Woe to the Complacent in Zion

AMOS 6 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Woe to the Complacent
1 Woe to you who are complacent in Zion,
and to you who feel secure on Mount Samaria,
you notable men of the foremost nation,
to whom the people of Israel come!
BAR ES, "Woe to them that are at ease - The word always means such as are
recklessly at their ease, “the careless ones,” such as those whom Isaiah bids Isa_32:9-11,
“rise up, tremble, be troubled, for many days and years shall ye be troubled.” It is that
luxury and ease, which sensualize the soul, and make it dull, stupid, hard-hearted. By
one earnest, passing word, the prophet warns his own land, that present sinful ease ends
in future woe. “Woe unto them that laugh now: for they shall mourn and weep” Luk_
6:25. Rup.: “He foretells the destruction and captivity of both Judah and Israel at once;
and not only that captivity at Babylon, but that whereby they are dispersed unto this
day.” Luxury and deepest sins of the flesh were rife in that generation (see Joh_8:9;
Rom_2:21-24; Luk_11:39, Luk_11:42; Mat_23:14, Mat_23:23, Mat_23:26), which killed
Him who for our sakes became poor.
And trust in the mountain of Samaria - Not in God. Samaria was strong (see the
note above at Amo_3:9), resisted for three years, and was the last city of Israel which
was taken. “The king of Assyria came up throughout all the land and went up to Samaria,
and besieged it 2Ki_17:5. Benhadad, in that former siege, when God delivered them
2Ki_7:6, attempted no assault, but famine only.
Which are named the chief of the nations - Literally, “the named of the chief of
the nations,” that is, those who, in Israel, which by the distinguishing favor of God were
“chief of the nations,” were themselves, marked, distinguished, “named.” The prophet,
by one word, refers them back to those first princes of the congregation, of whom Moses
used that same word Num_1:17. They were “heads of the houses of their fathers Num_
1:4, renowned of the congregation, heads of thousands in Israel Num_1:16. As, if anyone
were to call the Peers, “Barons of England,” he would carry us back to the days of Magna
Charta, although six centuries and a half ago, so this word, occurring at that time , here
only in any Scripture since Moses, carried back the thoughts of the degenerate
aristocracy of Israel to the faith and zeal of their forefathers, “what” they ought to have
been, and “what” they were. As Amalek of old was “first of the nations” Num_24:20 in
its enmity against the people of God , having, first of all, shown that implacable hatred,

which Ammon, Moab, Edom, evinced afterward, so was Israel “first of nations,” as by
God. It became, in an evil way, “first of nations,” that is, distinguished above the heat by
rejecting Him.
To whom the house of Israel came, or have come - They were, like those
princes of old, raised above others. Israel “came” to them for judgment; and they,
regardless of duty, lived only for self-indulgence, effeminacy, and pride. Jerome renders
in the same sense, “that enter pompously the house of Israel,” literally, “enter for
themselves,” as if they were lords of it, and it was made for them.
CLARKE, "Wo to them that are at ease in Zion - For ‫השאננים‬ hashshaanannim,
“who dwell at ease,” it has been proposed to read ‫השעננים‬ hashshaanannim, “who
confidently lean,” the two words differing only in one letter, an ‫ע‬ ain for an ‫א‬ aleph. They
leaned confidently on Zion; supposing that, notwithstanding their iniquities they should
be saved for Zion’s sake. Thus the former clause will agree better with the latter, “leaning
upon Zion,” and “trusting in the mountain of Samaria.” Those that are at ease may mean
those who have no concern about the threatened judgments, and who have no deep
concern for the salvation of their own souls. Houbigant would read, “Go to them who
despise Zion, and trust in Samaria.” So the Septuagint, reading ‫שנאים‬ soneim, hating,
instead of ‫שאננים‬ shaanannim, being at rest, tranquil Calmet first proposed this
conjecture; Houbigant follows him.
Are named chief - Newcome renders, “That are named after the chief of the
nations;” and observes, that the Hebrew word ‫נקבי‬ nekubey is an allusion to marking a
name or character by punctures. See on Isa_44:5 (note). They call themselves not after
their ancestors, but after the chief of the idolatrous nations with whom they intermarry
contrary to the law.
Perhaps the words here rather refer to the mountains and their temples, than to the
people. The mountain of Zion, and the mountain of Samaria, were considered the chief
or most celebrated among the nations, as the two kingdoms to which they belonged were
the most distinguished on the earth.
GILL, "Woe to them that are at ease in Zion,.... Or "secure" (c) there; which was a
strong hold, the city of David, the seat of the kings of Judah; where their court was kept,
and the princes and chief men resided and thought themselves safe, the place being well
fortified with walls, towers, and bulwarks: or "at ease"; that is, in easy, prosperous,
comfortable circumstances of life; as Job was before his troubles, and others he
mentions, Job_16:12; though to be in such a state is not criminal, but a blessing of
Providential goodness, for which men should be thankful, and make use of it aright: but
"woe to the rich in Zion" (d), as the Vulgate Latin Version renders it, when they have
nothing else but temporal riches; this is all their portion, and the whole of their
consolation, Luk_6:24; when they trust in these uncertain riches, and consume them on
their lusts, as described in the following verses; are unconcerned at the troubles of
others, and give them no relief, but despise them, Job_12:5; and even are thoughtless
about their own future state, and put away the evil day far from them, Luk_12:19; and
such are they who like Moab are at ease from their youth as to their spiritual state, Jer_

48:11; never had any true sight of sin, or sense of danger; never complain of a body of
sin, or are concerned about sins of omission or commission; nor troubled with the
temptations of Satan, and have no fears and doubts about their happiness; and such
there be who yet are in Zion, or in a church state, which Zion often signifies; and being
there, trust in it, and in the privileges of it, and so are secure, and at ease; such are the
foolish virgins and hypocrites, who place their confidence in a profession of religion, in
being church members, and in their submission to external ordinances, and so cry
Peace, peace, to themselves, when, destruction is at hand: and are moreover at ease, and
wholly unconcerned about the affairs of Zion, both temporal and spiritual, and especially
the latter; they do not trouble themselves about the doctrines they hear, whether truth
or error; and about the success of them, whether they are made useful for conversion
and edification; and about the continuance of a Gospel ministry, and a succession in it;
and about the discipline of the church of God, and the walk of professors; or about what
trials and afflictions are like to come upon the churches; or about the judgments of God
in the earth; and therefore such carnal secure persons are either called upon to awake
out of their sleep, and come off of their beds of ease, and shake off their vain confidence
and carnal security; for the word may be rendered "ho" (e), as a note of calling, as in Isa_
55:1; or a threatening of calamity is denounced upon them, that the day of the Lord
should come upon them as a thief in the night, or as a snare upon them that dwell on
earth, and they be surprised with the midnight cry, and with the terrors of devouring
flames, as the foolish virgins and hypocrite's in Zion will, Mat_25:6. The Septuagint,
Syriac, and Arabic versions, render it, "who despise Zion", or "neglect" her; and the word
is sometimes used of insolent persons, and to express their insolence; see Isa_37:29; and
so may be understood, not of the Jews in Jerusalem, but of the ten tribes, as the
following clause; who despised Zion, the city of solemnities, the temple; and, the
worship of God there, and set up the calves at Dan and Bethel, and worshipped them;
and therefore a woe is denounced upon them;
and trust in the mountain of Samaria; in the city of Samaria, built on a mountain,
a strong fortified city, where they thought themselves safe; the royal city of the kings of
Israel, the head of Ephraim, and the metropolis of the ten tribes, who here are intended:
though the words may be rendered, and the sense given a little different from this, as
woe to the "confident" ones that ate in Samaria (f); not that put their trust in Samaria,
but dwell there; but, however, are confident in their own strength, wealth, and might.
The Targum is,
"that trust in the fortress of Samaria;''
see 1Ki_16:24;
which are named the chief of the nations; the persons at ease in Zion, and trusted
in Samaria, were the principal men of both nations, Judah and Israel; or these cities of
Zion and Samaria were the chief of the said nations: Zion, Which was near Jerusalem,
and includes it, was the metropolis of Judea; as Samaria was the head city of Ephraim,
or the ten tribes. The Targum is, that
"put the name of their children, as the name of the children of the nations;''
as the Jews did in later times, giving their children the names of Alexander, Antipater,
&c.

to whom the house of Israel came; meaning not to the seven nations, of which the
two named cities were chief, into which Israel entered, and took possession of, and dwelt
in; for Samaria never belonged to them, but was built by Omri king of Israel, long after
the entrance of the Israelites into the land of Canaan, 1Ki_16:24; but the cities of Zion
and, Samaria, into which the whole house of Israel came, or had recourse unto, at
certain times: the ten tribes came to Samaria, where their kings resided, the court was
kept, and the seats of judgment were; and the two tribes came to Zion, to Jerusalem, to
the temple there, to worship the Lord.
HE RY, "The first words of the chapter are the contents of these verses; but they
sound very strangely, and contrary to the sentiments of a vain world: Woe to those that
are at ease! We are ready to say, Happy are those that are at ease, that neither feel any
trouble nor fear any, that lie soft and warm, and lay nothing to heart; and wise we think
are those that do so, that bathe themselves in the delights of sense and care not how the
world goes. Those are looked upon as doing well for themselves that do well for their
bodies and make much of them; but against them this woe is denounced, and we are
here told what their ease is, and what the woe is.
I. Here is a description of their pride, security, and sensuality, for which God would
reckon with them.
1. They were vainly conceited of their own dignities, and thought those would secure
them from the judgments threatened and be their defence against the wrath both of God
and man. (1.) Those that dwelt in Zion thought that was honour and protection enough
for them, and they might there be quiet from all fear of evil, because it was a strong city,
well fortified both by nature and art (we read of Zion's strong-holds and her bulwarks),
and because it was a royal city, where were set the thrones of the house of David (it was
the head-city of Judah, and therefore truly great), and especially because it was the holy
city, where the temple was, and the testimony of Israel; those that dwelt there doubted
not but that God's sanctuary would be a sanctuary to them and would shelter them from
his judgments. The temple of the Lord are these, Jer_7:4. They are haughty because of
the holy mountain, Zep_3:11. Note, Many are puffed up with pride, and rocked asleep in
carnal security, by their church-privileges, and the place they have in Zion. (2.) Those
that dwelt in the mountain of Samaria, though it was not a holy hill, like that of Zion, yet
they trusted in it, because it was the metropolis of a potent kingdom, and perhaps, in
imitation of Jerusalem, was the head-quarters of its religion; and by lapse of time the hill
of Shemer became with them in as good repute as the hill of Zion ever was. They hoped
for salvation from these hills and mountains. (3.) Both these two kingdoms valued
themselves upon their relation to Israel, that prince with God, which they looked upon
as masking them the chief of the nations, more ancient and honourable than any of
them; the first-fruits of the nations (so the word is), dedicated to God and sanctifying
the whole harvest. The house of Israel came to them, that is, was divided into those
kingdoms, of which Zion and Samaria were the mother cities. Those that were at ease
were the princes and rulers, the great men, that were chief of the nations, chief of those
two kingdoms, and to whom, having their residence in Zion and Samaria, the whole
house of Israel applied for judgment. Note, It is hard to be great and not to be proud.
Great nations and great men are apt to overvalue themselves, and to overlook their
neighbours, because they think they a little overtop them. But, for a check to their pride
and security, the prophet bids them take notice of those cities that were within the
compass of their knowledge, that had been as illustrious in their time as ever Zion or
Samaria was, and yet were destroyed, Amo_6:2. “Go to Calneh (which was an ancient
city built by Nimrod, Gen_10:10), and see what has become of that, it is now in ruins; so

is Hamath the great, one of the chief cities of Syria. Sennacherib boasts of destroying
the gods of Hamath. Gath was likewise made desolate by Hazael, and not long ago, 2Ki_
12:17. Now were they better than these kingdoms of Judah and Israel? Yes, they were,
and their border greater than your border, so that they had more reason than you to be
confident of their own safety; yet you see what has become of them, and dare you be
secure? Art thou better than populous No?” Nah_3:8. Note, The examples of others'
ruin forbid us to be secure.
JAMISO , "Amo_6:1-14. Denunciation of both the sister nations (especially their
nobles) for wanton security - Zion, as well as Samaria: Threat of the exile: Ruin of their
palaces and slaughter of the people: Their perverse injustice.
named chief of the nations — that is, you nobles, so eminent in influence, that
your names are celebrated among the chief nations [Ludovicus De Dieu]. Hebrew, “Men
designated by name among the first-fruits of the nations,” that is, men of note in Israel,
the people chosen by God as first of the nations (Exo_19:5; compare Num_24:20)
[Piscator].
to whom ... Israel came — that is, the princes to whom the Israelites used to repair
for the decision of controversies, recognizing their authority [Maurer]. I prefer to refer
“which” to the antecedent “Zion” and “Samaria”; these were esteemed “chief”
strongholds among the heathen nations “to whom ... Israel came” when it entered
Canaan; Amo_6:2 accords with this.
K&D, "The prophet utters the second woe over the careless heads of the nation, who
were content with the existing state of things, who believed in no divine judgment, and
who revelled in their riches (Amo_6:1-6). To these he announces destruction and the
general overthrow of the kingdom (Amo_6:7-11), because they act perversely, and trust
in their own power (Amo_6:12-14). Amo_6:1. “Woe to the secure upon Zion, and to the
careless upon the mountain of Samaria, to the chief men of the first of the nations, to
whom the house of Israel comes! Amo_6:2. Go over to Calneh, and see; and proceed
thence to Hamath, the great one: and go down to Gath of the Philistines: are they
indeed better than these kingdoms? or is their territory greater than your territory?
Amo_6:3. Ye who keep the day of calamity far off, and bring the seat of violence near.”
This woe applies to the great men in Zion and Samaria, that is to say, to the chiefs of the
whole of the covenant nation, because they were all sunk in the same godless security;
though special allusion is made to the corrupt leaders of the kingdom of the ten tribes,
whose debauchery is still further depicted in what follows. These great men are
designated in the words ‫ם‬ִ‫וֹי‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫אשׁ‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ֻ‫ק‬ְ‫,נ‬ as the heads of the chosen people, who are
known by name. As ‫הג‬ ‫ראשׁית‬ is taken from Num_24:20, so ‫נקבי‬ is taken from Num_1:17,
where the heads of the tribes who were chosen as princes of the congregation to preside
over the numbering of the people are described as men ‫מוֹת‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫בוּ‬ ְ ִ‫נ‬ ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫,א‬ who were defined
with names, i.e., distinguished by names, that is to say, well-known men; and it is used
here in the same sense. Observe, however, with reference to ‫ם‬ִ‫וֹי‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫אשׁ‬ ֵ‫,ר‬ that in Num_
24:20 we have not ‫ם‬ִ‫וֹי‬ ַ‫,ה‬ but simply ‫ם‬ִ‫וֹי‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫אשׁ‬ ֵ‫.ר‬ Amalek is so called there, as being the first
heathen nation which rose up in hostility to Israel. On the other hand, ‫הגוים‬ ‫ר‬ is the
firstling of the nations, i.e., the first or most exalted of all nations. Israel is so called,
because Jehovah had chosen it out of all the nations of the earth to be the people of His
possession (Exo_19:5; cf. 2Sa_7:23). In order to define with still greater precision the

position of these princes in the congregation, Amos adds, “to whom the house of Israel
cometh,” namely, to have its affairs regulated by them as its rulers. These epithets were
intended to remind the princes of the people of both kingdoms, “that they were the
descendants of those tribe-princes who had once been honoured to conduct the affairs of
the chosen family, along with Moses and Aaron, and whose light shone forth from that
better age as brilliant examples of what a truly theocratical character was”
(Hengstenberg, Dissertations, i. p. 148). To give still greater prominence to the exalted
calling of these princes, Amos shows in Amo_6:2 that Israel can justly be called the
firstling of the nations, since it is not inferior either in prosperity or greatness to any of
the powerful and prosperous heathen states. Amos names three great and flourishing
capitals, because he is speaking to the great men of the capitals of the two kingdoms of
Israel, and the condition of the whole kingdom is reflected in the circumstances of the
capital. Calneh (= Calno, Isa_10:9) is the later Ctesiphon in the land of Shinar, or
Babylonia, situated upon the Tigris opposite to Seleucia (see at Gen_10:10); hence the
expression ‫רוּ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫,ע‬ because men were obliged to cross over the river (Euphrates) in order to
get there. Hamath: the capital of the Syrian kingdom of that name, situated upon the
Orontes (see at Gen_10:18 and Num_34:8). There was not another Hamath, as Hitzig
supposes. The circumstance that Amos mentions Calneh first, whereas it was much
farther to the east, so that Hamath was nearer to Palestine than Calneh was, may be
explained very simply, from the fact that the enumeration commences with the most
distant place and passes from the north-east to the south-west, which was in the
immediate neighbourhood of Israel. Gath: one of the five capitals of Philistia, and in
David's time the capital of all Philistia (see at Jos_13:3; 2Sa_8:1). The view still
defended by Baur - namely, that Amos mentions here three cities that had either lost
their former grandeur, or had fallen altogether, for the purpose of showing the self-
secure princes of Israel that the same fate awaited Zion and Samaria - is groundless and
erroneous; for although Calneh is spoken of in Isa_10:9 as a city that had been
conquered by the Assyrians, it cannot be proved that this was the case as early as the
time of Amos, but is a simple inference drawn from a false interpretation of the verse
before us. Nor did Jeroboam II conquer the city of Hamath on the Orontes, and
incorporate its territory with his own kingdom (see at 2Ki_14:25). And although the
Philistian city Gath was conquered by Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:60, we cannot infer from
2Ch_26:6, or from the fact of Gath not being mentioned in Amo_1:6-8, that this
occurred before the time of Amos (see at Amo_1:8). On the other hand, the fact that it is
placed by the side of Hamath in the passage before us, is rather a proof that the conquest
did not take place till afterwards.
CALVI , "Verse 1
The Prophet now directs his discourse not only to the Israelites, to whom he was
especially given as an instructor and teacher, but includes the Jews also: and yet he
addresses not all indiscriminately, but only the chief men, who were intent on their
pleasures, as though they were exempt from the common miseries: for he does not,
as many suppose, reprove here luxury and pride only; but we must remember a fact
connected with their case, — that they were not awakened by God’s judgments;
when God severely punished the sins of the people, the chief men remained ever
heedlessly in their own dregs. This security is now condemned by our Prophet.
And this is a very common evil, as we may see, in the present day. For when the

Lord afflicts a country with war or with famine, the rich make great gain of such
evils. They abuse the scourges of God; for we see merchants getting rich in the midst
of wars, inasmuch as they scrape together a booty from every quarter. For they who
carry on war are forced to borrow money, and also the peasants and mechanics,
that they may pay taxes; and then, that they may live, they are obliged to make
unjust conditions: thus the rich increase in wealth. They also who are in authority,
and in favor at the court of princes, make more gain in wars, in famine, and in other
calamities, than during times of peace and prosperity: for when peace nourishes, the
state of things is then more equable; but when the poor are burdened, the rest grow
fat. And this is the evil now noticed by the Prophet.
Hence he pronounces here a curse on the secure and those at ease; not that it is an
evil thing, or in itself displeasing to God, when any one quietly enjoys his leisure;
but, not to be moved, when the Lord openly shows himself to be displeased and
angry, when his scourges are manifestly inflicted, but to indulge ourselves more in
pleasures, — this is to provoke him, as it were, designedly. The secure, then, and the
presumptuous the Prophet here condemns, for it became them to humble themselves
when they saw that God was incensed against them. They were not indeed more just
than the multitude; and when God treated the common people with such severity,
ought not the chiefs to have looked to themselves, and have examined their own life?
As they did not do this, but made themselves drunk with pleasures, and put far off
every fear and thought that the scourges of God were nothing to them, — this was a
contempt deservedly condemned by the Prophet. We see that God was in the same
manner greatly displeased, as it is recorded in Isaiah: when he called them to
mourning, they sang with the harp, and, according to their custom, feasted
sumptuously and joyfully, (Isaiah 23:12) As then they thus persevered in their
indulgences, the Lord became extremely angry; for it was, as though they avowedly
despised him and scorned all his threatening.
We now observe the design of the Prophet, which interpreters have not sufficiently
noticed. It behaves us indeed ever to keep in view these scourges of God, by which
he began to visit the sins of the people. God can by no means endure, as I have said,
such a contumacy as this, — that men should go on in the indulgence of their sins
and never regard their judge and feel no guilt. Hence the Prophet says, Woe to you
who are secure in Zion, who are confident, that is, who are without any fear, on the
mount of Samaria (42) He names here the mount of Zion and the mount of Samaria;
for these were the chief cities of the two kingdoms, as we all know. The whole
country had been laid waste with various calamities; the citizens of Jerusalem and
of Samaria were, at the same time, wealthy; and then trusting in their strongholds,
they despised God and all his judgments. This then was the security, full of
contumacy, which is condemned by the Prophet.
He then mentions their ingratitude: he says that these mountains had been
celebrated from the beginning of the nations, and that the Israelites entered into
them. God here upbraids both the Jews and Israelites with having come to a foreign
possession: for they had got those cities, not by their own valour, but the Lord drove
out before them the ancient inhabitants. Seeing then that they perceived not that a

safe dwelling was given them there by the Lord, that they might purely worship him
and submit to his government, their ingratitude was inexcusable. The Prophet then,
after having inveighed against the gross and heedless security, with which the chiefs
of both kingdoms were inebriated, now mentions their ingratitude: “Ye are not
natives, but ye have come in, for God did go before you, for it was his will to give
you this land as your possession: why then are you now so inflated with pride
against him? For before your time these cities were certainly well known and
celebrated; and yet this was of no avail to the natives themselves. Why then do ye
not now fear the Lord’s judgment and repent, when he threatens you? Yea, when he
shows his scourges to you?” We now perceive the Prophet’s meaning in this verse. It
now follows —
“Woe to them that are at ease in Zion,
And to them that are secure in the mountain of Samaria.”
—Dr. Henderson.
From not considering the main drift of what follows in this chapter, critics have
proposed emendations in this verse. The careless and the secure, both at Jerusalem
and Samaria, are evidently meant. ewcome renders the last line nearly the same
with Henderson —
“And that rest secure in the mountain of Samaria.”
So that the word “trust” in our version is not correct. The word used means often to
be confident or secure, as well as to trust; but the law of parallelism requires it to be
in the former sense here; as they were at ease in Zion, so they were confident or
secure on the mount of Samaria. — Ed.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
This chapter continues the further elaboration of the prophetic doom pronounced
upon Israel at the conclusion of Amos 2. First, he uttered the second woe over the
careless and indulgent leaders of the nation, sunk in their revellings and
indifference (Amos 6:1-6). For them, he pronounced their destruction and the
overthrow of their nation (Amos 6:7-11), emphasizing that they had acted
perversely, trusting in their own power (Amos 6:12-14). The blunt reiteration of
their doom in Amos 6:14 concludes this section of the prophecy.
In the first sub-section of the chapter (Amos 6:1-6), "The link word is first."[1]
They considered themselves first among the nations (Amos 6:1); they only used the
finest oils (literally, first)[2] (Amos 6:6); and then in the first line of the second
section is revealed the fact that they shall also be first into captivity (Amos 6:7). The
whole chapter is pointed squarely at the over-confidence and conceit of the nation,
as exhibited in its evil leaders.
Amos 6:1

"Woe to them that are at ease in Zion, and them that are secure in the mountain of
Samaria, the notable men of the chief of the nations, to whom the house of Israel
come."
God's gospel of dealing with mankind is a gospel of grace; but in Amos the emphasis
is not upon grace but upon law and obedience, an emphasis which should certainly
be observed in our own times; because as McFadden put it:
"It is the gospel of law, for that, too, is gospel. To understand and obey the laws by
which God governs his world is the way of peace; to ignore or defy them is the way
to destruction."[3]
"Woe to them that are at ease in Zion ..." This is the second great woe, the first
being in Amos 5:18, where it is written. "Woe unto you that desire the day of
Jehovah!" Zion here is the poetic name of Jerusalem, and some of the commentators
would like to get it out of the text on the basis that, "It would seem out of keeping
with his habit of concentration upon the immediate situation for him";[4] but such a
view ignores one of the outstanding features of Amos, the fact that Judah is by no
means left out of these prophecies of destruction, as in Amos 2:4,5; 3:1; 5:1,5, etc. To
be sure Amos was sent particularly to the orthern Kingdom; but Judah is always
in the back of his mind; for it is not the orthern Kingdom only, but, "The whole
family which I brought up out of the land of Egypt" (Amos 3:1) which is under the
judgment of God for their sins. Hammershaimb has brilliantly refuted the
allegations of those intent upon disturbing the validity of the text here as it has come
down to us. "We must nevertheless keep the Masoretic Text, which must be
understood as showing the threat worked out with poetic parallelism against the two
capital cities."[5]
The over-confidence of the entire nation of the Jews was founded in their regard for
Zion (Jerusalem) as the place where the name of God was recorded, and considered
by them invulnerable to any disaster of whatever nature, and (especially in the
orthern Kingdom) upon the strength and military fortifications of the "mountain
of Samaria." The confidence they had in Samaria, although destined to be
frustrated, was nevertheless justified to a certain extent by the unusual strength of
the place. When it finally fell, some three years were required to subdue it. The
great error lay in the people's having forgotten that, "Unless the Lord keep the city,
the watchman waketh but in vain" (Psalms 127:1).
"These people misunderstood the terms of the covenant, thinking that God would
spare Jerusalem regardless of what they did; they were at ease in Zion ... (in
Samaria) they were trusting in the mountain of Samaria, a natural fortress which
Israel's leaders must have thought impregnable."[6]
"At ease in Zion ..." has entered all languages as an idiom for self-indulgent
complacency, indifference and over-confidence.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 1
(1) Trust.—The word for “trust” is a participle, and we should translate as the
parallelism indicates: the confident (or complacent) dwellers in the mountain of

Samaria; i.e., the upper luxurious classes, “the chief of the first of nations,” meaning
the rulers, to whom Israel, the supreme and highly-favoured nation, comes up for
judgment and for guidance in all civil affairs. These are now summoned to listen to
the rebuke of the Divine Judge.
TRAPP, "Verse 1
Amos 6:1 Woe to them [that are] at ease in Zion, and trust in the mountain of
Samaria, [which are] named chief of the nations, to whom the house of Israel came!
Ver. 1. Woe to them that are at ease in Zion] That lie sleeping on both sides ( In
utramvis aurora dormiunt), and slighting the former menaces, as Leviathan doth
the iron weapons, Job 41:27, that live as if ye were out of the reach of God’s rod;
and as for all your enemies, ye puff at them, saying, We shall not be moved, we shall
never be in adversity, Psalms 10:5-6. To these sleepers in Zion God here sends forth
his summons (the word Hoi signifieth as well Heus as Vae, ho as wo, Isaiah 55:1,
Zechariah 2:6. Ho, ho, come forth), that were quiet and still, Zechariah 1:11, lulled
asleep by Satan, or rather. cast into a dead lethargy: Samson-like their enemies are
upon them, and they fast asleep the while; Ishbosheth-like they stretch themselves
upon their beds of ivory, till they lose, not their precious lives only, but their
immortal souls. Security ushereth in destruction; those that are at ease in Zion shall
be raised by a dreadful woe rung in their ears, that shall make their hearts fall
down, and their hairs stand upright. In the froth of carnal security and sensual
delights is bred that worm of conscience that never dieth, Mark 9:44, and here
begins to grub and gnaw; like as while the crocodile sleepeth with open mouth, the
Ichneumon, or Indian rat, shoots himself into his bowels; after which he never is at
ease, as having his entrails daily devoured; so that one while he will be in the water,
and anon after on the land, till life fails him.
And trust in the mountain of Samaria] Are carnally confident and secure (
πεποιθοσιν. Septuag.), as when good David also gotten upon his strong mountain,
Psalms 30:6-7, but was soon confuted: "Thou didst hide thy face, and I was
troubled." The best are apt by rest to contract rust; and being fully fed, to wax
wanton, Deuteronomy 32:15. To affect more mundi delicias quam Christi divitias, as
one saith, the world’s dainties than Christ’s comforts: to trust in uncertain riches
than to rely upon the living God, who giveth them all things richly to enjoy, 1
Timothy 6:17. This must be looked to; for it hath a woe hanging at the heels of it,
Jeremiah 17:5-6, Psalms 52:7; Psalms 52:9.
Which are named chief of the nations] Heb. expressly named, declared, notified,
celebrated,
chief] the head, or first-fruits, the head and height, principium, id est, praecipuum
gentium. So Amalek is called the first of the nations, umbers 24:20; haply they
held themselves so: as the Egyptians afterwards boasted much of their antiquity,

and the Chinese at this day do of their excellence and perspicuity above other
nations. Many wicked ones are of great renown in this world, Psalms 73:4; Psalms
73:6, and stand much upon their titles and terms of honour; who yet in the next
generation shall be utterly forgotten, Psalms 109:13, for that their names are not
written in heaven, Revelation 17:8; and look how much they have glorified
themselves, and lived deliciously, so much torment and ignominy shall be given
them, Revelation 18:7.
To whom the house of Israel came] The whole house of Israel, viz. the two tribes to
Zion, the ten to Samaria, vel sacrorum causa, vel iudiciorum, saith Drusius, as to
places of worship, and besides, courts of justice. Others sense it thus, The house of
Israel came unto them, that is, the Israelites invaded those nations that once held
Zion and Samaria, and succeeded them therein; not by any strength of their own,
but by God’s mighty hand and outstretched arm, which they, ungrateful wretches,
acknowledge not: but come in for themselves ( ‫להם‬ ), so Ribera rendereth it, quasi
sibi tantum nati, se solos esse aliquid, as if they were the only proprietaries, the sole
owners of all; and owned no service to any chief lord. Such insolence grows from
security. See Job 21:23.
CO STABLE, "Verse 1
The prophet began this message by announcing coming woe (Heb. hoy, cf. Amos
5:18). Those who felt at ease in Zion (Jerusalem) and secure in Samaria were the
subjects of his message. Those who felt comfortable in Samaria, partially because it
stood on a high hill that was easily defensible, were the distinguished men. They
regarded Israel, and Judah, as the foremost of the nations of their day. They were
the men to whom the rest of the house of Israel (the people of the orthern
Kingdom) came for advice and or justice.
"With masterly irony, Amos addressed the self-satisfied rich, secure in their
affluence ( Amos 6:1; cf. Luke 6:24-25; Luke 12:13-21)." [ ote: McComiskey, p317.]
"God doesn"t look at the talent of national leaders, the extent of a nation"s army, or
the prosperity of its economy. God looks at the heart, and the heart of the two
Jewish kingdoms was far from the Lord." [ ote: Wiersbe, p360.]
This is the last reference to the people of Zion in this message; from now on Amos
spoke only of the orthern Kingdom. Perhaps he referred to the Judean leaders
because they were also guilty of the same sins (cf. Isaiah 32:9-11), but God had not
decreed destruction against them yet.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Amos 6:1
There is a saying which I have heard attributed to Mr. Carlyle about Socrates,—a
very happy saying, whether it is really Mr. Carlyle"s or not—which excellently
marks the essential point in which Hebraism differs from Hellenism. "Socrates,"
this saying goes, "is terribly at ease in Zion". Hebraism—and here is the source of

its wonderful strength—has always been serenely preoccupied with an awful sense
of the impossibility of being at ease in Zion.... It is all very well to talk of getting rid
of one"s ignorance, of seeing things in their reality, and seeing them in their full
beauty; but how is this to be done when there is something which thwarts and spoils
all our efforts? This something is sin.
—M. Arnold in Culture and Anarchy.
EBC, "3. "AT EASE I ZIO "
Amos 6:1-14
The evil of the national worship was the false political confidence which it
engendered. Leaving the ritual alone, Amos now proceeds to assault this confidence.
We are taken from the public worship of the people to the private banquets of the
rich, but again only in order to have their security and extravagance contrasted with
the pestilence, the war, and the captivity that are rapidly approaching.
"Woe unto them that are at ease in Zion"-it is a proud and overweening ease which
the word expresses-"and that trust in the mount of Samaria! Men of mark of the
first of the peoples"-ironically, for that is Israel’s opinion of itself-"and to them do
the house of Israel resort! Ye that put off the day of calamity and draw near the
sessions of injustice"-an epigram and proverb, for it is the universal way of men to
wish and fancy far away the very crisis that their sins are hastening on. Isaiah
described this same generation as drawing iniquity with cords of hypocrisy, and sin
as it were with a cart-rope! "That lie on ivory diwans and sprawl on their couches"-
another luxurious custom, which filled this rude shepherd with contempt-"and eat
lambs from the flock and calves from the midst of the stall"-that is, only the most
delicate of meats-"who prate" or "purr" or "babble to the sound of the viol, and as
if they were David" himself "invent for them instruments of song; who drink wine
by ewerfuls-waterpot-fuls-and anoint with the finest of oil-yet never do they grieve
at the havoc of Joseph!" The havoc is the moral havoc, for the social structure of
Israel is obviously still secure. The rich are indifferent to it; they have wealth, art,
patriotism, religion, but neither heart for the poverty nor conscience for the sin of
their people. We know their kind! They are always with us, who live well and
imagine they are proportionally clever and refined. They have their political zeal,
will rally to an election when the interests of their class or their trade is in danger.
They have a robust and, exuberant patriotism, talk grandly of commerce, empire,
and the national destiny; but for the real woes and sores of the people, the poverty,
the overwork, the drunkenness, the dissoluteness, which more affect a nation’s life
than anything else, they have no pity and no care.
"Therefore now"-the double initial of judgment "shall they go into exile at the head
of the exiles, and stilled shall be the revelry of the dissolute"-literally "the
sprawlers," as in Amos 6:4, but used here rather in the moral than in the physical
sense. "Sworn hath the Lord Jehovah by Himself-‘tis the oracle of Jehovah God of

Hosts: I am loathing the pride of Jacob, and his palaces do I hate, and I will pack up
a city and its fullness. For, behold, Jehovah is commanding, and He will smite the
great house into ruins and the small house into splinters." The collapse must come,
postpone it as their fancy will, for it has been worked for and is inevitable. How
could it be otherwise?" Shall horses run on a cliff, or the sea be ploughed by oxen-
that ye should turn justice to poison and the fruit of righteousness to wormwood! Ye
that exult in Lo-Debar and say, By our own strength have we taken to ourselves
Karnaim." So Gratz rightly reads the verse. The Hebrew text and all the versions
take these names as if they were common nouns-Lo-Debar, "a thing of naught";
Karnaim, "a pair of horns"-and doubtless it was just because-of this possible play
upon their names, that Amos selected these two out of all the recent conquests of
Israel. Karnaim, in full Ashteroth Karnaim, "Astarte of Horns," was that
immemorial fortress and sanctuary which lay out upon the great plateau of BaShan
towards Damascus; so obvious and cardinal a site that it appears in the sacred
history both in the earliest recorded campaign in Abraham’s time and in one of the
latest under the Maccabees. Lo-Debar was of Gilead, and probably lay on that last
rampart of the province northward, overlooking the Yarmuk, a strategical point
which must have often been contested by Israel and Aram, and with which no other
Old Testament name has been identified. These two fortresses, with many others,
Israel had lately taken from Aram; but not, as they boasted, "by their own
strength." It was only Aram’s preoccupation with Assyria, now surgent on the
northern flank, which allowed Israel these easy victories. And this same northern
foe would soon overwhelm themselves. "For, behold, I am to raise up against you, O
house of Israel-‘tis the oracle of Jehovah God of the hosts-a ation, and they shall
oppress you from the Entrance of Hamath to the Torrent of the ‘Arabah." Everyone
knows the former, the Pass between the Lebanons, at whose mouth stands Dan,
northern limit of Israel; but it is hard to identify the latter. If Amos means to
include Judah, we should have expected the Torrent of Egypt, the present Wady el
‘Arish; but the Wady of the ‘Arabah may be a corresponding valley in the eastern
watershed issuing in the ‘Arabah. If Amos threatens only the orthern Kingdom, he
intends some wady running down to that Sea of the ‘Arabah, the Dead Sea, which is
elsewhere given as the limit of Israel.
The Assyrian flood, then, was about to break, and the oracles close with the hopeless
prospect of the whole land submerged beneath it.
ISBET, "‘AT EASE I ZIO ’
‘Woe to them that are at ease in Zion.’
Amos 6:1
I. There is a great difference between being at ease and being contented.—Every
Christian should learn contentment even in pain and suffering. St. Paul said that he
had learned in whatsoever state he was therein to be content. Peace, too, is not only
a privilege of the Christian, but a duty—peace with God, the peace of God in the
heart. The Christian should not be feverish and fretful. He should never worry. This
quietness of faith is founded upon obedience and trust.

II. But there is a kind of ease which is full of danger.—It is that ease against which
our text warns us. The people of Israel were living at ease in sin. They were
neglecting God, paying no heed to His commandments, and yet were giving
themselves no thought about the consequences. People live on the slopes of a
volcano, build their homes there, make their gardens, cultivate their vineyards, go
on with their plans, forgetting that under them sleep the terrible fires which any
hour may break out and destroy them. They are at ease in a false security. So are all
who live in sin, and have no thought of sin’s guilt.
III. Luxury is not the best thing in this world.—The people of Israel had rich
houses, their bedsteads inlaid with ivory, and on their tables the richest and costliest
provisions. They thought they were wondrously fortunate. o doubt their
neighbours also envied them. But we see here that they were in a state of great
danger. Wealth always has its dangers, and luxury very often destroys the soul.
There is no time when we need to watch our spiritual life more carefully than when
we are prospering in worldly things.
IV. Pleasure is not the best thing in this world.—The people of Israel seemed to have
no lack of pleasure. They had their feasts, their revels, with all kinds of musical
instruments and other instruments of pleasure. Wine flowed so freely that they
drank it not in ordinary cups, but in great bowls. They anointed themselves with the
costliest ointments, but meanwhile their souls were dying. Indulgence in pleasure is
always perilous.
V. Sin brings its sure and terrible penalties.—All this luxury and indulgence
foreboded coming ruin. The people were forgetting God, disregarding His
commandments. They forgot that there was any judgment, that God thought or
cared about their sins. Then captivity came with all its curse. The course is always
the same. If we live in sin we must meet the penalty.
Illustrations
(1) ‘The meaning is “recklessly at ease.” Such ease is the expression of the “don’t
care” spirit. A young man says, “Anyhow, I am going to have a good time.” He
means an evil time. God’s warnings, the certainties of retributions, he scoffs at. Like
Esau, he seizes the mess of pottage, and capitulates to the present. Said an old
boatman bewailing his present plight of ignorance and inability, “I played truant
when I could have gone to school; I would not learn; now here I am.” He had his
foolish ease, now he had his pain. This sensual, pleasure-loving ease, which refuses
to look before and after, will bring doom always. Mr. Lowell used to delightingly
quote this sentence from Samuel Johnson: “Whatever withdraws us from the power
of our senses, whatever makes the past, the distant, or the future predominate over
the present, advances us in the dignity of thinking beings.”’
(2) ‘Sinful indulgence brought to Israel captivity; sinful indulgence brought to
Rome, Greece, Egypt, ineveh, Babylon, ruin. ow imagine, as well as you can,
what would it be that a man like Amos would call to our attention if he were to

speak out in these days. Would not national pride be one of the sins which he would
bring to our remembrance?—proud of our size, proud of our inventive genius,
proud of our wealth, proud of our power, and now, in these last days, proud of our
navy. Bragging is heard on every hand, as though we could beat the world.’
PETT, "Verses 1-14
The Second Woe On Those Who Complacently Relaxed, Depending On YHWH’s
Protection, While They Also Totally Ignored His Requirements (Amos 6:1-14).
While Amos’s mission was to Israel he never overlooked the situation of Judah, and
especially in decadent Jerusalem. He had already made clear in Amos 2:4-5 that
YHWH had not overlooked Judah, but had already determined their punishment.
And he had spoken in Amos 3:1 of the ‘whole family’ who had come out of Egypt.
For to the prophets the separation of Israel from Judah was not a part of God’s
ideal agenda, and they continued to see them as one. So now he introduces Judah
alongside Israel in his reference to their capital cities, Zion and Samaria. Indeed we
should recognise that many Israelites had taken up residence in Judah, especially in
and around Jerusalem where the central sanctuary was, so that Israel’s fortunes
were very much involved with Judah’s.
In this passage a ‘woe’ is declared on both Zion and Samaria, an thus on Judah and
Israel, because of their complacency and their pride (with Aram decimated and
subject to Israel, Egypt quiescent, Assyria not at present on the horizon (they were
being kept busy elsewhere with Urartu), and Hamath, Calneh and Gath no longer as
powerful as them, they saw themselves as ‘the chief of the nations’). But what they
needed to recognise was that their security was a myth, and their pride folly,
because their unscrupulous and idle ways would shortly bring YHWH’s judgment
on them.
Amos 6:1
“Woe to those who are at ease in Zion,
And to those who are secure in the mountain of Samaria,
The men of note of the chief of the nations,
To whom the house of Israel come!”
This second ‘woe’ is directed at the leadership of Judah and Israel in both Zion and
Samaria. Both were under God’s intense scrutiny as they lolled about, confident
that they were safe and secure and that nothing could touch them. They arrogantly
saw themselves as the noble leaders (the men of note) of ‘the chief of the nations’
(Israel and Judah). And it was to such that the house of Israel had to come for
guidance and leadership!
There was something especially poignant about being ‘complacently at ease’ in Zion,
which is no doubt why Amos introduces the idea here. There had been such hopes
when the ame of YHWH had been established in Zion by the introduction of the
Ark of the covenant (2 Samuel 6), and possibly even more so when the Temple of
YHWH had been erected there and made into the central sanctuary, but as royal

favour had grown in importance, and Zion had become the place to go in order to
gain influence in the right quarters, the impact of the covenant had tended to
diminish, and the true heart of the instruction of Moses had become lost as such
men vied for position and wealth. Thus Zion, the visible centre of the truth of
YHWH (Isaiah 2:3), had diminished into being simply another centre of secular
influence and wealth, so that instead of its inhabitants thrilling to the truths of the
Scriptures, and taking YHWH’s instruction out to the people (Isaiah 2:3), they
indolently lay on their couches drinking and anointing themselves, satisfied with
their own importance as rulers, along with Samaria, of ‘the chief of the nations’.
ot having our historical perspective, and unaware of the full truth about the world
in which they lived, it was quite possible for these men actually genuinely to see
their nations of Israel and Judah as ‘the chief of the nations’. Egypt was quiescent
and now kept itself to itself. Assyria was far off, little known and troubling no one
(except Urartu). Aram had been previously neutralised by the Assyrians, and were
now subject to Israel. Calneh, Hamath and Gath could not bear comparison with
them, and were also probably subject to them as well. The remainder of the
surrounding nations like Moab, Ammon, Edom, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Gaza were
no threat. Israel and Judah were thus top dogs within their spheres of activity,
expanding their borders in all directions, and extremely proud and self assured at
the fact. We can see why, as a result of this, they had even been able to think in
terms of a ‘day of YHWH’ when He would enable them to rule over a world about
whose size they had a very limited conception (Amos 5:18).
SIMEO ,"CAR AL EASE A D SECURITY REPROVED
Amos 6:1. Woe to them that are at ease in Zion.
O E would scarcely conceive it possible, that the Jews, with so many instances of
God’s displeasure before their eyes, could indulge in security, whilst they were
evidently, in the whole course of their lives, provoking him to anger. But the
blindness both of Israel and Judah was almost incurable. The ten tribes having
wholly addicted themselves to idolatry, were the first monuments of God’s
indignation. Yet on them the divine judgments fell at first but partially, in order
that they might be stirred up to penitence, and avert, by timely reformation, their
impending fate. But they continued obdurate, under all the chastisements that were
inflicted on them: nor did Judah make any suitable improvement, either of the
judgments inflicted on others, or of the forbearance that was exercised towards
themselves. God, by the Prophet Jeremiah, complains of Judah thus: “I saw, when
for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her
away, and given her a bill of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not,
but went and played the harlot also [ ote: Jeremiah 3:8.].” A similar complaint was
made by the Prophet Amos in our text. God had “begun to cut Israel short;” but
neither did they nor Judah lay it to heart, as they should have done: they saw what
had been done to nations less guilty and more powerful than themselves; to Calneh,
in Chaldea; to Hemath, in Syria; to Gath of the Philistines; and yet “they put away
the evil day” from themselves [ ote: ver. 2, 3.], as though the cup of bitterness

should never be put into their hands. But the prophet denounces against them the
heavy judgments of God: “Woe to them that are at ease in Zion!”
It is my intention from these words, to shew you,
I. The evil which is here reproved—
We are not to suppose that the mere circumstance of a person’s being “at ease” is
sinful: on the contrary, it is the privilege of God’s people to enjoy that very state,
and that, too, in relation both to their temporal and spiritual concerns. In reference
to temporal matters, God has said, “Whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely,
and be quiet from fear of evil [ ote: Proverbs 1:33.].” And in the book of Job,
Eliphaz states this point at large: “He shall deliver thee in six troubles; yea, in seven
there shall no evil touch thee. In famine, he shall redeem thee from death; and in
war, from the power of the sword. Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue;
neither shalt thou be afraid of destruction when it cometh. At destruction and
famine thou shalt laugh; neither shalt thou be afraid of the beasts of the earth: for
thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field; and the beasts of the field shall be
at peace with thee: and thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace [ ote:
Job 5:19-24.].” or is spiritual peace a whit less the portion of the godly: for it is
expressly said, “What man is he that feareth the Lord? His soul shall dwell at ease
[ ote: Psalms 25:12-13.].”
Yet, that there is a sinful kind of ease, is evident, from the woe denounced against it.
The state, then, that is here condemned, is a state,
1. Of carnal confidence—
[“Woe to them that are at ease in Zion, and trust in the mountain of Samaria!” Both
Judah and Israel were ready to place an undue confidence in the capitals of their
respective countries, as being well fortified both by nature and art: and when they
had been made to see how weak such fortresses were, when defended only by an
arm of flesh, they would “say in the pride and stoutness of their hearts, The bricks
are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones; the sycamores are cut down,
but we will change them into cedars [ ote: Isaiah 9:9-10.].” In their outward
relation to God, also, they trusted; as the reproof administered to them shews:
“Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord,
the temple of the Lord are we [ ote: Jeremiah 7:4.].” Because “they had Abraham
to their father,” they thought that no evil could befall them [ ote: Matthew 3:9.].
And is not this a common evil amongst ourselves? What is there in which we do not
trust, rather than in God? In all our concerns, whether personal or public, we lean
on an arm of flesh, and find it altogether foreign to our habits to “cast all our care
on God.” Even in relation to our eternal interests we find it exceeding difficult to
realize our dependence on God. Our own wisdom and strength and righteousness
are, for the most part, the objects of our reliance, and the grounds of our ease. But
the whole of this is most displeasing to God; according as it is written, “Blessed is

the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is; but cursed is the
man that trusteth in man, and that maketh flesh his arm [ ote: Jeremiah 17:5;
Jeremiah 17:7.].”]
2. Of sensual indulgence—
[To possess indulgences, or to use them, is no ground of offence; for “God has given
us all things richly to enjoy [ ote: 1 Timothy 6:17.]:” But to place our happiness in
them, is to provoke God to jealousy; since he ought to be to us the one only fountain
and source of bliss. The Jews, whom the prophet reproves, were greatly guilty in
this particular. When both the sins which they committed, and the judgments which
they suffered, were rather “calling them to mourning and to fasting and to weeping
[ ote: Isaiah 22:12-14.],” they were living in all the indulgences of the most
luxurious ease: as the prophet says: “they lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch
themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out
of the midst of the stall; they chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves
instruments of music, like David; they drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves
with the chief ointment [ ote: ver. 4–6.].” ow this is the very state in which
happiness is supposed to consist: it is universally spoken of as the very summit of
human enjoyment; and is held forth as an object greatly to be envied and desired.
But how different are these things in God’s estimation! To all who spend their lives
in such a way as this, our Lord, no less than the prophet, says, “Woe unto you that
laugh now! for ye shall weep [ ote: Luke 6:25.].”
Let it not however be imagined that this woe attaches only to the opulent: for the
lower classes of society are equally obnoxious to the same condemnation; whilst,
with less refinement indeed, but not an atom less of sensuality, they gratify
themselves with those indulgences which every public-house supplies. I forbear to
specify their enjoyments with the same minuteness as the prophet does the
gratifications of the rich: but your own minds will present you with a detail of the
accompaniments of carousals amongst the poor, and of the gratifications wherein
they consume their time, their property, their health, their souls.]
3. Of selfish apathy—
[Swallowed up with their vain amusements, the Jews “were not grieved for the
affliction of Joseph [ ote: ver. 6.].” They laid not to heart the miseries of others; nor
considered either from whom the judgments had come, or for what cause they had
been inflicted. “The harp and the viol, the tabret and the pipe, and wine, were in
their feasts; but they regarded not the work of the Lord, nor the operation of his
hands [ ote: Isaiah 5:12.].” And this constitutes a very essential part of that
wickedness, which a state of self-indulgent ease invariably brings with it. one feel
so little for others, or for the Church of God, as those who are immersed in worldly
pleasures. The chief butler, when restored to his office in Pharaoh’s household,
forgat the interests of the suffering Joseph; as all in prosperity are but too apt to do:
so that it is well said by the apostle, “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she
liveth [ ote: Genesis 40:23 and Esther 3:13; Esther 3:15. with 1 Timothy 5:6.]. In

truth, such persons are dead to all holy feelings, whether towards God or man. But
this is a state of grievous criminality. We ought all of us to consider ourselves as
members of one body, and to have the same care one for another, every member
participating in both the joys and sorrows of all the rest [ ote: 1 Corinthians 12:25-
26.]. We should all be able to make to God the very same appeal as Job did: Did not
I weep for him that was in trouble? and was not my soul grieved for the poor [ ote:
Job 30:25.]?” But in a more especial manner ought we to be concerned for the souls
of men: and when we view the lamentable condition of Jews or Gentiles, or of the
souls of nominal Christians, without pity and compassion, we may well tremble, as
obnoxious to the displeasure of our God, as being most unreasonably and
unmercifully “at ease in Zion.” If we would have any evidence that we are right with
God, we must be able, like St. Paul, to appeal to the all-seeing God, that for our
perishing brethren, whoever they may be, “we have great heaviness and continual
sorrow in our heart [ ote: Romans 9:1-2.].”]
That we may not think lightly of this evil, I will proceed to shew,
II. The equity of the judgments denounced against it—
We are ready to think that nothing but gross and flagrant immorality deserves
God’s wrath. But the habit of the mind may be as offensive to God as any overt act
whatever: and we hesitate not to say, that the evil which is here reproved, deserves
the woes that are denounced against it.
The judgments which are threatened in the Old Testament are chiefly of a temporal
nature. In truth, nations, as nations, are incapable of sustaining any other. But
individuals, so far as they are implicated, will have to bear that wrath of God which,
in the ew Testament, is fully “revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
of men [ ote: Romans 1:18.].”
That the evil which we have been considering deserves this, will be seen, if we reflect
that it implies,
1. A total alienation of heart from God—
[How impossible would it be to conceive of an angel in heaven, or of Adam in
Paradise, in such a state as our text imports! ot one of them could for a moment
forget his dependence on God. However crowned with comforts suited to their
nature, not one of them would rest in those things as his happiness, or cease to seek
his happiness in God. And, if we suppose any part of the creation reduced to a state
of suffering, not one of them would be indifferent to their welfare, or indisposed, if
it were in his power, to promote it. It is in consequence of our departure from God,
that all this evil is come upon us; and that we resemble rather the devil in pride, the
beasts in sensuality, and the very stones in an insensibility to all around us. And let
me ask, Docs not such a state as this deserve the wrath of God? And is not a woe
most justly denounced against it? Look at the Saviour; do you find any symptom of
such a disposition in him? Was not the very reverse manifested by him, when for

our sakes “he made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross?” If we are so far from
his image, and so far from seeking his glory, as my text implies, it is in vain to hope
that we shall have any part with him in the world above.]
2. An utter insensibility to all the wonders of Redemption—
[Among the ends for which our blessed Lord came into the world, one of prime
importance was, “that we should not henceforth live unto ourselves, but unto Him
who died for us and rose again.” But the sensual life, which we have before
described, is altogether foreign from this, or, rather, directly opposed to it. Shall one
then “in Zion” be thus at ease? It would be bad enough for those who have never
heard of redeeming love to rest in such a state; but, for those who profess to have
“come unto Mount Zion,” and to belong to the Church of Christ, to be thus lost to
all that is good, is an abomination that merits, and will assuredly be visited with,
God’s heavy displeasure. If we would dwell with Christ in a better world, we must
“have the mind that was in him,” and “walk as he walked” — — —]
3. An entire forgetfulness of the future judgment—
[Could any man living on the borders of eternity rest in such a state as is here
described? What if we were to see a dying man immersed in carnal confidence, and
sensual indulgence, and selfish apathy; should we think such dispositions suited to
his state? Would not even an ungodly man judge it better for him to rise above the
things of time and sense, and to have his mind occupied with the concerns and
interests of eternity? Think, then, of an immortal being thus occupied; not knowing,
but that, before another day shall arrive, he may be summoned to the judgment-seat
of Christ, and receive his doom, either in heaven or in hell, for ever: is it not almost
incredible that a human being of this description should be found? But so it is, even
with the great mass of mankind: they “put far from them the evil day,” and scarcely
think of eternity till they are constrained to meet it with all its horrors. What, then,
shall I say to such persons? What can I say, but “Woe unto them?” I am aware that
it must appear harsh; and that it would be more pleasing to the generality, if we
were to “prophesy unto them smooth things, and prophesy deceits.” But we dare not
do so. Our blessed Lord, when addressing such persons—even persons in Zion, who,
whilst they “professed to know God, in works denied him”— repeated no less than
seven times, in one short chapter, this solemn warning, “Woe unto you, Scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites!” and then closed his address with this terrible denunciation:
“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how shall ye escape the damnation of hell
[ ote: Matthew 23:13-33.]!” This, by the way, shews us what is meant by the woe
denounced in my text. Yes, it is nothing less than “the damnation of hell” that must
be the portion of such self-deceiving professors. I pray you, Brethren, be not
satisfied with having it supposed that ye belong to Zion, whilst ye really “belong to
the synagogue of Satan.” To “have a name to live,” will be an awful state, if ye be
found “dead” at last. Indeed, if you would obtain the prize, you must “run as in a
race:” if you would gain the victory, you must “fight the good right of faith:” if ever
you would have eternal life, glory and honour and immortality must, to the latest

hour of your lives, be the one object of your pursuit.]
BI, "Woe to them that are at ease in Zion.
The secure alarmed
There is something very agreeable and desirable in ease. Yet, strange as the declaration
may appear, this tranquillity is too common; and to disturb it should be our design. For
your peace may be a false peace. Before an earthquake the air is uncommonly serene.
Ascertain precisely the characters whose delusions we wish to destroy.
I. Some are at ease in Zion from selfish insensibility. Such there were in the days of
Amos. In a similar way to Amos, Isaiah upbraids the Jews. There are still many whose
attention to their own indulgences regulates all their actions. Our dispositions ought
always to correspond with the providence of God, and the purposes for which He placed
us in the world. For the unfeeling wretch conscience has no kind office to perform. For
him no orphan prays, no widow sings. For him the evil day comes on charged with every
horror. He has no asylum in the feelings of the community, the happiness of whose
members he never sought.
II. Some from infidel presumption. If there be any truth in the Scriptures, the
dispositions of the generality of mankind are very unsuitable to their state and their
destiny. What is this ease which flows from infidel persuasion?
1. It is obtained with difficulty.
2. It is partial, and liable to interruption.
3. The less liable it is to be disturbed, the more awful; for it is penal.
4. This ease is fatal. Its duration is momentary; it must end, and end in anguish and
despair.
III. Some from vain confidence; relying on the goodness of their present state, and on
the certainty of their future happiness. There is such a thing as spiritual self-flattery;
there is such a thing as a delusive dependence on religion.
1. This confidence keeps them from looking after salvation. They are too good to be
saved.
2. This course will terminate in woeful surprise and disappointment.
IV. Some prom practical indifference. You would much offend persons of this class,
were you to inquire whether they believed the Scripture. These persons are not to be
charged sentimentally with anti-nomianism or any other error. They know the Gospel in
theory; but they are strangers to its Divine efficacy. Of all the various characters we have
to deal with in our ministry, these are the most unlikely to insure success. We preach;
you acknowledge, and admire,—but you discover no more concern to obtain the one
thing needful we propose, than if you were persuaded we called you “to follow a
cunningly devised fable.” Your life is a perpetual contradiction to your creed: you are not
happy, and contrive not to be miserable. Inferences.
1. They are highly criminal, who countenance and promote a state of carnal ease.
2. Let none be troubled when they find their connections distressed and alarmed
with a sense of their sin and danger.
3. Nothing is so much to be dreaded as false security in religion.

4. There is consolation for those who are distressed. We do not applaud all their
doubts and dejections, but these painful scruples are easily accounted for, and they
lie on the safe side. (William Jay.)
Carnal security
I. The state of mind that is reproved in this passage.
1. It includes carnal security (Amo_6:1).
2. It includes presumptuous unbelief (Amo_6:2-3).
3. It includes sensual indulgence (Amo_6:4-6, first clause).
4. It includes selfish indifference (Amo_6:6, last clause).
II. The justice of the woe denounced against it.
1. Such a state of mind indicates a lurking enmity against God.
2. Indicates insensibility to the claims of Jesus.
3. Indicates a deep-seated unbelief of coming judgments. (G. Brooks.)
The danger of indifference to spiritual things
I. The state condemned. God’s threatenings had been declared against the kingdoms of
Judah and Israel, but the people confided in their fortifications and external advantages,
or in their profession of being the people of God; thus they carelessly indulged
themselves, and were heedless about consequences, though destruction impended over
them. The application of the passage to the conduct of many under the means of grace is
natural and easy. The state of mind condemned is—
1. Expressive of careless indifference.
2. It is expressive of false security.
The persons warned in the text were regarding themselves as secure on false and
uncertain grounds. So many are now found perverting the doctrines of the Gospel, and
promising to themselves security in such per version. Or they pretend that they arc
waiting for God’s time, when He will afford them necessary help. They make their moral
inability, or in other words, their unwillingness to receive Christ and His Gospel an
excuse for their continued disobedience, and attribute their rebellion and unbelief to the
want of God’s help, rather than to the state of their own hearts, to the love of sin, and to
their unwillingness to yield submission to the Saviour’s authority. Others make their
moral conduct a ground of hope. Their honesty, their kindness to their neighbours, and
the propriety of their general deportment are substituted for faith in Christ, and a
cordial reception of His Gospel.
3. It is expressive of a state of sloth. Many professors are thus at ease. Once they
were anxious, inquiring, full of apparent desire after the favour of God and the
blessings of salvation, and of activity ‘in the Saviour’s cause. But their zeal, activity,
and ardour have passed away. They are slumbering and sleeping.
II. Mark the place where this state of mind is exercised. If slothfulness and indifference
are unseemly in other spheres, are they less so in Zion, in the house, in the Church of

God? If they are injurious to our temporal concerns . . . are they less so to our spiritual
and eternal interests? Restricting the term “in Zion” to the place where God is
worshipped, to His sanctuary, we remark—
1. That in Zion the law of God is declared. Its purity, its justice, its spiritual character
and extensive requirements are set forth. In Zion we are shown the harmony of the
law with the Gospel, while it becomes the means of preparing us to receive salvation.
2. In Zion the Gospel is proclaimed. Here the most constant theme is salvation
through the Saviour s blood. Here Jesus is evidently set forth as crucified among us.
Can you be at ease in Zion, cold and insensible, with the Cross in view, and
indifferent to the Saviour’s voice addressing us therefrom?
3. Zion is the special residence of Christ. Jesus is now represented as King in Zion, as
the Ruler and Head of His Church.
III. The danger to which this state of mind exposes.
1. How opposed to all spiritual improvement.
2. How expressive of contempt for spiritual blessings.
3. How ruinous to our eternal interests. (Essex Remembrancer.)
Sinners in Zion described and doomed
I. Consider the persons here mentioned. They are described as being “at ease in Zion.”
The temple was called Zion. The name was gradually extended to the worshippers, so
that it came to embrace all who profess to know and worship God. To be in Zion means
to be in a land where the true God is known and worshipped, where religious privileges,
similar to those of the Jews, are enjoyed. Taking the word in a more limited sense, to be
in Zion is to be among those who statedly meet for the purpose of religious worship. Or
it may include only those who have made a public profession of religion. The ease here
intended is ease not of body, but of mind; ease relating not to our temporal but to our
religious or spiritual concerns. Persons are at ease when they feel neither sorrow nor
alarm on account of their sins; when they are seldom troubled by the admonitions of
conscience; when they arc not engaged in working out their salvation with fear and
trembling, but feel quiet and secure. This unconcern respecting themselves is usually
accompanied by at least equal unconcern respecting the salvation of others. Such
persons are described as “not grieved for the affliction of Joseph”; that is, for the evils
and calamities that afflict the Church. This body may be divided into several classes,
corresponding with the various causes to which their ease is ascribed.
1. Those who deny that any punishment will be inflicted on sinners. This includes
infidels of every description; those who deny God’s government of the world; those
who contemn God; and the scoffers. In this class must also be placed those who
believe that all men will be saved. False prophets who cry “peace, peace,” when there
is no peace.
2. Those who allow that sinners will be punished, but who deny, or do not appear to
believe, that they are sinners. They find, or fancy that they find none better than
themselves, few so good, and very many worse. Hence they conclude that they arc in
no danger, that they have nothing to fear, and of course feel easy and secure. Such
persons are without the law. They know nothing of its spirituality, strictness, and
extent. They have never tried themselves by this rule. They are like a man buried in

sleep, totally unconscious of their true character and situation, insensible of their
sins, and of the danger to which their sins expose them.
3. Those who acknowledge that they are sinners, and that sinners will be punished;
and yet they are at ease, for they contrive in various ways to persuade themselves
that though other sinners will be punished, they shall themselves escape. Such
persons, though habitually, are not always at ease. They have times of anxiety and
alarm. It is their way by promises and resolutions to put off the evil day. They trust
to a future convenient season. There is perhaps no class of sinners whose situation is
more dangerous. This class also includes all who entertain a false and groundless
persuasion that they have already become pious, obtained the” pardon of their sins,
and secured the favour of God. The reasons why persons feel such a persuasion are
various.
II. The woe which is denounced against them in our text. The doom is expressed in
general terms; in terms which may include curses and threatenings of every kind. Why
are such characters thought worthy of a punishment so severe?
1. Because the ease which they feel proves that they belong to the number of the
wicked. All who are habitually at ease in Zion know nothing of true religion. They are
either careless sinners or self-deluded hypocrites.
2. They are not only sinners, but sinners of no common stamp, sinners whose guilt
and sinfulness are peculiarly aggravated, and whose punishment will therefore be
peculiarly severe. He who is at ease in Zion must be deaf to God’s voice, blind to
God’s glories, insensible to every spiritual object; he sins against light and against
love.
3. There is little reason to hope that they will ever repent. On what grounds can we
hope for the salvation of those who are at ease? If they cannot be roused, if their false
peace cannot be disturbed, they must inevitably perish; and to rouse them, humanly
speaking, seems impossible. (E. Payson, D. D.)
The Church warned against supineness
While Amos unveils the transgressions of Israel, he does not spare the sins of Judah.
I. The persons here referred to. Those who are “in Zion.” The class of persons spoken of
are the members of the visible Church, the professing people of God. Regard the
professing Church—
1. As solemnly devoted to holiness and God.
(1) They are so by the immediate and express purpose of God Himself. He has
created them anew in Christ Jesus. And He has done this for His own glory.
(2) They are so by the intention of their Divine Redeemer. He has done and
suffered much for them. To redeem and raise up a holy Church is the object
which is the solace of all the Redeemer’s labours, the mead of all His sufferings.
(3) They are devoted to holiness in baptism. The ordinance of baptism is the
expressive type and sign of the sprinkling of the efficacious blood.
(4) They are thus devoted by voluntary covenant. Every Christian is such by his
free choice.

2. As the appointed instrument in the evangelisation of the world. The Church of
Christ is designed to be a benevolent institution. They are appointed “witnesses” for
God to an unbelieving and perishing world.
(1) They are eminently fitted for this. They are themselves awakened and alive to
the dangerous condition of every unconverted man. They know too the way of
deliverance. And
(2) they have the command.
3. As a mediator with God on behalf of a perishing world.
(1) The renovation of the moral world depends upon the agency and operation of
the Holy Ghost. The Word of God itself con tains no inherent or independent
efficacy to convert mankind.
(2) The bestow meat of the Spirit is frequently and distinctly promised, but
always in answer to prayer.
(3) Hence prayer is made the Christian’s primary duty. Jesus both by precept
and by example urged it upon His followers.
II. The sin charged upon them. “They are at ease.” Consider—
1. Their spiritual condition. They are devoted to holiness; are they holy? The
spiritual state of Christians generally is not such as to warrant their being at ease.
Every scriptural view of their character and duty involves the obligation of strenuous
exertion.
2. The state of the world. The Gospel has now been preached over eighteen hundred
years, and what is the result? Look at your own family and domestic circle. Look at
the inhabitants of your town and neighbourhood. To how small a proportion of our
race have even the tidings of the Gospel yet been conveyed.
3. Another reason for uneasiness is that the success of the Word must always arise
from the agency of the Holy Spirit.
III. The judgment denounced. Under stand—
1. In the sense of a simple prophecy, as the prediction of a calamity likely and even
certain to ensue.
2. It is the language of righteous retribution. That there is an equitable
correspondence between sin and its consequences is testified by all experience.
3. It is the language of Divine denunciation. God is a just God, and a terrible. The
sceptre of His mercy may become the rod of His wrath. If by our supineness, our
unfaithfulness, our inconsistency, our sin, we have caused to be shed the blood of
souls, shall we escape, think you, the just judgment of God? (John G. Avery.)
At ease in Zion
The text practically applies to all nominal and professing Christians.
I. What is meant by those who are at ease in Zion? Lazy Christians. Christianity is more
than profession, it is even something more than faith. It is carrying into practice the
truths we profess. The soul that is at ease sits down very contentedly on his mere

profession, and mistakes earth for heaven.
II. What is the cause of being at ease in Zion?
1. There is ignorance of the nature of Christian life. Christianity is not ease, but
labour. It is a daily struggle against unbelief and sin. The man at ease does his
religion by deputy, or trusts entirely to the “mercy” of God, or relies on outward
service and participation in form and ceremonies.
2. There is a dislike of the duties to be undertaken. Self-denial is not congenial to the
natural heart. Labour is hateful, conflict repulsive, and therefore men sit down and
dream away their opportunities.
3. Self-confidence. Disaster seems so unlikely. We fancy we are so secure that
nothing can move us. Our prosperity, our privileges, our apparent tranquillity
deceive the heart and lure the soul to sleep.
III. The result of being at ease in Zion.
1. It generates sin.
2. It merits the displeasure of God.
3. It will end in entire destruction. (G. Wood, M. A.)
The “policy of drift” easy
Unless you make for the great things of your life, for I am not talking about the little
things of life, many of which are best deter mined by circumstances—unless you make
for the great things of life, the deliberate choice of the better part, you have in effect
made the disastrous choice of the worst. The “policy of drift” always ends in ruin for a
nation, for an army, for an individual. And it is plain enough that it is so, because, to the
superficial observer, it is a great deal easier, and a great deal pleasanter, to take the low
levels than to climb; and there are far more, and very clamant voices calling to us from
out of worldly things to eat, and drink, and take our ease and be merry, and let ideals
alone, than there are summoning us to the loftier, harder, more heroic, Christlike course
of life. It is hard work taking a great junk up the Yang tse-Kiang. Hundreds of trackers
have to strain every nerve and muscle as they go stumbling over the rocks on the bank,
with great cables on their shoulders, and slow progress is made. It would take a week to
get as far up as they can travel coming downwards in a day, without any trouble. Ay, and
what is that that the idle crew begin to hear, as they lie half somnolent on the deck, enjoy
ing the repose? A groaning sound, the roar of the rapids. To go down stream is easy, but
there is a Niagara at the far end. You choose the worse when you do not deliberately
choose the better. That is true all round. If you do not coerce, by a deliberate act, your
will, or your inclination, the baser sort of them will get the upper hand of you. Take away
the police, and the mob will loot and riot. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
The inner life of a nation determines its destiny
It is not the increase of the outer man and his surroundings and possessions, but the
renewal of the inner life and spirit which makes the net profit and abiding wealth. It is
the inner life of a nation that determines all things, not the visible, but the more or less
invisible, not what can be arrayed in figures and statistics, but what no figures can

express—not the show and splendour of prosperous times, the glare of wealth, the blaze
of knowledge, the surfeit of luxuries, the pomp of pride, the flaunting of power, but the
hidden qualities of patience, faith, self-mastery, courage, righteousness, and purity
which lie underneath all this external display. It is the soul of a nation that makes a
nation, not its body. If the soul is not sound, the body soon becomes a mass of weakness
and decay. France is wealthier than it ever was before. It has more splendid cities, larger
armies, greater intellectual resources and material resources than ever before; the
outward man was never so fair and strong as now. What of all that if the heart has ceased
to beat with honest purpose, if its ideals are lost, if the inner life has become diseased,
defiled, corrupt? The outward show slowly rots away, when the inspiring force within
degenerates and disappears. It is the continued renewal of the inner man that saves all.
(J. G. Greenhough, M. A.)
Degrading moral transitions
The phases of transition in the moral temper of the falling Venetians, during their fall,
were from pride to infidelity, and from infidelity to the unscrupulous pursuit of pleasure.
During the last years of the existence of the State, the minds both of the nobility and the
people seem to have been set simply upon the attainment of the means of self-
indulgence. There was not strength enough in them to be proud, nor forethought enough
to be ambitious. One by one the possessions of the State were abandoned to its enemies;
one by one the channels of its trade were forsaken by its own languor, or occupied and
closed against it by its more energetic rivals; and the time, the resources, and the
thoughts of the nation were exclusively occupied in the invention of such fantastic and
costly pleasures as might best amuse their apathy, lull their remorse, or disguise their
ruin. It is as needless, as it is painful, to trace the steps of her final ruin. That ancient
curse was upon her, the curse of the cities of the plain, “Pride, fulness of bread, and
abundance of idleness.” By the inner burning of her own passions, as fatal as the fiery
rain of Gomorrah, she was consumed from her place among the nations; and her ashes
are choking the channels of the dead salt sea. (John Ruskin.)
2 Go to Kalneh and look at it;
go from there to great Hamath,
and then go down to Gath in Philistia.
Are they better off than your two kingdoms?
Is their land larger than yours?

BAR ES, "Pass over to Calneh - He bids them behold, east, north, and west,
survey three neighboring kingdoms, and see whether God had not, even in the gifts of
this world, dealt better with Israel. Why then so requite Him? “Calneh” (which Isaiah
calls “Calno” Isa_10:9, Ezekiel, “Canneh Eze_27:23), was one of the four cities, built by
Nimrod “in the land of Shinar Gen_10:10, the beginning of his kingdom.” From that
time, until this of Amos, no mention of it occurs. It, probably, was more than once
conquered by the Assyrians , lying, as it did, on the Tigris, some 40 miles perhaps from
Babylon. Hence, it was said, under its new name Ctesiphon , to have been built, that is,
rebuilt, by the Macedonians , and again by the Parthians, , whose “kings made it their
winter residence on account of its good air.”
It was anew destroyed by Severus , rebuilt by Sapor II in the 4th Century . Julian’s
generals held it impregnable , being built on a peninsula, surrounded on three sides by
the Tigris . It became the scene of repeated persecutions of Christianity ; Nestorianism
was favored . A center of Persian luxury, it tell at once and forever before Omar , and the
Persian empire perished with it. It was replaced by the neighboring Bagdad. The history
illustrates the tenacity of life in those well-chosen sites, and the character of the place, of
whose conquest Sennacherib boasted, with which Amos compared the land of Israel.
Go thence to Hamath the great - Originally, a Canaanite kingdom Gen_10:18.
“The entrance to” it was assigned as the northern border of Israel Num_34:7-8; Jos_
13:5. In David’s time its king was at war with the king of Zobah 2Sa_8:9-10, and made
presents to David on his subdual. In Solomon’s time it had fallen under the power of the
king of Zobah, from where it was called Hamath-zobah. Solomon won it from him,
incorporated it with Israel, and built towns in its territory 2Ch_8:3-4. The “Hamathites”
were, under their own king, united with Benhadad, the Hittites, and the Phoenicians in
their war with Shalmanubar, and defeated by him . Ezekiel speaks of the “border of
Damascus” and “the coast of Hamath” Eze_47:16; Eze_48:1, as of places of like
importance, and Zechariah Zec_9:1-2, of their joint subdual by Alexander. To judge from
the present site, it in some respects resembled Samaria. It lay in a narrow oval valley of
the Orontes; its citadel on a round hill in the center.
The city rises up the steep sides of the hills which enclose it . Vast water-wheels , some
of a diameter of 67 , 80, 90 feet, raise the water of the Orontes to supply, by aid of
aqueducts, the upper city, or to water the neighboring gardens. : “The western part of its
territory is the granary of northern Syria.” Even when Antiochus Epiphanes called it
after himself Epiphania, its inhabitants called it after its old name . Mention occurs of it
in the crusades . In the 13th century it had its own well-known prince ; and has still a
population of some 30,000 .
Gath - (Winepress) must, from its name have been situated in a rich country. It lay on
the confines of Judea and Philistia, for Rehoboam fortified it as a border-fortress 2Ch_
11:8. It had been contrariwise fortified by the Philistines against Judah, since, when
David took it “out of the hand of the Philistines,” it had the title (2Sa_8:1, compare 1Ch_
18:1) “methegammah,” “bridle of the mother city,” or metropolis. It had at that time
“daughter towns” 1Ch_18:1 dependent upon it. It must also have been near Micah’s
birthplace, “Moresheth Gath,” that is, Moresheth of Gath, which in Jerome’s time was
“a small village near Eleutheropolis,” (Bethgabrin). Of Gath itself Jerome says , “It is one
of the five cities of Philistia, near the confines of Judea, and now too a very large village
on the way from Eleuthcropolis to Gaza.” Eusebius says , “about the 5th milestone from

Eleutheropolis to Diospolis” (Lydda).
Since the Philistines carried the ark of God from Ashdod to Gath, and thence to Ekron
1Sa_5:8, 1Sa_5:10, it seems likely that Gath lay nearer to Ashdod than Ekron, although
necessarily more inland than either, since it was a border-city to Judah. The Tel-es-
Safiyeh corresponds with these conditions, lying at the entrance of the Shephelah, about
5 miles from Beit-Jibrin on the road to Lydda, (Ludd). It “rises about 100 feet above the
eastern ridge which it terminates, and perhaps 200 over the plain which terminates its
western base. The ruins and subterranean reservoirs shew that it is a site of high
antiquity, great strength, and importance.” Gath had at this time probably been taken by
Uzziah who “broke down” its “wall” 2Ch_26:6; and since it is not mentioned with the
other four Philistine cities, whose sentence is pronounced by Amos Amo_1:7-8 himself,
Zephaniah Zep_2:4, and Zechariah Zec_9:5, it is probable that it never recovered.
Be they better than these kingdoms? - The prophet seems purposely to say less
than he might, in order that his hearers might have to supply the more. Calneh, Hamath,
Gath, had not been more guilty against God than Ephraim, yet probably they had all
been conquered: Gath by Judah; Hamath by Israel (see the note below at Amo_6:14)
himself; Calneh by Assyria. Both Shalmanubar and Shamasiva conquered in Babylonia ;
and Shamasiva “declares that he took above 200 towns” in Babylonia. Amos, then,
upbraids Israel for their ingratitude, both as to the original gift of their good land, and
its continuance. The pagan had suffered; they, the guiltier, had been spared; yet still they
acted no otherwise than these pagan.
Rib.: “What spacious, what wide border have we, boundless as the life of God and
eternity!” Lap.: “Our hopes and the bounds of our bliss are measured, not like those of
the worldly and ungodly, by the limits of a petty time or by this dot of earth, but by the
boundless space of eternity and of heaven; so that we may say confidently to the
ungodly, ‘Is not our border wider than your border? ‘“
CLARKE, "Pass ye unto Calneh - This is, says Calmet, the Ctesiphon on the river
Tigris.
Hamath - The same as Emesa. Hamath was a city on the Orontes, in Syria.
Gath - A well-known town, and head of one of the five seignories of the Philistines.
Be they better - You have no more reason to expect exemption from the
consequences of your sins than they had. They have been punished; so shall you. Why
then will ye trust in their gods, that could not save their own cities?
GILL, "Pass ye unto Calneh, and see,.... What is become of that city, which was in
the land of Shinar, an ancient city, as early as the days of Nimrod, and built by him, and
was with others the beginning of his kingdom, Gen_10:10; it belonged to Babylon, and is
by Jarchi here interpreted by it, being put for Babel, as he supposes. According to Jerom
(g), it is the same city, sometimes called Seleucia, in his days Ctesiphon; very probably it
had been lately taken by the king of Assyria, and therefore made mention of; see Isa_
10:9; where it is called Calno;
and from thence go ye to Hamath the great; the same with Antiochia, as Jarchi
and Jerom; called the great, to distinguish it from Hamath the less, sometimes called
Epiphania; or from Hamathzobah, near Tadmor, or Palmyra, in the wilderness, 2Ch_
8:3; though it might be so called with respect to its own grandeur and magnificence; as

Sidon is called "Sidon the great", though there was no other, Jos_11:8; for it was a royal
city; we read of Toi, king of Hamath, in the times of David, 2Sa_8:9. It is placed by
Josephus (h) on the north of the land of Canaan; and so it appears to be, and to be
between Damascus and the Mediterranean sea, from Eze_47:15. Abu'lfeda (i), a learned
prince, who reigned in Hamath, and should know its situation, places it on the Orontes,
between Hems and Apamea, that river surrounding it on the east and north. The learned
Vitringa (k) thinks that neither Antiochia nor Epiphania are meant, but the city Emissa;
which Ammianus Marcellinus (l) makes mention of along with Damascus, as a famous
city in Syria, equal to Tyre, Sidon, and Berytus: and of the same opinion was Theodoret
(m) among the ancients, and so Calmet (n) of late. And so Hamath and Damascus are
mentioned together as recovered by Jeroboam, 2Ki_14:28; very probably the kingdom
of Hamath became subject to the kings of Damascus; see Jer_49:23; but, be it what
place it will, it is very likely it had been lately spoiled by the king of Assyria; see Isa_
37:13.
then go down to Gath of the Philistines; one of their five principalities, and a chief
one, so called to distinguish it from other Gaths, as Gathhepher, Gathrimmon. It stood
about five or six miles south of Jamnia, about fourteen south of Joppa, and thirty two
west of Jerusalem. A village of this name as shown, as Jerom (o) says, five miles from
Eleutheropolis, as you go to Diospolis or Lydda, and is taken to be the same place. It is
famous for being the birthplace of Goliath; and is called in 2Sa_8:1; compared with
1Ch_18:1, Methegammah, or the bridle of Ammah, or Metheg and her mother; that is,
Gath and her daughters. Reland (p) thinks Gath is the city Cadytis of Herodotus (q), who
says it is a city of the Syrians, called Palestines or Philistines, and speaks of the
mountains of it; and this city was not far from the mountainous country of Judea: now
this city had been taken by Hazael, king of Syria, and its wall was broke down by Uzziah,
king of Judah, 2Ki_12:17;
be they better than these kingdoms? or their border greater than your
border? that is, do Calneh, Hamath, and Gath, excel in dignity and grandeur, in wealth
and strength, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah? or are they of a larger circumference,
and exceed them in length and breadth? no, they did not; and therefore the more
ungrateful were Israel and Judah to sin against the Lord as they had done, who had
given them such rich and large kingdoms, and therefore might expect to be taken and
spoiled as well as they: though some think there is a change of number and persons in
the text, and that the sense is, are you better than these kingdoms, or your border
greater than theirs? and, if not, you may expect to fare as they; see a like expression in
Nah_3:8.
JAMISO , "Calneh — on the east bank of the Tigris. Once powerful, but recently
subjugated by Assyria (Isa_10:9; about 794 b.c.).
Hameth — subjugated by Jeroboam II (2Ki_14:25). Also by Assyria subsequently
(2Ki_18:34). Compare Amo_6:14.
Gath — subjugated by Uzziah (2Ch_26:6).
be they better — no. Their so recent subjugation renders it needless for Me to tell
you they are not. And yet they once were; still they could not defend themselves against
the enemy. How vain, then, your secure confidence in the strength of Mounts Zion and
Samaria! He takes cities respectively east, north, south, and west of Israel (compare
Nah_3:8).

K&D 2-3, "Amo_6:2 states what the princes of Israel are to see in the cities
mentioned, - namely, that they are not better off (‫ים‬ ִ‫טוֹב‬ denoting outward success or
earthly prosperity) than these two kingdoms, i.e., the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and
that their territories are not larger than theirs. It is very evident that this does not apply
to cities that have been destroyed. The double question ֲ‫ה‬ ... ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ requires a negative
answer. Amo_6:3. assigns the reason for the woe pronounced upon the sinful security of
the princes of Israel, by depicting the godless conduct of these princes; and this is
appended in the manner peculiar to Amos, viz., in participles. These princes fancy that
the evil day, i.e., the day of misfortune or of judgment and punishment, is far away (‫ים‬ ִ ַ‫נ‬ ְ‫מ‬
, piel of ‫ה‬ ָ‫ד‬ָ‫נ‬ = ‫ד‬ ַ‫ד‬ָ‫,נ‬ to be far off, signifies in this instance not to put far away, but to regard
as far off); and they go so far as to prepare a seat or throne close by for wickedness and
violence, which must be followed by judgment. ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ב‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ‫ישׁ‬ִ ִ‫,ה‬ to move the sitting (shebheth
from yâshabh) of violence near, or better still, taking shebheth in the sense of enthroning,
as Ewald does, to move the throne of violence nearer, i.e., to cause violence to erect its
throne nearer and nearer among them.
CALVI , "Verse 2
By this representation Amos shows that there was no excuse for the Jews or the
Israelites for sleeping in their sins, inasmuch as they could see, as it were in a
mirror, the judgments which God brought on heathen nations. It is a singular favor,
when God teaches us at the expense of others: for he could justly punish us as soon
as we transgress; but this he does not, on the contrary he spares us; and at the same
time he sets others before us as examples. This is, as we have said a singular favor:
and this is the mode of teaching which our Prophet now adopts. He says, that
Calneh and Hamath, and Gath, were remarkable evidences of God’s wrath, by
which the Israelites might learn, that they had no reason to rest on their wealth, to
rely on their fortresses, and to think themselves free from all dangers; for as God
had destroyed these cities, which seemed impregnable, so he could also cut off
Jerusalem and Samaria, whenever he pleased. This is the real meaning of the
Prophet.
Some read the sentence negatively “Are not these places better than your
kingdoms?” But this is not consistent with the Prophet’s words. Others attend not to
the object of the Prophet; for they think that the blessings of God are here
compared, as though he said, “God deals more liberally with you than with the
Chaldeans, the Assyrians, and the neighboring nations.” For Calneh was situated in
the plain of Babylon, as it is evident from Genesis 10:10; and Hamath was also a
celebrated city, mentioned in that chapter, and in many other places; and Gath was
a renowned city of the Philistines. In this opinion therefore interpreters mostly
agree; that is, that there is set forth here God’s bounty to the Jews and Israelites,
seeing that he had favored them with a rich and fertile country, and preferred them
to other nations. But this view seems not to me to be the correct one; for when a
comparison is made between Calneh and Jerusalem, Babylon was no doubt the

Woe to the Complacent in Zion

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Woe to the Complacent in Zion

Similar to Woe to the Complacent in Zion (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Woe to the Complacent in Zion