Amos · Chapter 7

V. 1. Thus-This is the first of five prophetic representations of what was coming upon this people. The latter growth-The shooting up of the first growth being too luxuriant, they often eat it down with cattle; but if the second growth were eat up, it marred the whole harvest. Mowed-It is supposed the first mowing of the corn in the blade was for the king’s use; and after this the second springing grew up to the harvest.

Verse 1. Behold, he formed grasshoppers] ybg gobai is generally understood here to signify locusts. See the notes on Joel 1:1-2:32. The shooting up of the latter growth] The early crop of grass had been already mowed and housed. The second crop or rowing, as it is called in some places, was not yet begun. By the king’s mowings we may understand the first crop, a portion of which the king probably claimed as being the better hay; but the words may signify simply the prime crop, that which is the best of the whole. Houbigant thinks the shearing of the king’s sheep is meant.

Verse 1. Thus hath the Lord showed unto me — The Lord also showed me the following things. Here the prophet mentions the first of five prophetic representations of what was coming upon this people. He formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the latter growth — He appeared to me as bringing a vast multitude of grasshoppers upon the land at the season when the grass begins to shoot again after the first mowing. Though this be spoken in a literal sense of a plague of grasshoppers, yet some commentators think it is to be understood metaphorically, and that by the grasshoppers is meant the army of Pul, king of Assyria, mentioned 2 Kings 15:19. After the king’s mowings — It is supposed that the first crop of grass was set apart for the use of the king’s stables.

Verse 1. He formed grasshoppers, which are the same as the locusts.— After the king’s mowings. It is supposed that the first grass, or the proud corn cut with the scythe, was a tribute to the king. Now, the locusts falling on the wheat, which shot up immediately afterwards, would make fatal havock of the hopes of that year. See Harmer, vol. 2:466.

1-3. The swarm of locusts. The Lord Jehovah — See on Amos 1:8. Showed unto me — Literally, caused me to see — presented in a vision. A just regard for the language forbids the interpretation of the form in which the truths are presented in these chapters purely as a literary device, adopted by the prophet to express in a forceful manner certain truths and convictions which impressed themselves upon him as the result of ordinary processes of thinking. The vision is mentioned as one of the divine means of communication (Numbers 12:6), and the reality of such visions cannot be denied. Modern psychological researches have made possible a clearer understanding of the nature of these visions. The prophet, meditating upon the nature and character of Jehovah, the divine claims upon Israel, and the people’s failure to recognize these claims, became so lost in contemplation that he fell into a trance, when all external objects were entirely removed from his mental horizon, he being alive only to the subject uppermost in his heart and mind. While in this sensitive mood, receptive to anything related to the subject of his contemplation, there was impressed upon him, in the form of calamities familiar to the prophet, the certainty of the nation’s doom. He in turn presented the pictures to the people. He formed — Literally, was forming. Amos saw the process. LXX. apparently reads in the place of the verb a noun, “a swarm” or “a brood” (of locusts). Grasshoppers — R.V., “locusts.” The word used here occurs again only in Nahum 3:17. Many think that it is descriptive of locusts in the larva stage, when they are first hatched, but this is not certain. For other terms see on Joel 1:4. The latter growth — The exact meaning of the Hebrew word is doubtful. It is from the same root as a word translated latter rain — the rain falling in March and April (Joel 2:23); and the word used here is thought by some to refer to the spring crops, which mature quickly after the fall of the latter rain. After the fall rains the seed springs up and begins to grow, but the growth is checked by the cold of the winter months; in the early spring the rise in temperature and the latter rain put new life into vegetation. Others interpret the word as referring to the aftermath, the second growth after one crop has been gathered. This is the meaning suggested by the English translations. After the king’s mowings — Whichever translation of the preceding word is accepted, these words, if they are a correct reproduction of the original, must mean that the first crop went to the king as a sort of taxation (1 Kings 18:5; compare 1 Kings 4:7); only the second growth went to the people. While the people were preparing to gather their share the locusts appeared and threatened to devour all. To this interpretation two objections may be raised: (1) It is not certain that it was customary for the king to claim the first crops; the passages quoted in support are not conclusive. (2) The interpretation causes Amos to contradict himself. Everywhere else he makes the king and the nobles suffer most severely (compare verse 9), here he would exempt the king from all judgment; he allows him to gather his share, only the people he makes to suffer. The second objection holds good against another interpretation, which makes king’s mowings a designation of the harvest season; the mowing of the royal fields would be the signal that the proper time for mowing had arrived, but out of respect for the king the common people waited until his fields had been mowed. The weakness of this interpretation is shown also by the last suggestion. Respect for the king cannot have been a sufficient reason for letting crops become overripe.

The difficulties vanish if the word translated “mowings” is given a different meaning. It comes from a root meaning originally to shear (sheep); only in a secondary sense is it used of the shearing of the fields — mowing. If the primary meaning is retained here the time indicated is after the king’s sheep-shearings. The shearing of the king’s sheep may have been a signal for others to do the same, and this may have become a common designation of the shearing season. If thus interpreted the words determine more definitely the time when the plague of locusts appeared. The spring rains had fallen, vegetation looked promising; but after the sheep-shearing season, perhaps in the late spring, a swarm of locusts covered the land, threatening to destroy completely the spring crops. When they had made an end — The Hebrew underlying this translation is peculiar. Besides, it requires the assumption that a second calamity appeared before the mental vision of the prophet; for it (verse 3) cannot refer to a calamity already past. A slight emendation results in “as they were making an end,” that is, as they were proceeding to ravage the country, but before they accomplished it. A similar meaning, “when they were on the point of devouring,” is given to the present Hebrew text by Mitchell, but this seems grammatically impossible. Grass — Better, herb (as in Genesis 1:11, 12, 29, etc.); it includes all vegetation.

Seeing that complete devastation is imminent, the prophet appeals for mercy (compare Numbers 14:19). Forgive — The petition shows that Amos thought of Jehovah not exclusively as a stern, uncompassionate judge. The reason for the plea is added. Jacob — The people of Israel cannot endure such calamity; they would never recover from it. Small — Their resources are limited. LXX. and other versions read, “Who shall raise up Jacob?” Repented — An anthropomorphism like “swear” (Amos 4:2; see on Joel 2:13). Jehovah responded to the prophet’s prayer. This — Not some new, unnamed calamity, but the plague of locusts, which was still in its initial stage. It shall not be — Shall not be allowed to proceed.

V. 2. It came to pass-In the vision. By whom-How shall any of Jacob escape, if thou dost cast him down?

Verse 2. By whom shall Jacob arise?] The locusts, the symbols of the many enemies that had impoverished Jerusalem, having devoured much of the produce of the land, were proceeding, till, at the intercession of the prophet, they were removed. Then, seeing in the light of prophecy the nation in every sense brought low, he cries, “By whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.” Calmet justly remarks: “After the death of Jeroboam the second, the kingdom, so flourishing and powerful before, was reduced to such weakness that it was obliged to have recourse to strangers for support. Menahem applied to Pul, king of Assyria, whence arose the final misery of the state.

Verses 2, 3. When they had made an end of eating the grass — With us grasshoppers are not hurtful, but those in our text were locusts, as the word ybg, here used, is rendered, Isaiah 33:4: in which sense the word is understood by the Vulgate and Houbigant: see also Nab. 3:17. By whom shall Jacob arise? — Or, who shall raise up Jacob; for he is small? — If thou suffer these calamities to proceed to extremities, by what means shall the small remains of the riches and strength of the kingdom be rescued from utter destruction? The Lord repented for this, &c. — The prophet here informs us, that it was represented to him in his vision, that the Lord was pleased to hearken to his earnest supplication, and to promise that the threatened judgment should not proceed to an utter destruction of the whole kingdom. Those who suppose all this to be metaphorically expressed, understand this of Pul’s being induced by a sum of money to depart out of the land, as we read 2 Kings 15:20: but it may be understood of a threatened judgment of locusts and other insects, which was deprecated by the prophet’s prayers, and so not executed.

1-3. The swarm of locusts. The Lord Jehovah — See on Amos 1:8. Showed unto me — Literally, caused me to see — presented in a vision. A just regard for the language forbids the interpretation of the form in which the truths are presented in these chapters purely as a literary device, adopted by the prophet to express in a forceful manner certain truths and convictions which impressed themselves upon him as the result of ordinary processes of thinking. The vision is mentioned as one of the divine means of communication (Numbers 12:6), and the reality of such visions cannot be denied. Modern psychological researches have made possible a clearer understanding of the nature of these visions. The prophet, meditating upon the nature and character of Jehovah, the divine claims upon Israel, and the people’s failure to recognize these claims, became so lost in contemplation that he fell into a trance, when all external objects were entirely removed from his mental horizon, he being alive only to the subject uppermost in his heart and mind. While in this sensitive mood, receptive to anything related to the subject of his contemplation, there was impressed upon him, in the form of calamities familiar to the prophet, the certainty of the nation’s doom. He in turn presented the pictures to the people. He formed — Literally, was forming. Amos saw the process. LXX. apparently reads in the place of the verb a noun, “a swarm” or “a brood” (of locusts). Grasshoppers — R.V., “locusts.” The word used here occurs again only in Nahum 3:17. Many think that it is descriptive of locusts in the larva stage, when they are first hatched, but this is not certain. For other terms see on Joel 1:4. The latter growth — The exact meaning of the Hebrew word is doubtful. It is from the same root as a word translated latter rain — the rain falling in March and April (Joel 2:23); and the word used here is thought by some to refer to the spring crops, which mature quickly after the fall of the latter rain. After the fall rains the seed springs up and begins to grow, but the growth is checked by the cold of the winter months; in the early spring the rise in temperature and the latter rain put new life into vegetation. Others interpret the word as referring to the aftermath, the second growth after one crop has been gathered. This is the meaning suggested by the English translations. After the king’s mowings — Whichever translation of the preceding word is accepted, these words, if they are a correct reproduction of the original, must mean that the first crop went to the king as a sort of taxation (1 Kings 18:5; compare 1 Kings 4:7); only the second growth went to the people. While the people were preparing to gather their share the locusts appeared and threatened to devour all. To this interpretation two objections may be raised: (1) It is not certain that it was customary for the king to claim the first crops; the passages quoted in support are not conclusive. (2) The interpretation causes Amos to contradict himself. Everywhere else he makes the king and the nobles suffer most severely (compare verse 9), here he would exempt the king from all judgment; he allows him to gather his share, only the people he makes to suffer. The second objection holds good against another interpretation, which makes king’s mowings a designation of the harvest season; the mowing of the royal fields would be the signal that the proper time for mowing had arrived, but out of respect for the king the common people waited until his fields had been mowed. The weakness of this interpretation is shown also by the last suggestion. Respect for the king cannot have been a sufficient reason for letting crops become overripe.

The difficulties vanish if the word translated “mowings” is given a different meaning. It comes from a root meaning originally to shear (sheep); only in a secondary sense is it used of the shearing of the fields — mowing. If the primary meaning is retained here the time indicated is after the king’s sheep-shearings. The shearing of the king’s sheep may have been a signal for others to do the same, and this may have become a common designation of the shearing season. If thus interpreted the words determine more definitely the time when the plague of locusts appeared. The spring rains had fallen, vegetation looked promising; but after the sheep-shearing season, perhaps in the late spring, a swarm of locusts covered the land, threatening to destroy completely the spring crops. When they had made an end — The Hebrew underlying this translation is peculiar. Besides, it requires the assumption that a second calamity appeared before the mental vision of the prophet; for it (verse 3) cannot refer to a calamity already past. A slight emendation results in “as they were making an end,” that is, as they were proceeding to ravage the country, but before they accomplished it. A similar meaning, “when they were on the point of devouring,” is given to the present Hebrew text by Mitchell, but this seems grammatically impossible. Grass — Better, herb (as in Genesis 1:11, 12, 29, etc.); it includes all vegetation.

Seeing that complete devastation is imminent, the prophet appeals for mercy (compare Numbers 14:19). Forgive — The petition shows that Amos thought of Jehovah not exclusively as a stern, uncompassionate judge. The reason for the plea is added. Jacob — The people of Israel cannot endure such calamity; they would never recover from it. Small — Their resources are limited. LXX. and other versions read, “Who shall raise up Jacob?” Repented — An anthropomorphism like “swear” (Amos 4:2; see on Joel 2:13). Jehovah responded to the prophet’s prayer. This — Not some new, unnamed calamity, but the plague of locusts, which was still in its initial stage. It shall not be — Shall not be allowed to proceed.

V. 3. Repented-This is spoken after the manner of men.

Verse 3. The Lord repented] Changed his purpose of destroying them by the locusts. See Amos 7:6.

Verses 2, 3. When they had made an end of eating the grass — With us grasshoppers are not hurtful, but those in our text were locusts, as the word ybg, here used, is rendered, Isaiah 33:4: in which sense the word is understood by the Vulgate and Houbigant: see also Nab. 3:17. By whom shall Jacob arise? — Or, who shall raise up Jacob; for he is small? — If thou suffer these calamities to proceed to extremities, by what means shall the small remains of the riches and strength of the kingdom be rescued from utter destruction? The Lord repented for this, &c. — The prophet here informs us, that it was represented to him in his vision, that the Lord was pleased to hearken to his earnest supplication, and to promise that the threatened judgment should not proceed to an utter destruction of the whole kingdom. Those who suppose all this to be metaphorically expressed, understand this of Pul’s being induced by a sum of money to depart out of the land, as we read 2 Kings 15:20: but it may be understood of a threatened judgment of locusts and other insects, which was deprecated by the prophet’s prayers, and so not executed.

1-3. The swarm of locusts. The Lord Jehovah — See on Amos 1:8. Showed unto me — Literally, caused me to see — presented in a vision. A just regard for the language forbids the interpretation of the form in which the truths are presented in these chapters purely as a literary device, adopted by the prophet to express in a forceful manner certain truths and convictions which impressed themselves upon him as the result of ordinary processes of thinking. The vision is mentioned as one of the divine means of communication (Numbers 12:6), and the reality of such visions cannot be denied. Modern psychological researches have made possible a clearer understanding of the nature of these visions. The prophet, meditating upon the nature and character of Jehovah, the divine claims upon Israel, and the people’s failure to recognize these claims, became so lost in contemplation that he fell into a trance, when all external objects were entirely removed from his mental horizon, he being alive only to the subject uppermost in his heart and mind. While in this sensitive mood, receptive to anything related to the subject of his contemplation, there was impressed upon him, in the form of calamities familiar to the prophet, the certainty of the nation’s doom. He in turn presented the pictures to the people. He formed — Literally, was forming. Amos saw the process. LXX. apparently reads in the place of the verb a noun, “a swarm” or “a brood” (of locusts). Grasshoppers — R.V., “locusts.” The word used here occurs again only in Nahum 3:17. Many think that it is descriptive of locusts in the larva stage, when they are first hatched, but this is not certain. For other terms see on Joel 1:4. The latter growth — The exact meaning of the Hebrew word is doubtful. It is from the same root as a word translated latter rain — the rain falling in March and April (Joel 2:23); and the word used here is thought by some to refer to the spring crops, which mature quickly after the fall of the latter rain. After the fall rains the seed springs up and begins to grow, but the growth is checked by the cold of the winter months; in the early spring the rise in temperature and the latter rain put new life into vegetation. Others interpret the word as referring to the aftermath, the second growth after one crop has been gathered. This is the meaning suggested by the English translations. After the king’s mowings — Whichever translation of the preceding word is accepted, these words, if they are a correct reproduction of the original, must mean that the first crop went to the king as a sort of taxation (1 Kings 18:5; compare 1 Kings 4:7); only the second growth went to the people. While the people were preparing to gather their share the locusts appeared and threatened to devour all. To this interpretation two objections may be raised: (1) It is not certain that it was customary for the king to claim the first crops; the passages quoted in support are not conclusive. (2) The interpretation causes Amos to contradict himself. Everywhere else he makes the king and the nobles suffer most severely (compare verse 9), here he would exempt the king from all judgment; he allows him to gather his share, only the people he makes to suffer. The second objection holds good against another interpretation, which makes king’s mowings a designation of the harvest season; the mowing of the royal fields would be the signal that the proper time for mowing had arrived, but out of respect for the king the common people waited until his fields had been mowed. The weakness of this interpretation is shown also by the last suggestion. Respect for the king cannot have been a sufficient reason for letting crops become overripe.

The difficulties vanish if the word translated “mowings” is given a different meaning. It comes from a root meaning originally to shear (sheep); only in a secondary sense is it used of the shearing of the fields — mowing. If the primary meaning is retained here the time indicated is after the king’s sheep-shearings. The shearing of the king’s sheep may have been a signal for others to do the same, and this may have become a common designation of the shearing season. If thus interpreted the words determine more definitely the time when the plague of locusts appeared. The spring rains had fallen, vegetation looked promising; but after the sheep-shearing season, perhaps in the late spring, a swarm of locusts covered the land, threatening to destroy completely the spring crops. When they had made an end — The Hebrew underlying this translation is peculiar. Besides, it requires the assumption that a second calamity appeared before the mental vision of the prophet; for it (verse 3) cannot refer to a calamity already past. A slight emendation results in “as they were making an end,” that is, as they were proceeding to ravage the country, but before they accomplished it. A similar meaning, “when they were on the point of devouring,” is given to the present Hebrew text by Mitchell, but this seems grammatically impossible. Grass — Better, herb (as in Genesis 1:11, 12, 29, etc.); it includes all vegetation.

Seeing that complete devastation is imminent, the prophet appeals for mercy (compare Numbers 14:19). Forgive — The petition shows that Amos thought of Jehovah not exclusively as a stern, uncompassionate judge. The reason for the plea is added. Jacob — The people of Israel cannot endure such calamity; they would never recover from it. Small — Their resources are limited. LXX. and other versions read, “Who shall raise up Jacob?” Repented — An anthropomorphism like “swear” (Amos 4:2; see on Joel 2:13). Jehovah responded to the prophet’s prayer. This — Not some new, unnamed calamity, but the plague of locusts, which was still in its initial stage. It shall not be — Shall not be allowed to proceed.

V. 4. Shewed-In vision. Called-Commanded fire from heaven. A part-Of the land too.

Verse 4. The Lord God called to contend by fire] Permitted war, both civil and foreign, to harass the land, after the death of Jeroboam the second. These wars would have totally destroyed it, had not the prophet interceded.

It devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.] We are here to understand the partially destructive wars which afterwards took place; for the Lord causes all these things to pass before the eyes of Amos in the vision of prophecy; and intimates that, at the intercession of his prophets, total ruin should be prevented.

Verses 4-6. The Lord God called to contend by fire, &c. — This represented a sorer judgment than the former, and, in the opinion of some expositors, denoted the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, who carried a great part of Israel away captive, 2 Kings 15:29, and so was properly represented by a raging fire, which consumed the sea by turning it into vapours, and then devoured a great part of the land. Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee, &c. — Here the prophet observes, that upon this judgment being represented to him in his vision, he made supplication to God as he had done before, and that God hearkened to him in this instance also, and promised that this judgment should not be executed, or should have a stop put to it.

4-6. The devouring fire — A second vision, presenting essentially the same truth as the first. Called to contend by fire — Called the fire to contend with it. Instead of the locusts Jehovah selected the fire as the agency through which to execute judgment. For representations of Jehovah as entering into judicial controversy with his people see Hosea 4:1; Micah 6:2; Isaiah 3:13-15. The imagery was suggested probably by conflagrations or by excessive summer heat accompanied by drought (see on Joel 1:20). The great deep — The deep subterranean waters upon which the earth was thought to rest, and which was thought to supply the water for springs and rivers (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 24:2, etc.). The fire or heat was so intense that the water dried up. The language is hyperbolical. And did eat up — Better, R.V., “and would have eaten up.” A part — R.V., “the land”; literally, the portion, the portion set apart for human habitation. The expression cannot be restricted to the land of Israel; it means the land as distinguished from the great deep. The land was about to be devoured, when the prophet interceded once more. Cease — Not “forgive” (verse 2). The provocation was too great; Amos felt that he did not dare ask for pardon; but perchance Jehovah might avert the final doom. And again Jehovah graciously granted the petition. The description is poetical but not allegorical. The imagery in the two visions was selected because plagues of locusts and disastrous conflagrations were familiar to the people.

Verses 4-6. The Lord God called to contend by fire, &c. — This represented a sorer judgment than the former, and, in the opinion of some expositors, denoted the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, who carried a great part of Israel away captive, 2 Kings 15:29, and so was properly represented by a raging fire, which consumed the sea by turning it into vapours, and then devoured a great part of the land. Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee, &c. — Here the prophet observes, that upon this judgment being represented to him in his vision, he made supplication to God as he had done before, and that God hearkened to him in this instance also, and promised that this judgment should not be executed, or should have a stop put to it.

4-6. The devouring fire — A second vision, presenting essentially the same truth as the first. Called to contend by fire — Called the fire to contend with it. Instead of the locusts Jehovah selected the fire as the agency through which to execute judgment. For representations of Jehovah as entering into judicial controversy with his people see Hosea 4:1; Micah 6:2; Isaiah 3:13-15. The imagery was suggested probably by conflagrations or by excessive summer heat accompanied by drought (see on Joel 1:20). The great deep — The deep subterranean waters upon which the earth was thought to rest, and which was thought to supply the water for springs and rivers (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 24:2, etc.). The fire or heat was so intense that the water dried up. The language is hyperbolical. And did eat up — Better, R.V., “and would have eaten up.” A part — R.V., “the land”; literally, the portion, the portion set apart for human habitation. The expression cannot be restricted to the land of Israel; it means the land as distinguished from the great deep. The land was about to be devoured, when the prophet interceded once more. Cease — Not “forgive” (verse 2). The provocation was too great; Amos felt that he did not dare ask for pardon; but perchance Jehovah might avert the final doom. And again Jehovah graciously granted the petition. The description is poetical but not allegorical. The imagery in the two visions was selected because plagues of locusts and disastrous conflagrations were familiar to the people.

Verses 4-6. The Lord God called to contend by fire, &c. — This represented a sorer judgment than the former, and, in the opinion of some expositors, denoted the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, who carried a great part of Israel away captive, 2 Kings 15:29, and so was properly represented by a raging fire, which consumed the sea by turning it into vapours, and then devoured a great part of the land. Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee, &c. — Here the prophet observes, that upon this judgment being represented to him in his vision, he made supplication to God as he had done before, and that God hearkened to him in this instance also, and promised that this judgment should not be executed, or should have a stop put to it.

4-6. The devouring fire — A second vision, presenting essentially the same truth as the first. Called to contend by fire — Called the fire to contend with it. Instead of the locusts Jehovah selected the fire as the agency through which to execute judgment. For representations of Jehovah as entering into judicial controversy with his people see Hosea 4:1; Micah 6:2; Isaiah 3:13-15. The imagery was suggested probably by conflagrations or by excessive summer heat accompanied by drought (see on Joel 1:20). The great deep — The deep subterranean waters upon which the earth was thought to rest, and which was thought to supply the water for springs and rivers (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 24:2, etc.). The fire or heat was so intense that the water dried up. The language is hyperbolical. And did eat up — Better, R.V., “and would have eaten up.” A part — R.V., “the land”; literally, the portion, the portion set apart for human habitation. The expression cannot be restricted to the land of Israel; it means the land as distinguished from the great deep. The land was about to be devoured, when the prophet interceded once more. Cease — Not “forgive” (verse 2). The provocation was too great; Amos felt that he did not dare ask for pardon; but perchance Jehovah might avert the final doom. And again Jehovah graciously granted the petition. The description is poetical but not allegorical. The imagery in the two visions was selected because plagues of locusts and disastrous conflagrations were familiar to the people.

V. 7. By a plumb-line-Strongly and beautifully built.

Verse 7. With a plumbline in his hand.] This appears to be intended as an emblem of strict justice, and intimated that God would now visit them according to their iniquities.

Verses 7-9. The Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumb-line — A wall strongly and beautifully built. God’s judgments are sometimes represented in Scripture by a line and a plummet, to denote that they are measured out by the exactest rules of justice. Behold, I will set a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel — I will exactly measure my people Israel; I will take a particular view of the whole kingdom of the ten tribes, and notice how far it is right, or how far it is out of order, and will judge and punish according to their sins. I will not again pass by them any more — I will not any longer pass over their transgressions. The high places of Isaac shall be desolate — The idolatrous altars and groves which they have erected at Beer-sheba, where their holy ancestor Jacob erected an altar to the true God, and devoutly worshipped him, shall be entirely spoiled and made desolate. And the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste — All the other places in Israel, set apart for idolatrous worship, shall also be entirely destroyed.

7-9. The master builder with the plumb line. The third vision differs from the preceding two in that it does not bring to view the judgment itself but Jehovah decreeing the same. Amos sees him as a master builder with plumb line in hand testing a city wall — a figure of Israel — as to its straightness. It is found crooked, and the decree goes forth that it must be torn down. Upon — R.V., “beside.” A wall made by a plumb line — Literally, a wall of a plumb line. The fact that the wall is now condemned cannot be used as an objection to the correctness of the reading. A wall may be built straight by the aid of a plummet, yet in time it may settle and become crooked. This is what happened to this wall; and if the latter represents Israel it is an accurate picture of the facts of Hebrew history (Hosea 9:10; 11:1, etc.). With a plumb line — He seeks to determine whether it is still straight and may be allowed to stand.

This time it is Jehovah who breaks the silence. To understand the lesson it was necessary that the prophet should not lose sight of any feature of the picture. To assure himself on this point and to prepare the way for the explanation Jehovah asks the question, What seest thou? — Compare 8:2; Jeremiah 1:11, 13. The answer being satisfactory, Jehovah proceeds with the explanation, retaining the figure of the plumb line but interpreting that of the wall. I will — Or, I am about to (Amos 2:13). Set a plumb line — The plumb line serves as a standard by which both to build and to tear down (2 Kings 13:13; Isaiah 34:11). Whatever cannot stand the test of the plummet is condemned to destruction. What was the result of the test in this instance is not definitely stated, but the fact that an announcement of judgment immediately follows indicates that Israel was found wanting. Pass by them — Without noticing and punishing their guilt (compare Amos 5:17). Jehovah gives no opportunity for intercession; and the prophet, recognizing the justice of the proceedings, has nothing more to say.

V. 8. Set a plumb-line-I will exactly measure the whole ten tribes. Pass by them-I will no more forbear, but will pull down all that is faulty.

Verse 8. I will set a plumbline] I will visit them by justice without any mixture of mercy.

Verses 7-9. The Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumb-line — A wall strongly and beautifully built. God’s judgments are sometimes represented in Scripture by a line and a plummet, to denote that they are measured out by the exactest rules of justice. Behold, I will set a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel — I will exactly measure my people Israel; I will take a particular view of the whole kingdom of the ten tribes, and notice how far it is right, or how far it is out of order, and will judge and punish according to their sins. I will not again pass by them any more — I will not any longer pass over their transgressions. The high places of Isaac shall be desolate — The idolatrous altars and groves which they have erected at Beer-sheba, where their holy ancestor Jacob erected an altar to the true God, and devoutly worshipped him, shall be entirely spoiled and made desolate. And the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste — All the other places in Israel, set apart for idolatrous worship, shall also be entirely destroyed.

7-9. The master builder with the plumb line. The third vision differs from the preceding two in that it does not bring to view the judgment itself but Jehovah decreeing the same. Amos sees him as a master builder with plumb line in hand testing a city wall — a figure of Israel — as to its straightness. It is found crooked, and the decree goes forth that it must be torn down. Upon — R.V., “beside.” A wall made by a plumb line — Literally, a wall of a plumb line. The fact that the wall is now condemned cannot be used as an objection to the correctness of the reading. A wall may be built straight by the aid of a plummet, yet in time it may settle and become crooked. This is what happened to this wall; and if the latter represents Israel it is an accurate picture of the facts of Hebrew history (Hosea 9:10; 11:1, etc.). With a plumb line — He seeks to determine whether it is still straight and may be allowed to stand.

This time it is Jehovah who breaks the silence. To understand the lesson it was necessary that the prophet should not lose sight of any feature of the picture. To assure himself on this point and to prepare the way for the explanation Jehovah asks the question, What seest thou? — Compare 8:2; Jeremiah 1:11, 13. The answer being satisfactory, Jehovah proceeds with the explanation, retaining the figure of the plumb line but interpreting that of the wall. I will — Or, I am about to (Amos 2:13). Set a plumb line — The plumb line serves as a standard by which both to build and to tear down (2 Kings 13:13; Isaiah 34:11). Whatever cannot stand the test of the plummet is condemned to destruction. What was the result of the test in this instance is not definitely stated, but the fact that an announcement of judgment immediately follows indicates that Israel was found wanting. Pass by them — Without noticing and punishing their guilt (compare Amos 5:17). Jehovah gives no opportunity for intercession; and the prophet, recognizing the justice of the proceedings, has nothing more to say.

V. 9. The high places-The temples on high mountains built to idols. Of Isaac-The seed of Isaac.

Verse 9. And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate] Their total destruction is at hand. The high place of Isaac was Beer-sheba, where Isaac had built an altar to the Lord, Genesis 26:25. This high place, which had been abused to idolatrous uses, was demolished by Josiah, king of Judah, as we read in 2 Kings 23:8, for he defiled all the high places from Geba to Beersheba.

I will rise against the house of Jeroboam] The Lord had promised to Jehu, the ancestor of Jeroboam, that his family should sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation. Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam, was the fourth in order after Jehu; and on him the threatening in this verse fell; for he was murdered by Shallum after he had reigned six months, and in him the family became extinct. See 2 Kings 10:30; 15:8-10.

Verses 7-9. The Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumb-line — A wall strongly and beautifully built. God’s judgments are sometimes represented in Scripture by a line and a plummet, to denote that they are measured out by the exactest rules of justice. Behold, I will set a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel — I will exactly measure my people Israel; I will take a particular view of the whole kingdom of the ten tribes, and notice how far it is right, or how far it is out of order, and will judge and punish according to their sins. I will not again pass by them any more — I will not any longer pass over their transgressions. The high places of Isaac shall be desolate — The idolatrous altars and groves which they have erected at Beer-sheba, where their holy ancestor Jacob erected an altar to the true God, and devoutly worshipped him, shall be entirely spoiled and made desolate. And the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste — All the other places in Israel, set apart for idolatrous worship, shall also be entirely destroyed.

Verse 9 describes the character of the judgment. It will strike with special force the religious centers and the ruling dynasty. High places — See on Hosea 4:13; Micah 1:5. Isaac — A poetic synonym of Israel (next clause; compare verse 16). Sanctuaries — See on Amos 4:4; 5:4; 8:14. They will be utterly destroyed (Amos 3:14). House of Jeroboam — The ruling dynasty (Introduction, p.195). Whether the judgment will come during the lifetime of Jeroboam or later is not stated (compare verse 11). Hosea also announces the doom of the same dynasty (Amos 1:4). On the fulfillment of the threat see p. 18. Sword — Of the invader (Amos 6:14).

The experience of Amos at Beth-el, 10-17.

The account of the fourth vision is separated from that of the third by an historical section, in which is recorded the experience of Amos at Beth-el. The incident related is closely connected with the vision immediately preceding. In connection with the latter Amos made startling announcements concerning the destiny of Israel and of the ruling dynasty. These aroused the resentment of the chief priest, who accused Amos of treason and sought to drive him from Beth-el. Amos refuses to go, however, and justifies himself and his message by an appeal to the divine call which impelled him to enter upon the prophetic career. Fearlessly he repeats the previous denunciations and adds a personal woe upon Amaziah and his family.

V. 10. In the midst-Openly, and publickly, endeavouring to stir up Israel to sedition or rebellion. The land-The people cannot bear all his harsh predictions.

Verse 10. Amaziah the priest of Beth-el] The idolatrous priest who had been established by the king to maintain the worship of the golden calves which Jeroboam the elder had set up at this place.

Amos hath conspired against thee] This was truly a lying prophet; there is not one word of truth in this message which he sent to Jeroboam. Amos had not conspired against the king—had not said that Jeroboam should die by the sword—and had not said that Israel should be carried away captive, though this last was implied in God’s threatening and afterwards delivered by this prophet; see Amos 7:17.

Verses 10, 11. Then Amaziah the priest of Beth-el sent to Jeroboam — This was a priest not of the tribe of Levi, but such a one as those were whom Jeroboam I. had consecrated to perform the idolatrous services at Beth-el: see 1 Kings 12:31. Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst, &c. — That is, in an open and barefaced manner. He represents the prophet as exciting sedition, because he denounced destruction against the kingdom, and threatened the house of Jeroboam. The same crime was objected to Jeremiah 26:9, 10; to Christ, Luke 23. 2; and to St. Paul, Acts 24:5. The land is not able to bear all his words — The friends of the government cannot patiently hear his words, and the enemies of it will take advantage from them to make some disturbance. If he proceed to speak in this manner, the inhabitants will be moved to take up arms against each other. For Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword — This was a perverting of the prophet’s words; for he did not prophesy against the king himself, but against his family, or posterity.

10-13. The opposition. Then — When Amos had uttered the startling announcements contained in verse 9. Amaziah the priest — Probably the chief priest at the sanctuary of Bethel. Nothing is known of him otherwise. Jeroboam — See Introduction, p. 195. Conspired — Not, has entered into conspiracy with others, but, his words are such as will result in conspiracy against the throne. Under normal conditions denunciation of the government and the prediction of the overthrow of the national institutions may rightly be considered treason; and to an unspiritual politician the words of Amos must have seemed treasonable, but the priest, a representative of Jehovah, should have understood the attitude of the prophet. In reality the latter was the only one who did not betray the best interests of the nation. It was only because he considered it essential to the welfare of the people that he was willing that the nation should be exiled and the dynasty overthrown, if only a pious remnant could be preserved to form a nucleus of a new kingdom of God. In the midst — At the very center of the national life; that is, at Beth-el, which was the religious center. Not able to bear — The message is so revolutionary, the priest means to say, that it will surely lead to serious disturbances. To prove his case he sends to the king a summary of Amos’s message. Jeroboam shall die by the sword — Not an exact reproduction of the words of Amos (verse 9). The manipulation may have been caused by a desire to arouse more readily the king’s resentment. Shall surely be led away captive — This the prophet had asserted repeatedly (Amos 5:5, 27; 6:7). Also Amaziah said — Nothing is said of Jeroboam’s attitude. Hence Amaziah’s attempt to silence Amos has been variously interpreted. Some think that Jeroboam took no notice of the priest’s message, or that the reply was not satisfactory, and that, therefore, Amaziah, who had reason to fear for his own position (verse 9), endeavored, on his own authority, to drive out Amos. Others think that it was at the king’s command that Amaziah bade Amos flee, though the authorization is not mentioned. Still others interpret the priest’s words as a friendly advice to the prophet to leave the country before the wrath of the king should be felt by him. The last interpretation is shown to be impossible by Amos’s reply in 14-17. It is, perhaps, best to suppose that Amaziah addressed Amos as soon as he had dispatched the messenger to the king. Having made an appeal to Jeroboam, he thought himself in a position to rid the country, in any manner whatever, of this “troubler of Israel.” Seer — According to 1 Samuel 9:9 (where a different word, though identical in meaning, is used), this is an older designation of the men called in later days prophets; here the word is used probably with a touch of sarcasm — visionary, fanatic. Land of Judah — The home of Amos (Introduction, p. 191). Eat bread — Make a living. The early seers made their living in much the same way as modern clairvoyants (1 Samuel 9:7, 8); and even among later prophets there were those who prophesied “for a reward” (Micah 3:5, 11; 1 Kings 22:13), who followed the adage, “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.” Such a one Amaziah took Amos to be. Prophesy there — In his own country Amos might say anything he pleased; Beth-el needed no prophet, its spiritual interests were well cared for. The king’s chapel — R.V., “sanctuary.” The king’s court — R.V., “a royal house.” From the time of Jeroboam I the sanctuary at Beth-el enjoyed the royal patronage (1 Kings 12:29, 32), and it is quite likely that the king had a palace there.

V. 11. Jeroboam shall die-He nowhere said so, but spake of his house distinguished from his person, as ver. 9.

Verses 10, 11. Then Amaziah the priest of Beth-el sent to Jeroboam — This was a priest not of the tribe of Levi, but such a one as those were whom Jeroboam I. had consecrated to perform the idolatrous services at Beth-el: see 1 Kings 12:31. Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst, &c. — That is, in an open and barefaced manner. He represents the prophet as exciting sedition, because he denounced destruction against the kingdom, and threatened the house of Jeroboam. The same crime was objected to Jeremiah 26:9, 10; to Christ, Luke 23. 2; and to St. Paul, Acts 24:5. The land is not able to bear all his words — The friends of the government cannot patiently hear his words, and the enemies of it will take advantage from them to make some disturbance. If he proceed to speak in this manner, the inhabitants will be moved to take up arms against each other. For Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword — This was a perverting of the prophet’s words; for he did not prophesy against the king himself, but against his family, or posterity.

10-13. The opposition. Then — When Amos had uttered the startling announcements contained in verse 9. Amaziah the priest — Probably the chief priest at the sanctuary of Bethel. Nothing is known of him otherwise. Jeroboam — See Introduction, p. 195. Conspired — Not, has entered into conspiracy with others, but, his words are such as will result in conspiracy against the throne. Under normal conditions denunciation of the government and the prediction of the overthrow of the national institutions may rightly be considered treason; and to an unspiritual politician the words of Amos must have seemed treasonable, but the priest, a representative of Jehovah, should have understood the attitude of the prophet. In reality the latter was the only one who did not betray the best interests of the nation. It was only because he considered it essential to the welfare of the people that he was willing that the nation should be exiled and the dynasty overthrown, if only a pious remnant could be preserved to form a nucleus of a new kingdom of God. In the midst — At the very center of the national life; that is, at Beth-el, which was the religious center. Not able to bear — The message is so revolutionary, the priest means to say, that it will surely lead to serious disturbances. To prove his case he sends to the king a summary of Amos’s message. Jeroboam shall die by the sword — Not an exact reproduction of the words of Amos (verse 9). The manipulation may have been caused by a desire to arouse more readily the king’s resentment. Shall surely be led away captive — This the prophet had asserted repeatedly (Amos 5:5, 27; 6:7). Also Amaziah said — Nothing is said of Jeroboam’s attitude. Hence Amaziah’s attempt to silence Amos has been variously interpreted. Some think that Jeroboam took no notice of the priest’s message, or that the reply was not satisfactory, and that, therefore, Amaziah, who had reason to fear for his own position (verse 9), endeavored, on his own authority, to drive out Amos. Others think that it was at the king’s command that Amaziah bade Amos flee, though the authorization is not mentioned. Still others interpret the priest’s words as a friendly advice to the prophet to leave the country before the wrath of the king should be felt by him. The last interpretation is shown to be impossible by Amos’s reply in 14-17. It is, perhaps, best to suppose that Amaziah addressed Amos as soon as he had dispatched the messenger to the king. Having made an appeal to Jeroboam, he thought himself in a position to rid the country, in any manner whatever, of this “troubler of Israel.” Seer — According to 1 Samuel 9:9 (where a different word, though identical in meaning, is used), this is an older designation of the men called in later days prophets; here the word is used probably with a touch of sarcasm — visionary, fanatic. Land of Judah — The home of Amos (Introduction, p. 191). Eat bread — Make a living. The early seers made their living in much the same way as modern clairvoyants (1 Samuel 9:7, 8); and even among later prophets there were those who prophesied “for a reward” (Micah 3:5, 11; 1 Kings 22:13), who followed the adage, “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.” Such a one Amaziah took Amos to be. Prophesy there — In his own country Amos might say anything he pleased; Beth-el needed no prophet, its spiritual interests were well cared for. The king’s chapel — R.V., “sanctuary.” The king’s court — R.V., “a royal house.” From the time of Jeroboam I the sanctuary at Beth-el enjoyed the royal patronage (1 Kings 12:29, 32), and it is quite likely that the king had a palace there.

Verse 12. O thou seer] He pretends kindness to the prophet, and counsels him to go into Judea, and prophesy there and be safe, even in the time that he had accused him of high treason against Jeroboam. Hireling priests of this kind have ever been the great enemies of the true prophets of God; and when they could bring no charge of false doctrine or immorality against them, have accused them of conspiring against the government; and because they have preached against sin, have held them up as exciting insurrection among the people.

Verses 12, 13. Amaziah said, O thou seer, go flee, &c. — Thou that sayest thou art a prophet, get thee hence, where thou signifiest that thou art so much displeased with the actions of the people, and go into the land of Judah — Where it is likely thou wilt be better entertained than thou art here. And there eat bread, &c. — There they will feed thee well, because thou pretendest to be a prophet. Prophesy not at Beth-el, for it is the king’s chapel, &c. — This is the place where the king performs his religious worship in person, and often resides here with his court, that he may the better attend upon the service performed at this place; (see 1 Kings 13:1;) and therefore thou oughtest to reverence it, and not utter thy sham prophecies here.

10-13. The opposition. Then — When Amos had uttered the startling announcements contained in verse 9. Amaziah the priest — Probably the chief priest at the sanctuary of Bethel. Nothing is known of him otherwise. Jeroboam — See Introduction, p. 195. Conspired — Not, has entered into conspiracy with others, but, his words are such as will result in conspiracy against the throne. Under normal conditions denunciation of the government and the prediction of the overthrow of the national institutions may rightly be considered treason; and to an unspiritual politician the words of Amos must have seemed treasonable, but the priest, a representative of Jehovah, should have understood the attitude of the prophet. In reality the latter was the only one who did not betray the best interests of the nation. It was only because he considered it essential to the welfare of the people that he was willing that the nation should be exiled and the dynasty overthrown, if only a pious remnant could be preserved to form a nucleus of a new kingdom of God. In the midst — At the very center of the national life; that is, at Beth-el, which was the religious center. Not able to bear — The message is so revolutionary, the priest means to say, that it will surely lead to serious disturbances. To prove his case he sends to the king a summary of Amos’s message. Jeroboam shall die by the sword — Not an exact reproduction of the words of Amos (verse 9). The manipulation may have been caused by a desire to arouse more readily the king’s resentment. Shall surely be led away captive — This the prophet had asserted repeatedly (Amos 5:5, 27; 6:7). Also Amaziah said — Nothing is said of Jeroboam’s attitude. Hence Amaziah’s attempt to silence Amos has been variously interpreted. Some think that Jeroboam took no notice of the priest’s message, or that the reply was not satisfactory, and that, therefore, Amaziah, who had reason to fear for his own position (verse 9), endeavored, on his own authority, to drive out Amos. Others think that it was at the king’s command that Amaziah bade Amos flee, though the authorization is not mentioned. Still others interpret the priest’s words as a friendly advice to the prophet to leave the country before the wrath of the king should be felt by him. The last interpretation is shown to be impossible by Amos’s reply in 14-17. It is, perhaps, best to suppose that Amaziah addressed Amos as soon as he had dispatched the messenger to the king. Having made an appeal to Jeroboam, he thought himself in a position to rid the country, in any manner whatever, of this “troubler of Israel.” Seer — According to 1 Samuel 9:9 (where a different word, though identical in meaning, is used), this is an older designation of the men called in later days prophets; here the word is used probably with a touch of sarcasm — visionary, fanatic. Land of Judah — The home of Amos (Introduction, p. 191). Eat bread — Make a living. The early seers made their living in much the same way as modern clairvoyants (1 Samuel 9:7, 8); and even among later prophets there were those who prophesied “for a reward” (Micah 3:5, 11; 1 Kings 22:13), who followed the adage, “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.” Such a one Amaziah took Amos to be. Prophesy there — In his own country Amos might say anything he pleased; Beth-el needed no prophet, its spiritual interests were well cared for. The king’s chapel — R.V., “sanctuary.” The king’s court — R.V., “a royal house.” From the time of Jeroboam I the sanctuary at Beth-el enjoyed the royal patronage (1 Kings 12:29, 32), and it is quite likely that the king had a palace there.

V. 13. The king’s court-To which therefore thou oughtest to shew more respect, and not thus to affront the king in his own house.

Verse 13. But prophesy not—at Beth-el] He must not speak against idolatry, because that was the king’s religion; and he who speaks against the king’s religion must be an enemy to the state. This was the doctrine held in England by popish James II. and his insidious Jesuit hireling priests, till God in his mercy put this pitiful tyrant down, and with him his false prophets, and the degrading superstition which they endeavoured to establish in these lands.

Verses 12, 13. Amaziah said, O thou seer, go flee, &c. — Thou that sayest thou art a prophet, get thee hence, where thou signifiest that thou art so much displeased with the actions of the people, and go into the land of Judah — Where it is likely thou wilt be better entertained than thou art here. And there eat bread, &c. — There they will feed thee well, because thou pretendest to be a prophet. Prophesy not at Beth-el, for it is the king’s chapel, &c. — This is the place where the king performs his religious worship in person, and often resides here with his court, that he may the better attend upon the service performed at this place; (see 1 Kings 13:1;) and therefore thou oughtest to reverence it, and not utter thy sham prophecies here.

10-13. The opposition. Then — When Amos had uttered the startling announcements contained in verse 9. Amaziah the priest — Probably the chief priest at the sanctuary of Bethel. Nothing is known of him otherwise. Jeroboam — See Introduction, p. 195. Conspired — Not, has entered into conspiracy with others, but, his words are such as will result in conspiracy against the throne. Under normal conditions denunciation of the government and the prediction of the overthrow of the national institutions may rightly be considered treason; and to an unspiritual politician the words of Amos must have seemed treasonable, but the priest, a representative of Jehovah, should have understood the attitude of the prophet. In reality the latter was the only one who did not betray the best interests of the nation. It was only because he considered it essential to the welfare of the people that he was willing that the nation should be exiled and the dynasty overthrown, if only a pious remnant could be preserved to form a nucleus of a new kingdom of God. In the midst — At the very center of the national life; that is, at Beth-el, which was the religious center. Not able to bear — The message is so revolutionary, the priest means to say, that it will surely lead to serious disturbances. To prove his case he sends to the king a summary of Amos’s message. Jeroboam shall die by the sword — Not an exact reproduction of the words of Amos (verse 9). The manipulation may have been caused by a desire to arouse more readily the king’s resentment. Shall surely be led away captive — This the prophet had asserted repeatedly (Amos 5:5, 27; 6:7). Also Amaziah said — Nothing is said of Jeroboam’s attitude. Hence Amaziah’s attempt to silence Amos has been variously interpreted. Some think that Jeroboam took no notice of the priest’s message, or that the reply was not satisfactory, and that, therefore, Amaziah, who had reason to fear for his own position (verse 9), endeavored, on his own authority, to drive out Amos. Others think that it was at the king’s command that Amaziah bade Amos flee, though the authorization is not mentioned. Still others interpret the priest’s words as a friendly advice to the prophet to leave the country before the wrath of the king should be felt by him. The last interpretation is shown to be impossible by Amos’s reply in 14-17. It is, perhaps, best to suppose that Amaziah addressed Amos as soon as he had dispatched the messenger to the king. Having made an appeal to Jeroboam, he thought himself in a position to rid the country, in any manner whatever, of this “troubler of Israel.” Seer — According to 1 Samuel 9:9 (where a different word, though identical in meaning, is used), this is an older designation of the men called in later days prophets; here the word is used probably with a touch of sarcasm — visionary, fanatic. Land of Judah — The home of Amos (Introduction, p. 191). Eat bread — Make a living. The early seers made their living in much the same way as modern clairvoyants (1 Samuel 9:7, 8); and even among later prophets there were those who prophesied “for a reward” (Micah 3:5, 11; 1 Kings 22:13), who followed the adage, “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.” Such a one Amaziah took Amos to be. Prophesy there — In his own country Amos might say anything he pleased; Beth-el needed no prophet, its spiritual interests were well cared for. The king’s chapel — R.V., “sanctuary.” The king’s court — R.V., “a royal house.” From the time of Jeroboam I the sanctuary at Beth-el enjoyed the royal patronage (1 Kings 12:29, 32), and it is quite likely that the king had a palace there.

V. 14. No prophet-Not originally, or by study, or by any human designation. An herdman-By breeding and occupation I was and still am, an herdman. Sycamore fruit-This fruit was good food for man, or cattle.

Verse 14. I was no prophet] I am an extraordinary messenger of God. I am not called to the prophetic office but for this occasion. I have no message to Judah, and therefore need not go there. I have a message to Israel alone, and I must faithfully deliver it.

For the account which Amos gives here of himself, see the introduction. See Clarke “Amos 1:1”.

Verses 14, 15. I was no prophet — Not originally, or by study, or by any human designation; neither was I a prophet’s son — Neither was I bred up at the schools of the prophets; as those usually were who took that office upon them. But I was a herdman — By breeding and occupation I was, and still am, a herdman; and a gatherer of sycamore fruit — I got my livelihood also in part by gathering wild figs for those who had occasion for them. The Lord took me, &c. — As I was following my flock, and thinking of nothing else; and said unto me — By an extraordinary irradiation, or impulse of his Divine Spirit; Go, prophesy unto my people — Go, and as a prophet divinely commissioned, reprove, instruct, exhort, and warn my people of the calamities impending over them, and which will assuredly fall upon them, unless they avert them by turning to me in true repentance.

Ver. 14. Then answered Amos—I was no prophet. He was not designated from his birth, like Samuel; neither was he a prophet’s son, educated in their schools. But the Lord said, go, prophesy to my people Israel. Compare 2 Kings 2:3. 4:38. 6:1. Isaiah 8:18. Mark 10:24. 1 Corinthians 4:14, 17. An unlettered man, clothed with so divine a spirit, and adorned with so much wisdom and eloquence, are demonstrations that he was “moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon himself that office and ministry.”

14-17. The prophet’s reply. 14, 15. Amos was a prophet not by profession, but by divine call. I was no prophet — Better, throughout verse 14, with margin, “I am.” I am not a professional prophet, guided by mercenary motives. A prophet’s son — This expression is not to be understood in the sense that the father of Amos was not a prophet, but in the sense, “I am not a member of a prophetic guild.” Son is used in that sense of the companies of prophets at Beth-el, Gilgal, and other places (1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7, etc.). This interpretation is supported also by the use of the word son in the general sense of belonging to in other Semitic languages. Herdman — Literally, tender of cattle (Introduction, p. 192). Gatherer of sycomore fruit — R.V., “dresser of sycomore trees” (Introduction, p. 192). Jehovah took me… said — While he was following his ordinary occupation the divine call came to forsake all and become a prophet of Jehovah to Israel. This call he could not resist (3:8). Of these verses G.A. Smith says, “It is the protest of a new order of prophecy, the charter of a spiritual religion.” Amos was indeed “the founder and the purest type of the new order of prophecy.”

Verses 14, 15. I was no prophet — Not originally, or by study, or by any human designation; neither was I a prophet’s son — Neither was I bred up at the schools of the prophets; as those usually were who took that office upon them. But I was a herdman — By breeding and occupation I was, and still am, a herdman; and a gatherer of sycamore fruit — I got my livelihood also in part by gathering wild figs for those who had occasion for them. The Lord took me, &c. — As I was following my flock, and thinking of nothing else; and said unto me — By an extraordinary irradiation, or impulse of his Divine Spirit; Go, prophesy unto my people — Go, and as a prophet divinely commissioned, reprove, instruct, exhort, and warn my people of the calamities impending over them, and which will assuredly fall upon them, unless they avert them by turning to me in true repentance.

14-17. The prophet’s reply. 14, 15. Amos was a prophet not by profession, but by divine call. I was no prophet — Better, throughout verse 14, with margin, “I am.” I am not a professional prophet, guided by mercenary motives. A prophet’s son — This expression is not to be understood in the sense that the father of Amos was not a prophet, but in the sense, “I am not a member of a prophetic guild.” Son is used in that sense of the companies of prophets at Beth-el, Gilgal, and other places (1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7, etc.). This interpretation is supported also by the use of the word son in the general sense of belonging to in other Semitic languages. Herdman — Literally, tender of cattle (Introduction, p. 192). Gatherer of sycomore fruit — R.V., “dresser of sycomore trees” (Introduction, p. 192). Jehovah took me… said — While he was following his ordinary occupation the divine call came to forsake all and become a prophet of Jehovah to Israel. This call he could not resist (3:8). Of these verses G.A. Smith says, “It is the protest of a new order of prophecy, the charter of a spiritual religion.” Amos was indeed “the founder and the purest type of the new order of prophecy.”

V. 16. The house of Isaac-The posterity of Isaac.

Verse 16. Now therefore hear thou the word of the Lord] While he was speaking in his own vindication, God seems to have inspired him with the awful prediction which he immediately delivers.

Verses 16, 17. Now, hear thou the word of the Lord — Who hath sent me, and whom thou contradictest; from him I have a message to thee also, which much concerns thee. Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel — Thou usest thy power to silence me; therefore thus saith the Lord — Because thou hast so directly and wilfully opposed the Lord; Thy wife shall be a harlot in the city — Shall be treated as a harlot in this very city of Beth-el. The meaning probably is, that she should be abused, or ravished, by the Assyrian soldiers, when they should take Beth-el. Thy land shall be divided by line — Conquerors were used to divide conquered lands in portions among their soldiers, which was done by measuring out every one’s part by a line; so that this expression signified, his land should be divided among the enemy. And thou shalt die in a polluted land — Thou shalt be carried captive from thine own country, and die in a land where the inhabitants are idolatrous.

16, 17. Amos, having justified his preaching by an appeal to his divine commission, reiterates and expands his previous message. Now therefore — The defense in 14, 15 had put the case in its proper light; now the argument may proceed. Thou sayest,… Thus saith Jehovah — A striking antithesis. Whose words will prevail can easily be imagined. Prophesy not — Compare verse 13. Drop not — That is, thy words (Micah 2:6, 11); a synonym of prophesy. Isaac — As in verse 9. Therefore — The attempt to silence a divinely commissioned prophet deserves severest punishment; and this Amos proceeds to announce in verse 17. An harlot — Now she is a lady of the palace, but the invader will dishonor her and compel her to live a life of shame. In the city — In public (Zechariah 14:2; Isaiah 13:16); compare the colloquial “street-walker.” Such outrages were committed by the Assyrians, as we learn from the inscriptions; Ashur-nasir-pal boasts, “Their boys and maidens I dishonored” (Records of the Past, iii, p. 51). His children will be slain, and his land divided among new settlers (compare Micah 2:4; Jeremiah 6:12; 2 Kings 17:24). Line — The measuring line. Polluted land [“land that is unclean”] — See Hosea 9:3, on “Jehovah’s land” and “unclean food.” Israel shall surely go into captivity [“be led away captive”] — He repeats the very words which Amaziah had made the basis of his accusation.

The closing words of the historical section take us back to the message of the third vision, and thus they prepare the way for the fourth.

V. 17. In a polluted land-Among the Heathen. Israel-The ten tribes.

Verse 17. Thy wife shall be a harlot] As this was the word of the Lord, so it was fulfilled; but as we have no farther account of this idolatrous priest, so we cannot tell in what circumstances these threatenings were executed. 1. His wife was to be a public prostitute; she was probably such already privately in the temple, as the wife of an idolatrous priest. 2. His sons and daughters were to fall by the sword. 3. Their inheritance was to be taken by strangers. 4. And himself was to die a captive in a heathen land.

Israel shall surely go into captivity] He now declares fully what he had not declared before, though Amaziah had made it a subject of accusation. This particular was probably revealed at this instant, as well as those which concerned Amaziah and his family.

AMOS

Verses 16, 17. Now, hear thou the word of the Lord — Who hath sent me, and whom thou contradictest; from him I have a message to thee also, which much concerns thee. Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel — Thou usest thy power to silence me; therefore thus saith the Lord — Because thou hast so directly and wilfully opposed the Lord; Thy wife shall be a harlot in the city — Shall be treated as a harlot in this very city of Beth-el. The meaning probably is, that she should be abused, or ravished, by the Assyrian soldiers, when they should take Beth-el. Thy land shall be divided by line — Conquerors were used to divide conquered lands in portions among their soldiers, which was done by measuring out every one’s part by a line; so that this expression signified, his land should be divided among the enemy. And thou shalt die in a polluted land — Thou shalt be carried captive from thine own country, and die in a land where the inhabitants are idolatrous.

Ver. 17. Thy wife shall be a harlot. When a besieging army storms a city, no man can protect his own life, nor the weaker branches of his house from insults. The proverb says truly, the laws are silent in war.

16, 17. Amos, having justified his preaching by an appeal to his divine commission, reiterates and expands his previous message. Now therefore — The defense in 14, 15 had put the case in its proper light; now the argument may proceed. Thou sayest,… Thus saith Jehovah — A striking antithesis. Whose words will prevail can easily be imagined. Prophesy not — Compare verse 13. Drop not — That is, thy words (Micah 2:6, 11); a synonym of prophesy. Isaac — As in verse 9. Therefore — The attempt to silence a divinely commissioned prophet deserves severest punishment; and this Amos proceeds to announce in verse 17. An harlot — Now she is a lady of the palace, but the invader will dishonor her and compel her to live a life of shame. In the city — In public (Zechariah 14:2; Isaiah 13:16); compare the colloquial “street-walker.” Such outrages were committed by the Assyrians, as we learn from the inscriptions; Ashur-nasir-pal boasts, “Their boys and maidens I dishonored” (Records of the Past, iii, p. 51). His children will be slain, and his land divided among new settlers (compare Micah 2:4; Jeremiah 6:12; 2 Kings 17:24). Line — The measuring line. Polluted land [“land that is unclean”] — See Hosea 9:3, on “Jehovah’s land” and “unclean food.” Israel shall surely go into captivity [“be led away captive”] — He repeats the very words which Amaziah had made the basis of his accusation.

The closing words of the historical section take us back to the message of the third vision, and thus they prepare the way for the fourth.