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’ ([Reference 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’ ([Reference 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 ([Reference 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 ([Reference 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.

Commentaries

Albert Barnes

On Amos 7:11

Charles Ellicott

On Amos 7:11

John Calvin

On Amos 7:10–13

Go Premium

John Gill

On Amos 7:11

Matthew Henry

On Amos 7:10–17