John Calvin Commentary Amos 7

Amos shows in this chapter that God had often deferred the punishments He had determined to inflict on the people. Thus, he reminds the Israelites of their perverseness, since they had abused God's forbearance and had not repented even after a long time. God had suspended His judgments for this purpose: that they might willingly return to the right way, as He commonly draws people by His kindness, provided they are teachable.

Since this forbearance of God had been fruitless, Amos reproves the Israelites, though he also had another object in view. For we know that when God spares ungodly people and does not immediately inflict the punishments they deserve, they scoff and harden themselves for the future, so that they fear nothing. When the Lord threatens and does not instantly execute His vengeance, they then especially think that all warnings are mere empty threats. Therefore, they harden their minds in complacency and believe they can trifle with God with impunity.

Since this stubbornness prevailed among the Israelites, the Prophet here shows in various ways that they gloried in vain and thus complacently despised God's judgment. For though the Lord had spared them for a time, the final vengeance was not far off. This is the essence of the matter, but each expression must be considered in its turn.

A vision, he says, had been shown to him by the Lord; and the vision was that God Himself had formed locusts. Yet some think יוצר, iutsar, is a noun and translate it as 'creation'; others, as 'a swarm' or 'a troop.' But these are strained interpretations. The Lord then, I have no doubt, formed locusts in the Prophet’s presence, which devoured all the grass.

He therefore says, when the grass began to grow, that is, after the cuttings of the king. Here also commentators vary: some think this refers to the king's sheep shearings. Others regard it as the mowing of hay, saying that the best grass was then cut for the king's use, to feed his horses and cattle. But these conjectures have no solid basis.

Therefore, I do not doubt that the Prophet here calls it a 'royal cutting' when, by public order, they began to cut their meadows. It is indeed credible that there was some regulation at that time; just as with us, no one begins the vintage at his own will, but a specific, regular time is observed. So those cuttings, which were done publicly, were called 'royal,' just as a public road is called the 'king's highway.' Yet, I believe the Prophet, under this figurative expression, refers to the previous calamities by which the people had already been reduced in number.

But we must place this prophecy or vision in its proper historical context. I do not doubt, and I believe I can gather this from certain considerations, that the Prophet here compares the time that preceded the reign of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, with the prosperous time that followed.

For when Jeroboam the Second began to reign, the kingdom was laid waste, partly by enemy invasions and partly by drought, heat, harsh weather, or pestilence. Since the condition of the people, as sacred history records, was extremely miserable, the Prophet therefore says that locusts had been shown to him, which devoured all the grass and standing grain. For he not only says that locusts were formed, but also that they devoured the grass, so that nothing remained. When they had finished, he says, to eat the grass of the earth, then I said, Lord Jehovah, etc. Thus, the Prophet shows that clear signs of God’s wrath had already appeared then, and that the people had already been partly afflicted, but yet God had afterward given them time for repentance.

Now, by locusts, I understand a moderate kind of punishment. We have seen elsewhere (Joel 1:4) that the country had then been nearly consumed by locusts, cankerworms, and similar pests. But in this place, the Prophet metaphorically designates enemy invasions, which had not immediately laid waste the whole country but had desolated it to some extent.

This was indeed obvious to all, but few viewed it as God's judgment, just as the Lord also complains that the rebellious do not regard the hand of the one who strikes them (Isaiah 10:3–4). Though the Israelites saw their land consumed, they did not think that God was displeased with them. For ungodly people do not willingly examine themselves nor raise their eyes to heaven when the Lord disciplines them. They would become, as it were, stupefied in their calamities rather than consider God's judgment, so that they might be seriously led to repentance; this, almost all of them naturally shun.

Therefore, the Prophet says that this was especially shown to him. The calamity then was known to all and plain for the people to see; but the Prophet alone, by a vision, understood that God was punishing the people's sins in this manner. At the same time, the special purpose of the vision was to make the Israelites know that God's hand was withheld, as it were, in the middle of its work.

They had seen the enemies coming; they had experienced many hardships. But they thought that the enemies retreated either through good fortune or some other means. They did not consider that God had spared them, which was the most important point. It was therefore shown to the Prophet in a vision that God spared His people, though He had resolved to destroy the whole land.

And the Prophet expressly declares that God had been appeased through his intercession and prayer. From this, what I have already referred to appears very clearly: that is, the Prophet condemns the unbelieving for having perversely trifled with God, for they regarded the threats they had heard from the mouth of Amos and others as jests.

Why was this? Because God had spared them. The Prophet shows how this took place: “The Lord,” he says, “had at first resolved to destroy you, but He still waits for you and therefore suspends His extreme vengeance, so that by His kindness He may draw you to Himself. And this has been done through my prayers.

“Therefore, there is no reason for you to think that I am influenced by hatred or cruelty when I address you with such severity. This I do necessarily on account of my office; but I am still concerned and anxious for your safety, and of this the Lord is a witness, and so is the vision I now declare to you.”

We now see that God’s servants had so controlled and moderated their emotions that pity did not prevent them from being severe whenever their calling so required. Also, this severity did not obliterate feelings of compassion from their minds. Amos, as we have already seen, severely denounced the people, sharply reproved their vices, and daily summoned incorrigible people to the tribunal of God.

Since he was so vehemently indignant about their vices and so sharply threatened them, he might have appeared to have forgotten all compassion. But this passage shows that he had not stripped himself of pity, even though he faithfully discharged his office and was not diverted from his purpose when he saw that he was dealing with wicked and obstinate people. He was therefore severe because God commanded him to be; it was what his calling required. But at the same time, he pitied the people.

Let all teachers in the Church, then, learn to cultivate these two attitudes: to be vehemently indignant whenever they see the worship of God profaned, to burn with zeal for God, and to show the severity that appeared in all the Prophets whenever proper order decays. At the same time, they should sympathize with miserable people whom they see rushing headlong into destruction, bewail their madness, and intercede with God as much as they can—in such a way, however, that their compassion does not make them lazy or indifferent, so as to be indulgent towards people's sins.

Indeed, they ought to possess the frame of mind I have mentioned, so that they may go forth as humble petitioners before God and implore pardon for miserable and wretched people. But when they come to the people, acting in another capacity, so that they may be severe and rigid, let them remember by whom they are sent and with what commands. Let them know that they are the ministers of God, who is the judge of the world, and therefore ought not to spare the people. This, then, is what we must heed.

Now, as to the word repent, as applied to God, let us understand, as has been stated elsewhere, that God does not change His purpose so as to retract what He has once determined. He indeed knew what He would do before He showed the vision to His prophet Amos. But He accommodates Himself to the limits of human understanding when He mentions such changes.

It was, then, God's eternal purpose to threaten the people, to show signs of His displeasure, and yet to suspend His vengeance for a time, so that their stubbornness might be all the more inexcusable. But in the meantime, as this was ineffective, He reveals something else: that He was already armed to execute His vengeance.

God, then, does not state what He had decreed, but what the Israelites deserved and what punishment or reward was due to them. When, therefore, God begins to inflict punishment on sinners, it is as if He intended to execute His vengeance fully. He, however, forms a purpose within Himself, but that is hidden from us. As soon, then, as He lifts up His finger, we ought to regard it as owing to His mercy that we are not instantly reduced to nothing. When this happens, it is as if He changed His purpose or as if He withheld His hand.

This, then, ought to be borne in mind when the prophet says that God created locusts to devour all the grass, but that he humbly pleaded with God to put an end to this calamity. He then adds that God repented—not that there was any change of mind in God, but because God suddenly and beyond hope suspended the vengeance that was close at hand. It shall not then be.

With regard to the clause, Be propitious, I pray; how will Jacob rise up, or who will raise up Jacob? it appears that the Prophet saw no other remedy unless the Lord, according to His infinite goodness, forgave the people; therefore, he prays for pardon. In the meantime, he shows that he prayed for the Church. “Lord,” he says, “Your hand does not now pursue strangers, but an elect people, Your special possession.”

For by the name Jacob, the Prophet highlights the covenant that God made with Abraham and the Patriarchs, as if he said, “O God, will You be unrelenting towards the people whom You have chosen and adopted, of whom You are the Father? Remember that they are neither Babylonians, nor Egyptians, nor Assyrians, but a royal priesthood, and Your holy and special people.”

And there is nothing that inclines God more to mercy than the recollection of His freely given covenant, as we have seen elsewhere.

He then says that Jacob was small. He does not claim Jacob's worthiness or offer any proof of excellence, but says that he was small, as if he said, “O Lord, You now draw forth Your power against miserable creatures who are already weakened enough.” For he calls him small because he had been worn out by many calamities.

Therefore I said that reference is made here to that miserable time, of which Scripture records when it states that the free as well as the captive were reduced to extreme distress before Jeroboam the second began to reign. Then indeed God restored His people, but that favor was short-lived, for immediately after the death of King Jeroboam, a rebellion arose which proved ruinous to the whole kingdom: his son Zechariah, as is well known, was slain by Shallum (2 Kings 15:8–10).

How then will Jacob rise up? Some take the verb יקום, ikum, in a transitive sense: “Who will raise him up?” But others think it is an intransitive verb: “How will Jacob rise up?” that is, by what means will Jacob rise up, as מי, mi, may be taken to mean 'how' or 'by what means.' How then will Jacob rise up? But this difference is not very significant to the main point. It is enough, then, to say that the Prophet here speaks of the people's weakness, so that on this account God might be more inclined to forgive them.

The Prophet shows that God had not only once spared the people, but that when He was again prepared for vengeance, He still willingly deferred it, so that, if possible, the people might willingly recover. But as all were unhealable, this forbearance of God produced no fruit. Now, regarding the Prophet's words, we see that a heavier punishment is indicated by the likeness of fire than by what he said before when he spoke of locusts.

We stated that locusts ordinarily represent a moderate punishment, one not so dreadful at first glance. For though the scarcity and famine caused by locusts, when they consume all kinds of fruit, are most grievous evils, yet fire sometimes strikes people with much greater dread. Therefore, by mentioning fire, the Prophet shows that God had become very indignant, seeing that the people had hardened themselves and could not be reformed by common and usual remedies.

The Lord’s usual mode of proceeding, as He declares everywhere in the Scriptures, is this: At first, He tries to see if people are capable of being healed and does not apply the most grievous punishment, but one that can be endured. But when He perceives hardness and obstinacy in sinners, He doubles and trebles the punishment; indeed, as He says through Moses, He increases His judgments sevenfold (Deuteronomy 28:25). Such, then, was the manner Amos now records, for God at first created the locusts, and then He kindled a fire, which consumed the great deep and devoured their possession.

The vowel point, indicating a participial form in the word used here, shows that they are mistaken who render יוצר, iutsar, as “creation” (of which we have spoken before); for the vowel point here corresponds with that in the other instance of יוצר, iutsar,. In both places, the Lord shows Himself to be the author of punishment, which is usually ascribed to chance, because people imagine that evils proceed from something else rather than from God. Therefore, it was necessary for this to be clearly expressed, as the Prophet also does when he says that locusts had been created by God and that fire had been kindled by Him.

God then called to contend by fire. It was not without purpose that the Prophet uses the verb רוב, rub, which expositors have not yet properly considered. For he indirectly condemns the hardness of the people, because the Lord had already not only chastised the people’s vices but had also contended with depraved and obstinate people: just as when no justice can be obtained, litigation becomes necessary, so the Prophet says here that God was coming prepared with fire to contend with the people’s stubbornness.

The great deep, he says, was consumed by this fire. Therefore, what I have already said becomes more evident—that a more dreadful punishment is described here than in the first vision. The locusts devoured only the grass, but the fire penetrates into the greatest depths; it consumes and destroys not only the earth’s surface but burns up the very roots. Indeed, it descends to the center and consumes the whole earth. Those who translate חלק, chelak, as “a part” do not pay sufficient attention to the Prophet’s intention, for he concludes that the earth’s surface had been laid waste because the very gulfs had not escaped the burning. And when the fire reaches the very depths of the earth, how could their possession endure, which was also exposed to the sun’s heat? We see how the earth is burned up by heat when the sun is scorching in midsummer. We now perceive the Prophet’s intention.

He adds that God was again pacified. We must always keep in mind the objective Amos had in view; for ungodly people thought the Prophets were liars whenever God did not immediately execute the vengeance He had denounced: but Amos here reminds them that when God defers punishment, He does not threaten in vain but waits for people to repent; and that if they continue to abuse His patience, they will at last have to feel how dreadful is the vengeance that awaits all those who thus pervert the goodness of God, who do not hear God inviting them so kindly to Himself. This is the meaning.

This vision reveals more clearly to us what the Prophet meant before, and what the object of his doctrine was. His intention was to show the people that what they had gained by their obstinacy was only to make God implacable and to cause Him not to spare them any longer, as He had until now done.

The meaning is this: “God has until now borne with you according to His own goodness. Do not promise yourselves that He will ever deal with you in the same manner, for your rebelliousness and waywardness have provoked Him. As He sees you to be obstinate beyond measure, He must now necessarily execute final vengeance on you. Therefore, there is now no forgiveness provided for you. But as you are incurable, so the Lord on His part will remain unchangeable in the severity of His judgment and will by no means turn to mercy.”

Interpreters explain this vision in various ways and philosophize with subtlety on the word plumbline; yet almost all their refined interpretations are unconvincing. If I were inclined to offer a plausible, though perhaps overly subtle, interpretation, I would say that the plumbline is the law of God, for it prescribed to His people a regular order of things, which might serve as a plumbline, since all things were directed according to the best rule. I might speak this way, but I am not inclined to interpret with such subtlety, for I do not doubt that God meant only that this would be the last measuring, because He would punish His people without any remission and without any delay. We now grasp the Prophet’s meaning, but all this will become more evident from the words of the passage.

Thus He showed me; and, behold, the Lord stood on a wall of a plumbline. He calls that which had been formed by rule a “wall of a plumbline,” as though he had said that it was a wall built with a plumbline. God then stood on a plumbline-wall, and a plumbline, he says, was in His hand. Therefore, what some interpreters say is false: that a plumbline was cast away by God because He would no longer perform the work of a builder in ruling His people. This is frivolous, for the Prophet testifies here expressly that a plumbline was in God’s hand.

But what follows has an important meaning: God asks His Prophet, What do you see, Amos? It is probable that the Prophet was astonished at such a mysterious thing. When locusts were formed, and when there was a contention by fire, he might have easily discerned what God meant, for these visions were by no means ambiguous. But when God stood on a wall with a plumbline, this was somewhat more difficult to understand. The probability is that the Prophet was made to feel great astonishment, so that the people might be more attentive to his vision, since we commonly focus our thoughts more on hidden things. For we pay little attention to what we think is easily understood, but mystery, or something difficult to understand, sharpens our minds and attention.

I do not doubt then that God caused the Prophet to be amazed for a time, with the aim of increasing the attention of the people. What, then, do you see, Amos? A plumbline, he says. But, at the same time, he did not know what the meaning of this plumbline was, or what was its design.

Then God answers, Behold, I set a plumbline in the midst of My people; that is, I establish this to be the last rule, or the final measure. And I will not add any more to pass by them.

Since God had twice passed over the limits of His judgment by sparing them, He says, now that the final end had come, “I will proceed no further in forgiving them.” Just as when a wall is built to the plumbline, so that no part may in the least exceed another, but that there may be regularity throughout, so also this shall be the last order; this measuring shall be true and just.

“I will pass by them no more.” This, I have no doubt, is the real meaning of the Prophet. We now also perceive that the design of the other two visions was to prevent the Israelites from deceiving themselves with false self-flattery, simply because God was kind and favorable to them.

The Prophet shows that God dealt with them in this way, not because they were just, for God had already begun to execute His judgments on them. The punishments they had experienced were strong evidence of their crimes, for God is not angry with people without reason, especially with His chosen people.

Since, then, they had already been struck repeatedly, the Prophet proves that they were worthy of heavier punishments. He says that the fact that punishments had been mild and moderated was to be ascribed to the indulgence of God, because He was willing to forgive His people. But the time had now come when He would no longer pardon them, for He saw that He had to deal with incorrigible obstinacy. This is the meaning.

It now follows, And destroyed shall be the high places of Isaac, and overthrown shall be the sanctuaries (some render palaces) of Israel; and I will rise up against the house of Jeroboam with the sword. The Prophet here distinctly declares that the people trusted in vain in their temples and superstitions, for by these they further kindled God’s wrath against themselves. Indeed, he would not have expressly threatened the high places and the temples unless the Israelites had, in this way, as I have already said, provoked God’s vengeance against themselves, since they had corrupted the true and lawful worship of God.

Destroyed then shall be the high places of Isaac. It may be asked, why does he mention here the name of Isaac, which is rarely done by the Prophets? And there is also a change of one letter, for the word Isaac is commonly written with ץ, tsade, but here it is written with ש, shin. It is well known, however, that ש, shin, and ץ, tsade, are used interchangeably.

It is, however, beyond dispute that the Prophet speaks here of the holy man Isaac. The reason seems to be plainly this: because the Israelites absurdly claimed to imitate their father in their superstitions. For, as we know, temples had been erected where Isaac had worshipped God, and also where their fathers Abraham and Jacob had worshipped.

Since, then, the Israelites boasted of the examples of holy fathers, the Prophet here condemns this vain and false boasting. Those who understand the word Isaac to mean that the Prophet threatens the Idumeans as well as the Israelites have no basis for their opinion; the reason I have already mentioned is quite sufficient.

We indeed know that the Israelites constantly cited the examples of the fathers, like the woman of Samaria, who said to Christ, ‘Our fathers worshipped in this mountain’ (John 4:20). So also the Israelites were formerly accustomed to allege that the holy patriarchs worshipped God in those places—that God appeared in Bethel to holy Jacob, and also that altars were built in other places. Being armed with the examples of the fathers, they thought these examples to be their shield.

The case is the same with the Papists in our day; when they hear of anything as having been done by the fathers, they instantly seize upon it, but these are vain excuses. The Israelites were also like them; hence the Prophet says, “Behold, you gain nothing by this fallacious pretense; for destroyed shall be the high places of Isaac, even those which are now covered by an honorable name: and at the same time the temples or palaces of Israel shall be overthrown.”

And I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword. We learn from this last clause that things were then, as we have stated elsewhere, in a prosperous state in the kingdom of Israel, though God had in various ways afflicted it before Jeroboam’s time. But they had always been obstinate. God afterwards restored them to a better condition, for the state of the people greatly improved under Jeroboam: he recovered many cities and enlarged the borders of his kingdom. Then the people, in their affluence, began to grow rebellious against God.

Since the Prophet saw that they abused God’s goodness in this way, he denounced destruction on Jeroboam. Hence he says, Against the house of Jeroboam I will rise up with the sword; that is, “I will begin to execute My judgment on the offspring of the king himself. Though I may spare him, yet his posterity shall not escape My hand.”

Prayer:

Almighty God, since You so suspend Your hand in chastising us that, unless we are wholly blind and foolish, we must acknowledge that we are spared so that we may willingly return to You. We recognize that, being allured by the gentleness of Your forbearance, we should submit ourselves to You in willing obedience.

O grant that we may not harden our hearts, nor be slow, nor slothful, nor even reluctant to repent when You defer extreme punishment. Instead, may we strive to anticipate Your final vengeance and so submit ourselves to You that we may be pardoned while there is still time. May we hasten to offer our hearts, whole and sincere, to You.

And so, may we repent while urged by extreme danger, that no hidden hypocrisy may remain in our hearts. May we search every faculty of our soul in such a way that You may become to us a real and faithful witness of that integrity which You require of all who return to You to obtain pardon through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Prophet here relates the scheme by which Satan attempted to depress his mind, so that he might not continue in the discharge of his prophetic office.

He says that Amaziah had sent to the king to induce him to adopt some severe measure. Amaziah pretended that because Amos scattered words full of sedition and made turbulent speeches, the king's affairs could not be carried on unless the king promptly stopped him.

Furthermore, the same Amaziah said that nothing could be better for the Prophet than to flee to the land of Judah, as he could live in safety there, because he had incurred great danger by daring to prophesy against the king.

From this it appears that Amaziah was a perfidious and cunning man, but not so bloodthirsty as to openly attempt anything serious against the Prophet’s life; unless perhaps he thought that this could not be done, and gave this advice, not so much out of kindness, but because the thing was impracticable. This second supposition is probable from the words of the passage.

For, in the first place, the Prophet says that Amaziah had sent to the king. He then tried whether he could incite the king’s mind to persecute Amos. It may be that his design did succeed: hence he undertook what in the second place is related, that is, he called the Prophet to himself and tried to frighten him and drive him by fear from the land of Israel, so that he might no longer be troublesome to them.

But we must, in the first place, notice the motive by which this Amaziah was influenced when he endeavored so much, by any means possible, to banish the Prophet from the kingdom of Israel. It is certainly not credible that he was influenced by what he pretended to the king—namely, that there was a danger of sedition. Instead, it was a pretense cunningly made.

Amaziah then was concerned for his own advantage, as we see to be the case in our day with mitred bishops who frequent the courts of princes and do not honestly declare what their designs are. For they see that their tyranny cannot stand unless the gospel is abolished; they see that our doctrine threatens to become a chill and even ice to their kitchens; and then they see that they can be of no account in the world, unless they crush us.

And what do they pretend at the same time? That our doctrine cannot be received without producing a change in the whole world, without ruin to the whole civil order, without depriving kings of their power and dignity. It is then by these malicious schemes that they gain favor for themselves. Such was the scheme of Amaziah, and such was his maneuver in opposing the Prophet Amos.

Behold, he says to the king, he has conspired against you. קשר, kosher, means to bind, but metaphorically, it signifies to conspire: Conspired then has Amos against you.

But who is speaking? Amaziah. And the Prophet does not omit Amaziah’s title, for he says that he was the priest of Bethel. He might have only said, “Amaziah sent to King Jeroboam,” but by mentioning that he was a priest, the Prophet shows that Amaziah did not strive for public peace, as he pretended.

This was therefore a fallacious pretense, for he fought for his own “Helen”—that is, he fought for his own kitchen, in short, for his living. For he would have been disgracefully deprived of his priesthood and then reduced to poverty and want, unless he had driven away the Prophet Amos.

Since then he saw that such a great evil was near him unless Amos was banished, he had this object in view, pretended something else, and sent to the king, saying, Amos has conspired. And he enhances the crime: In the midst of the house of Israel.

“This is not done,” he says, “in a corner or in some obscure place. Instead, his doctrine is heard on all the public roads; whole cities are filled with it. In short, it burns like fire in the very heart, in the very midst of the kingdom. And you will soon find your own house to be all in flames unless you apply a remedy—indeed, unless you extinguish it.”

We therefore see how Amaziah acted and the reason why he so earnestly persuaded the king to no longer give liberty to the Prophet Amos.

Regarding what follows—that the land could no longer bear his words—the sentence admits of two probable meanings. The first is that he said the people, being offended by his turbulent doctrine, now of themselves hated and detested the Prophet Amos as a seditious man.

Kings in our day are stirred up in a similar manner: “Why do you delay? Your subjects desire nothing so much as to extinguish this evil, and all of them will eagerly assist you. You are in the meantime idle, and your people complain of your tardiness. They think the princes in power are unworthy of their station, since they thus allow the ancient rites and ordinances of holy Mother Church to fall into decay.” So they speak. And we may imagine Amaziah’s words to have been in the same vein—that he stimulated the king by this scheme, saying that the people were prepared to do their part.

The other meaning is this: The land cannot bear his words. That is, “If he goes on here with full liberty to raise tumults, as he has begun, the whole kingdom will be on the verge of ruin, for many will follow him. And when an open sedition arises, it cannot be checked without great difficulty. We must therefore make haste, lest Amos should get the upper hand, for there is already the greatest danger.”

As the Pharisees held a consultation and said, ‘Lest the Romans come and take away our place and nation’ (John 11:48), so also Amaziah might have incited the king by causing him to fear that the land, the country, or its inhabitants, had been disturbed by the words of Amos, and that therefore it was time to stop him. Such was Amaziah’s message to the king.

Now our Prophet is entirely silent about the king’s answer. It is therefore probable either that the king was not much stirred up, or that he dared not openly take Amos’s life. For Amos had probably obtained some authority among the people; and though he was hated, yet his name as a Prophet and his office were held in reverence. Or it is probable that the matter was arranged by agreement between the two enemies of sound doctrine, as flatterers often gratify kings by putting themselves in their place and by bearing all the ill will.

However this might have been, it is certainly a probable conjecture that the king did not interfere—either because he was persuaded by the priest Amaziah to take a different course, because he feared the people, or because religion restrained him, as even the ungodly are sometimes accustomed to keep themselves within the bounds of moderation.

This is not because they are touched by real fear towards God or desire to embrace His true worship; they wish God to be thrust down from heaven, they wish all knowledge of religion to be obliterated, but yet they dare not pour out their fury.

Such fear then might have seized Jeroboam’s mind, so that he did not tyrannically rage against the Prophet Amos. But if we consider the tendency of Amaziah’s words, he certainly wished for the Prophet Amos to be immediately subjected to capital punishment. For conspiracy is a crime worthy of death, and then, fear of the conspiracy might have impelled the king to put the holy Prophet immediately to death.

Amaziah therefore expected more than what he achieved. And then his vulpine wiliness appeared, for he sent for the Prophet and advised him to withdraw to the land of Judah.

Therefore, as I said at the beginning, it is very probable that Jeroboam was not stirred up according to the expectation of the ungodly priest of Bethel, who at first was a cruel wild beast. But when he could not proceed openly to destroy Amos, he adopted a new character: he became a fox, because he could do nothing as a raging lion. Hence follows his second attempt: And Amaziah said to Amos, etc.

I have passed over one clause in the last verse: Amos says, By the sword shall Jeroboam die, and Israel, by migrating, shall migrate from their own land. These, in short, are two main accusations. Some interpreters think that Amaziah had slanderously distorted the Prophet Amos’s words, because Amos did not denounce death on King Jeroboam himself, but only on his people and posterity. However, I do not insist on this point.

It might then be that Amaziah did not intentionally distort Amos’s words, but only wished to incite the king’s ill will. Then Jeroboam or his posterity shall die by the sword, and Israel also, by migrating, shall migrate from their own land. We therefore learn that Amaziah was not impelled only by the Prophet Amos’s most recent address, but that he then revealed the hatred he had long harbored.

Amaziah therefore had undoubtedly been watchful and had heard what Amos daily taught. When he thought the matter was ripe, he sent to the king. Having tried this way and found that it did not succeed, he came to his second attempt, which we are now to consider.

Amaziah then said to Amos—that is, after his first action disappointed him, for he did not obtain from King Jeroboam what he expected—then Amaziah said to Amos, Seer, go, flee to the land of Judah! By saying Go, he intimates that Amos was at liberty to depart, as though he said, “Why would you willfully perish among us?” At the same time, the two clauses should be joined together.

He says first, Go, and then, flee. When he says Go, he reminds him, as I have already said, that if he wished, he could go away, as no one prevented his departure: “Go, then, for the way is open to you.” But when he says, flee, he means that Amos could not long remain safe there: “Unless you provide for your life, it is all over with you. Flee then quickly away from us, or else you are lost.” We therefore see how cunningly Amaziah assailed God’s Prophet.

He proposed to him an easy way of saving his life; at the same time, he urged him with the fear of danger and declared that he could not remain safe unless he immediately fled. These then were the two reasons he used as mighty engines to depress the holy Prophet’s heart.

He afterwards adds, And eat there your bread. This is the third argument. Amos might be allowed to live in his own country and be supplied there with sustenance, for Amos was, as we have said, one of the shepherds of Tekoa. He must then have come from the tribe of Judah, and he had his home and his relatives in that kingdom. Besides, Azariah was not an ungodly king; though not one of the most perfect, he still respected and honored the servants of God.

Therefore, by saying, Eat there your bread, Amaziah means that there was a safe residence for the Prophets in the kingdom of Judah, that they were esteemed there both by the king and by the people, and that they could live there. This is the third argument.

Now follows the fourth: “If you object to me and say that you are a Prophet, and that it is neither lawful nor right for you to be silent, be a prophet there. You know that prophets are listened to in the kingdom of Judah; you may then perform your office there, and live at liberty and without fear.” We therefore see four of the reasons by which Amaziah attempted to persuade the Prophet Amos to leave the people of Israel and go to his own kindred.

But there follows a fifth reason: But in Bethel prophesy no more; for it is the king’s sanctuary and his court. Here Amaziah annoys the Prophet with another pretense, or he tries, at least, to shake his courage by intimating that it was unbecoming to cause disturbances in the kingdom of Israel, and also that, by so doing, he offended God, because Jeroboam was a divinely appointed king and endowed with the chief authority.

Since then the king could, by his own right, institute new modes of worship, Amaziah here argues that it is not in the power of anyone who pleases to pull down those rites that had been universally received and then confirmed by a royal edict, but that they ought to be accepted without any dispute. We then now perceive the meaning of the whole.

But it must be noted here that we must be watchful not only against the open violence and cruelty of enemies but also against their intrigues. For as Satan is a murderer, and has been so from the beginning, so he is also the father of lies. Whoever then wishes strenuously and constantly to spend his labors for the Church and for God must prepare himself for a contest with both: he must resist all fears and all intrigues.

We see some who are not so fearful, even though a hundred deaths were pronounced upon them, yet are not sufficiently cautious when enemies craftily insinuate themselves. I have not, therefore, said without reason that God’s servants need to be fortified against both.

They ought to be prepared against the fear of death and remain intrepid, though they must die. They ought to lay down their necks, if need be, while performing their office, and seal their doctrine with their own blood.

And, on the other hand, they ought to be prudent, for often the enemies of the truth assail them with flatteries; and the experience of our own times sufficiently proves this.

More danger, I know, has always come from this quarter: that is, when enemies attempt to terrify with such objections as these: “What is your purpose? See, the whole world must necessarily in the end be consumed by calamities. What else do you seek, but that religion should everywhere flourish, that sound learning should be valued, that peace should prevail everywhere?

But we see that the fiercest war is at hand. If once it should arise, all places would be full of calamities; savage barbarity and cruelty would follow, and religion would perish. All this you will bring about by your stubbornness.” These things have often been said to us. When therefore we read this passage, we ought to notice the schemes by which Satan has been trying to undermine the efforts of the godly and the constancy of God’s servants.

As to the first argument, there is not much need to dwell longer on it, for everyone can perceive for himself the design of all this crafty proceeding. He says first, Seer, go. Amaziah addresses Amos in a respectful way: he does not reproachfully call him an exile, a seditious man, an unlearned person, a cowherd, or someone unworthy of his office. He does not use any such language but calls him a seer.

He concedes to him the honorable title of a Prophet, for by the word חזה, chese, he means this: “I confess you to be God’s Prophet. I grant that you are a Prophet, but not our Prophet. Seer, then, go.” We therefore see that he left untouched Amos’s honor of being a Prophet, so that he might more easily creep into his favor, lest by raising a dispute at first, there should be a violent contest between them. He therefore avoided all occasions of contention.

However, it might have been asked of him, why was he blind? For the office of a priest was to watch, and the Prophets were joined to the priests in such a manner that when God substituted Prophets in their place, He indirectly charged the priests with idleness and indifference. For why were the priests appointed? So that they might be the messengers of the Lord of hosts, as it is said by Malachi, ‘The people shall seek from the mouth of the priest my law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts’ (Malachi 2:7).

Amaziah then, being a priest, especially ought to have performed the Prophet’s office himself. He was indeed, I allow, a counterfeit priest; but having claimed so honorable a name, he ought to have discharged its duties. This he did not do, and instead conceded that title to the Prophet.

So now our mitred bishops are very liberal in conceding titles: “O, Mr. Teacher, you can indeed see and understand many things; but yet you ought, at the same time, to consult the peace of the community.” They call those people teachers who have been invested with no public office but are yet under the necessity of undertaking the duties of others, because they see that these mitred bishops are dumb dogs.

Amaziah also acted in a similar manner towards the Prophet Amos. For he was content with his own splendor, great pomp, and riches; he lived sumptuously, enjoyed rich plunder, and superstitions kept his kitchen well warmed. He therefore easily surrendered the title of Prophet to others; in the meantime, he prided himself on his priesthood.

But as to the second argument, there was a sharper sting in it: Flee, he says. By the word flight, he intimates that it was necessary for the Prophet to depart, even though he wished to remain. So this second reason was drawn from necessity, for the Prophet could no longer be tolerated if he proceeded in the free discharge of his office. Flee then to the land of Judah, and there eat bread.

Regarding this third reason, he seems to imply that the Prophet Amos would be too stubborn and too much wedded to his own opinion if he did not prefer to live safely and quietly in his own country, rather than endanger his life in another land. Go then.

Where would he send him? To his own country. Why? “You are a foreigner here and see yourself to be hated; why then do you not rather return to your own country, where your religion prevails?” Amaziah did not indeed address the Prophet Amos as many profane men do today, who are less like Epicureans than they are like swine and filthy dogs. For they object and say, “You may return to your own country; why have you come to us?” They send us away to our own country when they know that there is no safe place for us there.

But at that time, pure religion flourished in the land of Judah. Therefore Amaziah says, “Why do you not live with your own countrymen? For there are many there who will supply you with sustenance; the king himself will be your friend, and the whole people will also help you.”

As to the fourth argument, we see what a crafty sophist the devil is: Be a Prophet there. Who is speaking? Amaziah, who thoroughly hated the temple at Jerusalem, who would have gladly set it on fire with his own hands, who would have gladly put to death all the pious priests. And yet he allows holy Amos free liberty to prophesy, and he allows this because he could not immediately and openly stop the holy Prophet in his course. He therefore sends him away to a distance.

We therefore see that Satan, by various schemes and means, tempts the servants of God, has wonderful turnings and windings, and sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light, as Paul says (2 Corinthians 11:14). In this passage, we have a remarkable instance of this. Is not Amaziah an angel of light when he advises the Prophet Amos to serve God freely in his own country, to prophesy there, and to open his mouth in defense of God’s worship and of pure religion—provided he did not do all this in the land of Israel? We then have in this chapter, as I have said, a remarkable instance of Satan’s wiliness.

Now as to the fifth argument, it is especially necessary to dwell on it. In Bethel, he says, prophesy no more, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is the house of the kingdom. Here only Amaziah shows what he wished: namely, to retain possession of his priesthood, which he could not have done without banishing the Prophet, for he could not contend with him in arguments.

He then consulted his own advantage by getting rid of the Prophet. Whatever various characters he therefore assumed in the last verse, and notwithstanding the many coverings by which he concealed himself, the ape now, as they say, appears as the ape.

Amaziah then shows what he had in view: namely, that he might remain quiet in the possession of his own tyrannical powers, that Amos should no longer molest him, and that Amos should not pull up by the roots the prevailing superstitions.

For Amaziah was a priest, and Amos could not perform his office without crying out daily against the temple of Bethel, because it was a brothel, inasmuch as God was robbed there of His own honor. We also know that superstitions are everywhere compared to fornication.

Amaziah then now betrays his wicked intention: In Bethel prophesy not. He would retain his quiet state and wished for the word of God not to be heard there. His desire was, as we have already said, to extinguish the light of heavenly truth everywhere. But as he could not do this, he wished at least to continue in his own station without any disputes, as we see to be the case in our time with the Pope and his mitred bishops.

They became quite mad when they heard that many cities and some princes caused disturbances in Germany and departed from their submission to them. But as they could not subdue them by force, they said, “Let us leave these barbarians to themselves. Why, more evil than good has until now proceeded from them; it is a barren and dry country. Provided we have Spain, France, and Italy, secured to us, we have enough; for we have probably lost more than what we have gained by Germany.

Let them then have their liberty, or rather licentiousness; they will return again someday and come under our authority. Let us not in the meantime be over-anxious about them. But let not this contagion penetrate into France, for one of our arms has been already cut off; nor let Spain nor Italy be touched by it; for this would be to aim at our life.” Such also was this Amaziah, as it evidently appears: Prophesy not then in Bethel.

And he spoke cunningly when he said, Add no more to prophecy, for it was as though he pardoned him. “See, though you have until now been offending the king and the common sentiment of the people, I will not yet treat you with strict justice. I will forgive you all; let what you have done amiss remain buried, provided you ‘add no more’ in the future.” We therefore see that there is emphasis in the expression when he says, Proceed not, or, add not. It is as though he had said that he would not inquire into the past, nor would accuse Amos of having been seditious. Provided Amos abstained for the future, Amaziah was satisfied, as we may gather from his words, Add then no more to prophesy.

And why? Because it is the king’s sanctuary. This was one thing. Amaziah wished here to prove by the king’s authority that the established worship at Bethel was legitimate. How so? “The king has established it; it is not then lawful for anyone to say a word to the contrary. The king could do this by his own right, for his majesty is sacred.” We see the object in view.

And how many are there today under the Papacy who accumulate on kings all the authority and power they can, so that no dispute may be raised about religion. Instead, power is to be vested in one king to determine according to his own will whatever he pleases, and this is to remain fixed without any dispute.

Those who at first extolled Henry, King of England, were certainly inconsiderate men. They gave him the supreme power in all things, and this always vexed me greatly, for they were guilty of blasphemy (erant blasphemi) when they called him the chief Head of the Church under Christ. This was certainly too much. But it ought, however, to remain buried, as they sinned through inconsiderate zeal.

But when that impostor, who afterwards became the chancellor of that Proserpina (who, today, surpasses all devils in that kingdom)—when he was at Ratisbon, he did not contend by using any reasons (I speak of the last chancellor, who was the Bishop of Winchester). And as I have just said, he did not care much about the testimonies of Scripture but said that it was in the king’s power to abrogate statutes and institute new rites.

He said that, as for fasting, the king could forbid or command the people to eat flesh on this or that day; that it was lawful for the king to prohibit priests from marrying; that it was lawful for the king to forbid the people the use of the cup in the Supper; and that it was lawful for the king to appoint this or that thing in his own kingdom. How so? Because supreme power is vested in the king.

The same was the interpretation of this Amaziah of whom the Prophet now speaks: It is the sanctuary of the king.

But he afterwards adds a second thing: It is the house of the kingdom. These words of Amaziah ought to be carefully considered. He says first, It is the king’s sanctuary, and then, It is the house of the kingdom. Therefore, he ascribes a twofold role to the king: that it was in his power to change religion in any way he pleased, and then, that Amos disturbed the peace of the community and thus wronged the king by detracting from his authority.

Regarding the first clause, it is indeed certain that kings, when they rightly discharge their duty, become patrons of religion and supporters (nutricios—nursers) of the Church, as Isaiah calls them (Isaiah 49:23). What then is chiefly required of kings is this: to use the swords with which they are invested to assert (asserendum) the freedom of God’s worship.

But still, they are inconsiderate men who give them too much power in spiritual things (qui faciunt illos nimis spirituales—who make them too spiritual). And this evil is everywhere dominant in Germany, and in these regions it prevails too much.

And we now find what fruit is produced by this root: princes and those in power think themselves so spiritual that there is no longer any church discipline. And this sacrilege greatly prevails among us, for they do not limit their office by fixed and legitimate boundaries but think that they cannot rule unless they abolish all authority in the Church and become chief judges both in doctrine and in all spiritual government.

The devil then suggested this sentiment to Amaziah at that time: that the king appointed the temple. Therefore, since it was the king’s sanctuary, it was not lawful for a private man—it was not even lawful for anyone—to deny the authority of that religion which had once been approved by and pleased the king.

And princes listen to a sweet song when impostors lead them astray; they desire nothing more than that all things, without any difference or distinction, should be referred to themselves. They then gladly interfere and at first show some zeal, but mere ambition impels them, as they so carefully appropriate everything to themselves.

Moderation ought then to be observed, for this evil has always been dominant in princes: to wish to change religion according to their will and fancy, and at the same time for their own advantage. For they regard what is advantageous to themselves, as they are generally not guided by the Spirit of God but impelled by their own ambition.

Since then we see that Satan by these hidden schemes formerly contended against God’s prophets, we ought to bewail and lament our own ways. But whoever desires to conduct himself as he ought, let him watch against this evil.

It now follows: And it is the house of the kingdom. Amaziah no longer contends here for the royal prerogative regarding spiritual power. “Be it so that the king ought not to have appointed new worship; you have still offended against the peace of the community.” The greater part of princes today seek nothing so much as to enjoy their own quietness.

They always declare that they would be courageous enough even to death in the defense of their first confession. But yet what are the teachers they seek for themselves? Even those who avoid the cross and who, to gratify the Papists or to render them at least somewhat milder, change according to their wishes. For we see today that the minds of princes are inflamed by these fanners not to spare the Sacramentarians, nor to allow to be called into question what is asserted—no less grossly than foolishly and falsely—respecting the presence of Christ’s body, or His body being included under the bread.

“When we show that we contend against them and that we are separated from them—indeed, that we will be their mortal enemies—we in this agree with the Papists. There will then be some access to them; at least their great fury will cease, the Papists will become gentle. They will no longer be so incensed against us; we shall hereafter obtain some middle course.” So things are carried on in the world today. And nothing is more useful than to compare the state of our time with this example of the Prophet, so that we may go on in our works employing the same weapons with which he contended and not be moved by these diabolical schemes. For we have no enemies more hostile and open than these domestic traitors.

It is then the house of the kingdom. He now speaks of the secular arm, as they say, and shows that even if religion were to perish a hundred times, care was still to be taken, lest Amos should pull up by the roots the kingdom of Jeroboam and the customs of the people.

The Prophet Amos first pleads for himself that he was not at liberty to obey the counsel of Amaziah, because he could not renounce a calling to which he was appointed. Since then he had been sent by God, he proves that he was bound by necessity to prophesy in the land of Israel.

In the first place, he indeed modestly says that he was not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet. Why did he say this? To make himself contemptible? By no means, though the words apparently have this tendency; but it was to gain more authority for himself, for his extraordinary call gave him greater weight than if he had been brought up from his childhood in the schools of the prophets.

He then shows that he became a prophet by a miraculous interposition, and that the office was not committed to him by human authority, and in the usual way; but that he had been led to it as if by force, so that he could not set aside the office of teaching without openly shaking off the yoke laid upon him by God.

This account then which Amos gives of himself should be noticed, I was not a Prophet, nor the son of a Prophet. Had he said simply that he was not a Prophet, he might have been accused of presumption. How so? No one takes this honor to himself in the Church of God; a call is necessary.

If an angel were to descend from heaven, he should not subvert public order (Galatians 1:8); for all things, as Paul reminds us, should be done decently and in lawful order in the Church, because the God of peace presides over us.

Had Amos then positively denied that he was a Prophet, he might on this account have been removed from his office of teaching, for he lacked a call. But he means that he was not a Prophet who had been from his childhood instructed in God’s law to be an interpreter of Scripture; and for the same reason he says that he was not the son of a Prophet, for there were then, we know, colleges for Prophets, and this is sufficiently evident from sacred history.

Since then these colleges were instituted for this purpose—that there might always be seminaries for the Church of God, so that it might not be destitute of good and faithful teachers—Amos says that he was not of that class. He indeed honestly confesses that he was an illiterate man; but by this, as I have already said, he gained more authority for himself because the Lord had seized on him as if by force and set him over the people to teach them: “See, you shall be my Prophet, and though you have not been taught from your youth for this office, I will yet in an instant make you a Prophet.”

It was a greater miracle that Christ chose unrefined and ignorant men as his apostles than if he had at first chosen Paul or men like him who were skillful in the law. If Christ had selected such disciples at the beginning, their authority would have appeared less; but as he had prepared by his Spirit those who were previously unlearned, it appeared more evident that they were sent from above.

And to this refers the expression the Prophet uses when he says, Jehovah took me away: for it intimates that his call, as we have said, was extraordinary. The rest we will defer until tomorrow.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that since you permit reins so loose to Satan, that he attempts, in all manner of ways, to subvert your servants—O grant, that they who have been sent and moved by you, and at the same time furnished with the invincible strength of your Spirit, may go on perseveringly to the end in the discharge of their office. And whether their adversaries assail them by crafts, or oppose them by open violence, may they not desist from their course, but devote themselves wholly to you, with prudence as well as with courage, that they may thus persevere in continual obedience. And do you also dissipate all the mists and all the crafts which Satan spreads to deceive the inexperienced, until at length the truth emerges, which is the conqueror of the devil and of the whole world, and until your Son, the Sun of Righteousness, appears, that he may gather the whole world, so that in your rest we may enjoy the victory, which is to be daily obtained by us in our constant struggles with the enemies of your only Son. Amen.