Amos · Chapter 6

V. 1. At ease-That neither fear nor believe the threatened judgments of God. In Zion-That is put for the kingdom of the two tribes, and principally the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Samaria-Woe to them also who rely upon the strength, wealth, and policy of the kingdom of Samaria or Israel. Which-Which two cities, Zion and Samaria. Named chief-Accounted the chief cities of that part of the world. To whom-To which place all Israel had recourse, the two tribes to Zion, the ten tribes to Samaria.

Verse 1. Wo to them that are at ease in Zion] For השאננים hashshaanannim, “who dwell at ease,” it has been proposed to read השעננים hashshaanannim, “who confidently lean,” the two words differing only in one letter, an [ ain for an a aleph. They leaned confidently on Zion; supposing that, notwithstanding their iniquities they should be saved for Zion’s sake. Thus the former clause will agree better with the latter, “leaning upon Zion,” and “trusting in the mountain of Samaria.” Those that are at ease may mean those who have no concern about the threatened judgments, and who have no deep concern for the salvation of their own souls. Houbigant would read, “Wo to them who despise Zion, and trust in Samaria.” So the Septuagint, reading µyanc soneim, hating, instead of שאננים shaanannim, being at rest, tranquil. Calmet first proposed this conjecture; Houbigant follows him. Are named chief] Newcome renders, “That are named after the chief of the nations;” and observes, that the Hebrew word ybqn nekubey is an allusion to marking a name or character by punctures. See on Isaiah 44:5. They call themselves not after their ancestors, but after the chief of the idolatrous nations with whom they intermarry contrary to the law. Perhaps the words here rather refer to the mountains and their temples, than to the people. The mountain of Zion, and the mountain of Samaria, were considered the chief or most celebrated among the nations, as the two kingdoms to which they belonged were the most distinguished on the earth.

Verse 1. Wo to them that are at ease in Zion — Who are secure, as the margin reads, continuing in their sins, fearless of God’s judgments, and resolved to indulge themselves in that voluptuousness and ease which their riches give them an opportunity of enjoying, notwithstanding the evident tokens of God’s displeasure against the whole nation, both Israel and Judah. For these and the following words contain a threatening against both kingdoms, although the chief design of this prophecy is against the kingdom of Israel. Because the word µynnav, which our translation renders at ease, signifies also to be insolent, therefore the LXX. translate the clause, Ouai toiv exouqenousi Siwn, Wo unto them that despise Zion, in which sense the words may fitly belong to the ten tribes, who despised Zion, and the temple, though God had chosen it to place his name there. And trust in the mountain of Samaria — In the strength of their capital city, built on the hill of Samaria. Which are named chief of the nations, to whom the house of Israel came — “Zion, or Jerusalem, and Samaria, were the chief seats of the two kingdoms, whither there was the greatest resort of the whole nation. The Chaldee interprets it, ‘Who give names to their children, according to the names of the chief of the heathen, to whom the house of Israel apply themselves for protection.’ Thus, in later times, some of the Jews took the names of Alexander, Antipater, Agrippa, and the like, to compliment some great men among the Greeks or Romans of those names.” — Lowth.

Verse 1. The mountain of Samaria. This city was built on a hill, like Zion, to make it impregnable. See note on Isaiah 28:1.

WOE UPON THE LUXURIOUS, THE SELF-CONFIDENT, AND THE PROUD, 1-14. In Amos 6:1, the prophet turns once more to the leaders of the people, who, reveling in wealth and luxury, were perfectly content with the present state of things, and were completely indifferent to the ruin threatening the people (1-6). Exile will be their punishment (7). The whole city and nation will be given over to destruction, because the inhabitants have perverted the truth and righteousness and have put their trust in their own resources (8-14).

Condemnation of the nobles, 1-7.

1. Woe — See on Amos 5:18. That are at ease — Margin, “secure.” In a bad sense, those who are recklessly at ease, who are insensible to the dangers lurking on every side (Isaiah 32:9). Zion — Jerusalem (Amos 1:2), the center of the southern kingdom. There is no reason for regarding this a later interpolation. While the commission of Amos was primarily to the north, it would be strange if, as a citizen of Judah, he would never make mention in his discourses of the home land; especially since conditions in Judah called for the same denunciation as those in the north. Nor is there any reason for giving to the clause a meaning different from that suggested by the English translation. Trust — R.V., “are secure.” Not, who put their trust in the mountain of Samaria rather than in God, but identical in meaning with “are at ease” (Isaiah 32:9, 11). Which are named chief of the nations — R.V., “the notable men of the chief of the nations.” The Hebrew is ambiguous. A.V. connects chief with the subject of the preceding relative clauses. Those who live at ease and are secure are the chief, or leaders, of the nations, that is, of Israel and Judah. The Revisers understood the words differently. The first word in Hebrew, apparently entirely misunderstood by A.V., they took in apposition to the preceding relative clauses, at the same time connecting chief with nations. The first word means literally the marked ones, those who stand out prominently on account of wealth and position; therefore, notable, or, distinguished. These persons are further described as belonging to the chief of the nations, Israel, which, as the chosen people of Jehovah, occupied a unique place among the nations of the world (Exodus 19:5). Some, with less probability, consider the expression ironical: Israel is the chief only according to the erroneous estimate of the people. In order to indicate even more clearly the responsibilities of the leaders and the guilt arising from their failure to meet them, the prophet adds, to whom the house of Israel came — For judgment and guidance. The house of Israel includes the inhabitants of both kingdoms.

The natural continuation of verse 1 is 3ff.; verse 2 seems to interrupt the thought. For this and the additional reason that the verse is thought to contain historical allusions unsuitable in the time of Amos many commentators consider verse 2 a later interpolation. The second reason is not conclusive, for the historical situation presupposed in verse 2 is by no means certain (see below). Hence, other commentators see no sufficient reason for denying it to Amos, but they admit that it may not be in its original place. Still others, though conceding that the abruptness in transition is very marked, accept it as coming from Amos and retain it in its present position. In view of this divergence of opinion, it may be best, for the present, to retain the verse where it now stands and to interpret it as an utterance of Amos. But when this is done the interpretation still remains doubtful. In fact, two interpretations are possible: one connecting verse 2 more closely with verse 1, the other joining verse 2 to 3ff. If the former is accepted, the verse is an illustration of the superiority of Israel, justifying the designation “chief of the nations”; the localities named are examples of marked prosperity, which is, however, far inferior to that of Israel. By implication attention is directed to Israel’s greater ingratitude. The latter thought receives additional emphasis in 3-6, leading up to the announcement of judgment in verse 7. The other interpretation sees in the cities mentioned examples of fallen greatness and makes the verse a warning to Israel. These cities, once prominent, are now in ruin; therefore, let Israel take heed, for it may suffer a similar fate. To the first interpretation the objection may be made that the cities named, especially Calneh and Gath, were not among the most prominent cities of the eighth century B.C. Would not the prophet have selected more celebrated localities, had he desired to bring before the people examples of marked prosperity? Against the second it may be said that it is exceedingly doubtful that the three places were in ruin at the time of Amos. Gath, it is true, is not named in Amos 1:7, 8, but the silence is not conclusive evidence of the city’s disappearance from the scene. On the whole, the first interpretation is preferable. If we knew more of the history of the places mentioned we might understand why Amos selected these rather than some that, judging from our present knowledge, appear to have been more prominent in his day. Calneh — Not the Calneh of Genesis 10:10, but the Calno of Isaiah 10:9. Where the place is to be sought is not quite certain. Various identifications have been proposed; the most probable is that which connects Calneh with the Assyrian Kullani, mentioned in the Eponym Canon as having been conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in 738. Since in that year the latter was fighting in northern Syria, Kullani must have been located there; and it has sometimes been identified with the modern village Kullanhou, about six miles from Arpad, a little north of Aleppo. This identification is supported by Isaiah 10:9, where Calno and Arpad are named together. Hamath — In ancient times a city and city state of great prominence (2 Samuel 8:9; 2 Kings 23:33; 25:21; Isaiah 10:9). It is mentioned frequently in the Assyrian inscriptions; its armies fought in the battle of Karkar in 854; Tiglath-pileser III annexed a large part of its territory to Assyria; in 720 Sargon reconquered the city and flayed its king alive. The present name of the city is Hama; it is located on the Orontes, about one hundred and fifty miles north of Dan. Its population at the present time is estimated variously from thirty thousand to sixty thousand.

From the far north they are to sweep down to the far south. Gath — One of the five principal cities of Philistia (see on Amos 1:6-8). Its location is not altogether beyond doubt, though many scholars are inclined to identify it with the modern Tel-es-Safi, about eleven miles southeast of Ekron (Amos 1:8). The Tel-el-Amarna tablets bear witness to its great antiquity. In an inscription of Sargon, a city Gimtu Asdudim (Gath of Ashdod?) is mentioned, but it is not certain that this is the Gath of the Old Testament. They — The cities enumerated. These kingdoms — Israel and Judah. Their border — The extent of their territory. Having named the cities, the prophet requests his hearers to compare their own resources with those of the three cities and to decide which is the more favored. The decision he expects to be in favor of Israel. But if Israel is the more favored, how base its ingratitude!

V. 2. Pass ye-Run over the history of that great and ancient city. Hemath-Head of the Syrian kingdom, lately overthrown by Tiglath-Pilneser, and a fresh instance of God’s just indignation against secure sinners. Gath-The chief city of the Philistines, a few years before wasted by the arms of Hazael; by these examples learn to amend your ways, or expect to perish in them. Greater-That is, greater than these kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and their borders, or bounds, greater than these of Israel and Judah.

Verse 2. Pass ye unto Calneh] This is, says Calmet, the Ctesiphon on the river Tigris.

Hamath] The same as Emesa. Hamath was a city on the Orontes, in Syria. Gath] A well-known town, and head of one of the five seignories of the Philistines.

Be they better] You have no more reason to expect exemption from the consequences of your sins than they had. They have been punished; so shall you. Why then will ye trust in their gods, that could not save their own cities?

Verse 2. Pass ye unto Calneh — To check their pride and carnal security, the prophet bids them consider the state of those cities in the neighbourhood of Canaan that had been as illustrious in their time as ever Zion and Samaria were, and yet had been destroyed. Calneh, called Calno, (Isaiah 10:9,) was a city in the land of Shinar, or the territory of Babylon, (Genesis 10:10,) supposed by St. Jerome to be the same as Ctesiphon; and, it seems, had been taken and destroyed, probably by some king of Assyria, not long before the uttering of this prophecy. Thence go ye to Hamath the great — A city of Syria, on the Orontes. It was conquered by Jeroboam, 2 Kings 14:25; and by the Assyrians, 2 Kings 19:34. It is called here Hamath the great, to distinguish it from another Hamath, mentioned verse 14, which was the northern boundary of Palestine. Then go down to Gath — This city was taken by Uzziah, in whose reign Amos prophesied, 2 Chronicles 26:6. Be they better than these kingdoms? — The kingdoms of Judah and Israel? The answer seems to be, Yes; they were better, and their border greater than your border. So that they had more reason to be confident of their safety than you have; yet you see what is become of them, and dare you be secure? Thus Nahum asks Nineveh, (Nahum 3:8,) Art thou better than populous No, that was situate among the rivers, whose rampart was the sea? &c.; yet she was carried away, she went into captivity. By these examples, then, learn to amend your ways, or expect to perish in them. Or, the sense may be, Were these cities more favoured of God than Israel and Judah? or had they a larger and more fertile country to live in, and therefore were more deserving of the wrath of God for their ingratitude? or had they greater riches to tempt the avarice of invaders? In this sense Archbishop Newcome seems to have understood the passage, and therefore supposes the prophet to ask, “Why then do ye worship their gods? and why are ye not grateful to Jehovah?” The prophet, however, seems to have intended rather to check and reprove their presumption than their ingratitude, as appears by the next verse.

Ver. 2. Calneh, or Ctesiphon. It was situate almost opposite Seleucia, above Bagdad, and was a royal city. Genesis 10:10. Here stood the temple of Diana on seven hundred pillars, each of which was sixty feet high. The length was four hundred and twenty five feet, and the breadth two hundred. It was two hundred years in building. Ctesiphon, whom Pliny calls Chersiphron, was the principal architect. This temple was one of the seven wonders of the world. All Asia minor contributed towards the expense, and one hundred and twenty seven kings contributed towards the pillars. Pliny, book 36. chap. 14. Vitruvius adds, that Ctesiphon invented the machines for raising the stones. De Ivigne’s Dict. Paris, 1646. Art. Antiochus. See also the note on Daniel 9:24.

WOE UPON THE LUXURIOUS, THE SELF-CONFIDENT, AND THE PROUD, 1-14. In Amos 6:1, the prophet turns once more to the leaders of the people, who, reveling in wealth and luxury, were perfectly content with the present state of things, and were completely indifferent to the ruin threatening the people (1-6). Exile will be their punishment (7). The whole city and nation will be given over to destruction, because the inhabitants have perverted the truth and righteousness and have put their trust in their own resources (8-14).

Condemnation of the nobles, 1-7.

1. Woe — See on Amos 5:18. That are at ease — Margin, “secure.” In a bad sense, those who are recklessly at ease, who are insensible to the dangers lurking on every side (Isaiah 32:9). Zion — Jerusalem (Amos 1:2), the center of the southern kingdom. There is no reason for regarding this a later interpolation. While the commission of Amos was primarily to the north, it would be strange if, as a citizen of Judah, he would never make mention in his discourses of the home land; especially since conditions in Judah called for the same denunciation as those in the north. Nor is there any reason for giving to the clause a meaning different from that suggested by the English translation. Trust — R.V., “are secure.” Not, who put their trust in the mountain of Samaria rather than in God, but identical in meaning with “are at ease” (Isaiah 32:9, 11). Which are named chief of the nations — R.V., “the notable men of the chief of the nations.” The Hebrew is ambiguous. A.V. connects chief with the subject of the preceding relative clauses. Those who live at ease and are secure are the chief, or leaders, of the nations, that is, of Israel and Judah. The Revisers understood the words differently. The first word in Hebrew, apparently entirely misunderstood by A.V., they took in apposition to the preceding relative clauses, at the same time connecting chief with nations. The first word means literally the marked ones, those who stand out prominently on account of wealth and position; therefore, notable, or, distinguished. These persons are further described as belonging to the chief of the nations, Israel, which, as the chosen people of Jehovah, occupied a unique place among the nations of the world (Exodus 19:5). Some, with less probability, consider the expression ironical: Israel is the chief only according to the erroneous estimate of the people. In order to indicate even more clearly the responsibilities of the leaders and the guilt arising from their failure to meet them, the prophet adds, to whom the house of Israel came — For judgment and guidance. The house of Israel includes the inhabitants of both kingdoms.

The natural continuation of verse 1 is 3ff.; verse 2 seems to interrupt the thought. For this and the additional reason that the verse is thought to contain historical allusions unsuitable in the time of Amos many commentators consider verse 2 a later interpolation. The second reason is not conclusive, for the historical situation presupposed in verse 2 is by no means certain (see below). Hence, other commentators see no sufficient reason for denying it to Amos, but they admit that it may not be in its original place. Still others, though conceding that the abruptness in transition is very marked, accept it as coming from Amos and retain it in its present position. In view of this divergence of opinion, it may be best, for the present, to retain the verse where it now stands and to interpret it as an utterance of Amos. But when this is done the interpretation still remains doubtful. In fact, two interpretations are possible: one connecting verse 2 more closely with verse 1, the other joining verse 2 to 3ff. If the former is accepted, the verse is an illustration of the superiority of Israel, justifying the designation “chief of the nations”; the localities named are examples of marked prosperity, which is, however, far inferior to that of Israel. By implication attention is directed to Israel’s greater ingratitude. The latter thought receives additional emphasis in 3-6, leading up to the announcement of judgment in verse 7. The other interpretation sees in the cities mentioned examples of fallen greatness and makes the verse a warning to Israel. These cities, once prominent, are now in ruin; therefore, let Israel take heed, for it may suffer a similar fate. To the first interpretation the objection may be made that the cities named, especially Calneh and Gath, were not among the most prominent cities of the eighth century B.C. Would not the prophet have selected more celebrated localities, had he desired to bring before the people examples of marked prosperity? Against the second it may be said that it is exceedingly doubtful that the three places were in ruin at the time of Amos. Gath, it is true, is not named in Amos 1:7, 8, but the silence is not conclusive evidence of the city’s disappearance from the scene. On the whole, the first interpretation is preferable. If we knew more of the history of the places mentioned we might understand why Amos selected these rather than some that, judging from our present knowledge, appear to have been more prominent in his day. Calneh — Not the Calneh of Genesis 10:10, but the Calno of Isaiah 10:9. Where the place is to be sought is not quite certain. Various identifications have been proposed; the most probable is that which connects Calneh with the Assyrian Kullani, mentioned in the Eponym Canon as having been conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in 738. Since in that year the latter was fighting in northern Syria, Kullani must have been located there; and it has sometimes been identified with the modern village Kullanhou, about six miles from Arpad, a little north of Aleppo. This identification is supported by Isaiah 10:9, where Calno and Arpad are named together. Hamath — In ancient times a city and city state of great prominence (2 Samuel 8:9; 2 Kings 23:33; 25:21; Isaiah 10:9). It is mentioned frequently in the Assyrian inscriptions; its armies fought in the battle of Karkar in 854; Tiglath-pileser III annexed a large part of its territory to Assyria; in 720 Sargon reconquered the city and flayed its king alive. The present name of the city is Hama; it is located on the Orontes, about one hundred and fifty miles north of Dan. Its population at the present time is estimated variously from thirty thousand to sixty thousand.

From the far north they are to sweep down to the far south. Gath — One of the five principal cities of Philistia (see on Amos 1:6-8). Its location is not altogether beyond doubt, though many scholars are inclined to identify it with the modern Tel-es-Safi, about eleven miles southeast of Ekron (Amos 1:8). The Tel-el-Amarna tablets bear witness to its great antiquity. In an inscription of Sargon, a city Gimtu Asdudim (Gath of Ashdod?) is mentioned, but it is not certain that this is the Gath of the Old Testament. They — The cities enumerated. These kingdoms — Israel and Judah. Their border — The extent of their territory. Having named the cities, the prophet requests his hearers to compare their own resources with those of the three cities and to decide which is the more favored. The decision he expects to be in favor of Israel. But if Israel is the more favored, how base its ingratitude!

V. 3. Ye-That flatter yourselves the day of darkness foretold, is far off. The seat-The judgment seat which should relieve the oppressed, is made a seat of violence.

Verse 3. Ye that put far away the evil day] Wo to you who will not consider the day of approaching vengeance; but continue in your iniquity, and harden your hearts. Ye bring your iniquities nearer, and still suppose your punishment to be at a greater distance.

Verses 3-6. Ye that put far away the evil day — Ye who persuade yourselves that God’s judgments will not overtake you so soon as the predictions of the prophet import. And cause the seat of violence to come near — Who take every opportunity of perverting justice by pronouncing unrighteous decrees, and of turning the seat of justice into the seat of oppression. Or, this latter clause may be interpreted of the Israelites’ bringing the Assyrians, who were to be their destroyers, upon them, by continuing in their sins, and thereby provoking God’s wrath more and more; or by their imprudence, such as that of Menahem, who, having got possession of the throne by slaying Shallum, gave Pul, the king of Assyria, a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand, 2 Kings 15:19. That lie upon beds of ivory — This and the two following verses are an elegant description of the bad use men too often make of a plentiful fortune; so that it shuts out all serious consideration, and makes them void of compassion toward persons in want and misery, and to regard nothing but their present gratification; eat the lambs out of the flock — The choicest and best of them. That chant to the sound of the viol, &c. — Who, though but private persons, make use of all manner of musical instruments, the same as David did, when he was a king; and employ as great a variety of music for their own diversion as he did in the service of God. That drink wine in bowls — Not in small, but in large vessels; that is, who drink to excess, and in all respects live very luxuriously. But they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph — Do not humble themselves under God’s afflicting hand, nor lay to heart the calamities which the divine judgments have brought, and are still bringing more and more upon the kingdom of Israel, called by the name of Joseph. The words allude to the afflicted state of Joseph, when he was sold by his brethren into Egypt.

Verse 3 continues the condemnation of the reckless skepticism and luxury of the nobles. Put far away — Not in reality, but in their own minds; they refuse to believe that it is near. Evil day — As described in Amos 5:18-20. Cause the seat (literally, sitting) of violence to come near — “They prepare in their very midst a place where, instead of justice, violence may sit enthroned.” Emendations are not necessary.

V. 4. That lie-That out of laziness or luxury, lay themselves to rest. And eat-The very best in all their flock.

Verse 4. That lie upon beds of ivory] The word ywh hoi, wo, is understood at the beginning of each of the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth verses. The beds mentioned here may be either sofas to recline on at table, or beds to sleep on; and these among the ancients were ornamented with ivory inlaid. They were called lectos eburatos by Plautus, lectos eburnos by Horace, “ivory beds.” Probably those ornamented with shells, or mother-of-pearl, may be intended. Several works of this kind may be still seen in Palestine and other places. I have before me a cross brought from Jerusalem, incrusted all over with mother-of-pearl, and various figures chased on it.

There must have been a great deal of luxury and effeminacy among the Israelites at this time; and, consequently, abundance of riches. This was in the time of Jeroboam the second, when the kingdom had enjoyed a long peace. The description in the fourth, fifth, and sixth verses, is that of an Asiatic court even in the present day.

Verses 3-6. Ye that put far away the evil day — Ye who persuade yourselves that God’s judgments will not overtake you so soon as the predictions of the prophet import. And cause the seat of violence to come near — Who take every opportunity of perverting justice by pronouncing unrighteous decrees, and of turning the seat of justice into the seat of oppression. Or, this latter clause may be interpreted of the Israelites’ bringing the Assyrians, who were to be their destroyers, upon them, by continuing in their sins, and thereby provoking God’s wrath more and more; or by their imprudence, such as that of Menahem, who, having got possession of the throne by slaying Shallum, gave Pul, the king of Assyria, a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand, 2 Kings 15:19. That lie upon beds of ivory — This and the two following verses are an elegant description of the bad use men too often make of a plentiful fortune; so that it shuts out all serious consideration, and makes them void of compassion toward persons in want and misery, and to regard nothing but their present gratification; eat the lambs out of the flock — The choicest and best of them. That chant to the sound of the viol, &c. — Who, though but private persons, make use of all manner of musical instruments, the same as David did, when he was a king; and employ as great a variety of music for their own diversion as he did in the service of God. That drink wine in bowls — Not in small, but in large vessels; that is, who drink to excess, and in all respects live very luxuriously. But they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph — Do not humble themselves under God’s afflicting hand, nor lay to heart the calamities which the divine judgments have brought, and are still bringing more and more upon the kingdom of Israel, called by the name of Joseph. The words allude to the afflicted state of Joseph, when he was sold by his brethren into Egypt.

Verse 4 describes the luxury and self-indulgence. Beds — Better, divans, or, couches. Of ivory — With frames made of ivory, or whose frames were inlaid with pieces of ivory. These “ivory couches” are often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions. Sennacherib claims to have received some as a part of the tribute paid by Hezekiah of Judah (Taylor Cylinder, III, 50. 36). Stretch themselves — While eating. The ancient custom seems to have been to sit while eating (Judges 19:6; 1 Samuel 20:5, 24; 2 Kings 4:10). Reclining is first mentioned in this passage; it may have been a foreign custom introduced by the self-indulgent nobles. The innovation would appear to the simple shepherd prophet an abomination. At a later period reclining at the table became the common custom (Matthew 10:9). Another indication of wanton luxury is the eating of only the tenderest and most delicate meats. Lambs — Not the common Hebrew word for lamb, but one implying choice quality (Deuteronomy 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:9). Calves out of the midst of the stall — Kept there to be artificially fattened (Jeremiah 46:21; Malachi 4:2; compare Luke 15:23). The feasts were accompanied by excesses of every sort (5, 6). Chant — R.V., “sing idle songs.” Various translations and interpretations of the verb have been suggested. That the reference is to music accompanying the feasts (Amos 5:23; Isaiah 5:12; 24:9) cannot be doubted, but since the verb occurs only in this place in the Old Testament its exact meaning is uncertain. However, R.V. is probably correct. Viol — See on Amos 5:23. Of uncertain meaning and subject to much discussion is also the last clause of the verse, in which LXX. differs considerably from the Hebrew. Invent — Or, devise, the most natural meaning of the verb here. Instruments of music, like David — Since no other canonical book speaks of David as the inventor of musical instruments, margin R.V. reads “like David’s,” that is, like those owned by David (1 Samuel 16:18). Cheyne changes the text so as to remove all reference to David and reads verse 5, “who play on timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of song.” Marti reads, “who consider themselves equal to David in understanding songs.” There is no external evidence warranting these emendations. If the present text is original, whether we accept the usual or marginal translation, the passage is important in a discussion of the dates of the psalms and of the relation of David to the Psalter, as showing that even at this early date David enjoyed the reputation of possessing extraordinary musical skill, even though the allusion here is not to sacred hymns. For the reason mentioned above some commentators, thinking a reference to musical instruments out of place, translate the Hebrew “melodies of song” or “airs of song.” This translation, however, is contrary to the common usage of the word. Drink wine in bowls — The noun is used commonly to designate the basin in which the sacrificial blood was received; but the emphasis is not on this fact; rather on the large size of the drinking vessels. Cups of ordinary size were too small, they substituted large bowls. Chief ointments [“oils”] — The finest and most expensive (see on Joel 1:10).

The thoughts of the nobles were entirely self-centered; their chief ambition was to satisfy their own lusts and fancies; others, even those whose guardians and protectors they should be, must look out for themselves. Grieved — Literally, made sick. The present condition and prospects for the future were such as to make a sensitive person sick in heart and mind, but the selfish nobles had no concern. Affliction — Literally, breach, or, wound. Including the present corruption, which was a sore in the body politic, and the coming calamity, which would inflict incurable wounds (Isaiah 1:5, 6). Joseph — See on Amos 5:6.

V. 5. That chant-That in a time of deep mourning entertain themselves with songs, and musical instruments.

Verse 5. And invent to themselves instruments of music, like David] See Clarke’s note on “1 Chronicles 23:5”; and see especially Clarke’s note on “2 Chronicles 29:25”. I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read, and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful. If there was a wo to them who invented instruments of music, as did David under the law, is there no wo, no curse to them who invent them, and introduce them into the worship of God in the Christian Church? I am an old man, and an old minister; and I here declare that I never knew them productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity. The late venerable and most eminent divine, the Rev. John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists said, in his terse and powerful manner, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither HEARD nor SEEN.” I say the same, though I think the expense of purchase had better be spared. The word µycrph happoretim, which we render chant, and the margin quaver, signifies to dance, to skip, &c. In the sight of such a text, fiddlers, drummers, waltzers, &c., may well tremble, who perform to excite detestable passions.

Verses 3-6. Ye that put far away the evil day — Ye who persuade yourselves that God’s judgments will not overtake you so soon as the predictions of the prophet import. And cause the seat of violence to come near — Who take every opportunity of perverting justice by pronouncing unrighteous decrees, and of turning the seat of justice into the seat of oppression. Or, this latter clause may be interpreted of the Israelites’ bringing the Assyrians, who were to be their destroyers, upon them, by continuing in their sins, and thereby provoking God’s wrath more and more; or by their imprudence, such as that of Menahem, who, having got possession of the throne by slaying Shallum, gave Pul, the king of Assyria, a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand, 2 Kings 15:19. That lie upon beds of ivory — This and the two following verses are an elegant description of the bad use men too often make of a plentiful fortune; so that it shuts out all serious consideration, and makes them void of compassion toward persons in want and misery, and to regard nothing but their present gratification; eat the lambs out of the flock — The choicest and best of them. That chant to the sound of the viol, &c. — Who, though but private persons, make use of all manner of musical instruments, the same as David did, when he was a king; and employ as great a variety of music for their own diversion as he did in the service of God. That drink wine in bowls — Not in small, but in large vessels; that is, who drink to excess, and in all respects live very luxuriously. But they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph — Do not humble themselves under God’s afflicting hand, nor lay to heart the calamities which the divine judgments have brought, and are still bringing more and more upon the kingdom of Israel, called by the name of Joseph. The words allude to the afflicted state of Joseph, when he was sold by his brethren into Egypt.

Ver. 5. Invent to themselves instruments of music, like David. The royal and inspired bard is not censured here. His instruments being devoted to sacred song, the censure is on those princes and people who had perverted them to soothe their passions in their carousings, and in the feasts of Baal. David, as a man of genius, did invent and improve instruments of music, but it was for high and holy purposes.—All sounds are communicated by air; whether they proceed from the vibrations of the bell, the ring, the cord, or the flute. The genius of the musician is displayed in communicating these diversity of sounds. But no sounds are sweeter than the Eolian harp, where nature is untouched by art.

WOE UPON THE LUXURIOUS, THE SELF-CONFIDENT, AND THE PROUD, 1-14. In Amos 6:1, the prophet turns once more to the leaders of the people, who, reveling in wealth and luxury, were perfectly content with the present state of things, and were completely indifferent to the ruin threatening the people (1-6). Exile will be their punishment (7). The whole city and nation will be given over to destruction, because the inhabitants have perverted the truth and righteousness and have put their trust in their own resources (8-14).

Condemnation of the nobles, 1-7.

1. Woe — See on Amos 5:18. That are at ease — Margin, “secure.” In a bad sense, those who are recklessly at ease, who are insensible to the dangers lurking on every side (Isaiah 32:9). Zion — Jerusalem (Amos 1:2), the center of the southern kingdom. There is no reason for regarding this a later interpolation. While the commission of Amos was primarily to the north, it would be strange if, as a citizen of Judah, he would never make mention in his discourses of the home land; especially since conditions in Judah called for the same denunciation as those in the north. Nor is there any reason for giving to the clause a meaning different from that suggested by the English translation. Trust — R.V., “are secure.” Not, who put their trust in the mountain of Samaria rather than in God, but identical in meaning with “are at ease” (Isaiah 32:9, 11). Which are named chief of the nations — R.V., “the notable men of the chief of the nations.” The Hebrew is ambiguous. A.V. connects chief with the subject of the preceding relative clauses. Those who live at ease and are secure are the chief, or leaders, of the nations, that is, of Israel and Judah. The Revisers understood the words differently. The first word in Hebrew, apparently entirely misunderstood by A.V., they took in apposition to the preceding relative clauses, at the same time connecting chief with nations. The first word means literally the marked ones, those who stand out prominently on account of wealth and position; therefore, notable, or, distinguished. These persons are further described as belonging to the chief of the nations, Israel, which, as the chosen people of Jehovah, occupied a unique place among the nations of the world (Exodus 19:5). Some, with less probability, consider the expression ironical: Israel is the chief only according to the erroneous estimate of the people. In order to indicate even more clearly the responsibilities of the leaders and the guilt arising from their failure to meet them, the prophet adds, to whom the house of Israel came — For judgment and guidance. The house of Israel includes the inhabitants of both kingdoms.

The natural continuation of verse 1 is 3ff.; verse 2 seems to interrupt the thought. For this and the additional reason that the verse is thought to contain historical allusions unsuitable in the time of Amos many commentators consider verse 2 a later interpolation. The second reason is not conclusive, for the historical situation presupposed in verse 2 is by no means certain (see below). Hence, other commentators see no sufficient reason for denying it to Amos, but they admit that it may not be in its original place. Still others, though conceding that the abruptness in transition is very marked, accept it as coming from Amos and retain it in its present position. In view of this divergence of opinion, it may be best, for the present, to retain the verse where it now stands and to interpret it as an utterance of Amos. But when this is done the interpretation still remains doubtful. In fact, two interpretations are possible: one connecting verse 2 more closely with verse 1, the other joining verse 2 to 3ff. If the former is accepted, the verse is an illustration of the superiority of Israel, justifying the designation “chief of the nations”; the localities named are examples of marked prosperity, which is, however, far inferior to that of Israel. By implication attention is directed to Israel’s greater ingratitude. The latter thought receives additional emphasis in 3-6, leading up to the announcement of judgment in verse 7. The other interpretation sees in the cities mentioned examples of fallen greatness and makes the verse a warning to Israel. These cities, once prominent, are now in ruin; therefore, let Israel take heed, for it may suffer a similar fate. To the first interpretation the objection may be made that the cities named, especially Calneh and Gath, were not among the most prominent cities of the eighth century B.C. Would not the prophet have selected more celebrated localities, had he desired to bring before the people examples of marked prosperity? Against the second it may be said that it is exceedingly doubtful that the three places were in ruin at the time of Amos. Gath, it is true, is not named in Amos 1:7, 8, but the silence is not conclusive evidence of the city’s disappearance from the scene. On the whole, the first interpretation is preferable. If we knew more of the history of the places mentioned we might understand why Amos selected these rather than some that, judging from our present knowledge, appear to have been more prominent in his day. Calneh — Not the Calneh of Genesis 10:10, but the Calno of Isaiah 10:9. Where the place is to be sought is not quite certain. Various identifications have been proposed; the most probable is that which connects Calneh with the Assyrian Kullani, mentioned in the Eponym Canon as having been conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in 738. Since in that year the latter was fighting in northern Syria, Kullani must have been located there; and it has sometimes been identified with the modern village Kullanhou, about six miles from Arpad, a little north of Aleppo. This identification is supported by Isaiah 10:9, where Calno and Arpad are named together. Hamath — In ancient times a city and city state of great prominence (2 Samuel 8:9; 2 Kings 23:33; 25:21; Isaiah 10:9). It is mentioned frequently in the Assyrian inscriptions; its armies fought in the battle of Karkar in 854; Tiglath-pileser III annexed a large part of its territory to Assyria; in 720 Sargon reconquered the city and flayed its king alive. The present name of the city is Hama; it is located on the Orontes, about one hundred and fifty miles north of Dan. Its population at the present time is estimated variously from thirty thousand to sixty thousand.

From the far north they are to sweep down to the far south. Gath — One of the five principal cities of Philistia (see on Amos 1:6-8). Its location is not altogether beyond doubt, though many scholars are inclined to identify it with the modern Tel-es-Safi, about eleven miles southeast of Ekron (Amos 1:8). The Tel-el-Amarna tablets bear witness to its great antiquity. In an inscription of Sargon, a city Gimtu Asdudim (Gath of Ashdod?) is mentioned, but it is not certain that this is the Gath of the Old Testament. They — The cities enumerated. These kingdoms — Israel and Judah. Their border — The extent of their territory. Having named the cities, the prophet requests his hearers to compare their own resources with those of the three cities and to decide which is the more favored. The decision he expects to be in favor of Israel. But if Israel is the more favored, how base its ingratitude!

V. 6. In bowls-Not in little vessels, but probably bowls: they drank these filled as full as they could hold too, and in design to drink each other down. And anoint-In those hot countries this anointing was much used. Not grieved-Nothing affected with the calamities of their country.

Verse 6. That drink wine in bowls] Perhaps the costliness of the drinking vessels, more than the quantity drank, is that which is here reprehended by the prophet. Drinking vessels of the most costly materials, and of the most exquisite workmanship, are still in use; and as to precious ointments and perfumes among the Jews, we have a proof that the contents of one small box was worth three hundred denarii, at least seven pounds ten shillings sterling. See the case in the Gospel, John 12:5, and the note there.

Verses 3-6. Ye that put far away the evil day — Ye who persuade yourselves that God’s judgments will not overtake you so soon as the predictions of the prophet import. And cause the seat of violence to come near — Who take every opportunity of perverting justice by pronouncing unrighteous decrees, and of turning the seat of justice into the seat of oppression. Or, this latter clause may be interpreted of the Israelites’ bringing the Assyrians, who were to be their destroyers, upon them, by continuing in their sins, and thereby provoking God’s wrath more and more; or by their imprudence, such as that of Menahem, who, having got possession of the throne by slaying Shallum, gave Pul, the king of Assyria, a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand, 2 Kings 15:19. That lie upon beds of ivory — This and the two following verses are an elegant description of the bad use men too often make of a plentiful fortune; so that it shuts out all serious consideration, and makes them void of compassion toward persons in want and misery, and to regard nothing but their present gratification; eat the lambs out of the flock — The choicest and best of them. That chant to the sound of the viol, &c. — Who, though but private persons, make use of all manner of musical instruments, the same as David did, when he was a king; and employ as great a variety of music for their own diversion as he did in the service of God. That drink wine in bowls — Not in small, but in large vessels; that is, who drink to excess, and in all respects live very luxuriously. But they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph — Do not humble themselves under God’s afflicting hand, nor lay to heart the calamities which the divine judgments have brought, and are still bringing more and more upon the kingdom of Israel, called by the name of Joseph. The words allude to the afflicted state of Joseph, when he was sold by his brethren into Egypt.

WOE UPON THE LUXURIOUS, THE SELF-CONFIDENT, AND THE PROUD, 1-14. In Amos 6:1, the prophet turns once more to the leaders of the people, who, reveling in wealth and luxury, were perfectly content with the present state of things, and were completely indifferent to the ruin threatening the people (1-6). Exile will be their punishment (7). The whole city and nation will be given over to destruction, because the inhabitants have perverted the truth and righteousness and have put their trust in their own resources (8-14).

Condemnation of the nobles, 1-7.

1. Woe — See on Amos 5:18. That are at ease — Margin, “secure.” In a bad sense, those who are recklessly at ease, who are insensible to the dangers lurking on every side (Isaiah 32:9). Zion — Jerusalem (Amos 1:2), the center of the southern kingdom. There is no reason for regarding this a later interpolation. While the commission of Amos was primarily to the north, it would be strange if, as a citizen of Judah, he would never make mention in his discourses of the home land; especially since conditions in Judah called for the same denunciation as those in the north. Nor is there any reason for giving to the clause a meaning different from that suggested by the English translation. Trust — R.V., “are secure.” Not, who put their trust in the mountain of Samaria rather than in God, but identical in meaning with “are at ease” (Isaiah 32:9, 11). Which are named chief of the nations — R.V., “the notable men of the chief of the nations.” The Hebrew is ambiguous. A.V. connects chief with the subject of the preceding relative clauses. Those who live at ease and are secure are the chief, or leaders, of the nations, that is, of Israel and Judah. The Revisers understood the words differently. The first word in Hebrew, apparently entirely misunderstood by A.V., they took in apposition to the preceding relative clauses, at the same time connecting chief with nations. The first word means literally the marked ones, those who stand out prominently on account of wealth and position; therefore, notable, or, distinguished. These persons are further described as belonging to the chief of the nations, Israel, which, as the chosen people of Jehovah, occupied a unique place among the nations of the world (Exodus 19:5). Some, with less probability, consider the expression ironical: Israel is the chief only according to the erroneous estimate of the people. In order to indicate even more clearly the responsibilities of the leaders and the guilt arising from their failure to meet them, the prophet adds, to whom the house of Israel came — For judgment and guidance. The house of Israel includes the inhabitants of both kingdoms.

The natural continuation of verse 1 is 3ff.; verse 2 seems to interrupt the thought. For this and the additional reason that the verse is thought to contain historical allusions unsuitable in the time of Amos many commentators consider verse 2 a later interpolation. The second reason is not conclusive, for the historical situation presupposed in verse 2 is by no means certain (see below). Hence, other commentators see no sufficient reason for denying it to Amos, but they admit that it may not be in its original place. Still others, though conceding that the abruptness in transition is very marked, accept it as coming from Amos and retain it in its present position. In view of this divergence of opinion, it may be best, for the present, to retain the verse where it now stands and to interpret it as an utterance of Amos. But when this is done the interpretation still remains doubtful. In fact, two interpretations are possible: one connecting verse 2 more closely with verse 1, the other joining verse 2 to 3ff. If the former is accepted, the verse is an illustration of the superiority of Israel, justifying the designation “chief of the nations”; the localities named are examples of marked prosperity, which is, however, far inferior to that of Israel. By implication attention is directed to Israel’s greater ingratitude. The latter thought receives additional emphasis in 3-6, leading up to the announcement of judgment in verse 7. The other interpretation sees in the cities mentioned examples of fallen greatness and makes the verse a warning to Israel. These cities, once prominent, are now in ruin; therefore, let Israel take heed, for it may suffer a similar fate. To the first interpretation the objection may be made that the cities named, especially Calneh and Gath, were not among the most prominent cities of the eighth century B.C. Would not the prophet have selected more celebrated localities, had he desired to bring before the people examples of marked prosperity? Against the second it may be said that it is exceedingly doubtful that the three places were in ruin at the time of Amos. Gath, it is true, is not named in Amos 1:7, 8, but the silence is not conclusive evidence of the city’s disappearance from the scene. On the whole, the first interpretation is preferable. If we knew more of the history of the places mentioned we might understand why Amos selected these rather than some that, judging from our present knowledge, appear to have been more prominent in his day. Calneh — Not the Calneh of Genesis 10:10, but the Calno of Isaiah 10:9. Where the place is to be sought is not quite certain. Various identifications have been proposed; the most probable is that which connects Calneh with the Assyrian Kullani, mentioned in the Eponym Canon as having been conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in 738. Since in that year the latter was fighting in northern Syria, Kullani must have been located there; and it has sometimes been identified with the modern village Kullanhou, about six miles from Arpad, a little north of Aleppo. This identification is supported by Isaiah 10:9, where Calno and Arpad are named together. Hamath — In ancient times a city and city state of great prominence (2 Samuel 8:9; 2 Kings 23:33; 25:21; Isaiah 10:9). It is mentioned frequently in the Assyrian inscriptions; its armies fought in the battle of Karkar in 854; Tiglath-pileser III annexed a large part of its territory to Assyria; in 720 Sargon reconquered the city and flayed its king alive. The present name of the city is Hama; it is located on the Orontes, about one hundred and fifty miles north of Dan. Its population at the present time is estimated variously from thirty thousand to sixty thousand.

From the far north they are to sweep down to the far south. Gath — One of the five principal cities of Philistia (see on Amos 1:6-8). Its location is not altogether beyond doubt, though many scholars are inclined to identify it with the modern Tel-es-Safi, about eleven miles southeast of Ekron (Amos 1:8). The Tel-el-Amarna tablets bear witness to its great antiquity. In an inscription of Sargon, a city Gimtu Asdudim (Gath of Ashdod?) is mentioned, but it is not certain that this is the Gath of the Old Testament. They — The cities enumerated. These kingdoms — Israel and Judah. Their border — The extent of their territory. Having named the cities, the prophet requests his hearers to compare their own resources with those of the three cities and to decide which is the more favored. The decision he expects to be in favor of Israel. But if Israel is the more favored, how base its ingratitude!

V. 7. The banquet-The feastings of voluptuous ones shall cease.

Verse 7. With the first that go captive] The house of Israel shall be carried into captivity before the house of Judah.

Verses 7, 8. Therefore now shall they go captive with the first, &c. — As they were reckoned the first among the people, and claimed the preference in every thing, so now shall they be the first that shall be carried into captivity. And the banquet of them that stretched themselves shall be removed — They who indulged themselves in ease and luxury shall have no more costly banquets spread before them: all their luxurious living shall be at an end. The Lord hath sworn by himself — And will not violate his oath; I abhor the excellency of Jacob — Whatever the kingdoms of Israel and Judah value themselves for is hateful to me, as having been abused by them, and made instrumental in dishonouring me. Or, the words should rather be rendered, I abhor the pride of Jacob. Inhumanity and hardness of heart, as well as many other vices, are generally the companions of pride; and therefore God always expresses, in the Scriptures, the utmost abhorrence of that sin. Therefore I will deliver up the city — Namely, the city of Samaria first, and then that of Jerusalem.

7, 11, 8, 9, 10, which in some respects is an improvement over the present arrangement. As the verses stand now they illustrate the extent of the judgment and the resulting terror. It shall come to pass — When the city is delivered up to the invader. While there is agreement concerning the general import of verse 9, there is difference of opinion respecting details. Some interpret: Even large families, having as many as ten members, will be completely blotted out. Others see in house a reference to the large households of the nobles. If of these, numbering perhaps hundreds of people, ten should escape the terrors of the siege, they will be slain in the slaughter following the capture. Or, if ten should escape the slaughter, they will surely perish in the pestilence following the slaughter. Verse 10 carries further the thoughts of verse 9, calling special attention to the effect of the judgment upon the survivors. R.V. translates more accurately, “And when a man’s uncle shall take him up, even he that burneth him, to bring out the bones out of the house, and shall say unto him that is in the innermost parts of the house, Is there yet any with thee? and he shall say, No; then shall he say, Hold thy peace; for we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah.” Uncle — Perhaps better, R.V. margin, “kinsman.” All the members of the immediate family having perished, a more distant relative comes to care for the body. He that burneth him — Literally, his burner. A.V. considers this a separate person, accompanying the kinsman. R.V., more correctly, identifies the two. It would seem most natural to see here a reference to cremation; but that method of disposing of the dead does not seem to have been prevalent among the Israelites. Criminals were, indeed, burned (Leviticus 20:14; Joshua 7:15); so were Saul and his sons (1 Samuel 31:12), but these were exceptional cases. If cremation is in the mind of the prophet, it must be because he expected conditions to become such as to make burial impossible, either because the dead would be too numerous, or because the enemies would prevent it. An alternative rendering is, “who burneth for him,” that is, incense; which would make the expression a reference to the burning of incense in honor of the dead (Jeremiah 34:5; 2 Chronicles 16:14). Bring out the bones — The corpse, to care for it. The sides — Better R.V., “the innermost parts.” Set apart for the women (compare Psalm 128:3); in this part the lone survivor has taken refuge. As the kinsman pursues his solemn task he discovers the terrified individual. Is there yet any with thee — Dead or alive. The answer is, No. Hold thy tongue [“peace”] — Literally, hush. The speaker is the survivor who, in his anxiety and despair, attempts to silence the kinsman. Then shall he say — Literally, and he shall say. The subject is again the survivor. The verb is repeated to separate “two parts of the answer which have no immediate connection with each other.” We may not — Or, we must not. The reason for the prohibition is not quite clear. Perhaps the speaker had a superstitious fear that the mention of the divine name would result in additional judgment. The sense is little altered if the words “Hold thy peace…” are placed in the mouth of the kinsman, who, by the prohibition would seek to prevent the terrified survivor from adding to his No a formula of confirmation containing the divine name. To consider the words an explanatory statement by Amos is less natural.

V. 8. The excellency-All that the seed of Jacob accounts a glory and excellency to them, all their external privileges and worship.

Verse 8. The Lord God hath sworn by himself] wvpnb benaphsho, by his soul, his being, existence.

Verses 7, 8. Therefore now shall they go captive with the first, &c. — As they were reckoned the first among the people, and claimed the preference in every thing, so now shall they be the first that shall be carried into captivity. And the banquet of them that stretched themselves shall be removed — They who indulged themselves in ease and luxury shall have no more costly banquets spread before them: all their luxurious living shall be at an end. The Lord hath sworn by himself — And will not violate his oath; I abhor the excellency of Jacob — Whatever the kingdoms of Israel and Judah value themselves for is hateful to me, as having been abused by them, and made instrumental in dishonouring me. Or, the words should rather be rendered, I abhor the pride of Jacob. Inhumanity and hardness of heart, as well as many other vices, are generally the companions of pride; and therefore God always expresses, in the Scriptures, the utmost abhorrence of that sin. Therefore I will deliver up the city — Namely, the city of Samaria first, and then that of Jerusalem.

7, 11, 8, 9, 10, which in some respects is an improvement over the present arrangement. As the verses stand now they illustrate the extent of the judgment and the resulting terror. It shall come to pass — When the city is delivered up to the invader. While there is agreement concerning the general import of verse 9, there is difference of opinion respecting details. Some interpret: Even large families, having as many as ten members, will be completely blotted out. Others see in house a reference to the large households of the nobles. If of these, numbering perhaps hundreds of people, ten should escape the terrors of the siege, they will be slain in the slaughter following the capture. Or, if ten should escape the slaughter, they will surely perish in the pestilence following the slaughter. Verse 10 carries further the thoughts of verse 9, calling special attention to the effect of the judgment upon the survivors. R.V. translates more accurately, “And when a man’s uncle shall take him up, even he that burneth him, to bring out the bones out of the house, and shall say unto him that is in the innermost parts of the house, Is there yet any with thee? and he shall say, No; then shall he say, Hold thy peace; for we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah.” Uncle — Perhaps better, R.V. margin, “kinsman.” All the members of the immediate family having perished, a more distant relative comes to care for the body. He that burneth him — Literally, his burner. A.V. considers this a separate person, accompanying the kinsman. R.V., more correctly, identifies the two. It would seem most natural to see here a reference to cremation; but that method of disposing of the dead does not seem to have been prevalent among the Israelites. Criminals were, indeed, burned (Leviticus 20:14; Joshua 7:15); so were Saul and his sons (1 Samuel 31:12), but these were exceptional cases. If cremation is in the mind of the prophet, it must be because he expected conditions to become such as to make burial impossible, either because the dead would be too numerous, or because the enemies would prevent it. An alternative rendering is, “who burneth for him,” that is, incense; which would make the expression a reference to the burning of incense in honor of the dead (Jeremiah 34:5; 2 Chronicles 16:14). Bring out the bones — The corpse, to care for it. The sides — Better R.V., “the innermost parts.” Set apart for the women (compare Psalm 128:3); in this part the lone survivor has taken refuge. As the kinsman pursues his solemn task he discovers the terrified individual. Is there yet any with thee — Dead or alive. The answer is, No. Hold thy tongue [“peace”] — Literally, hush. The speaker is the survivor who, in his anxiety and despair, attempts to silence the kinsman. Then shall he say — Literally, and he shall say. The subject is again the survivor. The verb is repeated to separate “two parts of the answer which have no immediate connection with each other.” We may not — Or, we must not. The reason for the prohibition is not quite clear. Perhaps the speaker had a superstitious fear that the mention of the divine name would result in additional judgment. The sense is little altered if the words “Hold thy peace…” are placed in the mouth of the kinsman, who, by the prohibition would seek to prevent the terrified survivor from adding to his No a formula of confirmation containing the divine name. To consider the words an explanatory statement by Amos is less natural.

V. 9. Remain-Escaping the enemies sword. Ten men-Many men, a certain number for an uncertain. They shall die-Tho’ they escape a while, they shall not finally escape.

Verse 9. Ten men—they shall die.] ALL shall be cut off by the sword, or by captivity, or by famine.

Verses 9-11. If there remain ten men in one house, &c. — Those that escape the hands of the enemy shall die by the pestilence. And a man’s uncle (or kinsman) shall take him up — Some friend or relation, whose duty it is to perform the last offices for the deceased, shall take him up directly and burn him: for so it should be rendered, and not, AND HE THAT burneth him. The meaning is, that he should not stay to perfume the body with rich ointments, as was the usual custom; nor should he bury it, but burn it to ashes, to prevent infection. To bring out the bones out of the house, &c. — Or rather, that he may bring out, &c., that is, that he may, as soon as possible, cleanse the house by the removal of the body. All that is said here, is strongly expressive of what is the case where a deadly pestilence rages. And shall say unto him that is by the sides of the house — Or near the house, out of which the bones are carried; Is there any yet with thee — Is there any yet living besides thyself belonging to this house? And he shall say, No — All the inhabitants of the house are dead. Then shall he say, Hold thy tongue; for we may not make mention of the name of the Lord — As this clause has no immediate connection with, or relation to, the negative answer contained in the preceding clause, it is to be supposed that when the person has given that answer, and said that there was none left alive in the house, he utters, as is natural, some prayer to God for mercy or deliverance; on which the other speaks to him in this manner: as much as to say, It is in vain now to pray, or make supplication; for God will not now hear us, but we also shall be cut off by this dreadful pestilence, as the rest have been. Archbishop Newcome puts a different sense on the last clause, thus: “Solitude shall reign in the house; and if one is left, he must be silent (see Amos 8:3) and retired, lest he be plundered of his scanty provisions.” For behold, the Lord commandeth — Gives forth his commands to the enemy, namely, the Assyrians, to come against Israel. And he will smite the great house, and the little house, &c. — People of all ranks, high and low, shall be sufferers in the common calamities.

7, 11, 8, 9, 10, which in some respects is an improvement over the present arrangement. As the verses stand now they illustrate the extent of the judgment and the resulting terror. It shall come to pass — When the city is delivered up to the invader. While there is agreement concerning the general import of verse 9, there is difference of opinion respecting details. Some interpret: Even large families, having as many as ten members, will be completely blotted out. Others see in house a reference to the large households of the nobles. If of these, numbering perhaps hundreds of people, ten should escape the terrors of the siege, they will be slain in the slaughter following the capture. Or, if ten should escape the slaughter, they will surely perish in the pestilence following the slaughter. Verse 10 carries further the thoughts of verse 9, calling special attention to the effect of the judgment upon the survivors. R.V. translates more accurately, “And when a man’s uncle shall take him up, even he that burneth him, to bring out the bones out of the house, and shall say unto him that is in the innermost parts of the house, Is there yet any with thee? and he shall say, No; then shall he say, Hold thy peace; for we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah.” Uncle — Perhaps better, R.V. margin, “kinsman.” All the members of the immediate family having perished, a more distant relative comes to care for the body. He that burneth him — Literally, his burner. A.V. considers this a separate person, accompanying the kinsman. R.V., more correctly, identifies the two. It would seem most natural to see here a reference to cremation; but that method of disposing of the dead does not seem to have been prevalent among the Israelites. Criminals were, indeed, burned (Leviticus 20:14; Joshua 7:15); so were Saul and his sons (1 Samuel 31:12), but these were exceptional cases. If cremation is in the mind of the prophet, it must be because he expected conditions to become such as to make burial impossible, either because the dead would be too numerous, or because the enemies would prevent it. An alternative rendering is, “who burneth for him,” that is, incense; which would make the expression a reference to the burning of incense in honor of the dead (Jeremiah 34:5; 2 Chronicles 16:14). Bring out the bones — The corpse, to care for it. The sides — Better R.V., “the innermost parts.” Set apart for the women (compare Psalm 128:3); in this part the lone survivor has taken refuge. As the kinsman pursues his solemn task he discovers the terrified individual. Is there yet any with thee — Dead or alive. The answer is, No. Hold thy tongue [“peace”] — Literally, hush. The speaker is the survivor who, in his anxiety and despair, attempts to silence the kinsman. Then shall he say — Literally, and he shall say. The subject is again the survivor. The verb is repeated to separate “two parts of the answer which have no immediate connection with each other.” We may not — Or, we must not. The reason for the prohibition is not quite clear. Perhaps the speaker had a superstitious fear that the mention of the divine name would result in additional judgment. The sense is little altered if the words “Hold thy peace…” are placed in the mouth of the kinsman, who, by the prohibition would seek to prevent the terrified survivor from adding to his No a formula of confirmation containing the divine name. To consider the words an explanatory statement by Amos is less natural.

V. 10. Uncle-Or near kinsman, instead of those who were wont to do this, and were paid for it; but now none of these remaining, the next to the dead must, as well as he is able, take him up on his shoulders, and carry him. That burneth-Though the Jews mostly buried, yet in some cases they burned the dead bodies, as in this of pestilence. The bones-The flesh being consumed, the bones are reserved to be buried. Unto him-Any one he sees near the house out of which the bones are carried. Is there yet any-Is any one living in your house. Hold thy tongue-Do not complain, lest thou thyself be killed, lest all be rifled. For-It is too late to seek God, who is executing his immutable decree.

Verse 10. A man’s uncle shall take him up] Bp. Newcome says, this obscure verse seems to describe the effects of famine and pestilence during the siege of Samaria. The carcass shall be burnt, and the bones removed with no ceremony of funeral rites, and without the assistance of the nearest kinsman. Solitude shall reign in the house; and if one is left, he must be silent, (see Amos 8:3,) and retired, lest he be plundered of his scanty provision! Burning the body, and then collecting the ashes, and putting them into an urn, was deemed the most honourable mode of burial.

Verses 9-11. If there remain ten men in one house, &c. — Those that escape the hands of the enemy shall die by the pestilence. And a man’s uncle (or kinsman) shall take him up — Some friend or relation, whose duty it is to perform the last offices for the deceased, shall take him up directly and burn him: for so it should be rendered, and not, AND HE THAT burneth him. The meaning is, that he should not stay to perfume the body with rich ointments, as was the usual custom; nor should he bury it, but burn it to ashes, to prevent infection. To bring out the bones out of the house, &c. — Or rather, that he may bring out, &c., that is, that he may, as soon as possible, cleanse the house by the removal of the body. All that is said here, is strongly expressive of what is the case where a deadly pestilence rages. And shall say unto him that is by the sides of the house — Or near the house, out of which the bones are carried; Is there any yet with thee — Is there any yet living besides thyself belonging to this house? And he shall say, No — All the inhabitants of the house are dead. Then shall he say, Hold thy tongue; for we may not make mention of the name of the Lord — As this clause has no immediate connection with, or relation to, the negative answer contained in the preceding clause, it is to be supposed that when the person has given that answer, and said that there was none left alive in the house, he utters, as is natural, some prayer to God for mercy or deliverance; on which the other speaks to him in this manner: as much as to say, It is in vain now to pray, or make supplication; for God will not now hear us, but we also shall be cut off by this dreadful pestilence, as the rest have been. Archbishop Newcome puts a different sense on the last clause, thus: “Solitude shall reign in the house; and if one is left, he must be silent (see Amos 8:3) and retired, lest he be plundered of his scanty provisions.” For behold, the Lord commandeth — Gives forth his commands to the enemy, namely, the Assyrians, to come against Israel. And he will smite the great house, and the little house, &c. — People of all ranks, high and low, shall be sufferers in the common calamities.

Ver. 10. He that burneth him. The heathen custom of burning the dead, to preserve the ashes in urns, was now obtaining among the jews, which is here satirised by the prophet.

7, 11, 8, 9, 10, which in some respects is an improvement over the present arrangement. As the verses stand now they illustrate the extent of the judgment and the resulting terror. It shall come to pass — When the city is delivered up to the invader. While there is agreement concerning the general import of verse 9, there is difference of opinion respecting details. Some interpret: Even large families, having as many as ten members, will be completely blotted out. Others see in house a reference to the large households of the nobles. If of these, numbering perhaps hundreds of people, ten should escape the terrors of the siege, they will be slain in the slaughter following the capture. Or, if ten should escape the slaughter, they will surely perish in the pestilence following the slaughter. Verse 10 carries further the thoughts of verse 9, calling special attention to the effect of the judgment upon the survivors. R.V. translates more accurately, “And when a man’s uncle shall take him up, even he that burneth him, to bring out the bones out of the house, and shall say unto him that is in the innermost parts of the house, Is there yet any with thee? and he shall say, No; then shall he say, Hold thy peace; for we may not make mention of the name of Jehovah.” Uncle — Perhaps better, R.V. margin, “kinsman.” All the members of the immediate family having perished, a more distant relative comes to care for the body. He that burneth him — Literally, his burner. A.V. considers this a separate person, accompanying the kinsman. R.V., more correctly, identifies the two. It would seem most natural to see here a reference to cremation; but that method of disposing of the dead does not seem to have been prevalent among the Israelites. Criminals were, indeed, burned (Leviticus 20:14; Joshua 7:15); so were Saul and his sons (1 Samuel 31:12), but these were exceptional cases. If cremation is in the mind of the prophet, it must be because he expected conditions to become such as to make burial impossible, either because the dead would be too numerous, or because the enemies would prevent it. An alternative rendering is, “who burneth for him,” that is, incense; which would make the expression a reference to the burning of incense in honor of the dead (Jeremiah 34:5; 2 Chronicles 16:14). Bring out the bones — The corpse, to care for it. The sides — Better R.V., “the innermost parts.” Set apart for the women (compare Psalm 128:3); in this part the lone survivor has taken refuge. As the kinsman pursues his solemn task he discovers the terrified individual. Is there yet any with thee — Dead or alive. The answer is, No. Hold thy tongue [“peace”] — Literally, hush. The speaker is the survivor who, in his anxiety and despair, attempts to silence the kinsman. Then shall he say — Literally, and he shall say. The subject is again the survivor. The verb is repeated to separate “two parts of the answer which have no immediate connection with each other.” We may not — Or, we must not. The reason for the prohibition is not quite clear. Perhaps the speaker had a superstitious fear that the mention of the divine name would result in additional judgment. The sense is little altered if the words “Hold thy peace…” are placed in the mouth of the kinsman, who, by the prohibition would seek to prevent the terrified survivor from adding to his No a formula of confirmation containing the divine name. To consider the words an explanatory statement by Amos is less natural.

V. 11. For behold-It seems to be the continued speech of him who took care of the dead, ver. 10, God hath sent out war, famine, and pestilence. The great house-The palaces of great men shall have great breaches made in them, and the cottages of poor men shall, by lesser strokes, be ruined.

Verse 11. He will smote the great house with breaches] The great and small shall equally suffer; no distinction shall be made; rich and poor shall fall together; death has received his commission, and he will spare none. Horace has a sentiment precisely like this, Carm. Lib. i., Od. iv., v. 13. Pallida mors æquo pulsat pede pauperum TABERNAS,

Regumque TURRES.

With equal pace impartial fate

Knocks at the palace as the cottage gate.

But this may refer particularly to the houses of the poor in Eastern countries; their mud walls being frequently full of clefts; the earth of which they are built seldom adhering together because of its sandiness.

Verses 9-11. If there remain ten men in one house, &c. — Those that escape the hands of the enemy shall die by the pestilence. And a man’s uncle (or kinsman) shall take him up — Some friend or relation, whose duty it is to perform the last offices for the deceased, shall take him up directly and burn him: for so it should be rendered, and not, AND HE THAT burneth him. The meaning is, that he should not stay to perfume the body with rich ointments, as was the usual custom; nor should he bury it, but burn it to ashes, to prevent infection. To bring out the bones out of the house, &c. — Or rather, that he may bring out, &c., that is, that he may, as soon as possible, cleanse the house by the removal of the body. All that is said here, is strongly expressive of what is the case where a deadly pestilence rages. And shall say unto him that is by the sides of the house — Or near the house, out of which the bones are carried; Is there any yet with thee — Is there any yet living besides thyself belonging to this house? And he shall say, No — All the inhabitants of the house are dead. Then shall he say, Hold thy tongue; for we may not make mention of the name of the Lord — As this clause has no immediate connection with, or relation to, the negative answer contained in the preceding clause, it is to be supposed that when the person has given that answer, and said that there was none left alive in the house, he utters, as is natural, some prayer to God for mercy or deliverance; on which the other speaks to him in this manner: as much as to say, It is in vain now to pray, or make supplication; for God will not now hear us, but we also shall be cut off by this dreadful pestilence, as the rest have been. Archbishop Newcome puts a different sense on the last clause, thus: “Solitude shall reign in the house; and if one is left, he must be silent (see Amos 8:3) and retired, lest he be plundered of his scanty provisions.” For behold, the Lord commandeth — Gives forth his commands to the enemy, namely, the Assyrians, to come against Israel. And he will smite the great house, and the little house, &c. — People of all ranks, high and low, shall be sufferers in the common calamities.

Verse 11 is the continuation of the sentence in verse 8. For, behold, Jehovah commandeth — The invader (14). The words are added to make the transition between 10 and 11 less abrupt, but there is no reason for denying them to Amos. Great house — Used collectively; the palaces of the nobles (Amos 3:15). Little house — The less pretentious dwellings. With breaches — Or, into fragments. With clefts — Or, into splinters. Palaces and huts will suffer the same fate.

The connection of verses 12-14 with the preceding does not appear on the surface; nevertheless there exists a logical connection. The threat seems to be without effect, and the people, boasting in their own strength, show no concern. Have they not been successful against the mighty Damascus? Let the invader come; they will soon drive him from their borders. Such boast, the prophet says, is absurd (12a), because they have forfeited the support of Jehovah through disobedience to his will (12b); besides, they overestimate their past successes and present resources (13). The invader will surely come and overrun the whole country (14).

V. 12. Shall horses-If prophets exhort or advise, it does no more good than if you would run your horses upon the precipices of rocks.

Verse 12. Shall horses run upon the rock] First, they could not do it, because they were unshod; for the shoeing of horses with iron was not then known. Secondly, If they did run on the rock, it would be useless to their owner, and hurtful to themselves. Thirdly, And it would be as useless to plough on the rock with oxen; for there it would be impossible to sow with any advantage. Fourthly, Just as useless and injurious would it be to put gall in the place of judgment, and hemlock in the place of righteousness. You have not only been labouring in vain for yourselves, but you have also been oppressive to others; and for both ye shall suffer.

Verse 12. Shall horses run upon the rock? — “Is it possible that horses should run upon the steep and craggy cliffs? So impossible is it that ye Israelites should continue to prosper, while ye remain thus sinful.” — Bishop Hall. Or, “as horses and oxen are useless in such places, so are ye evidently useless to God.” — Grotius. Several other interpretations are given of this obscure verse. Mr. Scott’s is, “It was as perilous to endeavour to reform the people as it would be to ride a race on the top of a craggy rock, where both horses and horsemen would be in danger of being killed; and as vain as to plough there with oxen, when no impression could be made or increase expected.” For ye have turned judgment into gall, &c. — Ye have rendered the administration of public justice as bitter as gall, and the fruit of righteousness, or the observance of religious ceremonies, as poisonous as hemlock.

12. Shall horses run upon the rock? — Or, cliff. The answer is an emphatic No. The attempt would result in the horses’ undoing. Will one plow there with oxen? — Again the answer is, No. The plow would be broken and the oxen hurt. Every one of Amos’s hearers would see the absurdity of doing these things. So, the prophet means to say, it is equally absurd for you to expect the divine help while you arouse Jehovah’s anger by perverting justice and righteousness, or to trust in your own resources, whose true value you overestimate greatly; your past successes do not warrant the present optimism. The second question is literally, “Will one plow with oxen?” The answer to this is in the affirmative. The context, however, as already suggested, demands a negative answer. To remove the difficulty the English translators added “there,” that is, upon the rock, which meets the demands of the context, and upon this addition the above interpretation is based. Most recent commentators, following the suggestion of Michaelis, divide the last word in Hebrew into two and make a slight change in the vowel points, which results in the reading, “Will one plow the sea with oxen?” This meets the demands of the context, and gives excellent sense. For — Better, R.V., “that.” Judgment [“justice”]… righteousness — See on Amos 5:7. Turned… into gall — In defiance of all prophetic exhortations. Gall is the same word as in Hosea 10:4, where the translation is “hemlock” (see there). Fruit — Result or effect. Hemlock [“wormwood”] — See on Amos 5:7. The effects of a faithful administration of justice are always wholesome and desirable; by an unfaithful administration the Israelites have made the effects undesirable and detrimental. For this reason they can expect no help from Jehovah.

V. 13. Who rejoice-In your victories, alliances, and idols. Have we not-We have raised ourselves to greatness by our wisdom and courage.

Verse 13. Ye which rejoice in a thing of naught] In your idols: for an idol is nothing in the world.

Have we not taken to us horns] We have arrived to power and dignity by our strength. Horns were the symbols of power and authority. So Horace:—

Vina parant animos: tum pauper cornua sumet.

“Wine repairs our strength, and furnishes the poor with horns.” At such times they think themselves as great as the greatest.

Verses 13, 14. Ye which rejoice in a thing of naught — Ye who place confidence in your strength, which will avail you nothing when God withdraws his blessing from you; which say, Have we not taken to us horns by our strength? — Have we not, by our strength, been victors over our neighbours? This boast seems chiefly founded upon the success which Jeroboam II. had in restoring the ancient dominion of Israel, and recovering it from the Syrians, who had brought them very low: see 2 Kings 13:3, 7, and 14:15. But behold, I will raise up against you a nation, &c. — The Assyrians were the nation here spoken of, who, it is here denounced, should afflict them from one end of the land to the other; which they accordingly did some time after, making an entire conquest of the country. Hamath was the boundary of the land of Israel to the north: see Numbers 34:8; 2 Kings 14:25: and the river of the wilderness, by which is meant the river Nile, or, as it is called, Joshua 15:47, the river of Egypt, was the southern boundary.

13. Will their own resources be sufficient? Certainly not. Rejoice — In a spirit of boasting. A thing of naught — Literally, no-thing. Something that has no real existence. Here not equivalent to idol (Deuteronomy 32:21), but their own wealth and resources, which are only temporary, and will fail when most needed. Horns — Symbols of power

(Deuteronomy 33:17; 1 Kings 22:11; Jeremiah 48:25). Take horns — acquire power. By our own strength — Without assistance from God or man. The marvelous successes of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25ff.; see Introduction, p. 197) might cause the unthinking to boast in the national strength; Amos declares it will speedily vanish; he places, indeed, a low estimate upon the strength of Israel. He justifies his pessimism in verse 14 by once more calling attention to the determination of Jehovah to overthrow Israel by an enemy against whom resistance will be vain. This interpretation of verse 13 is quite satisfactory, but a few recent commentators, following Graetz, take the two words translated “a thing of naught” and “horns” as proper nouns, names of two cities east of the Jordan, in whose conquest the Israelites boasted. The first — Hebrews lo-dabhar — is identified with Lo-debar (2 Samuel 9:4, 5; 17:27), the second — Hebrews karnayim — with Karnaim (1 Macc. 5:26), called Ashteroth Karnaim in Genesis 14:5. It is thought that the two places were among the recent conquests of Jeroboam, and that these were selected rather than more important localities on account of the suggestiveness of their names.

V. 14. Hemath-A city of Syria, bordering on Israel, north-east. The wilderness-Which is the south-west parts of Canaan. So all your country shall be destroyed.

Verse 14. I will raise up against you a nation] The Assyrians under Pul, Tiglath-pileser, and Shalmaneser, who subdued the Israelites at various times, and at last carried them away captive in the days of Hosea, the last king of Israel in Samaria.

From the entering in of Hamath (on the north) unto the river of the wilderness.] Besor, which empties itself into the sea, not far from Gaza, and was in the southern part of the tribe of Simeon.

AMOS

Verses 13, 14. Ye which rejoice in a thing of naught — Ye who place confidence in your strength, which will avail you nothing when God withdraws his blessing from you; which say, Have we not taken to us horns by our strength? — Have we not, by our strength, been victors over our neighbours? This boast seems chiefly founded upon the success which Jeroboam II. had in restoring the ancient dominion of Israel, and recovering it from the Syrians, who had brought them very low: see 2 Kings 13:3, 7, and 14:15. But behold, I will raise up against you a nation, &c. — The Assyrians were the nation here spoken of, who, it is here denounced, should afflict them from one end of the land to the other; which they accordingly did some time after, making an entire conquest of the country. Hamath was the boundary of the land of Israel to the north: see Numbers 34:8; 2 Kings 14:25: and the river of the wilderness, by which is meant the river Nile, or, as it is called, Joshua 15:47, the river of Egypt, was the southern boundary.

Ver. 14. I will raise up against you a nation. The Assyrians should overspread the whole land, from Hamath, in the north-west passage, to the river leading to Egypt.

14. But — Better, R.V., “For.” Behold, I will — See on Amos 2:13. Raise up — As an agent to execute judgment (Habakkuk 1:6). A nation — See at the close of comment on Amos 2:16. Jehovah the God of hosts — The solemn address, the introduction of Jehovah as speaker, the divine title, all combine to add weight to the threat. Afflict — Literally, crush. Used frequently of foreign oppression (Exodus 3:9; Judges 4:3). Entering in of Hemath — R.V., “the entrance of Hamath.” On Hamath see Amos 6:2. The entrance of Hamath is a very indefinite geographical term, but it is generally identified with the mouth of the pass between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, which was considered the starting point of the road to Hamath. This was the northern limit of the territory promised to Israel (Numbers 34:8), and to this point Jeroboam II extended his borders (2 Kings 14:25f.). River of the wilderness — Better, R.V., “brook of the Arabah.” The Arabah (see Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, article “Arabah”) is, in a wider sense, the entire depression through which flows the Jordan and in which are located the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, and which extends to the Gulf of Akabah, the eastern arm of the Red Sea. In a narrower sense the term applies only to the part of the declension between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Akabah. Opinions differ concerning the identification of the brook of the Arabah. Evidently it marks the southern limit of Israel (not Judah), and is practically equivalent to sea of the Arabah in 2 Kings 14:25. The latter is undoubtedly identical with the Dead Sea (Deuteronomy 3:17), but by no stretch of the imagination can the Dead Sea be called a brook. The brook must be one flowing into the Dead Sea, but where? It has been identified with the Arnon, flowing into the Dead Sea about halfway down its eastern shore. Most commonly it has been identified with the wady el Ahsa, flowing into the Arabah from the southeast about three miles south of the Dead Sea, then turning northward and emptying into the latter. To this identification G.A. Smith objects, not without reason, on the ground that the wady was outside the territory of Israel; it marked the boundary line between Moab and Edom, not between Israel and another country. It could mark the southern border of Israel only if Jeroboam had conquered Moab, but evidence of such conquest is lacking. It seems more natural to look for the brook of the Arabah near the northern boundary of Moab. The Arnon meets this condition (Numbers 21:13). Some commentators believe the brook to be one of the streams flowing into the Dead Sea in its northeastern part, while they understand 2 Kings 14:25, to mean that Jeroboam extended the territory “as far as the Dead Sea.” In any case, Amos means to say that the entire territory, from its northern to its southern limits, will be wasted by an invader.

With this announcement of utter ruin closes the main part of the Book of Amos. The prophet endeavored to lead the people to repentance, but apparently all his efforts have failed. The leaders show no sign of contrition, and the people continue rebellious.