John Calvin Commentary Amos 2:9-12

"Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath. Also I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite. And I raised up of your sons for prophets, and of your young men for Nazirites. Is it not even thus, O ye children of Israel? saith Jehovah. But ye gave the Nazirites wine to drink, and commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not." — Amos 2:9-12 (ASV)

God reasons earnestly here with the Israelites for their ingratitude. He recounts the benefits He had previously conferred on that people, and then shows how unworthily and disgracefully they had conducted themselves. They forgot their many blessings, proudly despised God, and acted as if they were like other nations, not bound to God for the unique benefit of adoption.

The summary, then, is that God here complains that He had badly bestowed His blessings. He reproves the people for their impiety, since they did not lead a holier life after having been freely redeemed.

He says first, I have exterminated the Amorite before their face. God shows here that He was shamefully defrauded by the Israelites, for whose sake He had previously destroyed the Amorites. For why were the Amorites exterminated, except that God would cleanse the land and also that He might give His own people a dwelling there, so that He might be purely worshipped?

Then the people of Israel ought to have devoted themselves completely to the service of God. But since they neglected to do this, they frustrated the purpose of God, who had expelled the Amorites from that land, yes, and entirely destroyed them. The first complaint, then, is that the children of Israel were no better than the Amorites, though God had given them the land—which was taken from its natives—so that they might dwell in it, and on the condition that His name should be worshipped there.

For this reason, the Prophets say elsewhere that they were Amorites. They ought to have been a new people; but since they followed the examples of others, in what did they differ from them? They are therefore called their posterity. But the Prophet does not speak so severely here; he only reproves the Israelites because they were no different from the Amorites, whom they knew to have been destroyed so that they might be brought into their place and succeed to their inheritance.

It is then added that the Amorites were tall in stature and also that they were strong men. By these words, the Prophet implies that the Amorites were not conquered by the people's valor, but by the wonderful power of God. Indeed, we know that they were dreaded by the people of Israel, for they were like giants.

Then the Prophet speaks here of their height and strength, so that the Israelites might consider that they did not overcome them by their own valor, but that the land was given them by a miracle, for they had to deal with giants, whom they could hardly dare to look upon. It was then God who prostrated the cedars and the oaks before His people.

Thus we learn that the Israelites could not boast of their own strength as though they took possession of the land because they ejected their enemies by means of war; for this was done by the unique kindness of God. Indeed, they could not have contended with their enemies if what the Lord had so often foretold had not been fulfilled: For you, while still, I will fight (Exodus 14:14). We now perceive the Prophet’s intention.

But we may also learn from this that the Israelites had not possessed the land because they were more excellent than the Amorites, its ancient inhabitants, but because it so pleased God. There was therefore no reason for the people of Israel to be proud on account of any excellence. Thus it appears that those who did not consider this remarkable kindness done to them were more than doubly ungrateful to God.

He says that their fruit above and root below were destroyed. By this metaphor, God expands on what He said before: that the Amorites had been exterminated, so that none of them remained. “I have demolished,” He says, or, “I have entirely destroyed the root beneath and the fruit above; I have extinguished the very name of the nation.” And yet the Israelites were no better. Though the Amorites were destroyed in this way, the Israelites, having succeeded to their place, became like them; this was utterly inexcusable. The more severe God’s vengeance had been towards the Amorites, the more the Israelites ought to have extolled His favor. But when with closed eyes they passed by so remarkable a testimony of God’s paternal love, it appears that they were extremely wicked and ungrateful.

He afterwards adds, I have made you to ascend from the land of Egypt; I have made you to walk in the desert for forty years, in order to possess the land of the Amorite. The circumstances specified here are intended to confirm the same thing: that God had miraculously redeemed His people.

Men, we know, for the most part minimize the favors of God; indeed, this evil is innate in us. This is the reason why the Prophet describes at such length and extols the redemption of the people. Thus he now says that they had been led out of the land of Egypt. And they ought to have remembered what their condition had been in Egypt, for there they were most miserably oppressed.

When, therefore, that departure was set before them, it was as if God had reminded them how shamefully they had been treated and how hard their bondage had been in Egypt. That beginning ought to have humbled them and also to have stimulated them to cultivate piety. When they now proudly rebelled against God, when no recollection of their deliverance took hold of them, this vice is justly charged against them by the Prophet: “See,” he says, “I have brought you forth from the land of Egypt; what were you then? What was your nobility? What was your wealth or riches? What was your power? For the Egyptians treated you as the vilest slaves; your condition then was extremely ignominious. You were as lost, and I redeemed you. And now the recollection of so illustrious a kindness, which deserved to be forever remembered, is buried.”

He afterwards adds, I have made you to walk... The Prophet here reminds them of the desert, so that the Israelites might know that God could have justly closed off to them an entrance into the land, though He had promised it as an inheritance to Abraham. For why was it that the Lord led them about for so long a time, except that they, as far as they could, had denied God and rendered themselves unworthy of enjoying the promised land?

Then the Prophet indirectly blames the Israelites here for being the reason God detained them for forty years without bringing them immediately into the promised land—which could have easily been done if they had not closed the door against themselves by their ingratitude. This is one reason why the Prophet now speaks of the forty years.

And then, since God had in various ways testified His kindness towards the Israelites, He had thus bound them more closely to Himself; but an ungodly forgetfulness had buried all His favors. God daily rained manna on them from heaven; He also gave them drink from a dry rock; He guided them during the day by a pillar of cloud, and in the night by fire. We also know how often God bore with them and how many proofs He gave them of His forbearance. The Prophet, then, by speaking here of the forty years, meant to urge the Israelites to recall the many favors that bound them to God, while they were miraculously led by Him for forty years in the desert.

He now adds, I have raised from your sons Prophets, and Nazarites from your young or strong men (for בחרים, becharim, as we have said elsewhere, are called by the Hebrews chosen men); then, from your youth or chosen men I have raised Nazarites. Was it not so, O children of Israel? Or, 'certainly it was so,' for the particle אף, aph, sometimes signifies a simple affirmation and sometimes an addition.

Is not then all this true, O children of Israel? saith Jehovah. God first reminds them that He had raised up Prophets from their sons. It is a remarkable proof of God’s love that He deigns to guide His people by Prophets. For if God were to speak Himself from heaven, or to send His angels down, it would apparently be much more dignified. But when He so condescends as to employ mortal men and our own brethren—who are the agents of His Spirit, in whom He dwells, and by whose mouth He speaks—it cannot indeed be esteemed as highly as it deserves that the Lord should thus accommodate Himself to us in so familiar a manner.

This is the reason why He now says that He had raised up Prophets from their sons. They might have objected and said that He had introduced the Law, and that then the heaven was moved, and the earth shook. But He speaks of His daily favor in being pleased to speak continually to His people, as it were, from mouth to mouth, and this by men. “I have raised up,” He says, “Prophets from your sons; that is, I have chosen angels from the midst of you.”

The Prophets are indeed, as it were, celestial ambassadors, and God commands them to be heard, just as if He Himself appeared in a visible form. Since then He chose angels from the midst of us, is not this an invaluable favor? Thus we see how much force is contained in this reproof, when the Lord says that Prophets had been chosen from His own people.

And He also mentions the Nazarites. It appears sufficiently evident from Numbers 6:1-8 why God appointed Nazarites. Nothing is more difficult, we know, than to induce men to follow a common rule, for they always seek something new. From this have arisen so many devices, so many additions, in short, so many leavenings by which God’s worship is corrupted, for each wishes to be more holy than another and strives for some singularity.

Then, in case anyone had a wish to consecrate himself to God beyond what was commonly required, the Lord instituted a special observance, so that the people might not attempt anything without at least His permission. Hence, when anyone wished to consecrate himself to God (though they were all holy), he nevertheless observed certain regulations: he abstained from wine, he allowed his hair to grow; in a word, he observed those ceremonial rites which we find in the chapter already referred to. God now reminds the Israelites that He had omitted nothing calculated to preserve them pure and holy, and complete in His worship.

After relating these two things, He asks them, Is not all this true? The facts were indeed well known; then the question, one might say, was superfluous. But the Prophet deliberately asked the Israelites the question here—Is it not so?—so that he might more deeply touch their hearts.

Indeed, we often despise things well known, and we see how many people heedlessly accept what they hear and overlook things without any thought. Such must have been the lethargy of the Israelites. They might have confessed without disputing that all this was true—that the Lord had raised up Prophets from their children and that He had given to them that special service of which we have spoken.

But they might, at the same time, have contemptuously overlooked the whole, if this had not been added: “What do you mean, O Israelites? You do indeed see that nothing has been left undone by Me to retain you in My service. How then is it now that your lust leads you away from Me, and that having shaken off the yoke, you grow so wanton against Me?” We now perceive why the Prophet inserted this clause, for it was necessary that the Israelites should be more sharply roused so that, being convicted, they might acknowledge their guilt.

But it now follows, Ye have to the Nazarites quaffed wine, and on the Prophets ye have laid a command, that they should not prophesy. God complains here that the service which He had instituted had been violated by the people. It seems indeed a light offense that wine had been given to the Nazarites; for the kingdom of God, we know, is not meat and drink (1 Corinthians 8:8). Though this saying of Paul was not yet known, it was nevertheless true in all ages.

It was then lawful for the Nazarites to drink wine, provided they used moderation. To this, the simple answer is that it was lawful to drink wine, for they had voluntarily undertaken to abstain from it. In a similar manner, God forbade the priests to drink wine or strong drink whenever they entered the temple.

Indeed, God did not wish to be served with this kind of ceremony; but His intention was to show, by such a rite, that greater temperance is required in priests than in the people in general. His purpose then was to withdraw them from the common way of living when they entered the temple, for they were like mediators between God and His people. They ought then to have consecrated themselves in a special manner.

We now see that the priests were reminded by this external symbol that greater holiness was required in them than in the people. The same thing must also be said of the Nazarites. The Nazarites might drink wine; but during the time they consecrated themselves to God, they were not allowed to drink wine, so that they might thereby acknowledge that they were, in a way, separated from the common habits of men and had come nearer to God. We now understand why it was not lawful for the Nazarites to drink wine.

But it is frivolous for the Papists to claim this example and to introduce it in defense of their superstitions and of their foolish and rash vows, which they undertake without any regard to God; for God expressly sanctioned and confirmed whatever the Nazarites did under the Law. Let the Papists show proof for their monastic vows and foolish rites, by which they now trifle with God.

We also know that there is a great difference between the Nazarites and the Papal monks. For the monks vow perpetual celibacy; others vow abstinence from meat for life; and these things are done foolishly and rashly. They indeed think that the worship of God consists in these trifles. They promise what is not in their own power, for they renounce marriage when they do not know whether they are endowed with the gift of chastity.

And to abstain from meat all their life is still more foolish, because they make this a part of God’s service. I do, at the same time, wonder that they bring forward this example, since there are none so holy under the Papacy as to abstain from wine.

As for the Carthusians and other monks of the holier sort, they seem determined to take revenge on abstinence from meat, for they choose the sweetest and the liveliest wine, as though they intended to get compensation for the loss and deprivation they undergo when they pledge to God their abstinence from meat by reserving the best wine for themselves. These things are extremely ludicrous. Besides, it is a sufficient reply if we point to what I have already said: that the Nazarites did nothing under the Law but what God in His word approved and sanctioned.

Since God then so sharply and severely reproved the Israelites for giving wine to the Nazarites, what must be expected now when we transgress the chief commandments of God, when we corrupt His whole spiritual worship? It apparently seemed but a venial sin, so to speak, for the Nazarites to drink wine.

Had they become wanton or robbed, or had they wronged their brethren, or committed forgery, the charge against them would have doubtless been much more atrocious. Yet the Prophet does not now abstain from bitterly complaining that they drank wine. Then, since God would have us worship Him in a spiritual manner, a much heavier charge lies against us if we violate His spiritual worship.

As, for instance, if we now pollute the sacraments, if we corrupt the purity of divine worship, if we treat His word with scorn, indeed, if we transgress in these main points of religion, our excuse is much less. Let us then remember that the Prophet here reproves the Israelites for giving wine to the Nazarites.

He then adds that they commanded the Prophets not to prophesy. It is certain that the Prophets were not forbidden to speak, at least not expressly forbidden. But when the liberty of teaching faithfully as they ought to do is taken away from God’s servants, and a command to this effect is given them, it is the same thing as to completely reject their doctrine.

The Israelites wished Prophets to be among them, and yet they could not endure their plain reproofs. But when they had polluted the worship of God, when their whole conduct became dissolute, the Prophets sharply inveighed against them. This freedom could not be endured by the Israelites; they wished to be spared and flattered. What the Prophet now charges against them, then, is that they forbade God’s servants to declare the word freely and honestly as God had commanded them. Hence he says, On the Prophets they have laid a charge, that they should not prophesy.

This evil reigns in the world today. It would indeed be an execrable audacity to completely reject the Lord’s word; this is what even ungodly men dare not openly do. But at the same time, they wish some middle course to be adopted, so that God might not fully exercise authority over them. They then would gladly put restraint on the Holy Spirit, so as not to allow Him to speak except within certain limitations: “See, we willingly allow You some things, but this we cannot bear; so much harshness is extremely odious.”

And under the Papacy today, the liberty of prophesying is wholly suppressed. And how many there are among us who wish to impose laws on God’s servants beyond which they are not to pass? But we see what the Prophet says here—that the word of God is repudiated when the freedom of teaching is restrained, and men wish to be flattered, desire their sins to be covered, and cannot bear free admonitions.

Let us also notice the word command, which the Prophet uses. צוה, tsue, means to order, to command, or to determine in an authoritative manner. The Prophet then does not reason earnestly with them because there were many who clamored, who murmured against the Prophets, as is always the case. Rather, he condemns the audacity of the chief men for daring to consult how they might silence the Prophets and not allow them the free liberty of teaching, as we find is done even now.

For not only in taverns and secret places do the ungodly clamor when their sins are severely reproved, but they also go out publicly and complain that too much liberty is allowed the ministers of the word, and that some course ought to be adopted to make them speak more moderately.

It is this sacrilege, then, that the Prophet now rebukes when he says that the ungodly commanded the Prophets that they should not prophesy—as though they made a law, as though they wished to proclaim a decree, that the Prophets should not speak so boldly and so freely.