threaten them? why does he not show
their sins? and why does he speak of the destruction then nigh to
the people of Syria? But it is right here to consider what his
design was. He shows briefly, in the last verse, that ruin was nigh
the Israelites; for God, who had hitherto spared them, was now
resolved to ascend his tribunal. But now, that he might better
prepare the Israelites, he shows that God, as a judge, would call
all the neighboring nations to an account. For had the Prophet
threatened the Israelites only, they might have thought that what
they suffered was by chance, when they saw the like things happening
to their neighbors: "How is it credible that these evils and
calamities have flowed from God's vengeance, since the Idumeans, the
Moabites, the Ammonites, the Syrians, and the Sidonians, are
implicated in these evils in common with ourselves? For if God's
hand pursues us, it is the same with them: and if it is fate, that
with blind force exercises its rule over the Moabites, the Idumeans,
and the Syrians, the same thing, doubtless, is to be thought of our
case." Thus all the authority of the Prophet must have lost its
power, except the Israelites were made to know that God is the judge
of all nations.
    We must also bear in mind, that the kingdom of Israel was laid
waste, together with other neighboring countries, as war had spread
far and wide; for the Assyrian, like a violent storm, had extended
through the whole of that part of the world. Not only, then, the
Israelites were distressed by adversities at that time, but all the
nations of which Amos prophesied. It was hence necessary to add the
catalogue which we here find, that the Israelites might have as many
confirmations respecting God's vengeance, as the examples which were
presented to their eyes, in the dire calamities which everywhere
prevailed. This is to be borne in mind. And then the Prophet
regarded another thing: If the Idumeans, the Moabites, the Syrians,
and Ammonites, were to be treated so severely, and the Prophet had
not connected the Israelites with them, they might have thought that
they were to be exempted from the common punishments because God
would be propitious to them; for hypocrites ever harden themselves
the more, whenever God spates them: "See, the Ammonites and the
Moabites are punished; the Idumeans, the Syrians, and other nations,
are visited with judgment: God then is angry with all these; but we
are his children, for he is indulgent to us." But the Prophet puts
here the Israelites in the same bundle with the Moabites, the
Idumeans, and other heathen nations; as though he said, "God will
not spare your neighbours; but think not that ye shall be exempt
from his vengeance, when they shall be led to punishment; I now
declare to you that God will be the judge of you all together."
    We now apprehend the design of the Prophet. He wished here to
set before the eyes of the Israelites the punishment of others to
awaken them, and also to induce them to examine themselves for we
often see, that those who are intractable and refractory in their
disposition, when directly addressed are not very attentive; but
when they hear of the sins of others, and especially when they hear
something of punishment, they will attend. The Prophet therefore
designed by degrees to lead the Israelites to a teachable state of
mind, for he knew them to be torpid in their indulgences, and also
blinded by presumption, so that they could not be easily brought
under the yoke: hence he sets before them the punishment which was
soon to fall on neighbouring nations.
    We must yet observe that there was another reason I do not
throw aside what I have already mentioned; but the Prophet no doubt
had this also in view, - that God would punish the Syrians, because
they cruelly raged against the Israelites especially against Gilead
and its inhabitants. As God, then, would inflict so grievous a
punishment on the Syrians, because they so cruelly treated the
inhabitants of Gilead, what was to be expected by the Israelites
themselves who had been insolent towards God, who had violated his
worship who had robbed him of his honor, who had in their turn
destroyed one another! For, as we shall hereafter see, there was
among them no equity, no humanity; they had forgotten all reason.
Since, then, the Israelites were such, how could they hope that so
many and so detestable crimes should go unpunished, when they saw
that the Syrians, though uncircumcised, were not to be spared,
because they so cruelly treated professed enemies, on whom they
lawfully made war?
    I now come to the words of the Prophet: "Thus saith Jehovah,
For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, will not be
propitious to it; literally, "I sill not convert it": but I take
this actively that God would not turn himself to mercy, or that he
would not be propitious to Damascus. We know that Damascus was the
capital of Syria; And the Prophet here, by mentioning a part for the
whole, threatens the whole people, and summons all the Syrians to
God's tribunal, because they had inhumanely treated, as we shall
see, the city of Gilead. But he says, God will "not be propitious
for three and four transgressions of Damascus". Some take this
meaning, "For three transgressions I have been propitious, for four
I will not be." But there is no need of adding anything to the
Prophet's words; for the most suitable sense here is that for the
many sins of Damascus God would not be propitious to it: and the
Prophet, I have no doubt, intended by the two numbers to set forth
the irreclaimable perverseness of the Syrians. Seven in Scripture is
an indefinite number, and is taken, as it is well known, to express
what is countless. By saying then, three and four transgressions, it
is the same as if he had said seven: but the Prophet more strikingly
intimates the progress the Syrians made in their transgressions,
until they became so perverse that there was no hope of repentance.
This then is the reason, that God declares that he would no more
forgive the Syrians, inasmuch as without measure or limit they burst
forth into transgressions and ceased not, though a time for change
was given them. This is the true meaning. And the Prophet repeats
the same form of speech in speaking of Gaza, of Amman, of Edom, and
of other nations.
    Let us learn from this place, that God, whom the world regards
as too cruel, when he takes vengeance on sins, shows really and by
sure proof the truth of what he declares so often of himself in
Scripture, and that is, that he bears long and does not quickly take
vengeance: though men are worthy to perish yet the Lord suspends his
judgments. We have a remarkable proof of this in these prophecies;
for the Prophet speaks not only of one people but of many. Hence God
endured many transgressions not only in the Syrians, but also in
other nations: there was not then a country in which a testimony to
God's forbearance did not exist. It hence appears, that the world
unjustly complains of too much rigor, when God takes vengeance, for
he ever waits till iniquity, as it was stated yesterday, reaches its
highest point.
    There is besides presented to us here a dreadful spectacle of
sins among so many nations. At the same time, when we compare that
age with ours, it is certain that greater integrity existed then:
all kinds of evils so overflow at this day, that compared with the
present, the time of Amos was the golden age; and yet we hear him
declaring here, that the people of Judah and of Israel, and all the
other nations, were monstrously wicked, so that God could not bring
them to repentance. For he testifies not here in vain, that he would
punish wickedness wholly obstinate since they had not turned to him,
who had advanced to the number seven; that is, who had sinned, as it
has been before stated, without measure or limits: and this ought
also to be noticed in the Prophet's words; but I cannot now proceed
farther.
    
Prayer.
    
Grant, Almighty God, that as thou seest us to be of a disposition so
hard and rebellious, that we are not, without great difficulty,
drawn to thee, - O grant, that we may at least be subdued by the
threatenings thou daily denouncest on us, and be so subdued, that
being also drawn by thy word, we may give up ourselves to thee, and
not only suffer ourselves to be constrained by punishments and
collections, but also obey thee with a willing mind, and most
readily offer ourselves to thee as a sacrifice of obedience, so that
being ruled by the Spirit of thy Son, we may at length attain that
blessed rest, which has been prepared for us by the same thy Son our
Lord. Amen.


Lecture Fiftieth.

    We explained in yesterday's Lecture, that what the Prophet
means by the three and four transgressions of Damascus, is perverse
and incurable wickedness; for God here declares that he had borne
long enough with the sins of Damascus, and that now he is in a
manner forced to proceed to extreme rigor, seeing that there was no
hope of amendment. But what follows may seem strange; for
immediately the Prophet subjoins, "Because they have threshed Gilead
with iron wains", or serrated machines. He records here only one
wickedness: where, then, were the seven of which he spoke? The
answer may be easily given. By naming the three and four sins of
Damascus, he means not different kinds of sins, but rather the
perverseness which we have mentioned; for they had been extremely
rebellious against God, and God had suspended his vengeance, till it
became evident that they were unhealable. It was, therefore, not
necessary to mention here seven different sins; for it was enough
that Damascus, which means the kingdom of Syria, was held bound by
such a degree of obstinacy, that no remedy could be applied to its
transgressions; for it had for a long time tried the patience of
God.
    Now the Prophet subjoins, "I will send fire unto the house of
Hazael, which will devour the palaces of Ben-hadad". The Prophet
speaks still of the kingdom of Syria; for we know that both
Ben-hadad and Hazael were kings of Syria. But Jerome is much
mistaken, who thinks that Ben-hadad was here put in the second
place, as if he had been the successor of Hazael, while sacred
history relates that Hazael came to Elisha when Ben-hadad was ill in
his bed, (2 Kings 8: 9;) and he was sent to request an answer. Now
the Prophet declared that Hazael would be the king of Syria, and
declared this not without tears; for he pitied his own people, of
which this Syrian would be the destroyer. After he returned home, he
strangled Ben-hadad, and took to himself the royal dignity. But it
is common enough in Scripture to speak of a thing present, and then,
as in this place, to add what has past, "I will send fire into the
house of Hazael, and this fire will devour the palaces of
Ben-hadad"; as though he said, "I will destroy the kingdom of Syria,
I will consume it as with burning." But he first names the house of
Hazael, and then the palaces of Ben-hadad; as though he said, "No
ancientness shall preserve that kingdom from being destroyed." For,
metaphorically, under the word fire, he designates every kind of
consumption; and we know how great is the violence of fire. It is
then as though he said, that no wealth, no strength, no
fortifications, would stand in the way to prevent the kingdom of
Syria from being destroyed.
    He then adds, "I will break in pieces the bar of Damascus". The
Prophet confirms what he had already said; for Damascus, being
strongly fortified, might have seemed unassailable. By bar, the
Prophet, mentioning a part for the whole, meant strongholds and
everything which could keep out enemies. Nothing, then, shall
prevent enemies from taking possession of the city of Damascus. How
so? Because the Lord will break in pieces its bars.
    It is then added, "I will cut off, or destroy, the inhabitant
from Bikoth Aven", or from the plain of Aven. It is uncertain
whether this was the proper name of a place or not, though this is
probable; and yet it means a plain, derived from a verb, which
signifies to cut into two, or divide, because a plain or a valley
divides or separates mountains; hence a valley or plain is called in
Hebrew a division. Now, we know that there were most delightful
plains in the kingdom of Syria, and even near Damascus. Aven also
may have been the name of a place, though it means in Hebrew trouble
or laborer. But whatever it may have been, the Prophet no doubt
declares here, that all the plains nigh Damascus, and in the kingdom
of Syria, would be deprived of their inhabitants. "I will then
destroy the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and the holder of the
sceptre from the house of Eden", or from the house of pleasure. This
also may have been the name of a place, and from its situation a
region, which, by its pleasantness greatly delighted its
inhabitants. But the Prophet, I have no doubt, alludes, in these two
words, to "trouble" and "pleasure". "Removed", he says, shall be the
people of Syria into Kir". The purport of this is, that the kingdom
of Syria would be wasted, so that the people would be taken into
Assyria; for the Prophet declares that the Assyrians would be the
conquerors, and remove the spoils into their own kingdom, and lead
away the people as captives; for the word city, as a part for the
whole, is put here for the whole land. It now follows -

Amos 1:6-8
6 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Gaza, and for
four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they
carried away captive the whole captivity, to deliver [them] up to
Edom:
7 But I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza, which shall devour the
palaces thereof:
8 And I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him that
holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon, and I will turn mine hand against
Ekron: and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the
Lord GOD.

    Amos directs here his discourse against Gaza, which the
Philistine occupied. It was situated in the tribe of Judah, towards
the sea; but as the Anakims were its inhabitants, the Philistine
kept possession of it. Then the Jews had these enemies as
"aktorekous", (guardians of the shore,), who had a greater
opportunity of doing harm from being so near: and we may learn from
the Prophet's words, that the Philistines, who dwelt at Gaza, when
they saw the Israelites oppressed by their enemies, joined their
forces to foreign allies, and that the Jews did the same. God then
now denounces punishment on them.
    As to the word, Gaza, some think that it was given to the city,
because Cambyses, when warring with the Egyptians, had deposited
there his money and valuable furniture; and because the Persian call
a treasure, gaza; but this is frivolous. We indeed know that the
Greek translators ever put "gamma" for an "ayin"; as of Omorrha they
make Gomorrha, so of Oza they make Gaza. Besides, the city had this
name before the time of Cambyses. It was then more probably thus
called from its strength: and that the Greeks rendered it Gaza was
according to their usual practice, as I have said as to other words.
But there were two Gazas; when the first was demolished, the
inhabitants built another near the sea. Hence Luke, in the 8th
chapter of the Acts says, that Gaza was a desert; and he thus makes
a difference between Gaza on the sea-side and the old one, which had
been previously demolished. But Amos speaks of the first Gaza; for
he threatens to it that destruction, through which it happened that
the city was removed to the shores of the Mediterranean.
    I come non to the Prophet's words: "God, he says, will not be
propitious to Gaza for three and four transgressions", as the
Philistine had so provoked God, that they were now wholly unworthy
of pardon and mercy. I reminded you in yesterday's Lecture, that
there is presented to us here a sad spectacles but yet useful; for
we here see so many people in such a corrupted state, that their
wickedness was become to God intolerable: but at this day the state
of things in the world is more corrupt, for iniquity overflows like
a deluge. Whatever then men may think of their evils, the Lord from
heaven sees how great and how irreclaimable is their obstinacy. It
is nothing that some throw blame on others, or look for some
alleviation, since all are ungodly and wicked: for we see that God
here declares that he would, at the same time, take vengeance on
many nations. The Idumeans might then have objected, and said, that
their neighbors were nothing better; others might have made the same
excuse; every one might have had his defense ready, if such a
pretext availed, that all were alike implicated in the same guilt
and wickedness. But we see that God appears here as a judge against
all nations. Let us not then be deceived by vain delusions, when we
see that others are like us; let every one know that he must bear
his own burden before God: "I will not then be propitious for three
and for four transgressions".
    "Because they carried away, he says, a complete captivity". The
Prophet records here a special crime, - that the Gazites took away
Jews and Israelites, and removed them as captives into Idumea, and
confined them there. I have already said that it was not the
Prophet's design to enumerate all their sins, but that he was
content to mention one crime, that the Israelites might understand
that they were involved in a heavier guilt, because they had
grievously offended both God and men. If then so severe a vengeance
was to be taken on Gaza, they ought to have known, that a heavier
vengeance awaited them, because they were guilty of more and greater
sins. But he says that they had effected a complete captivity,
inasmuch as they had spared neither women, nor children, nor old
men; for captivity is called perfect or complete, when no
distinction is made, but when all are taken away indiscriminately,
without any selection. They then carried away a complete captivity,
so that no pity either for sex or for age touched them: "that they
might shut them up, he says, in Edom".
    Now follows a denunciation of punishment, - that "God would
send a fire on the wall of Gaza, to devour its palaces". And it
hence appears that Gaza was a splendid town, and sumptuously built;
and for this reason the Prophet speaks of its palaces. He shows, at
the same time, that neither strength nor wealth would prevent God
from executing the punishment which the Gazites deserved. He names
also other cities of Palestine, even Ascalon and Azdod, or Azotus,
and Ecron. These cities the Philistine then possessed. The Prophet
then intimates, that wheresoever they might flee, there would be no
safe place for them; for the Lord would expose as a prey to enemies,
not only Gala, but also all the other cities. We may conclude that
Ascalon was the first city; for there was the royal residence,
though Gaza was the capital of the whole nation; it might yet be
that the pleasantness of its situation, and other attractions, might
have induced the king to reside there, though it was not the
metropolis; Him then "who holds the sceptre I will cut off from
Ascalon". He at last concludes, that all the remnants of Palestine
would be destroyed. Now, whenever God denounces destruction on the
Jews, he ever gives some hope, and says that the remnant would be
saved: but here the Prophet declares that whatever remained of that
nation would be destroyed; for God purposed to destroy them
altogether, and also their very name.
    He therefore adds, that "Jehovah Lord" had spoken, "saith the
Lord Jehovah". This was added for confirmation; for the Philistine
were then in possession of many and strong defenses, so that they
boldly laughed to scorn the threatening of the Prophet. He therefore
brings forward here the name of God. Now follows the prediction
respecting Tyrus: -

Amos 1:9,10
Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Tyrus, and for
four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they
delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, and remembered not the
brotherly covenant:
But I will send a fire on the wall of Tyrus, which shall devour the
palaces thereof.

    He uses nearly the same words respecting Tyrus which he did
respecting Gaza, and charges it with the same sin, which was that of
removing the Jews from their country, as refugees and exiles, into
Idumea, and of selling them as captives to the Idumeans. As of all
the rest, he declares the same of Tyrus, that they had not lightly
sinned, and that therefore no moderate chastisement was sufficient;
for they had for a long time abused God's forbearance, and had
become stubborn in their wickedness.
    But what he says, that "they had not been mindful of the
covenant of brethren", some refer to Hiram and David; for we know
that they had a brotherly intercourse, and called each other by the
name of brothers; so great was the kindness between them. Some then
think that the Tyrians are here condemned for having forgotten this
covenant; for there ought to have remained among them some regard
for the friendship which had existed between the two kings. But I
know not whether this is too strained a view: I rather incline to
another, and that is, that the Syrians delivered up the Jews and the
Israelites to the Idumeans, when yet they knew them to be brethren:
and they who implicate themselves in a matter of this kind are by no
means excusable. When I see one conspiring for the ruin of his own
brother, I see a detestable and a monstrous thing; if I abhor not a
participation in the same crime, I am involved in the same guilt.
When therefore the Syrians saw the Idumeans raging cruelly against
their brethren, for they were descended from the same family, they
ought doubtless to have shown to the Idumeans how alienated they
were from all humanity and how perfidious they were against their
own brethren and relatives. Now the Prophet says, that they had been
unmindful of the covenant of brethren, because they made themselves
assistants in so great and execrable a crime as that of carrying
away Jews into Idumea, and of shutting them up there, when they knew
that the Idumeans sought nothing else but the entire ruin of their
own brethren. This seems to be the real meaning of the Prophet.
    But he adds, that "God would send a fire on the wall of Tyrus
to consume its palaces". When this happened, cannot with certainty
be known: for though Tyrus was demolished by Alexander, as Gaza also
was, these cities, I doubt not, suffered this calamity long before
the coming of Alexander of Macedon; and it is probable, as I have
already reminded you, that the Assyrians laid waste these countries,
and also took possession of Tyrus, though they did not demolish that
city; for in Alexander's time there was no king there, it had been
changed into a republic; the people were free, and had the chief
authority. There must then have been there no small changes, for the
state of the city and its government were wholly different from what
they had been. We may then conclude that Tyrus was laid waste by the
Assyrians, but afterwards recovered strength, and was a free city in
the time of Alexander the Great. Let us now proceed: for I dwell not
on every word, as we see that the same expressions are repeated by
the Prophet.

Amos 1:11,12
Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four,
I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because he did pursue
his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger
did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever:
But I will send a fire upon Teman, which shall devour the palaces of
Bozrah.

    The Prophet now passes to the Idumeans themselves. He had
denounced ruin on the uncircumcised nations who delivered up the
Jews into their hands: but they deserved a much heavier punishment,
because their crime was much more atrocious. The Idumeans derived
their origin, as it is well known, from their common father Isaac
and bore the same symbol of God's covenant, for they were
circumcised. Since nearness of blood, and that sacred union, could
not make them gentle to the Jews, we hence perceive how brutal was
their inhumanity. They were then unworthy of being forgiven by God,
when he became so severe a judge against heathen nations. But the
Prophet says now, that the Idumeans had sinned more than their
neighbors, and that their obstinacy was unhealable and that hence
they could no longer be borne, for they had too long abused God's
forbearance, who had withheld his vengeance until this time.
    He charges them with this crime, that "they pursued their
brother with the sword". There is here an anomaly of the number, for
he speaks of the whole people. Edom then pursued his brother, that
is, the Jews. But the Prophet has intentionally put the singular
number to enhance their crime: for he here placed here, as it were,
two men, Edom and Jacob, who were really brothers, and even twins.
Was it not then a most execrable ferocity in Edom to pursue his own
brother Jacob? He then sets before us here two nations as two men,
that he might more fully exhibit the barbarity of the Idumeans in
forgetting their kindred, and in venting their rage against their
own blood. "They have then pursued their brother with the sword";
that is, they have been avowed enemies, for they had joined
themselves to heathen nations. When the Assyrians came against the
Israelites, the Idumeans put on arms: and this, perhaps, happened
before that war; for when the Syrians and Israelites conspired
against the Jews, it is probable that the Idumeans joined in the
same alliance. However this may have been, the Prophet reproaches
them with cruelty for arming themselves against their own kindred,
without any regard for their own blood.
    He afterwards adds, "They have destroyed their own
compassions"; some render the words, "their own bowels;" and others
in a strained and improper manner transfer the relative to the sons
of Jacob, as though the Prophet had said, that Edom had destroyed
the compassions, which were due, on account of their near
relationship, from the posterity of Jacob. But the sense of the
Prophet is clearly this, - that they destroyed their own
compassions, which means, that they put off all sense of religion,
and cast aside the first affections of nature. He then calls those
the compassions of Edom, even such as he ought to have been
influenced by: but as he had thrown aside all regard for humanity,
there was not in him that compassion which he ought to have had.
    He then adds, "His anger has perpetually raged". He now
compares the cruelty of the Idumeans to that of wild beasts; for
they raged like fierce wild animals, and spared not their own blood.
They then raged perpetually, even endlessly, and "retained their
indignation perpetually". The Prophet seems here to allude to Edom
or Esau, the father of the nation; for he cherished long, we know,
his wrath against his brother; as he dared not to kill his brother
during his father's life. Hence he said, I will wait till my
father's death, then I will avenge myself, (Gen. 27: 41.) Since Esau
then nourished this cruel hatred against his brother Jacob, the
prophet here charges his posterity with the same crime; as though he
had said, that they were too much like their father, or too much
retained his perverse disposition, as they cherished and ever
retained revenge in their hearts, and were wholly implacable. There
may have been other causes of hatred between the Idumeans and the
posterity of Jacob: but they ought, notwithstanding, whatever
displeasure there may have been, to have forgiven their brethren. It
was a monstrous thing past endurance, when a regard for their own
blood did not reconcile those who were, by sacred bonds, connected
together. We now perceive the object of the Prophet: and we here
learn, that the Idumeans were more severely condemned than those
mentioned before, and for this reason, - because they raged so
cruelly against their own kindred.
    He says in the last place, "I will send fire on Teman, to
consume the palaces of Bozrah". By fire he ever means any kind of
destruction. But he compares God's vengeance to a burning fire. We
know that when fire has once taken hold, not only on a house, but on
a whole city, there is no remedy. So now the Prophet says, that
God's vengeance would be dreadful, that it would consume whatever
hatred there was among them: I will then send fire on Teman; which,
as it is well known, was the first city of Idumea. Let us now
proceed -

Amos 1:13-15
13 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of the children of
Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof;
because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that
they might enlarge their border:
14 But I will kindle a fire in the wall of Rabbah, and it shall
devour the palaces thereof, with shouting in the day of battle, with
a tempest in the day of the whirlwind:
15 And their king shall go into captivity, he and his princes
together, saith the LORD.
    
    He now prophesies against the Ammonites, who also derived their
origin from the same common stock; for they were the posterity of
Lot, as it is well known; and Lot was counted as the son of Abraham,
as Abraham, having taken him with him from his country brought him
up, no doubt, as his own son. Then Abraham was the common father of
the Jews and of the Ammonites. Now, when the children of Ammon,
without any regard to relationship, joined their forces to those of
enemies, and conspired together, their cruelty admitted of no
excuse. And there is no doubt but that they were guilty of many
other crimes; but God, by his Prophet, enumerates not all the sins
for which he had purposed to punish them, and only points out
distinctly, as in passing, but one sin, and generally declares, that
such people were utterly past hope, for they had hardened themselves
in their wickedness.
    He therefore says of the children of Ammon, that they "rent the
pregnant women". Some take "harot" for "harim", mountains; but I see
not what can induce them, unless they think it strange that pregnant
women were rent, that the Ammonites might extend further their
borders; and for this ends it would be more suitable to regard the
word as meaning mountains; as though he said, "They have cut through
mountains, even the earth itself; there has been no obstacle through
which the Ammonites have not made their way: an insatiable cupidity
has so inflamed them, that they have rent the very mountains, and
destroyed the whole order of nature." Others take mountains
metaphorically for fortified cities; for when one seeks to take
possession of a kingdoms cities stand in his way like mountains. But
this exposition is too strained.
    Now, since "harot" mean women with child, the word, I doubt
not, is to be taken in its genuine and usual sense, as we see it to
be done in Hosea. But why does the Prophet say, that the Ammonites
had rent pregnant women? It is to show, that their cupidity was so
frantic, that they abstained not from any kind of cruelty. It is
possible that one be so avaricious as to seek to devour up the whole
earth, and yet be inclined to clemency. Alexander, the Macedonian,
though a bloody man, did yet show some measure of kindness: but
there have been others much more cruel; as the Persian, of whom
Isaiah speaks, who desired not money, but shed blood, (Isa. 13: 17,
&c.) So the Prophet says here of the Ammonites, that they not only,
by unlawful means, extended their borders, used violence and became
robbers who spoiled others of their property, but also that they did
not spare even women with child. Now this is the worst thing in the
storming of towns. When a town has wearied out an enemy, both
pregnant women, and children, and infants may, through fury, be
destroyed: but this is a rare thing, and never allowed, except under
peculiar circumstances. He then reproaches the Ammonites, not only
for their cupidity, but also for having committed every kind of
cruelty to satisfy their greediness: "they have then torn asunder
women with child, that they might extend their borders".
    "I will therefore kindle a fire in the wall of Rabbah, which
shall devour its palaces", (the Prophet adds nothing new, I shall
therefore go on,) "and this by tumult", or by glamour, "in the day
of war". The Prophet means that enemies would come and suddenly lay
waste the kingdom of Ammon; and that this would be the case, as a
sudden fire lays hold on wood, in the day of war; that is as soon as
the enemy attacked them, it would immediately put them to fight, and
execute the vengeance they deserved, "by a whirlwind in the day of
tempest". By these figurative terms the Prophet intimates that the
calamity destructive to the Ammonites, would be sudden.
    He finally adds, "And their king shall go into captivity, he
and his princes together". As "malkam" was an idol of the people,
some regard it here as a proper name; but he says, "malkam hu
wesaraw", 'their king, he and his princes;' hence the Prophet, no
doubt, names the king of Ammon, for he joins with him his princes.
He says then that the ruin of the kingdom would be such, that the
king himself would be led captive by the Assyrians. This prediction
was no doubt fulfilled, though there is no history of it extant.
    
Prayer.
    
Grant, Almighty God, that since thou hast designed, by so many
examples, to teach the world the fear of thy name, we may improve
under thy mighty hand, and not abuse thy forbearance, nor gather for
ourselves a treasure of dreadful vengeance by our obstinacy and
irreclaimable wickedness, but seasonably repent while thou invites
us, and while it is the accepted time, and while thou offerest to us
reconciliation, that being brought to nothing in ourselves, we may
gather courage through grace, which is offered to us through Christ
our Lord. Amen.


Chapter 2.

Lecture Fifty-first.

Amos 2:1-3
1 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Moab, and for
four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because he
burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime:
2 But I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the palaces
of Kerioth: and Moab shall die with tumult, with shouting, [and]
with the sound of the trumpet:
3 And I will cut off the judge from the midst thereof, and will slay
all the princes thereof with him, saith the LORD.
    
    Now Amos prophesies here against the Moabites, and proclaims
respecting them what we have noticed respecting the other nations, -
that the Moabites were wholly perverse, that no repentance would be
hoped for, as they had added crimes to crimes, and reached the
highest pitch of wickedness; for, as we have said, the number,
seven, imports this. The Prophet then charges the Moabites here with
perverseness: and hence we learn that God's vengeance did not come
hastily upon them, for their wickedness was intolerable since they
thus followed their crimes. But he mentions one thing in particular,
- that "they had burnt the bones of the king of Edom".
    Some take bones here for courage, as though the Prophet had
said, that the whole strength of Edom had been reduced into ashes:
but this is a strained exposition; and its authors themselves
confess that they are forced to it by necessity, when yet there is
none. The comment given by the Rabbis does not please them, - that
the body of a certain king had been burnt, and then that the
Moabites had strangely applied the ashes for making a cement instead
of lime. Thus the Rabbis trifle in their usual way; for when an
obscure place occurs, they immediately invent some fable; though
there be no history, yet they exercise their wit in fabulous
glosses; and this I wholly dislike: but what need there is of
running to allegory, when we may simply take what the Prophet says,
that the body of the king of Edom had been burnt: for the Prophet, I
doubt not, charges the Moabites with barbarous cruelty. To dig up
the bodies of enemies, and to burn their bones, - this is an inhuman
deed, and wholly barbarous. But it was more detestable in the
Moabites, who had some connection with the people of Edom; for they
descended from the same family; and the memory of that relationship
ought to have continued, since Abraham brought up Lot, the father of
the Moabites; and thus the Moabites were under an obligation to the
Idumeans. If then any humanity existed in them, they ought to have
restrained their passions, so as not to treat so cruelly their
brethren. Now, when they exceeded all moderation in war, and raged
against dead bodies, and burnt the bones of the dead, it was, as I
have said, an extremely barbarous conduct. The meaning then is, that
the Moabites could no longer be borne with; for in this one
instance, they gave an example of savage cruelty. Had there been a
drop of humanity in them, they would have treated more kindly their
brethren, the Idumeans; but they burnt into lime, that is, into
ashes, the bones of the king of Edom, and thereby proved that they
had forgotten all humanity and justice. We now understand the
Prophet's meaning.
    He therefore adds a threatening, "I will send a fire on Moab,
which shall devour the palaces of Keriot". We have stated that what
the Prophet means by these modes of speaking is that God would
consume the Moabites by a violent punishment as by a burning fire,
that fortified places could not hinder him from executing his
vengeance, and that though they were proud of their palaces, yet
these would avail them nothing.
    And he subjoins, "Moab shall die with tumult, with noise, with
the sound of the trumpet"; that is, I will send strong enemies, who
will come and make no peace with the Moabites, but will take
possession of every place, and of fortified cities, by force and by
the sword. For what the Prophet means by tumult, by shouting, by the
sound of the trumpet, is, that the Moabites would not come under the
power of their enemies by certain agreements and compacts, as when a
voluntary surrender is made, which usually mitigates the hostile
rage of enemies; no, he says, it shall not be so; for their enemies
shall have not only their wealth but their lives also.
    He finally adds, "And I will cut off the judge from the midst
of her, and will slay her princes, saith Jehovah". God here
declares, that the kingdom of the Moabites and the people shall be
no more; for we know that men cannot exist as a body without some
civil government. Wherever then there is an assemblage of men, there
must be princes to rule and govern them. Hence, when God declares
that there would be no more a judge among the Moabites, it is the
same thing as if he had said, that their name would be blotted out;
for had the people of Moab continued, some princes must have
necessarily, as we have said, remained among them. When princes then
are destroyed, the people must also perish, for there is no security
for them. The Prophet then denounces not here a temporary punishment
on the Moabites, but utter ruin, from which they were never to rise.
This is the meaning. Let us now proceed -

Amos 2:4,5
Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Judah, and for
four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they
have despised the law of the LORD, and have not kept his
commandments, and their lies caused them to err, after the which
their fathers have walked:
But I will send a fire upon Judah, and it shall devour the palaces
of Jerusalem.

    Amos turns now his discourse to the tribe of Judah, and to that
kingdom, which still continued in the family of David. He has
hitherto spoken of heathen and uncircumcised nations: what he said
of them was a prelude of the destruction which was nigh the chosen
people; for when God spared not others who had through ignorance
sinned, what was to become of the people of Israel, who had been
taught in the law? For a servant, knowing his master's will, and
doing it not, is worthy of many stripes, (Luke 12: 47.) God could
not, then, forgive the children of Abraham, whom he had adopted as
his peculiar people, when he inflicted each grievous punishments on
heathen nations, whose ignorance, as it is commonly thought by men,
was excusable. It is indeed true, that all who sin without law will
justly perish, as Paul says in Rom. 2, but when a comparison is made
between the children of Israel and the wretched heathens, who were
immersed in errors, the latter were doubtless worthy of being
pardoned, when compared with that people who had betrayed their
perverseness, and, as it were, designedly resolved to bring on
themselves the vengeance of God.
    The Prophet then having hitherto spoken of the Gentiles, turns
his discourse now to the chosen people, the children of Abraham. But
he speaks of the tribe of Judah, from which he sprang, as I said at
the beginning; and he did this, lest any one should charge him with
favoring his own countrymen: he had, indeed, migrated into the
kingdom of Israel; but he was there a stranger. We shall now see how
severely he reproved them. Had he, then, been silent as to the tribe
of Judah, he might have been subject to calumny; for many might have
said, that there was a collusion between him and his own countrymen
and that he concealed their vices, and that he fiercely inveighed
against their neighbors, through a wicked emulation, in order to
transfer the kingdom again into the family of David. Hence, that no
such suspicion might tarnish his doctrine, the Prophet here summons
to judgment the tribe of Judah, and speaks in no milder language of
the Jews than of other nations: for he says, that they, through
their stubbornness, had so provoked God's wrath, that there was no
hope of pardon; for such was the mass of their vices, that God would
now justly execute extreme vengeance, as a moderate chastisement
would not be sufficient. We now then understand the Prophet's
design.
    I come now to the words: "For they have despised, he says, the
law of Jehovah". Here he charges the Jews with apostasy; for they
had cast aside the worship of God, and the pure doctrine of
religion. This was a crime the most grievous. We hence see, that the
Prophet condemns here freely and honestly as it became him, the
vices of his own people, so that there was no room for calumny, when
he afterwards became a severe censor and reprover of the Israelites;
for he does not lightly touch on something wrong in the tribe of
Judah, but says that they were apostates and perfidious, having cast
aside the law of God. But it may be asked, why the Prophet charges
the Jews with a crime so atrocious, since religions as we have seen
in the Prophecies of Hosea, still existed among them? But to this
there is a ready answer: the worship of God was become corrupt among
them, though they had not so openly departed from it as the
Israelites. There remained, indeed, circumcision among the
Israelites; but their sacrifices were pollutions, their temples were
brothels: they thought that they worshipped God; but as a temple had
been built at Bethel contrary to God's command, the whole worship
was a profanation. The Jews were somewhat purer; but they, we know,
had also degenerated from the genuine worship of God. Hence the
Prophet does not unjustly say here, that they had despised the law
of God.
    But we must notice the explanation which immediately follows, -
that "they kept not his statutes". The way then by which Amos proves
that the Jews were covenant-breakers, and that having repudiated
God's law, they had fallen into wicked superstitions, is by saying,
that they kept not the precepts of God. It may, however, appear that
he treats them here with too much severity; for one might not
altogether keep God's commands either through ignorance or
carelessness, or some other fault, and yet be not a covenant-breaker
or an apostate. I answer, - That in these words of the Prophet, not
mere negligence is blamed in the Jews; but they are condemned for
designedly, that is, knowingly and willfully departing from the
commandments of God, and devising for themselves various modes of
worship. It is not then to keep the precepts of God, when men
continue not under his law, but audaciously contrive for themselves
new forms of worship; they regard not what God commands, but lay
hold on anything pleasing that comes to their minds. This crime the
Prophet now condemns in the Jews: and hence it was that they had
despised the law of God. For men should never assume so much as to
change any thing in the worship of God; but due reverence for God
ought to influence them: were they persuaded of this - that there is
no wisdom but what comes from God - they would surely confine
themselves within his commands. Whenever then they invent new and
fictitious forms of worship, they sufficiently show that they regard
not what the Lord wills, what he enjoins, what he forbids. Thus,
then, they despise his law, and even cast it away.
    This is a remarkable passage; for we see, first, that a most
grievous sin is condemned by the Prophet, and that sin is, that the
Jews confined not themselves to God's law, but took the liberty of
innovating; this is one thing: and we also learn how much God values
obedience, which is better, as it is said in another place, than all
sacrifices, (1 Sam. 15: 22.) And that we may not think this a light
or a trifling sin, let us notice the expression - that they despised
the law of God. Every one ought to dread this as the most monstrous
thing; for we cannot despise the law of God without insulting his
majesty. And yet the Holy Spirit declares here, that we repudiate
and reject the law of God, except we wholly follow what it commands,
and continue within the limits prescribed by it. We now perceive
what the Prophet means.
    But he also adds, that "their own lies deceived or caused them
to go astray". He here confirms his preceding doctrine; for the Jews
had ever a defense ready at hand, that they did with good intent
what the Prophet condemned in them. They, forsooth! sedulously
worshipped God, though they mixed their own leaven, by which their
sacrifices were corrupted: it was not their purpose to spend their
substance in vain, to undergo great expenses in sacrifices, and to
undertake much labour, had they not thought that it was service
acceptable to God! As then the pretence of good intention, (as they
say,) ever deceives the unbelieving, the Prophet condemns this
pretence, and shows it to be wholly fallacious, and of no avail. "It
is nothing," he says, "that they pretend before God some good
intention; their own lies deceive them." And Amos, no doubt,
mentions here these lies, in opposition to the commands of God. As
soon then as men swerve from God's word, they involve themselves in
many delusions, and cannot but go astray; and this is deserving of
special notice. We indeed see how much wisdom the world claims for
itself: for as soon as we invent anything we are greatly delighted
with it; and the ape, according to the old proverb, is ever pleased
with its own offspring. But this vice especially prevails, when by
our devices we corrupt and adulterate the worship of God. Hence the
Prophet here declares, that whatever is added to God's word, and
whatever men invent in their own brains is a lie: "All this," he
says, "is nothing but imposture." We now see of what avail is good
intention: by this indeed men harden themselves; but they cannot
make the Lord to retract what he has once declared by the mouth of
his Prophet. Let us then take heed to continue within the boundaries
of God's word, and never to leap over either on this or on that
side; for when we turn aside ever so little from the pure word of
God, we become immediately involved in many deceptions.
    It then follows, "After which have walked their fathers";
literally it is, "Which their fathers have walked after them": but
we have given the sense. The Prophet here exaggerates their sin, the
insatiable rage of the people; for the children now followed their
fathers. This vice, we know, prevailed in all ages among the Jews;
leaving the word of God, they ever followed their own dreams, and
the delusions of Satan. Since God had now often tried to correct
this vice by his Prophets, and no fruit followed, the Prophet
charges them here with hardness, and by this circumstance enhances
the sin of the Jews: "It is nothing new," he says, "for children to
imitate their fathers, and to be wholly like them: they are then the
bad eggs of bad ravens." So also said Stephen, 'Ye are hard and
uncircumcised in heart, and resist the Holy Spirit, as your fathers
also did formerly,' (Acts 7.) We now understand the intention of the
Prophet.
    But we hence learn of what avail is the subterfuge resorted to
by the Papists, when they boast of antiquity. For they set up
against the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel, this shield, - that
theirs is the old religion, that they have not been the first
founders, but that they follow what has been handed down to them
from early times, and observed for many ages. When the Papists
boastingly declare all this, they think that they say enough to put
God to silence, and wholly to reject his Word. But we see how
frivolous is this sort of caviling, and how worthless before God:
for the Prophet does not concede to the Jews the example of the
fathers as an excuse, but sets forth their sin as being greater
because they followed their perfidious fathers, who had forsaken the
Law of the Lord. The same thing is also said by Ezekiel, 'After the
precepts of your fathers walk not,' (chap. 20.) We now see what sort
of crime is that of which the Prophet speaks. At last a threatening
follows, "The Lord saith, Fire will I send on Judah, which shall
devour the palaces of Jerusalem.' But all this we have already
explained. Let us now proceed -

Amos 2:6
Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Israel, and for
four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they
sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes;

    The Prophet here assails the Israelites, to whom he had been
sent, as we have said at the beginning. He now omits every reference
to other nations; for his business was with the Israelites to whom
he was especially appointed a teacher. But he wished to set before
them, as in various mirrors, the judgment of God, which awaited
them, that he might the more effectually awaken them: and he wished
also to exhibit in the Jews themselves an example of the extreme
vengeance of God, though there was greater purity among them, at
least a purer religion, and more reverence for God prevailed as yet
among them. He in this way prepared the Israelites, that they might
not obstinately and proudly reject his doctrine. He now then
addresses them, and says that they continued unmoved in their many
sins. The import of the whole is, that if the Moabites, the
Idumeans, the Tyrians, the Sidonians, and other nations, and that if
the Jews as well as these were irreclaimable in their obstinacy, so
that their diseases were incurable, and their wickedness such as God
could no longer endure, the Israelites were also in the same
condition; for they also continued perverse in their wickedness, and
provoked God, and repented not, though God had waited long, and
exhorted them to repent.
    It is now meet for us to bear in mind what we have before said,
- that if impiety was so rampant in that age, and the contempt of
God so prevailed, that men could not be restored to a sane mind, and
if iniquity everywhere overflowed, (for Amos accuses not a few
people, but many nations,) let us at this day beware, lest such
corruptions prevail among us; for, certainly, the world is now much
worse than it was then: nay, since the Prophet says here, that both
the Israelites and the Jews were wholly irreclaimable in their
obstinacy, there is no excuse for us at this day for deceiving
ourselves with an empty name, because we have the symbol of faith,
having been baptized; and in case we have other marks, which seem to
belong to the Church of God, let us not think that we are therefore
free from guilt, if we allow ourselves that unruliness condemned
here by the Prophet both in the Israelites and in the Jews; for they
had become hardened against all instructions, against all warnings.
Let, then, these examples rouse our attention, lest we, like them,
harden ourselves so much as to constrain the Lord to execute on us
extreme vengeance.
    Let us now especially observe what the Prophet lays to the
charge of Israel. He begins with their cruel deeds; but the whole
book is taken up with reproofs; there is to the very end a continued
accusation as to those crimes which then prevailed among the people
of Israel. He does not then point out only one particular crime, as
with respect to the other nations; but he scrutinizes all the vices
of which the people were guilty, as though he would thoroughly
anatomize them. But these we shall notice in their proper order.
    Now as to the first thing, the Prophet says, that "the just"
among the Israelites "was sold for silver, yea, for shoes". It may
be asked, Why is it that he does not begin with those superstitions,
in which they surpassed the Jews? for if God had resolved to destroy
Jerusalem and his own temple, because they had fallen away into
superstitious and spurious modes of worship, how much more ought
such a judgment to have been executed on the Israelites, as they had
perverted the whole law, and had become wholly degenerate; and even
circumcision was nothing but a profanation of God's covenant? Why,
then, does not the Prophet touch on this point? To this I answer, -
That as superstition had now for many years prevailed among them,
the Prophet does not make this now his subject; but we shall
hereafter see, that he has not spared these ungodly deprivations
which had grown rampant among the Israelites. He indeed sharply
arraigns all their superstitions; but he does this in its suitable
place. It was now necessary to begin with common evils; and this was
far more opportune than if he had at first spoken of superstitions;
for they might have said, that they did indeed worship God. He
therefore preferred condemning the Jews for alienating themselves
from the pure commandments of God; and as to the Israelites, he
reproves here their gross vices. But after having charged them with
cruelty, shameless rapacity, and many lusts, after having exposed
their filthy abominations, he then takes the occasion, as being then
more suitable of exclaiming against superstitions. This order our
Prophet designedly observed, as we shall see more fully from the
connection of his discourse.
    I now return to the words, that they "sold the just for silver,
and the poor for shoes". He means that there was no justice nor
equity among the Israelites, for they made a sale of the children of
God: and it was a most shameful thing, that there was no remedy for
injuries. For we hence, no doubt, learn, that the Prophet levels his
reproof against the judges who then exercised authority. The just,
he says, is sold for silver: this could not apply to private
individuals, but to judges, to whom it belonged to extend a helping
hand to the miserable and the poor, to avenge wrongs, and to give to
every one his right. It is then the same as though the Prophet had
said, that unbridled licentiousness reigned triumphant among the
Israelites, so that just men were exposed as a prey, and were set,
as it were, on sale. He says, first, that they were sold for
"silver", and then he adds for "shoes": and this ought to be
carefully observed; for when once men begin to turn aside from the
right course, they abandon themselves to evil without any shame.
When an attempt is first made to draw aside a man that is just and
upright and free from what is corrupt, he is not immediately
overcome; though a great price may be offered to him, he will yet
stand firm: but when he has sold his integrity for ten pieces of
gold, he may afterwards be easily bought, as the case is usually
will women. A woman, while she is pure, cannot be easily drawn away
from her conjugal fidelity: she may yet be corrupted by a great
price; and when once corrupted, she will afterwards prostitute
herself, so that she may be bought for a crust of bread. The same is
the case with judges. They, then, who at first covet silver, that
is, who cannot be corrupted except by a rich and fat bribe, will
afterwards barter their integrity for the meanest reward; for there
is no shame any more remaining in them. This is what the Prophet
points out in these words, - That they sold the just for silver;
that is, that they sold him for a high price, and then that they
were corrupted by the meanest gift, that if one offered them a pair
of shoes, they would be ready without any blush of shame to receive
such a bribe.
    We now then see the crime of which Amos accused the Israelites.
They could not raise an objection here, which they might have done,
if he touched their superstitions. He wished therefore to acquire
authority by reprobating first their manifest and obvious crimes. He
afterwards, as it has been stated, speaks in its proper place, of
that fictitious worship, which they, after having rejected the Law
of God, embraced. It follows -

Amos 2:7
That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and
turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in
unto the [same] maid, to profane my holy name:

    Here Amos charges them first with insatiable avarice; they
panted for the heads of the poor on the dust of the earth. This
place is in my judgment not well understood. "Sha'af" means to pant
and to breathe, and is taken often metaphorically as signifying to
desire: hence some render the words, "They desire the heads of the
poor to be in the dust of the earth;" that is, they are anxious to
see the innocent cast down and prostrate on the ground. But there is
no need of many words to refute this comment; for ye see that it is
strained. Others say, that in their cupidity they cast down the
miserable into the dust; they therefore think that a depraved
cupidity is connected with violence, and they put the lust for the
deed itself.
    But what need there is of having recourse to these extraneous
meanings, when the words of the Prophet are in themselves plain and
clear enough? He says that they "panted for the heads of the poor on
the ground"; as though he had said, that they were not content with
casting down the miserable, but that they gaped anxiously, until
they wholly destroyed them. There is then nothing to be changed or
added in the Prophet's words, which harmonize well together, and
mean, that through cupidity they panted for the heads of the poor,
after the poor had been cast down, and were laid prostrate in the
dust. The very misery of the poor, whom they saw to be in their
power, and lying at their feet, ought to have satisfied them: but
when such an insatiable cupidity still inflamed them, that they
panted for more punishment on the poor and the miserable, was it not
a fury wholly outrageous? We now perceive the Prophet's meaning: He
points out again what he has said in the former verse, - that the
Israelites were given to rapacity, avarice, and cruelty of every
kind.
    He adds at last, "and the way of the miserable they pervert".
He still inveighs against the judges; for it can hardly comport with
what belongs to private individuals, but it properly appertains to
judges to pervert justice, and to violate equity for bribery; so
that he who had the best cause became the loser, because he brought
no bribe sufficiently ample. We now see what was the accusation he
alleged against the Israelites. But there follows another charge,
that of indulge in lusts.
    
Prayer.
    
Grant, almighty God, that since we see so grievous punishments
formerly executed on unbelievers who had never tasted of the pure
knowledge of thy word, we may be warned by their example, so as to
abstain from all wickedness, and to continue in pure obedience to
thy word; and that, as thou hast made known to us that thou hatest
all those superstitions and depravations by which we turn aside from
thy word, - O grant, that we may ever be attentive to that role
which has been prescribed to us by thee in the Law, as well as in
the Prophets and in the Gospel, so that we may constantly abide in
thy precepts, and be wholly dependent on the words of thy month, and
never turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, but
glorify thy name, as thou has commanded us, by offering to thee a
true, sincere, and spiritual worship, through Christ our Lord. Amen.


Lecture Fifty-second.

    It follows, in the seventh verse, that "the son and the father
entered in into the same maid". The Prophet here charges the people
of Israel with the unbridled lusts which prevailed then among them;
which were promiscuous and even incestuous. It is, we know, a
detestable monstrosity when a father and a son have connection with
the same woman; for the common feeling of mankind abhors such
flagitousness. But the Israelites were so much addicted to their own
lusts, that the father and the son had the same woman in common; as
indeed it must happen when men allow themselves excessive
indulgences. A strumpet will, indeed, readily admit a son and a
father without any difference, for she has no shame; and no fear of
God restrains abandoned women given up to filthiness. It hence
becomes a common thing for a father and a son to pollute themselves
by an incestuous concubinage. But it is no diminution of guilt
before God, when men, blinded by their lusts, make no difference,
and without any discrimination, and without any shame, follow their
own sinful propensities. Whenever this happens, it certainly proves
that there is no fear of God, and that even the common feeling of
nature is extinct. Hence the Prophet now justly condemns in the
Israelites this crime, that the father and the son entered in into
the same woman.
    An amplification of this crime is also added, - that they thus
polluted "the holy name of God". We indeed know that the people of
Israel were chosen for this end - that the name of God might be
supplicated by them; and well known is that declaration, often
repeated by Moses, 'Be ye holy, for I am holy' (Lev. 11: 44.) Hence
the children of Israel could not defile themselves without polluting
at the same time the name of God, which was engraven on them. God
then complains here of this profanation; for the children of Israel
not only contaminated themselves, but also profaned whatever was
sacred among them, inasmuch as the name of God was exposed to
reproach, when the people thus gave way to their filthy lusts. We
now understand what the Prophet means. It follows -

Amos 2:8
And they lay [themselves] down upon clothes laid to pledge by every
altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned [in] the house of
their god.
    
    Here the Prophet again inveighs against the people's
avariciousness, and addresses his discourse especially to the chief
men; for what he mentions could not have been done by the common
people, as the lower and humbler classes could not make feasts by
means of spoils gained by judicial proceedings. The Prophet then
condemns here, no doubt, the luxury and rapacity of men in high
stations. "They lie down, he says, on pledged clothes nigh every
altar". God had forbidden, in his law, to take from a poor man a
pledge, the need of which he had for the support of life and daily
use, (Exod. 22: 26.) For instance, it was prohibited by the law to
take from a poor man his cloak or his coat, or to take the covering
of his bed, or any thing else of which he had need. But the Prophet
now accuses the Israelites, that they took away pledges and clothes
without any distinction, and lay down on them nigh their altars.
This belonged to the rich.
    Then follows another clause, which, strictly speaking, must be
restricted to the judges and governors, "They have drunk the wine of
the condemned in the house, or in the temple, of their God". This
may also be understood of the rich, who were wont to indulge in
luxury by means of ill-gotten spoils: for they litigated without
cause; and when they gained judgment in their favor, they thought it
lawful to fare more sumptuously. This expression of the Prophet may
therefore be extended to any of the rich. But he seems here to
condemn more specifically the cruelty and rapaciousness of the
judges. We now then perceive what the Prophet had in view by saying,
that they lay down on pledged garments.
    He then says that "they drank wine derived from fines", which
had been laid on the condemned. But this circumstance, that is
added, ought to be observed, - that they "lay down near altars and
drank" in the very temple: for the Prophet here laughs to scorn the
gross superstition of the Israelites, that they thought that they
were discharging their duty towards God, provided they came to the
temple and offered sacrifices at the altar. Thus, indeed, are
hypocrites wont to appease God, as if one by puppets played with a
child. This has been a wickedness very common in all ages, and is
here laid to the charge of the Israelites by the Prophet: they dared
with an open front to enter the temple, and there to bring the
pledged garments, and to feast on their spoils. Hypocrites do ever
make a den of thieves of God's temple, (Matth. 21: 13;) for they
think that all things are lawful for them, provided they put on the
appearance, by external worship, of being devoted to God. Since,
then, the Israelites promised themselves impunity and took liberty
to sin, because they performed religious ceremonies, the Prophet
here sharply reproves them: they even dared to make God a witness of
their cruelty by bringing pledged garments and by blending their
spoils with their sacrifices, as though God had a participation with
robbers.
    We hence see that rapaciousness and avarice are not alone
condemned here by the Prophet, but that the gross superstition of
the Israelites is also reprobated, because they thought that there
would be no punishment for them, though they plundered and robbed
the poor, provided they reserved a part of the spoil for God, as
though a sacrifice from what had been unjustly got were not an
abomination to him.
    But it may be asked, Why does the Prophet thus condemn the
Israelites for they had no sacred temple; and we also know (as it
has been elsewhere stated) that the temples, in which they thought
that they worshipped God, were filthy brothels, and full of all
obscenity. How is it, then, that the Prophet now so sharply inveighs
against them, because they mingled their spoils with their impure
sacrifices? To this the answer is, That he had regard to their
views, and derided the grossness of their minds, that they thus
childishly trifled with the God whom they imagined for themselves.
We say the same at this day to the Papists, - that they blend
profane with sacred things, when they prostitute their masses, and
also when they trifle with God in their ceremonies. It is certain.
that whatever the Papists do is an abomination; for the whole of
religion is with them adulterated: but they yet cease not to wrong
God, whose name they pretend to profess. Such also were then the
Israelites: though they professed still to worship God, they were
yet sacrilegious; though they offered sacrifices to the calves in
Dan and in Bethel, they yet reproached God, for they ever abused his
name. This, then, is the crime the Prophet now condemns in them. But
what I have said must be remembered, - that this blind assurance is
reprehended in the Israelites, that they thought spoils to be lawful
provided they professed to worship God: but they thus rendered
double their crime, as we have said; for they tried to make God the
associate of robbers, mingling as they did their pollutions with
their sacrifices. Let us proceed -

Amos 2:9-12
9 Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height [was] like
the height of the cedars, and he [was] strong as the oaks; yet I
destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.
10 Also I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and led you forty
years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.
11 And I raised up of your sons for prophets, and of your young men
for Nazarites. [Is it] not even thus, O ye children of Israel? saith
the LORD.
12 But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink; and commanded the
prophets, saying, Prophesy not.
    
    God expostulates here with the Israelites for their
ingratitude. He records the benefits he had before conferred on that
people; and then shows how unworthily and disgracefully they had
conducted themselves; for they forgot their many blessings and
proudly despised God, and acted as if they were like other nations,
and not bound to God for the singular benefit of adoption. The sum
then is that God here complains that he had ill bestowed his
blessings; and he reproves the people for their impiety, inasmuch as
they did not lead a holier life after having been freely redeemed.
    He says first, "I have exterminated the Amorite before their
face". God shows here that he was disgracefully defrauded by the
Israelites, for whose sake he had previously destroyed the Amorites.
For why were the Amorites exterminated, but that God would cleanse
the land, and also, that he might give there a dwelling to his own
people, that he might be purely worshipped? Then the people of
Israel ought to have given up themselves wholly to the service of
God; but as they neglected to do this, they frustrated the purpose
of God, who had expelled the Amorites from that land, yea, and
entirely destroyed them. The first complaint then is, that the
children of Israel were nothing better than the Amorites, though God
had given them the land, which was taken from its natives, that they
might dwell in it, and on the condition, that his name should be
there worshipped. Hence the Prophets say elsewhere, that they were
Amorites. They ought to have been a new people; but as they followed
the examples of others, in what did they differ from them? They are
therefore called their posterity. But the Prophet speaks not here so
severely; he only reproves the Israelites, because they differed in
nothing from the Amorites, whom they knew to have been destroyed
that they might be introduced into their place, and succeed to their
inheritance.
    It is then added, that the "Amorites were tall" in stature, and
also that they were "strong" men. By these words the Prophet
intimates that the Amorites were not conquered by the people's
valour, but by the wonderful power of God. We indeed know that they
were dreaded by the people of Israel, for they were like giants.
Then the Prophet speaks here of their height and strength, that the
Israelites might consider that they overcame them not by their own
valour, but that the land was given them by a miracle, for they had
to do with giants, on whom they could hardly dare to look. It was
then God who prostrated the cedars and the oaks before his people.
We hence learn, that the Israelites could not boast of their own
strengths as though they took possession of the land, because by
means of war they ejected their enemies; for this was done by the
singular kindness of God. They could not indeed have contended with
their enemies, had not that been fulfilled which the Lord had so
often foretold, 'For you, while still, I will fight, (Exod. 14: 14.)
We now perceive the Prophet's intention. But we may hence farther
learn, that the Israelites had not possessed the land, because they
were more excellent than the Amorites, its ancient inhabitants; but
because it so pleased God. There was therefore no reason for the
people of Israel to be proud on account of any excellency. It hence
appears that they, who did not consider this remarkable kindness
done to them, were more than doubly ungrateful to God.
    He says that their "fruit above and root below were destroyed".
By this metaphor God enlarges on what he said before, that the
Amorites had been exterminated, so that none of them remained. "I
have demolished," he says, or, "I have entirely destroyed the root
beneath and the fruit above; I have extinguished the very name of
the nation." And yet the Israelites were not better, though the
Amorites were thus destroyed; but having succeeded in their place,
they became like them: this was utterly inexcusable. The more severe
God's vengeance had been towards the Amorites, the more ought the
Israelites to have extolled his favor: but when with closed eyes
they passed by so remarkable a testimony of God's paternal love, it
appears that they were extremely wicked and ungrateful.
    He afterwards subjoins, "I have made you to ascend from the
land of Egypt; I have made you to walk in the desert for forty
years, in order to possess the land of the Amorite". The
circumstances here specified are intended to confirm the same thing,
that God had miraculously redeemed his people. Men, we know, for the
most part extenuate the favors of God; nay, this evil is innate in
us. This is the reason why the Prophet so largely describes and
extols the redemption of the people. Hence he says now that they had
been led out of the land of Egypt. And they ought to have remembered
what had been their condition in Egypt; for there they were most
miserably oppressed. When therefore that coming out was set before
them, it was the same as if God had reminded them how shamefully
they had been treated, and how hard had been their bondage in Egypt.
That beginning ought to have humbled them, and also to have
stimulated them to the cultivation of piety. When now they proudly
exulted against God, when no recollection of their deliverance laid
hold on them, this vice is justly laid to their charge by the
Prophet: "See," he says, "I have brought you forth from the land of
Egypt; what were ye then? what was your nobility? what was your
wealth or riches? what was your power? For the Egyptians treated you
as the vilest slaves; your condition then was extremely ignominious;
ye were as lost, and I redeemed you: and now buried is the
recollection of so illustrious a kindness, which deserved to be for
ever remembered."
    He afterwards adds, "I have made you to walk", &c. The Prophet
here reminds them of the desert, that the Israelites might know that
God might have justly closed up against them an entrance into the
land, though he had promised it for an inheritance to Abraham. For
how was it that the Lord led them about for so long a time, except
that they, as far as they could, had denied God, and rendered
themselves unworthy of enjoying the promised land? Then the Prophet
indirectly blames the Israelites here for having been the cause why
God detained them for forty years without introducing them
immediately into the promised land; which might have easily been
done, had they not closed the door against themselves by their
ingratitude. This is one reason why the Prophet now speaks of the
forty years. And then, as God had in various ways testified his
kindness towards the Israelites, he had thus bound them the more to
himself; but an ungodly forgetfulness had buried all his favors. God
daily rained manna on them from heaven; he also gave them drink from
a dry rock; he guided them during the day by a pillar of cloud, and
in the night by fire: and we also know how often God bore with them,
and how many proofs he gave them of his forbearance. The Prophet,
then, by speaking here of the forty years, meant to counsel the
Israelites to call to mind the many favors, by which they were bound
to God, while they were miraculously led by him for forty years in
the desert.
    He now subjoins, "I have raised from your sons Prophets, and
Nazarites from your young or strong men", (for "bachurim", as we
have elsewhere said, are called by the Hebrews chosen men;) then
from your youth or chosen men have I raised Nazarites. Was it not
so, O children of Israel? or certainly it was so: for the particle
"aph" sometimes is a simple affirmation, and sometimes an addition.
Is not then all this true, O children of Israel? saith Jehovah. God
first reminds them that he had raised up Prophets from their sons.
It if a remarkable proof of God's love, that he deigns to guide his
people by Prophets: for if God were to speak himself from heaven, or
to send his angels down, it would apparently be much more dignified;
but when he so condescends as to employ mortal men and our own
brethren, who are the agents of his Spirit, in whom he dwells, and
by Whose mouth he speaks, it cannot indeed be esteemed as highly as
it deserves, that the Lord should thus accommodate himself to us in
so familiar a manner. This is the reason why he now says, that he
had "raised up Prophets from their sons". They might have objected
and said, that he had introduced the Law, and that then the heaven
was moved, and that the earth shook: but he speaks of his daily
favor in having been pleased to speak continually to his people, as
it were, from mouth to mouth, and this by men: I have raised up, he
says, Prophets from your sons; that is, "I have chosen angels from
the midst of you." The Prophets are indeed, as it were, celestial
ambassadors, and God commands them to be heard, the same as if he
himself appeared in a visible form. Since then he choose angels from
the midst of us, is not this an invaluable favor? We hence see how
much force is contained in this reproof, when the Lord says, that
Prophets had been chosen from his own people.
    And he mentions also the Nazarites. It appears sufficiently
evident from Num. chap. 6, why God appointed Nazarites. Nothing is
more difficult, we know, than to induce men to follow a common rule;
for they ever seek something new; and hence have arisen so many
devices, so many additions, in short, so many leavenings by which
God's worship is corrupted; for each wishes to be more holy than
another, and affects some singularity. In case then any one had a
wish to consecrate himself to God beyond what was commonly required,
the Lord instituted a peculiar observance, that the people might not
attempt any thing without at least his permission. Hence, when any
one wished to consecrate himself to God, though they were all holy,
he yet observed certain regulations: he abstained from wine; he
allowed his hair to grow; in a word, he observed those ceremonial
rites which we find in the chapter already referred to. God now
reminds the Israelites that he had omitted nothing calculated to
preserve them pure and holy, and entire in his worship.
    After having related these two things, he asks them, "Is not
all this true?" The facts were indeed well known: then the question,
it may be said, was superfluous. But the Prophet designedly asked
the Israelites the question here - Is it not so? that he might more
deeply touch their hearts. We indeed often despise things well
known, and we see how many heedlessly allow what they hear, and pass
by things without any thought. Such must have been the torpidity of
the Israelites; they might have confessed without disputing that all
this was true, - that the Lord had raised up Prophets from their
children, and that he had given to them that peculiar service of
which we have spoken; but they mighty at the same time, have
contemptuously overlooked the whole, had not this been added: "What
do ye mean, O Israelites? ye do indeed see that nothing has been
left undone by me to retain you in my service: how then is it now,
that your lust leads you away from me, and that having shaken off
the yoke, ye grow thus wanton against me?" We now perceive why the
Prophet inserted this clause, for it was necessary that the
Israelites should be more sharply roused, that being convicted, they
might acknowledge their guilt.
    But it now follows, "Ye have to the Nazarites quaffed wine, and
on the Prophets ye have laid a command, that they should not
prophesy". God complains here that the service which he had
instituted had been violated by the people. It seems indeed a light
offense, that wine had been given to the Nazarites; for the kingdom
of God, we know, is not meat and drink, (1 Cor. 8: 8) though this
saying of Paul was not yet made known, it was yet true in all ages.
It was then lawful for the Nazarites to drink wine, provided they
used moderation. To this the simple answer is that it was lawful to
drink wine, for they of their own accord undertook to abstain from
it. In similar manner God forbade the priests to drink wine or
strong drink whenever they entered the temple. God indeed did not
wish to be served with this kind of ceremony; but his intention was
to show, by such a rite, that a greater temperance is required in
priests than in the people in general. His purpose then to withdraw
them from the common mode of living, when they entered the temple;
for they were as mediators between God and his people: they ought
then to have consecrated themselves in a special manner. We now see
that the priests were reminded by this external symbol, that greater
holiness was required in them than in the people. The same thing
must be also said of the Nazarites. The Nazarites might drink wine;
but during the time they consecrated themselves to God, they were
not allowed to drink wine, that they might thereby acknowledge that
they were in a manner separated from the common habits of men, and
were come nearer to God. We now understand why it was not lawful for
the Nazarites to drink wine.
    But it is frivolous for the Papists to pretend this example,
and to introduce it in defense of their superstitions, and of their
foolish and rash vows, which they undertake without any regard to
God: for God expressly sanctioned and confirmed whatever the
Nazarites did under the law. Let the Papists show a proof for their
monastic vows, and foolish rites, by which they now trifle with God.
We also know that there is a great difference between the Nazarites
and the Papal monks; for the monks vow perpetual celibacy; others
vow abstinence from flesh during life; and these things are done
foolishly and rashly. They indeed think that the worship of God
consists in these trifles. They promise what is not in their own
power; for they renounce marriage, when they know not whether they
are endued with the gift of chastity. And to abstain from flesh all
their life is more foolish still, because they make this to be a
part of God's service. I do, at the same time, wonder that they
bring forward this example, since there are none so holy under the
Papacy as to abstain from wine. As for the Carthusians and other
monks of the holier sort, they seem determined to take revenge on
abstinence from flesh, for they choose the sweetest and the
liveliest wine; as though they intended to get a compensation for
the loss and deprivation they undergo, when they pledge to God their
abstinence from flesh, by reserving the best wine for themselves.
These things are extremely ludicrous. Besides it is a sufficient
reply if we adduce what I have already said, that the Nazarites did
nothing under the law but what God in his word approved and
sanctioned.
    Since God then so sharply and severely reproved the Israelites
for giving wine to the Nazarites, what must be expected now, when we
transgress the chief commandments of God, when we corrupt his whole
spiritual worship? It seemed apparently but a venial sin, so to
speak, in the Nazarites to drink wine. Had they become wanton or
robbed, or had they done wrong to their brethren, or committed
forgery, the charge against them would have doubtless been much more
atrocious. Yet the Prophet does not now abstain from bitterly
complaining that they drank wine. Then, since God would have us to
worship him in a spiritual manner, a much heavier charge lies
against us, if we violate his spiritual worship. As, for instance,
if we now pollute the sacraments, if we corrupt the purity of divine
worship, if we treat his word with scorn, yea, if we transgress as
to these main points of religion, much less is our excuse. Let us
then remember that the Prophet here reproves the Israelites for
giving wine to the Nazarites.
    He then adds, that they "commanded the Prophets not to
prophesy". It is certain that the Prophets were not forbidden to
speak, at least expressly forbidden: but when the liberty of
teaching faithfully as they ought to do is taken away from God's
servants, and a command to this effect is given them, it is the same
thing as to reject wholly their doctrine. The Israelites wished
Prophets to be among them; and yet they could not endure their plain
reproofs. But when they had polluted the worship of God, when their
whole conduct became dissolute, the Prophets sharply inveighed
against them: this freedom could not be endured by the Israelites;
they wished to be spared and flattered. What then the Prophet now
lays to their charge is that they forbade God's servants to declare
the word freely and honestly as God had commanded them. Hence he
says, On the Prophets they have laid a charge, that they should not
prophesy.
    This evil reigns in the world at this day. It would indeed be
an execrable audacity wholly to reject the Lord's word; this is what
even ungodly men dare not openly to do: but they wish at the same
time some middle course to be adopted, that God might not fully
exercise authority over them. They then would gladly put restraint
on the Holy Spirit, so as not to allow him to speak but within
certain limitations: "See, we willingly allow thee some things, but
this we cannot bear: so much asperity is extremely odious." And
under the Papacy at this day the liberty of prophesying is wholly
suppressed: and among us how many there are who wish to impose laws
on God's servants beyond which they are not to pass? But we see what
the Prophet says here, - that the word of God is repudiated when the
freedom of teaching is restrained, and men wish to be flattered, and
desire their sins to be covered, and cannot bear free admonitions.
    Let us also notice the word "command", which the Prophet uses.
"Tsuh" means to order, to command, or to determine, in an
authoritative manner. The Prophet then does not expostulate with
them, because there were many who clamored, who murmured against the
Prophets, as it is always the case; but he rather condemns the
audacity of the chief men for daring to consult how they might
silence the Prophets, and not allow them the free liberty of
teaching, as we find it to be done even now. For not only in taverns
and lurking-places do the ungodly clamour when their sins are
severely reproved, but they also go forth publicly and complain that
too much liberty is allowed the ministers of the word, and that some
course ought to be adopted to make them speak more moderately. It is
then this sacrilege that the Prophet now rebukes, when he says, that
the ungodly commanded the Prophets, that they should not prophecy,
as though they made a law, as though they wished to proclaim a
decree, that the Prophets should not speak so boldly and so freely.
It now follows -

Amos 2:13
Behold, I am pressed under you, as a cart is pressed [that is] full
of sheaves.

    The verb "'ik" in Hebrew is often transitive, and it is also a
neuter. This place then may admit of two interpretations. The first
is, that God was pressed under the Israelites, as a wagon groans
under too much weight; and so God expostulates by Isaiah, that he
was weighed down by the Israelites, 'Ye constrain me,' he says, 'to
labour under your sins' (Isa. 1: 14.) The sense then, that God was
pressed down under them, may be viewed as not unsuitable: and yet
the more received interpretation is this, "Behold, I will bind you
fast as a wagon is bound." I am, however, more inclined to take the
first meaning, - that God here reprehends the Israelites, because he
had been pressed down by them: for "tachteichem" properly signifies,
"Under you," which some render, but strainedly, "Is your place:" for
when the verb is transitive, they say, that "tachteichem" must be
rendered "In your place:" but this is frigid and forced; and the
whole passage will run better, if we say, "I am bound fast under
you, as though ye were a wagon full of sheaves;" that is, "Ye are to
me intolerable." For God carried that people on his shoulders; and
when they loaded him with the burden of iniquities, it is no wonder
that he said that they were like a wagon - a wagon filled with many
sheaves: "Ye are light as wind, but ye are also to me very
burdensome, and I am forced at length to shake you off:" and this he
afterwards shows.

Prayer.

Grant, Almighty God, that as thou hast not only redeemed us by the
blood of thy only begotten Son, but also guides us during our
earthly pilgrimage, and suppliest us with whatever is needful, - 0
grant, that we may not be unmindful of so many favors, and turn away
from thee and follow our sinful desires, but that we may continue
bound to thy service, and never burden thee with our sins, but
submit ourselves willingly to thee in true obedience, that by
glorifying thy name we may carry thee both in body and soul, until
thou at length gatherest us into that blessed kingdom which has been
obtained for us by the blood of thy Son. Amen.


Lecture Fifty-third.

Amos 2:14-16
14 Therefore the flight shall perish from the swift, and the strong
shall not strengthen his force, neither shall the mighty deliver
himself:
15 Neither shall he stand that handleth the bow; and [he that is]
swift of foot shall not deliver [himself]: neither shall he that
rideth the horse deliver himself.
16 And [he that is] courageous among the mighty shall flee away
naked in that day, saith the LORD.
    
    I explained yesterday the verse, in which the Prophet says, in
the name of God, that the people were like a grievous and heavy
burden, as though they were a wagon laden with many sheaves. I
stated that the Prophet's words are differently explained by many
interpreters, who give this view, - that God compares himself to a
loaded wagon, under which the people were to be crushed. But no
necessity constrains us to take the same verb in two senses, active
and neuter, as they do; and then the comparison seems not quite
suitable; and farther, it is better, as I have said, to say, that
God complains, that he was loaded and pressed down under the people,
than to render "tachteichem" "In your place;" for this is wholly a
strained rendering. But most suitable is the Prophet's meaning, when
understood as the complaint of God, that it was a grievous thing to
bear the burdens of the people, when he saw that they were men of
levity, and, at the same time, burdensome.
    Hence the Prophet now denounces vengeance such as they
deserved; and he says first, "Perish shall flight from the swift",
&c., that is, no one will be so swift as to escape by fleeing; and
the valiant shall do nothing by fighting; for it is to confirm
strength when one resists an adversary and repels assaults. The
valiant, therefore, shall fight with no advantage; and then, "The
strong shall not deliver his own life: he who holds the bow shall
not stand"; that is, he who is equipped with a bow, and repels his
enemy at a distance, shall not be able to stand in his place. "He
who is swift on foot shall not be able to flee, nor he who mounts a
horse"; which means that whether footmen or horsemen, they shall
not, by their celerity, be able to escape death. And, lastly, he who
is stout and intrepid in heart among the valiant shall "flee away
naked", being content with life alone, and only anxious to provide
for his own safety.
    The Prophet intimates by all these words, that so grievous
would be the slaughter of the people, that it would be a miracle if
any should escape.
    We now then see how severely the prophet at the very beginning
handled this people. He no doubt observed their great obduracy: for
he would not have assailed them so sharply at first, had they not
been for a long time rebellious and had despised all warnings and
threatening. Amos was not the first who addressed them; but the
Israelites had hardened themselves against all threatenings before
he came to them. It therefore behaved him sharply to reprove them,
as God treats men according to their disposition. I come now to the
third chapter.


Chapter 3.

Amos 3:1,2
Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of
Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of
Egypt, saying,
You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I
will punish you for all your iniquities.

    The Prophet wished doubtless by these words to confirm his own
authority, for he saw that his doctrine was regarded with contempt:
and it is probable that the words recited here were not only once
delivered by him, but had been often repeated. We know how great was
the pride and confidence of that people: it was therefore needful to
beat it down, that they might be habituated to dread and fear, when
God reproved them by his Prophets.
    It was then the common mode of speaking, when he said, "Hear
the word which God has spoken concerning your, O children of
Israel". He brings forward here the name of God, that they might
know that they had not to do with a mortal man, or with a shepherd,
such as he was. We then observe here, what I have just referred to,
and that is, that the Prophet seeks to strengthen his authority as a
teacher, that he might gain more respect among the people. But he
adds, "concerning the whole family which I brought up out of Egypt".
It is certain that this discourse was not addressed except to the
ten tribes; why, then, does the Prophet speak here so generally?
Even because the kingdom of Israel formed the greater portion of the
race of Abraham, and on this account they boasted that the adoption
continued to be possessed by them. Since, then, they despised the
tribe of Judah, and the half-tribe of Benjamin, which was connected
with it, and had ever boasted of their great number, the Prophet
says here, by way of concession, that they were indeed the blessed
seed, the posterity of Abraham; in a word, the elect people, whom
God had redeemed from Egypt. Then the Prophet includes not here the
kingdom of Judah, but concedes to the Israelites what they boasted,
- that they were the elect people, the holy race of Abraham, the
very nation which had been miraculously delivered. "Let, then," he
says, "all these boastings be granted, yet God will not, on this
account, desist from executing his judgment upon them."
    We now apprehend the design of the Prophet: he first seeks to
gain respect for his doctrine, and takes occasion to speak of his
own vocation, that he brought nothing of his own, but only
discharged faithfully the office committed to him; yea, that he was
the organ of the Holy Spirit, and adduced nothing from his own mind,
but only spoke what the Lord had commanded him. And then, as the
Israelites, relying on their large number, thought that wrong was
done them, when they were severely reprehended by the Prophets, and
as there was an absurd rivalship between them and the kingdom of
Judah, the Prophet concedes to them that for which they were
foolishly proud; but, at the same time, he shows that they in vain
confided in their number, inasmuch as God summoned them to judgment,
though they were the elect people, and the holy seed, and the
redeemed nation. These are the main points.
    The Prophet afterwards declares what he had in charge, "Only
you have I known of all the families of the earth: I will therefore
visit you for your iniquities". Many think that he still concedes to
the Israelites what they were wont to boast of, - that they were
separated from the common class of men, because the Lord had adopted
them: but it seems rather to be a reproach cast on them. God then
brings forward here his benefits, of which we noticed yesterday a
similar instance, that he might enhance the more the sin of the
people, in returning the worst recompense to God, by whom they had
been so liberally and so kindly treated: "I," he says, "have loved
you only." It is indeed true, that the Israelites, as we have in
other places often observed, gloried in their privileges; but the
Prophet seems not to have this in view. God then expostulates with
them for being so ungrateful: "You only", he says, "have I known".
It is indeed certain that God's care is extended to the whole human
race, yea even to oxen and asses, and to the very sparrows. Even the
young of ravens cry to him, and the smallest bird is fed by him. We
hence see that God's providence extends to all mortal beings; but
yet not in an equal degree. God has ever known all men so as to give
what is needful to preserve life. God has, therefore, made his sun
to rise on all the human race, and has also made the earth to
produce food. Then as to the necessaries of life, he performs the
office of a Father towards all men. But he has known his chosen
people, because he has separated them from other nations, that they
might be like his own family. Israel, then, is said to be known,
because God favored them alone with a gratuitous adoption, and
designed them to be a peculiar people to himself. This is the
knowledge of which the Prophet now speaks.
    But by saying that they "only", "rak", had been "known", he
shows that they had been chosen through God's singular favor, for
there was no difference between the seed of Abraham and other
nations, when regarded in themselves, otherwise this exception would
have been superfluous. For if there had been any superiority or
merit in the people of Israel, this objection might have readily
been made, "We have indeed been chosen, but not without cause, for
God had respect to our worthiness." But as they in nothing differed
from other nations, and as the condition of all was alike by nature,
the Lord upbraids them with this, that he had "known them only"; as
though he said "How has it happened, that ye are my peculiar
possession and heritage? Has it been by your merit? Has it been
because I was more bound to you than to other nations? Ye cannot
allege these things. It has therefore been my gratuitous adoption.
Ye are then the more bound to me, and less excusable is your
ingratitude for rendering to me so unjust a recompense." So also
Paul says, 'Who makes thee to differ?' (1 Cor. 4: 7.) He wished to
show that every excellency in men ought to be ascribed to God. For
the same purpose it is said here, you only have I loved and known of
all the families of the earth: "What were you? Ye were even the
children of Adam, as all other nations; the same has been the
beginning of all. There is then no reason for you to say, that I was
attached to you by any prepossession; I freely chose you and chose
you alone." All this tends to amplify grace; and ingratitude on
their part does hereby appear more evident. For had God spoken these
words of his general benefits, the guilt of his chosen people would
not have been so great: but when he says that they only had been
chosen, when others were passed by, their impiety seemed doubtless
more base and wicked in not acknowledging God in their turn, so as
to devote themselves wholly to Him, to whom they owed every thing.
    And the bounty of God shines forth also in this respect, that
he had known the Israelites alone, though there were many other
nations. Had God owed any thing to men, he would not have kept it
from them; this is certain. But since he repudiated all other
nations, it follows, that they were justly rejected, when he made no
account of them. Whence then was it that he chose the Israelites? We
here see how highly is God's grace exalted by this comparison of one
people with all other nations. And the same thing also appears from
these words, of all the families of the earth; as though God had
said, "There were many nations in the world, the number of men was
very great; but I regarded them all as nothing, that I might take
you under my protection; and thus I was content with a small number,
when all men were mine; and this I have done through mere favor, for
there was nothing in you by which ye excelled others, nor could they
allege that they were unjustly rejected. Since then I preferred you
of my own will, it is evident that I was under no obligation to
you." We now then understand the design of the Prophet's words.
    He then subjoins, "I will therefore visit upon you your
iniquities". God declares here, that the Israelites would have to
suffer a heavier judgment, because they acknowledged not their
obligations to God, but seemed willfully to despise his favor and to
scorn him, the author of so many blessings. Since then the
Israelites were bound by so many and so singular benefits, and they
at the same time were as wicked as other nations the Prophet shows,
that they deserved a heavier punishment, and that God's judgment,
such as they deserved, was nigh at hand. This is the substance of
the whole. It now follows -

Amos 3
3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
4 Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young
lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing?
5 Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin [is] for
him? shall [one] take up a snare from the earth, and have taken
nothing at all?
6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be
afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done
[it]?
7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret
unto his servants the prophets.
8 The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord GOD hath spoken,
who can but prophesy?
    
    The Prophet here accumulates similitudes which may, however, be
reduced to five particulars. He first shows that he uttered no empty
words, but had God's authority for what he said; and he appeals to
him as his witness and approver: this is one thing. Then he shows
that God designedly announces the punishment he would inflict on
transgressors, that they might in time repent, and that he does not
cry out for no reason, as unreflecting men grow angry for nothing,
but that he is driven to anger by just causes, and therefore
terrifies them by his Prophets. He teaches, thirdly, that nothing
happens by chance, that the Israelites might thereby be made to
consider more attentively the judgments of God. In the fourth place,
he declares that men are extremely stupid, when they are not moved
by the threats which they hear proceed from God. He intimates, in
the fifth place, that the execution of them was ready to take place,
and that when God has denounced anything, his threatenings are not
vain, such as those by which children are terrified.
    These, then, are the five points, which we shall hereafter
notice in their due order. He at the same time confirms what he said
at the beginning of the chapter, - that God did not suddenly take
vengeance on the Israelites, but called them to repentance, provided
they were healable. He had indeed spoken before more distinctly,
'For three transgressions, and for fours I will not be propitious to
them:' but now he demands attention from the people of Israel, "Hear
this ye children of Israel, Will two men walk together, except they
agree among themselves?" By these words he teaches, that though God
might have immediately and unexpectedly brought punishment on them,
he yet spared them and suspended his judgment, until they repented,
provided they were not wholly irreclaimable. Amos now then confirms
the truth, that God would not punish the Israelites, as he might
justly, but would first try whether there was any hope of
repentance.
    Let us now come to the first similitude; he asks "Will two walk
together without agreeing?" Some forcibly misapply the Prophet's
words, as though the meaning was, that God was constrained to depart
from that people, because he saw that they were going astray so
perversely after their lusts. The sense, according to these, would
be, "Do you wish me to walk with you?" that is "Do you wish that my
blessing should dwell among you, that I should show to you, as
usual, my paternal love, and bountifully support you? Why then do ye
not walk with me, or, why should there not be a mutual consent? Why
do ye not respond to me? for I am ready to walk with you." But this
exposition, as ye see, is too strained. There are other two, which
are these, - either that the Prophet intimates here that so many of
God's servants did not, as it were with one mouth, threaten the
Israelites in vain, - or, that the consent of which he speaks was
that of God with his Prophets. This last exposition being rather
obscure, requires to be more clearly explained. Some, then, take the
sense of this verse to be the following, - "I am not alone in
denouncing punishment on you; for God has before warned you by other
Prophets; many of them still live; and ye see how well we agree
together: we have not conspired after the manner of men, and it has
not happened by any agreements that Isaiah and Micah denounce on you
what ye hear from my mouth. It is then a hidden accordance, which
proceeds from the Holy Spirit." This sense is not unsuitable.
    But there is a third equally befitting, to which I have briefly
referred, and that is, that the Prophet here affirms that he speaks
by God's command, as when two agree together, when they follow the
same road; as when one meets with a chance companion, he asks him
where he goes, and when he answers that he is going to a certain
place, he says I am going on the same road with you. Then Amos by
this similitude very fitly sets forth the accordance between God and
his Prophets; for they did not rashly obtrude themselves so as to
announce anything according to their own will, but waited for the
call of God, and were fully persuaded that they did not by any
chance go astray, but kept the road which the Lord had pointed out.
This could not indwell have been a sufficiently satisfactory proof
of his call; but the Prophet had already entered on his course of
teaching; and though nearly the whole people clamored against him,
he yet had given no obscure proofs of his call. He does not then
here mention the whole evidence, as though he intended to show that
he was from the beginning the Prophet of God; but he only confirms,
by way of reproof, what his teaching had before sufficiently
attested. Hence he asks, "Will two walk together except they agree
among themselves?" as though he said, "Ye are mistaken in judging of
me, as though I were alone, and in making no account of God: ye
think me to be a shepherd, and this is true; but it ought to be
added, that I am sent by God and endued with the gift of prophecy.
Since then I speak by God's Spirit, I do not walk alone; for God
goes before, and I am his companion. Know then that whatever I bring
forward proceeds not from me, but God is the author of what I
teach."
    This seems to be the genuine meaning of the Prophet: by this
similitude he affirms that he faithfully discharged his office, for
he had not separated himself from God, but was his companion: as
when two agree together to travel the same road; so also he shows
that he and God were agreed. If, however, the former interpretation
be more approved, I will not dispute the point; that is, that the
Prophet here confirms his own doctrine by alleging that he was not
alone, but had other colleagues; for it was no common confirmation,
when it appeared evident that the other Prophets added their
testimony to what he taught. As, however, he does not apply this
similitude in this way, I know not whether such was his design: I
have therefore brought forward what seems to me to be a simpler
view.
    The second similitude follows, "Will a lion roar in the forest
without a prey? Will a lion send forth his voice from his den when
he has caught nothing?" By this verse he intimates that God does not
cry out for nothing by his Prophets; for ungodly men supposed that
the air was only made to reverberate by an empty sound, when the
Prophets threatened, "These," they said, "are mere words;" as though
indeed they could not find that the necessity of crying arose from
themselves, because they had provoked God by their vices. Hence the
Prophet, meeting their objection, says, "If lions roar not, except
when they have obtained a prey, shall God cry from heaven and send
forth his voice as far as the earth, when there is no prey?" The
meaning is, that the word of God was very shamefully despised by the
Israelites, as though there was no reason for crying, as though God
was trifling with them. His word is indeed precious, and is not
thrown heedlessly into the air, as if it were a mere refuse; but it
is an invaluable seed. Since the Lord cries, it is not, says Amos,
without a lawful cause. How so? The lions do not indeed roar without
prey; God then does not cry by his Prophets, except for the best
reason. It hence follows that the Israelites were hitherto extremely
stupid inasmuch as they did not listen with more earnestness and
attention to the teaching of the Prophets, as though God had uttered
only an empty sound.
    The third similitude now follows, "Will a bird fall on the
earth, he says, without a fowler?" The Prophet means here that
nothing happens without being foreseen by God; for as nets are laid
for birds, so God ensnares men by his hidden punishments.
Unexpectedly indeed calamity comes, and it is commonly ascribed to
chance; but the Prophet here reminds us that God stretches his nets,
in which men are caught, though they think that chance rules, and
observe not the hand of God. They are deceived, he says; for the
bird foresees not the ensnaring prepared for him; but yet he falls
not on the earth without the fowler: for nets weave not themselves
by chance, but they are made by the industry of the man who catches
birds. So also calamities do not happen by chance, but proceed from
the secret purpose of God. But we must observe, that similitudes
ought not to be too strictly applied to the subject in hand. Were
one to asks how God could compare himself here to a fowler, as there
is craft and artifice employed in catching innocent birds, when nets
are laid for them, it would be a frivolous question; for it is
evident enough what the Prophet meant, and that the design of his
words was to show, that punishments fall on men, and that they are
ensnared through the secret purpose of God; for God has long ago
foreseen what he will do, though men act heedlessly, as the birds
who foresee nothing.
    Then it follows in the fourth place, "Will the fowler remove
his snare before he has made a capture?" In this second clause the
Prophet intimates that the threatening of God would not be without
effect; for he will execute whatever he declares. It is indeed
certain, that fowlers often return home empty, and gather their nets
though they have taken nothing; but the Prophet, as I have said, in
using these similitudes, only states what fowlers usually do, when
they are in hope of some prey. As for instance, when one spreads his
nets, he will wait, and will not gather his nets until he takes some
prey, if so be that a prey should come; he may indeed wait in vain
all night. Then as fowlers are not wearied, and wish not to lose
their labour after they have spread their nets, so also the Prophet
says that God does not in vain proclaim his threatenings to serve as
empty bugbears, but that his nets remain until he has taken his
prey; which means, that God will really execute what he has
threatened by his Prophets. The meaning then is, that God's word is
not ineffectual, but when God declares any thing, it is sure to be
accomplished: and hence he reproves the Israelites for receiving so
heedlessly and with deaf ears all God's threatening, as though he
was only trifling with them. "It will not be," he says, "as you
expect; for God will take his prey before he takes up his nets."
    He adds, in the last place, "Shall a trumpet sound and the
people tremble not?" Here he reprehends, as I have said, the
torpidity of the people, to whom all threatening were a sport: "When
a trumpet sounds," he says, "all tremble; for it is a signal of
danger. All then either fly for aid or stand amazed, when the
trumpet sounds. God himself cries, his voice deserves much more
attention than the trumpet which fills men's minds with dread; and
yet it is a sound uttered to the deaf. What then does this prove,
but that madness possesses the minds of men? Are they not destitute
of all judgment and of every power of reason?" We hence see that the
Prophet in these words intended to show, that the Israelites were in
a manner fascinated by the devil, for they had no thought of evils;
and though they knew that God sounded the trumpet and denounced
ruin, they yet remained heedless, and were no more moved than if all
things were in a quiet state. What remains I cannot now finish.
    
Prayer.
    
Grant, Almighty God, that as thou art pleased daily to exhort us to
repentance, and dost not suddenly execute thy judgment by which we
might be in an instant overwhelmed, but givest us time to seek
reconciliation, - O grant, that we may now attend to thy teaching,
and all thy admonitions and threatenings, and become teachable and
obedient to thee, lest thou be constrained on finding us hardened
against thy threatening, and wholly irreclaimable, to bring on us
extreme vengeance: make us then so to submit ourselves to thee in
the spirit of teachableness and obedience, that being placed under
the protection of thy Son, we may truly call on thee as our Father,
and find thee to be so in reality, when thou shalt show to us that
paternal love, which thou hast promised, and which we have all
experienced from the beginning, who have truly and from the heart
called on thy name, through the same, even Christ our Lord. Amen.


Lecture Fifty-fourth.
    
    In our last Lecture were noticed these words of Amos - that a
"whole people tremble at the sound of a trumpet"; he now seems to
add a sentence wholly different, and says, "No calamity happens,
except through God". But he had before said what we already noticed
respecting the sound of the trumpet, that the people might
understand that nothing happens by accident, and that punishments
are, for just reasons, inflicted by the Lord; and this he soon after
confirms by saying, that God did nothing, without having first
revealed