John Calvin Commentary Amos 1

Amos does not boast here, in speaking of his own words, that he offered anything from himself, but declares himself to be only the minister of God, for he immediately adds that he received them by a vision. God Himself raised up the Prophets and employed their labor, and at the same time, guided them by His Spirit, so that they would not announce anything except what had been received from Him, but would faithfully deliver what had proceeded from Him alone. These two things, then, agree well together—that the prophecies which follow were the words of Amos and that they were words revealed to him from above; for the word חזה, chese, which Amos uses, properly means to see by revelation, and these revelations were called prophecies.

But he says that he was among the shepherds of Tekoa. This was a humble town that had shortly before been surrounded by walls and had always previously been a village. He then does not mention his country because it was celebrated, or as though he could derive more authority or renown from it; but, on the contrary, he calls himself a Tekoan because God drew him out from an obscure place, so that He might set him over the whole kingdom of Israel.

They are therefore mistaken, as I think, who suppose that Amos was called one of the shepherds on account of his riches and the number of his flocks; for when I weigh everything, I do not see how this could be. I indeed allow that נקדים, nukodim, are not only shepherds who do the work, but men possessing flocks, carrying on a large business; for the king of Moab is said to have been a נקד, nukod, and that he fed large flocks, but it was by hired shepherds.

As for the Prophets, I do not see how this can be applied to him, for Tekoa was not a place famous for wealth; and as I have said, it was a small town and had no opulence. I do not then doubt that Amos, by saying that he was a shepherd, pours contempt on the pride of the king of Israel and of the whole people; for as they had not condescended to hear the Prophets of God, a keeper of sheep was sent to them.

It must be further noticed that he is not called a shepherd of Tekoa, but from Tekoa; and interpreters have not observed this preposition. We shall see in Amos chapter 7 that although Amos originated from the tribe of Judah, he nevertheless lived in the kingdom of Israel, for the priest, after he had slandered him before the king, ordered him to go elsewhere, to eat his own bread, and not to disturb the peace of the country.

He therefore lived there as a stranger in a land that was not his own. Had he been rich and possessing much wealth, he would surely have lived at home: why should he change his place? Since then it appears evident that he was a sojourner in the land of Israel, he was, no doubt, one of the common people.

So his low condition (ignobilitias—his humble station) was intended for this purpose: that God might thereby repress the arrogance of the king of Israel and of the whole people, for we know how much they were inflated on account of the fruitfulness of their land and their riches. Hence Amos was set over them as a Prophet, being a shepherd whom God had brought from the sheepfolds.

The time when he is said to have seen these prophecies must also be observed: it was in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, two years before the earthquake, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash. What the state of that time was, I described in explaining the prophecies of Hosea.

Sacred history relates that the kingdom of Israel flourished under the second Jeroboam. For though he was an ungodly and wicked man, God then spared His people and caused not only the ten tribes to remain intact but also Jeroboam to enlarge his kingdom, for he had recovered some cities that had been lost.

The state of the people was then tranquil, and their prosperity was such as filled them with pride, as it commonly happens. Uzziah also reigned over the tribe of Judah in such a way that nothing adverse prevailed there. Shortly after, the earthquake followed. Sacred history does not mention when this earthquake happened.

But Josephus says that it was when Uzziah seized on the priestly office and was struck with leprosy. He therefore places that attack of leprosy and the earthquake at the same time. But Amos, as well as other Prophets, spoke of it as a thing well known; thus Zechariah, after the people’s return, refers to it (Zechariah 14:5):

There shall be to you a terror,
such as was in the earthquake under king Uzziah.

He does not state the year, but it was commonly known then.

The Prophet, then, meant nothing more by this event than to show that he denounced God’s vengeance on the Israelites when they were prosperous and, as it were, immersed in their pleasures. Satiety, as always happens, made them ferocious; therefore, he was not well received.

But his authority is thus more confirmed for us, because he did not flatter the people in their prosperity but severely reproved them. He also predicted what could not be foreseen by human judgment—indeed, what seemed to be altogether improbable.

If he had not then been endowed with the heavenly Spirit, he could not have foretold future calamities, especially when the Jews and Israelites, as I have already said, along with others, expected all kinds of prosperity for themselves. For God at that time spared the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah, nor did He execute His judgment on neighboring nations.

We must now also observe this: that the words which he saw were concerning Israel. From this we learn, as I have already said, that the Prophet was specifically appointed for the Israelites, though born elsewhere. But how and on what occasion he migrated into the kingdom of Israel, we do not know; and as for the matter at hand, it does not matter much. But it is probable, as I have said before, that this was intentionally done, so that God might check the insolence of the people, who flattered themselves so much in their prosperity.

Since, then, the Israelites had previously rejected God’s servants, they were now forced to hear a foreigner and a shepherd condemning them for their sins and exercising the office of a judge: he who proclaims impending destruction is a celestial herald. This being the case, we therefore see that God had not in vain employed the ministry of this Prophet; for He is accustomed to choose the weak things of the world to confound the strong (1 Corinthians 1:27), and He takes Prophets and teachers from the lowest grade to humble the dignity of the world, and puts the invaluable treasure of His doctrine in earthly vessels, so that His power, as Paul teaches us, may be made more evident (2 Corinthians 4:7).

But there was a special reason concerning the Prophet Amos, for he was sent specifically to severely reprove the ten tribes; and, as we shall see, he treated them with great harshness. For he was not polite, but proved that he had to do with those who were not to be treated as men, but as brute beasts; indeed, worse in obstinacy than brute beasts, for there is some docility in oxen and cows, and especially in sheep, for they hear the voice of their shepherd and follow where he leads them. The Israelites were all stubbornness and completely untamable. It was then necessary to set over them a teacher who would not treat them courteously, but use his native bluntness toward them. Let us now proceed; for we have spoken of the kingdoms of Uzziah and of Jeroboam son of Joash (the second of that name) in connection with Hosea 1:1.

He employs here the same words that we explained yesterday in the lecture on Joel, but for another purpose. By saying, Jehovah from Zion shall roar, Joel intended to set forth the power of God, who had been for a time silent, as though he could not repel his enemies.

As God was then despised by the ungodly, Joel declares that he had power by which he could instantly break down and destroy all his enemies and defend his Church and chosen people.

But now Amos, as he addresses the Israelites, here defends the pure worship of God from all contempt. He declares to the Israelites that however much they wearied themselves in their superstitions, they still worshipped their own devices, for God repudiated all the religion they thought they had.

An implied or indirect contrast, then, is to be understood between Mount Zion and the temples that the first Jeroboam built in Dan and Bethel. The Israelites imagined that they worshipped the God of their father Abraham; and there were in those places greater displays (pompae—pomps) than at Jerusalem.

But the Prophet Amos pours contempt on all these fictitious forms of worship, as though he said, “You indeed boast that the God of Abraham is honored and worshipped by you; but you are degenerate, you are covenant breakers, you are treacherous towards God. He does not dwell with you, for the sanctuaries that you have made for yourselves are nothing but brothels. God has chosen no habitation for himself except Mount Zion; there is his perpetual rest: Roar then will Jehovah from Zion.”

We now see what the Prophet had in view. He not only shows here that God was the author of his doctrine, but he also distinguishes between the true God and the idols that the first Jeroboam made. Jeroboam, by this artifice, intended to withdraw the ten tribes from the house of David and wholly to alienate them from the tribe of Judah; it was then that he set up the calves in Dan and Bethel.

The Prophet now shows that all these superstitions are condemned by the true God: Jehovah then shall roar from Zion, he will utter his voice from Jerusalem. He no doubt wished here to terrify the Israelites, who thought they had peace with God.

Since, then, they abused his long-suffering, Amos now says that they would eventually find that he was not asleep. “When God then shall long bear with your iniquities, he will at last rise up for judgment.”

Roaring signifies, as we said yesterday, the terrible voice of God. But the Prophet here speaks of God’s voice, rather than of actual judgments executed, so that the Israelites might learn that the examples of punishments that God executes in the world do not happen by chance or at random, but proceed from his threats.

In short, the Prophet implies that all punishments that God inflicts on the ungodly and the despisers of his word are only the executions of what the Prophets proclaimed. This is so that people, if there is any hope of their repentance, might anticipate the destruction that they hear to be near.

The Prophet then highly commends here the truth of what God teaches, saying that it is not something that vanishes, but something that is accomplished. For when he destroys nations and kingdoms, it happens according to prophecies: God then shall utter his voice from Jerusalem.

Then it follows, And mourn shall the habitations of shepherds. אבל, abel, means to mourn, and also to be laid waste, and to perish. Either sense will well suit this place. If we read, mourn, etc., then we must render the following thus: and ashamed shall be the head, or top, of Carmel. But if we read, perish, etc., then the verb בש, besh, must be translated, wither; and as we know that there were rich pastures on Carmel, I prefer this second rendering: wither then shall the top of Carmel; and the first clause must be taken thus: and perish shall the habitations of shepherds.

As to what is intended, we understand the Prophet’s meaning to be that whatever was pleasant and valuable in the kingdom of Israel would soon perish, because God would utter his voice from Zion.

The meaning then is this: “You now lie secure, but God will soon, and even suddenly, put forth his power to destroy you. This he will do because he denounces on you destruction now by me, and will raise up other Prophets to be heralds of his vengeance. This God will execute by foreign and heathen nations. Yet your destruction will be according to these threats that you now count as nothing. You indeed think them to be empty words, but God will at last show that what he declares will be fully accomplished.”

With respect to Carmel, there were two mountains of this name; but as they were both very fertile, there is no need to take much trouble to inquire of which Carmel the Prophet speaks. What has been said is sufficient: that such a judgment is denounced on the kingdom of Israel as would consume all its fatness. For as we shall see later, and the same thing has been already stated by the Prophet Hosea, there was great fertility of pastures in that kingdom.

We must, at the same time, observe that the Prophet, who was a shepherd, speaks according to his own character and the manner of life that he followed. Another might have said, ‘Mourn shall the whole country, tremble shall the palaces,’ or something like this; but the Prophet speaks of Mount Carmel and of the habitations of shepherds, for he was a shepherd.

His doctrine no doubt was despised, and many profane men probably said, “What! he thinks that he is still with his cows and with his sheep; he boasts that he is God’s prophet, and yet he is ever engrossed by his stalls and his sheepfolds.” It is then by no means improbable that he was thus derided by scornful men. But he purposely intended to blunt their petulance by mingling with what he said as a Prophet those kinds of expressions that savored of his occupation as a shepherd.

It is strange that Amos said his words concerned Israel, and yet he now turns to speak of Damascus and the country of Syria. This seems inconsistent. Why does he not perform the task committed to him? Why does he not reprove the Israelites? Why does he not threaten them?

Why does he not show their sins? And why does he speak of the destruction then near to the people of Syria? But it is right here to consider what his design was. He shows briefly, in the last verse, that ruin was near the Israelites, for God, who had until now spared them, was now resolved to ascend His tribunal.

But now, to better prepare the Israelites, he shows that God, as a judge, would call all the neighboring nations to account. For if the Prophet had threatened only the Israelites, they might have thought that what they suffered was by chance, especially when they saw similar things happening to their neighbors: “How is it credible that these evils and calamities have flowed from God’s vengeance, since the Idumeans, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Syrians, and the Sidonians are implicated in these evils in common with us?”

“For if God’s hand pursues us, it is the same for them; and if it is fate that, with blind force, exercises its rule over the Moabites, the Idumeans, and the Syrians, the same thing, doubtless, must be thought of our case.” Thus, all the Prophet’s authority would have lost its power unless the Israelites were made to know that God is the judge of all nations.

We must also bear in mind that the kingdom of Israel was devastated, along with other neighboring countries, as war had spread far and wide. For the Assyrian, like a violent storm, had swept through that entire region. Therefore, not only were the Israelites distressed by adversities at that time, but so were all the nations of which Amos prophesied.

It was therefore necessary to add the list we find here, so that the Israelites might have as many confirmations of God’s vengeance as there were examples of the dire calamities prevailing everywhere before their eyes. This should be kept in mind.

Furthermore, the Prophet considered another point: If the Idumeans, the Moabites, the Syrians, and Ammonites were to be treated so severely, and the Prophet had not connected the Israelites with them, they might have thought they were to be exempted from the common punishments because God would be favorable to them. For hypocrites always harden themselves further whenever God spares them: “See, the Ammonites and the Moabites are punished; the Idumeans, the Syrians, and other nations are visited with judgment. God then is angry with all these; but we are His children, for He is indulgent to us.”

But the Prophet here puts the Israelites in the same bundle with the Moabites, the Idumeans, and other heathen nations, as if he were saying, “God will not spare your neighbors; but do not think that you will be exempt from His vengeance when they are led to punishment. I now declare to you that God will be the judge of you all together.”

We now understand the Prophet’s design. He wished here to set before the eyes of the Israelites the punishment of others to awaken them and also to induce them to examine themselves. For we often see that those who are stubborn and rebellious by nature, when directly addressed, do not pay much attention; but when they hear of the sins of others, and especially when they hear something of punishment, they do pay attention.

The Prophet therefore designed by degrees to lead the Israelites to a teachable state of mind, for he knew them to be lethargic in their self-indulgence and also blinded by presumption, so that they could not easily be brought under the yoke. Therefore, he sets before them the punishment that was soon to fall on neighboring nations.

Yet we must observe that there was another reason. I do not dismiss what I have already mentioned, but the Prophet no doubt also had this in view: God would punish the Syrians because they cruelly raged against the Israelites, especially against Gilead and its inhabitants.

Since God, then, would inflict so severe a punishment on the Syrians because they so cruelly treated the inhabitants of Gilead, what could the Israelites themselves expect? They had been arrogant towards God, had violated His worship, had robbed Him of His honor, and had, in turn, destroyed one another. For, as we shall see later, there was no equity or humanity among them; they had forgotten all reason.

Since the Israelites were like this, how could they hope that so many and so detestable crimes should go unpunished, when they saw that the Syrians, though uncircumcised, were not to be spared because they had so cruelly treated declared enemies, against whom they lawfully waged war?

I now come to the words of the Prophet: Thus saith Jehovah, For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, will not be propitious to it; literally, I will not convert it. But I take this actively to mean that God would not turn Himself to mercy, or that He would not be favorable to Damascus.

We know that Damascus was the capital of Syria. The Prophet here, by mentioning a part for the whole, threatens the entire people and summons all the Syrians to God’s tribunal, because they had inhumanly treated, as we shall see, the city of Gilead. But he says, God will not be propitious for three and four transgressions of Damascus. Some interpret this to mean, “For three transgressions I have been propitious; for four I will not be.” But there is no need to add anything to the Prophet’s words, for the most suitable sense here is that for the many sins of Damascus God would not be favorable to it. And the Prophet, I have no doubt, intended by the two numbers to show the irreclaimable perverseness of the Syrians.

Seven in Scripture is an indefinite number and is taken, as is well known, to express what is countless. By saying then, three and four transgressions, it is the same as if he had said seven; but the Prophet more strikingly indicates the progress the Syrians made in their transgressions until they became so perverse that there was no hope of repentance.

This then is the reason God declares that He would no longer forgive the Syrians, since without measure or limit they burst forth into transgressions and did not cease, though they were given time to change. This is the true meaning. And the Prophet repeats the same form of speech when speaking of Gaza, of Amman, of Edom, and of other nations.

Let us learn from this passage that God, whom the world regards as too cruel when He takes vengeance on sins, truly shows by sure proof the truth of what He so often declares about Himself in Scripture: that He is patient and does not quickly take vengeance. Though people deserve to perish, yet the Lord suspends His judgments.

We have a remarkable proof of this in these prophecies, for the Prophet speaks not only of one people but of many. Thus, God endured many transgressions not only in the Syrians but also in other nations; there was not then a country in which a testimony to God’s forbearance did not exist. It therefore appears that the world unjustly complains of too much rigor when God takes vengeance, for He always waits until iniquity (as was stated yesterday) reaches its highest point.

Besides this, a dreadful spectacle of sins among so many nations is presented to us here. At the same time, when we compare that age with ours, it is certain that greater integrity existed then. All kinds of evils so overflow today that, compared with the present, the time of Amos was the golden age.

And yet we hear him declaring here that the people of Judah and of Israel, and all the other nations, were monstrously wicked, so that God could not bring them to repentance. For He does not testify here in vain that He would punish completely obstinate wickedness, since they had not turned to Him—they who had advanced to the “number seven,” that is, who had sinned (as has been stated before) without measure or limits. This also ought to be noticed in the Prophet’s words, but I cannot proceed further now.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as You see we are of a disposition so hard and rebellious that we are not, without great difficulty, drawn to You—O grant that we may at least be subdued by the threatenings You daily pronounce against us. May we be so subdued that, being also drawn by Your word, we may give ourselves up to You. May we not only allow ourselves to be constrained by punishments and corrections, but also obey You with a willing mind, and most readily offer ourselves to You as a sacrifice of obedience, so that, being ruled by the Spirit of Your Son, we may at last attain that blessed rest which has been prepared for us by the same, Your Son our Lord. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We explained in yesterday’s lecture that what the Prophet means by the three and four transgressions of Damascus is perverse and incurable wickedness. For God here declares that He had endured long enough the sins of Damascus, and that now He is, in a way, forced to proceed to extreme rigor, since there was no hope of amendment.

But what follows may seem strange, for immediately the Prophet adds, Because they have threshed Gilead with iron wains, or serrated machines. He records here only one wickedness: where, then, were the seven of which he spoke? The answer may be easily given. By naming the three and four sins of Damascus, he does not mean different kinds of sins, but rather the perverseness which we have mentioned. For they had been extremely rebellious against God, and God had suspended His vengeance until it became evident that they were incurable.

It was, therefore, not necessary to mention seven different sins here; for it was enough that Damascus (which means the kingdom of Syria) was bound by such a degree of obstinacy that no remedy could be applied to its transgressions, for it had for a long time tested God’s patience.

Now the Prophet adds, I will send fire unto the house of Hazael, which will devour the palaces of Ben-hadad. The Prophet still speaks of the kingdom of Syria, for we know that both Ben-hadad and Hazael were kings of Syria.

But Jerome is much mistaken in thinking that Ben-hadad was here put in the second place, as if he had been Hazael’s successor. Sacred history relates that Hazael came to Elisha when Ben-hadad was ill in bed (2 Kings 8:9), sent to request an answer. Now the Prophet declared that Hazael would be the king of Syria, and declared this not without tears, for he pitied his own people, of whom this Syrian would be the destroyer. After Hazael returned home, he strangled Ben-hadad and took the royal dignity for himself.

But it is common enough in Scripture to speak of a present thing and then, as in this place, to add what is past: I will send fire into the house of Hazael, and this fire will devour the palaces of Ben-hadad. It is as if he were saying, “I will destroy the kingdom of Syria; I will consume it as with burning.”

But he first names the house of Hazael and then the palaces of Ben-hadad, as if he were saying, “No antiquity shall preserve that kingdom from being destroyed.” For, metaphorically, under the word “fire,” he designates every kind of destruction; and we know how great the violence of fire is.

It is then as if he were saying that no wealth, no strength, no fortifications would prevent the kingdom of Syria from being destroyed.

He then adds, I will break in pieces the bar of Damascus. The Prophet confirms what he had already said, for Damascus, being strongly fortified, might have seemed impregnable. By “bar,” the Prophet, using a part for the whole, meant strongholds and everything that could keep out enemies. Nothing, then, will prevent enemies from taking possession of the city of Damascus. How so? Because the Lord will break its bars in pieces.

It is then added, I will cut off, or destroy, the inhabitant from Bikoth Aven, or from the plain of Aven. It is uncertain whether this was the actual name of a place or not, though this is probable. Although it means “plain,” derived from a verb meaning to cut in two, or divide (because a plain or a valley divides or separates mountains), hence a valley or plain is called in Hebrew a “division.”

Now, we know that there were very delightful plains in the kingdom of Syria, even near Damascus. Aven also may have been the name of a place, though in Hebrew it means trouble or laborer. But whatever it may have been, the Prophet no doubt declares here that all the plains near Damascus, and in the kingdom of Syria, would be deprived of their inhabitants.

I will then destroy the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and the holder of the scepter from the house of Eden, or from the house of pleasure. This also may have been the name of a place, and from its situation a region that, by its pleasantness, greatly delighted its inhabitants. But the Prophet, I have no doubt, alludes in these two words to trouble and pleasure. Removed, he says, shall be the people of Syria into Kir. The meaning of this is that the kingdom of Syria would be devastated, so that the people would be taken into Assyria. For the Prophet declares that the Assyrians would be the conquerors, removing the spoils into their own kingdom and leading away the people as captives, for the word “city,” as a part for the whole, is used here for the whole land.

Amos here directs his discourse against Gaza, which the Philistines occupied. It was situated in the territory of the tribe of Judah, towards the sea; but as the Anakim were its inhabitants, the Philistines kept possession of it. Thus, the Jews had these enemies as ακτωρηκους (guardians of the shore), who had a greater opportunity of doing harm because they were so near. We may learn from the Prophet’s words that the Philistines who dwelt at Gaza, when they saw the Israelites oppressed by their enemies, joined their forces with foreign allies, and that the Jews did the same. God, therefore, now denounces punishment on them.

Regarding the word Gaza, some think it was given to the city because Cambyses, when warring with the Egyptians, had deposited his money and valuable furnishings there; and because Persians call a treasure gaza. But this idea is frivolous. We indeed know that the Greek translators always put γ (gamma) for an ע (oin); just as they make Gomorrah from Omorrha, so they make Gaza from Oza.

Besides, the city had this name before the time of Cambyses. It was therefore more probably so named from its strength. That the Greeks rendered it Gaza was according to their usual practice, as I have said regarding other words. But there were two Gazas; when the first was demolished, the inhabitants built another near the sea.

Hence Luke, in Acts 8, says that Gaza was a desert; and he thus distinguishes between Gaza on the seaside and the old one, which had previously been demolished. But Amos speaks of the first Gaza, for he threatens it with the destruction that resulted in the city being moved to the shores of the Mediterranean.

I come now to the Prophet’s words: God, he says, will not be propitious to Gaza for three and four transgressions, as the Philistines had so provoked God that they were now completely unworthy of pardon and mercy. I reminded you in yesterday’s lecture that a sad spectacle is presented to us here, yet it is useful; for we see here so many people in such a corrupted state that their wickedness had become intolerable to God. But today, the state of things in the world is more corrupt, for iniquity overflows like a deluge.

Therefore, whatever people may think of their evils, the Lord from heaven sees how great and how irreclaimable is their obstinacy. It is of no account that some throw blame on others, or look for some alleviation, since all are ungodly and wicked: for we see that God here declares that He would, at the same time, take vengeance on many nations. The Edomites might then have objected, and said, that their neighbors were no better; others might have made the same excuse; everyone might have had his defense ready, if such a pretext availed, that all were equally implicated in the same guilt and wickedness. But we see that God appears here as a judge against all nations. Let us therefore not be deceived by vain delusions when we see that others are like us; let everyone know that he must bear his own burden before God: I will not then be propitious for three and for four transgressions.

Because they carried away, he says, a complete captivity—the Prophet here records a special crime: that the Gazites took away Jews and Israelites, removed them as captives into Edom, and confined them there. I have already said that it was not the Prophet’s design to enumerate all their sins, but that he was content to mention one crime, so that the Israelites might understand that they themselves were involved in a heavier guilt, because they had grievously offended both God and men. If, therefore, so severe a vengeance was to be taken on Gaza, they ought to have known that a heavier vengeance awaited them, because they were guilty of more and greater sins. But he says that they had effected a complete captivity, since they had spared neither women, nor children, nor old men; for captivity is called perfect or complete when no distinction is made, but when all are taken away indiscriminately, without any selection. They therefore carried away a complete captivity, so that no pity for sex or age touched them. That they might shut them up, he says, in Edom.

Now follows a denunciation of punishment—that God would send a fire on the wall of Gaza, to devour its palaces. And it therefore appears that Gaza was a splendid and sumptuously built town; for this reason, the Prophet speaks of its palaces. He shows, at the same time, that neither strength nor wealth would prevent God from executing the punishment which the Gazites deserved.

He also names other cities of Palestine, even Ascalon, Azdod (or Azotus), and Ecron. These cities the Philistines then possessed. The Prophet therefore intimates that wherever they might flee, there would be no safe place for them, for the Lord would expose not only Gaza but also all the other cities as prey to enemies.

We may conclude that Ascalon was the chief city, for the royal residence was there, though Gaza was the capital of the whole nation. It might still be that the pleasantness of its situation and other attractions induced the king to reside there, even though it was not the metropolis. Him then who holds the scepter I will cut off from Ascalon.

He finally concludes that all the remnants of Palestine would be destroyed. Now, whenever God denounces destruction on the Jews, He always gives some hope and says that a remnant would be saved. But here the Prophet declares that whatever remained of that nation would be destroyed, for God intended to destroy them completely, and even their very name.

He therefore adds that Jehovah Lord had spoken, saith the Lord Jehovah. This was added for confirmation, for the Philistines were then in possession of many strong defenses, so that they boldly laughed to scorn the Prophet’s threatening. He therefore brings forward here the name of God. Now follows the prediction concerning Tyre:—

He uses nearly the same words concerning Tyrus as he did concerning Gaza, and charges it with the same sin: that of removing the Jews from their country as refugees and exiles into Idumea, and of selling them as captives to the Idumeans. Just as with the others, he declares the same concerning Tyrus: that they had not sinned lightly, and therefore no moderate chastisement was sufficient, for they had for a long time abused God’s forbearance and had become stubborn in their wickedness.

But when he says, they had not been mindful of the covenant of brethren, some refer this to Hiram and David, for we know that they had a brotherly relationship and called each other brothers; so great was the kindness between them. Some, therefore, think that the Tyrians are condemned here for having forgotten this covenant, for there ought to have remained among them some regard for the friendship that had existed between the two kings.

But I do not know whether this is too strained a view. I rather incline to another: that the Syrians delivered up the Jews and the Israelites to the Idumeans, even though they knew them to be brethren. And those who implicate themselves in a matter of this kind are by no means excusable.

When I see one conspiring for the ruin of his own brother, I see a detestable and monstrous thing; if I do not abhor participation in the same crime, I am involved in the same guilt. Therefore, when the Syrians saw the Idumeans raging cruelly against their brethren (for they were descended from the same family), they certainly ought to have shown the Idumeans how alienated they were from all humanity and how perfidious they were against their own brethren and relatives. Now the Prophet says that they had been unmindful of the covenant of brethren, because they made themselves accomplices in such a great and execrable crime: carrying away Jews into Idumea and shutting them up there, when they knew that the Idumeans sought nothing else but the entire ruin of their own brethren. This seems to be the true meaning of the Prophet.

But he adds that God would send a fire on the wall of Tyrus to consume its palaces.

When this happened cannot be known with certainty. For though Tyrus was demolished by Alexander, as Gaza also was, I do not doubt that these cities suffered this calamity long before the coming of Alexander of Macedon. And it is probable, as I have already reminded you, that the Assyrians laid waste these countries and also took possession of Tyrus, though they did not demolish that city.

For in Alexander’s time there was no king there; it had been changed into a republic, and the people were free and held the chief authority. There must, then, have been no small changes there, for the state of the city and its government were wholly different from what they had been. We may then conclude that Tyrus was laid waste by the Assyrians but afterwards recovered its strength and was a free city in the time of Alexander the Great.

Let us now proceed, for I will not dwell on every word, as we see that the Prophet repeats the same expressions.