The document discusses a vision presented to the prophet Amos, where God reveals his control over nature by forming locusts to punish the sinful nation of Israel. The locusts are meant to destroy the grass during a crucial time after the king's share has been harvested, symbolizing the impending judgment. In addition to locusts, the vision includes elements of fire as further judgments, demonstrating the severity of God's response to the people's transgressions.

1. AMOS 7 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Locusts, Fire and a Plumb Line
1 This is what the Sovereign Lord showed me: He
was preparing swarms of locusts after the king’s
share had been harvested and just as the late
crops were coming up.
BAR ES, "And behold He formed - (that is, He was forming.) The very least
things then are as much in His infinite Mind, as what we count the greatest. He has not
simply made “laws of nature,” as people speak, to do His work, and continue the
generations of the world. He Himself was still framing them, giving them being, as our
Lord saith, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” Joh_5:17. The same power of God
is seen in creating the locust, as the universe. The creature could as little do the one as
the other. But further, God was “framing” them for a special end, not of nature, but of
His moral government, in the correction of man. He was “framimg the locust,” that it
might, at His appointed time, lay waste just those tracts which He had appointed to
them. God, in this vision, opens our eyes, and lets us see Himself, framing the
punishment for the deserts of the sinners, that so when hail, mildew, blight, caterpillars,
or some other hitherto unknown disease, (which, because we know it not, we call by the
name of the crop which it annihilates), waste our crops, we may think, not of secondary
causes, but of our Judge. Lap.: “Fire and hail, snow and vapors, stormy wind, fulfill His
word, Psa_148:8, in striking sinners as He wills. To be indignant with these, were like a
dog who bit the stone wherewith it was hit, instead of the man who threw it.” Gregory on
Job L. xxxii. c. 4. L.: “He who denies that he was stricken for his own fault, what does he
but accuse the justice of Him who smiteth?”
Grasshoppers - that is, locusts. The name may very possibly be derived from their
“creeping” simultaneously, in vast multitudes, from the ground, which is the more
observable in these creatures, which, when the warmth of spring hatches the eggs, creep
forth at once in myriads. This first meaning of their name must, however, have been
obliterated by use (as mostly happens), since the word is also used by Nahum of a flying
locust .
The king’s mowings - must have been some regalia, to meet the state-expenses. The
like custom still lingers on, here and there, among us, the “first mowth” or “first
vesture,” that with which the fields are first clad, belonging to one person; the pasturage
afterward, or “after-grass,” to others. The hay-harvest probably took place some time

2. before the grain-harvest, and the “latter grass,” “after-grass,” (‫לקשׁ‬ leqesh) probably
began to spring up at the time of the “latter rain” (‫מלקושׁ‬ malqôsh). Had the grass been
mourn after this rain, it would not, under the burning sun of their rainless summer, have
sprung up at all. At this time, then, upon which the hope of the year depended, “in the
beginning of the shooting up of the latter grass,” Amos saw, in a vision, God form the
locust, and “the green herb of the land” (the word includes all, that which is “for the
service of man” as well as for beasts,) destroyed. Striking emblem of a state, recovering
after it had been mown down, and anew overrun by a numerous enemy! Yet this need
but be a passing desolation. Would they abide, or would they carry their ravages
elsewhere? Amos intercedes with God, in words of that first intercession of Moses,
“forgive now” Num_14:19. “By whom,” he adds, “shall Jacob arise?” literally, “Who shall
Jacob arise?” that is, who is he that he should arise, so weakened, so half-destroyed?
Plainly, the destruction is more than one invasion of locusts in one year. The locusts are
a symbol (as in Joel) in like way as the following visions are symbols.
CLARKE, "Behold, he formed grasshoppers - ‫גבי‬ gobai is generally understood
here to signify locusts. See the notes on Joel 1 (note) and Joel 2 (note).
The shooting up of the latter growth - The early crop of grass had been already
mowed and housed. The second crop or rowing, as it is called in some places, was not yet
begun. By the king’s mowings we may understand the first crop, a portion of which the
king probably claimed as being the better hay; but the words may signify simply the
prime crop, that which is the best of the whole. Houbigant thinks the shearing of the
king’s sheep is meant.
GILL, "Thus hath the Lord showed unto me,.... What follows in this and the two
chapters, before the prophet delivered what he heard from the Lord; now what he saw,
the same thing, the ruin of the ten tribes, is here expressed as before, but in a different
form; before in prophecy, here in vision, the more to affect and work upon the hearts of
the people:
and, behold, he formed grasshoppers; or "locusts" (u), as the word is rendered,
Isa_33:4; and so the Septuagint here, and other versions. Kimchi interprets it, and,
behold, a collection or swarm of locusts; and the Targum, a creation of them. Though
Aben Ezra takes the word to be a verb, and not a noun, and the sense to be, agreeably to
our version, he showed me the blessed God, who was forming locusts; it appeared to
Amos, in the vision of prophecy, as if the Lord was making locusts, large and great ones,
and many of them; not that this was really done, only visionally, and was an emblem of
the Assyrian army, prepared and ready to devour the land of Israel; see Joe_1:4. And
this was
in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the
latter growth after the king's mowings; when the first grass was mowed down, and
the first crop gathered in, for the use of the king's cattle; as the later grass was just
springing up, and promised a second crop, these grasshoppers or locusts were forming,
which threatened the destruction of it. This must be towards the close of the summer,
and when autumn was coming on, at which time naturalists tell us that locusts breed. So

3. Aristotle (w) says, they bring forth at the going out of the summer; and of one sort of
them he says, their eggs perish in the waters of autumn, or when it is a wet autumn; but
in a dry autumn there is a large increase of them: and so Pliny says (x), they breed in the
autumn season and lie under the earth all the winter, and appear in the spring: and
Columella observes (y), that locusts are most suitably and commodiously fed with grass
in autumn; which is called "cordum", or the latter grass, that comes or springs late in the
year; such as this now was. The Mahometans speak (z) much of God being the Maker of
locusts; they say he made them of the clay which was left at the formation of Adam; and
represent him saying, I am God, nor is there any Lord of locusts besides me, who feed
them, and send them for food to the people, or as a punishment to them, as I please:
they call them the army of the most high God, and will not suffer any to kill them; See
Gill on Rev_9:3; whether all this is founded on this passage of Scripture, I cannot say;
however, there is no reason from thence to make the locusts so peculiarly the
workmanship of God as they do, since this was only in a visionary way; though it may be
observed, that it is with great propriety, agreeable to the nature of these creatures, that
God is represented as forming them at such a season of the year. Some, by "the king's
mowings", understand the carrying captive the ten tribes by Shalmaneser king of
Assyria; so Ribera; after which things were in a flourishing state, or at least began to be
so, in the two tribes under Hezekiah, when they were threatened with ruin by the army
of Sennacherib, from which there was a deliverance: but as this vision, and the rest, only
respect the ten tribes of Israel, "the king's mowings" of the first crop may signify the
distresses of the people of Israel, in the times of Jehoahaz king of Israel, by Hazael and
Benhadad kings of Syria, 2Ki_13:3; when things revived again, like the shooting up of
the later grass, in the reign of Joash, and especially of Jeroboam his son, who restored
the coast of Israel, the Lord having compassion on them, 2Ki_13:25; but after his death
things grew worse; his son reigned but six months, and he that slew him but one; and in
the reign of Menahem, that succeeded him, an invasion of the land was made by Pul king
of Assyria, 2Ki_15:19; which is generally thought to be intended here. Or else, as others,
it may refer to the troubles in the interregnum, after the death of Jeroboam, to his son's
mounting the throne, the space of eleven years, when, and afterwards, Israel was in a
declining state.
HE RY, "We here see that God bears long, but that he will not bear always, with a
provoking people, both these God here showed the prophet: Thus hath the Lord God
showed me, Amo_7:1, Amo_7:4, Amo_7:7. He showed him what was present,
foreshowed him what was to come, gave him the knowledge both of what he did and of
what he designed; for the Lord God reveals his secret unto his servants the prophets,
Amo_3:7.
I. We have here two instances of God's sparing mercy, remembered in the midst of
judgment, the narratives of which are so much like one another that they will be best
considered together, and very considerable they are.
1. God is here coming forth against this sinful nation, first by one judgment and then
by another. (1.) He begins with the judgment of famine. The prophet saw this in vision.
He saw God forming grasshoppers, or locusts, and bringing them up upon the land, to
eat up the fruits of it, and so to strip it of its beauty and starve its inhabitants, Amo_7:1.
God formed these grasshoppers, not only as they were his creatures (and much of the
wisdom and power of God appears in the formation of minute animals, as much in the
structure of an ant as of an elephant), but as they were instruments of his wrath. God is
said to frame evil against a sinful people, Jer_18:11. These grasshoppers were framed on
purpose to eat up the grass of the land; and vast numbers of them were prepared

4. accordingly. They were sent in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth,
after the king's mowings. See here how the judgment was mitigated by the mercy that
went before it. God could have sent these insects to eat up the grass at the beginning of
the first growth, in the spring, when the grass was most needed, was most plentiful, and
was the best in its kind; but God suffered that to grow, and suffered them to gather it in;
the king's mowings were safely housed, for the king himself is served from the field
(Ecc_5:9), and could as ill be without his mowings as without any other branch of his
revenues. Uzziah, who was now king of Judah, loved husbandry, 2Ch_26:10. But the
grasshoppers were commissioned to eat up only the latter growth (the edgrew we call it
in the country), the after-grass, which is of little value in comparison with the former.
The mercies which God give us, and continues to us, are more numerous and more
valuable than those he removes from us, which is a good reason why we should be
thankful and not complain. The remembrance of the mercies of the former growth
should make us submissive to the will of God when we meet with disappointments in the
latter growth. The prophet, in vision, saw this judgment prevailing far. These
grasshoppers ate up the grass of the land, which should have been for the cattle, which
the owners must of course suffer by. Some understand this figuratively of a wasting
destroying army brought upon them. In the days of Jeroboam the kingdom of Israel
began to recover itself from the desolations it had been under in the former reigns (2Ki_
14:25); the latter growth shot up, after the mowings of the kings of Syria, which we read
of 2Ki_13:3. And then God commissioned the king of Assyria with an army of
caterpillars to come upon them and lay them waste, that nation spoken of Amo_6:14,
which afflicted them from the entering of Hamath to the river of the wilderness, which
seems to refer to 2Ki_14:25, where Jeroboam is said to have restored their coast from
the entering of Hamath to the sea of the plain. God can bring all to ruin when we think
all is in some good measure repaired. (2.) He proceeds to the judgment of fire, to show
that he has many arrows in his quiver, many ways of humbling a sinful nation (Amo_
7:4): The Lord God called to contend by fire. He contended, for God's judgment upon a
people are his controversies with them; in them he prosecutes his action against them;
and his controversies are neither causeless nor groundless. He called to contend; he did
by his prophets give them notice of his controversy, and drew up a declaration, setting
forth the meaning of it. Or he called for his angels, or other ministers of his justice, that
were to be employed in it. A fire was kindled among them, by which perhaps is meant a
great drought (the heat of the sun, which should have warmed the earth, scorched it, and
burnt up the roots of the grass which the locusts had eaten the spires of), or a raging
fever, which was as a fire in their bones, which devoured and ate up multitudes, or
lightning, fire from heaven, which consumed their houses, as Sodom and Gomorrah
were consumed (Amo_4:11), or it was the burning of their cities, either by accident or by
the hand of the enemy, for fire and sword used to go together; thus were the towns
wasted, as the country was by the grasshoppers. This fire, which God called for, did
terrible execution; it devoured the great deep, as the fire that fell from heaven on Elijah's
altar licked up the water that was in the trench. Though the water designed for the
stopping and quenching of this fire was as the water of the great deep, yet it devoured it;
for who, or what, can stand before a fire kindled by the wrath of God! It did eat up a
part, a great part, of the cities where it was sent; or it was as the fire at Taberah, which
consumed the outermost parts of the camp (Num_11:1); when some were overthrown
others were as brands plucked out of the fire. All deserved to be devoured, but it ate up
only a part, for God does not stir up all his wrath.
JAMISO , "Amo_7:1-17. The seventh, eighth, and ninth chapters contain visions,

5. with their explanations.
The seventh chapter consists of two parts. First (Amo_7:1-9): prophecies illustrated
by three symbols:
(1) A vision of grasshoppers or young locusts, which devour the grass, but are
removed at Amos’ entreaty;
(2) Fire drying up even the deep, and withering part of the land, but removed at
Amos’ entreaty;
(3) A plumb-line to mark the buildings for destruction. Secondly (Amo_7:10-17):
Narrative of Amaziah’s Interruption of Amos in Consequence of the Foregoing
Prophecies, and Prediction of His Doom.
showed ... me; and, behold — The same formula prefaces the three visions in this
chapter, and the fourth in Amo_8:1.
grasshoppers — rather, “locusts” in the caterpillar state, from a Hebrew root, “to
creep forth.” In the autumn the eggs are deposited in the earth; in the spring the young
come forth [Maurer].
the latter growth — namely, of grass, which comes up after the mowing. They do
not in the East mow their grass and make hay of it, but cut it off the ground as they
require it.
the king’s mowings — the first-fruits of the mown grass, tyrannically exacted by the
king from the people. The literal locusts, as in Joel, are probably symbols of human foes:
thus the “growth” of grass “after the king’s mowings” will mean the political revival of
Israel under Jeroboam II (2Ki_14:25), after it had been mown down, as it were, by
Hazael and Ben-hadad of Syria (2Ki_13:3), [Grotius].
CALVI , "Verse 1
Amos shows in this chapter that God had already often deferred the punishments
which he had yet determined to inflict on the people; and thus he reminds the
Israelites of their perverseness, inasmuch as they had abused the forbearance of
God, and repented not after a long lapse of time: for God had suspended his
judgments for this end — that they might willingly return to the right way, as he
commonly allures men by his kindness, provided they be teachable. Since then this
forbearance of God had been without fruit, Amos reproves the Israelites, though he
had also another object in view: for ungodly men, we know, when God spares them
and does not immediately indict the punishments they deserve, laugh at them, and
harden themselves for the future, so that they fear nothing; and when the Lord
threatens, and does not instantly execute his vengeance, they then especially think
that all threatening are mere bugbears; and therefore they harden their minds in
security and think that they can with impunity trifle with God. Inasmuch then as
this obstinacy prevailed among the Israelites, the Prophet here shows in various
ways, that in vain they gloried, and thus securely despised the judgment of God; for
though the Lord for a time had spared them, yet the final vengeance was not far
distant. This is the sum of the whole: but such expression must be considered in its
order.
A vision, he says, had been shown to him by the Lord; and the vision was, that God
himself had formed locusts. Yet some think ‫,יוצר‬ iutsar, to be a noun, and render it,
creation; others, a swarm or a troop. But these are forced expositions. The Lord

6. then, I doubt not, formed locusts in the Prophet’s presence, which devoured all the
grass. He therefore says, when the grass began to grow, that is, after the cuttings of
the king Here also expounders vary: some think that the shearings of the king are
referred to, when the king had sheared his sheep. Others regard it as the mowing of
hay; and they say, that the best grass was then cut for the use of the king, that he
might feed his horses and his cattle. But these conjectures have nothing well-
founded in them. I therefore doubt not, but the Prophet here calls that a royal
cutting, when by a public order they began to cut their meadows. It is indeed
credible that there was then some rule: as with us, no one begins the vintage at his
own will, but a certain regular time is observed; so those cuttings, which were
publicly done, were called royal; as the king’s highway is called that which is public.
But yet the Prophet, I think, refers under this figurative expression to the previous
calamities, by which the people had been already reduced as to their number.
BE SO , "Amos 7:1. Thus hath the Lord showed unto me — The Lord also
showed me the following things. Here the prophet mentions the first of five
prophetic representations of what was coming upon this people. He formed
grasshoppers in the beginning of the latter growth — He appeared to me as
bringing a vast multitude of grasshoppers upon the land at the season when the
grass begins to shoot again after the first mowing. Though this be spoken in a literal
sense of a plague of grasshoppers, yet some commentators think it is to be
understood metaphorically, and that by the grasshoppers is meant the army of Pul,
king of Assyria, mentioned 2 Kings 15:19. After the king’s mowings — It is
supposed that the first crop of grass was set apart for the use of the king’s stables.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
Here begins the final major section of Amos, consisting principally of five visions,
three of which are found in this chapter: (1) that of the locusts (Amos 7:1-3); (2) that
of the fire (Amos 7:4-6); and (3) that of the plumb-line (Amos 7:7-9). The balance of
the chapter (Amos 7:10-14) has an exceedingly interesting and instructive narrative
of the confrontation between God's Prophet (Amos) and Jeroboam's Priest. The
appearance of this historical narrative in the midst of these visions has been seized
upon by Biblical critics anxious to use it in some way as a basis for their attacks
upon the validity of the prophecy However, this last section of the chapter (Amos
7:10-14) belongs exactly where it is. The pagan priest Amaziah quoted from the
third vision in his report of Amos' words to the king (Amos 7:9-11), and also
referred to Amos as a "seer," literally, one who sees visions (Amos 7:12), a word
which McFadden discerningly translated "visionary."[1] Thus, it is impossible to
deny that the first three of these visions actually provoked and led up to the
dramatic confrontation between Amos and Amaziah. When this is discerned, the
reason for the narrative's appearance here (where and when it occurred) is evident.
The form of the narrative is designated by some as a terse prose, contrasting with
what they call the poetry of the rest of the chapter; and the RSV has followed this
false allegation of incompatibility between the narrative and the rest of the chapter,
printing the narrative in prose form and the rest as poetry. However, the truth is
that the narrative is just as poetic as anything else in Amos. W. R. Harper discussed

7. this extensively, giving six reasons why this narrative is poetry, noting especially,
"the logical division into two parts (Amos 7:10-13, and Amos 7:14-17), and the use
of regular trimeter in the first, and regular tetrameter in the second."[2] His
conclusion was that:
"The artistic skill which put the accusation (Amos 7:10-13) in a trimeter movement,
and the strong and terrible reply (Amos 7:14-17) in the heavier and statelier
tetrameter is characteristic of Amos. The symmetry is throughout
extraordinary."[3]
In the light of this, which can hardly be denied, it is deplorable that the RSV
accommodated the critics by printing this chapter as a poem into which a prose
narrative had been inserted. As a matter of obvious truth, the chapter is a unit,
being composed by one of Amos' extended public sermons at the shrine of Bethel, a
sermon long enough for Amaziah to send a message to the king, and then attempt
upon his own authority to expel the prophet. And what was the result of this
interruption? Amos finished his sermon, including a special prophecy for Amaziah!
The wild speculations to the effect that Amos was arrested and executed, or that,
"He left under protest, for Judah,"[4] or that, "Amos appeared no more as a
prophet in the orthern Kingdom,"[5] are unsupported by any evidence. The
known sequel to this confrontation between God's Prophet and the King's Priest is
that Amos went right on and gave the other two of the five visions that composed his
sermon.
Amos 7:1
"Thus the Lord Jehovah showed me: and, behold, he formed locusts in the
beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and lo it was the latter growth
after the king's mowings."
The thing to remember about the first two of the visions of threatened disasters
against Israel is that they did not occur, but were averted through the prophet's
intercession. The evident reason why Amos included these first two sections in his
sermon was that of showing to all the people that he in no manner desired the evil
things to come to pass which it was his duty to prophecy, but that he actually stood
before God as an advocate of the people and as a prayerful intercessor for their
good. This angle of Amos' prophecy was left out of Amaziah's report to the king.
"In the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth ... after the king's mowings
..." It is not clear, exactly what custom is referred to in the second phrase here; and
the scholars have no agreement about what is meant; but the meaning is clear
enough: the threatened locust plague occurred at exactly the right time to have done
the maximum damage.
It is agreed by all that the language here is figurative, and that the locust plague
stands for some terrible threatened disaster in the past which God had averted. It is
certain that the visions do not stand for something that actually happened, but for
that which appeared to be impending and did not occur. or do they refer to the

8. ultimate judgment which would actually befall Israel, a fate strongly predicted by
other words and other visions. As Harper said, "These visions are not premonitions
of coming disaster."[6] In a sense, these first two visions are the prophet's revelation
that the abyss had yawned underneath Israel repeatedly during the course of the
chosen people's ceaseless rebellions against God, and that again, and again God's
mercy had spared the impending punishment, or rather deferred it; for it would yet
occur anyway unless Israel repented. It may not be wise therefore to limit the
application of the vision to some single instance of such a relenting; and yet it is
doubtless true that there were historical instances of such a a thing known to all.
Deane thought that, "The vision is thought to refer to the first invasion of the
Assyrians, when Pul was bribed by Menahem to withdraw."[7] Certainly, such a
view does no violence to the text. It was a very efficient and fruitful device to
represent all such deliverances which had rescued Israel from threatened disasters
in the past under the figure of a locust plague, which in Palestine, is a recurring
phenomenon.
ELLICOTT,"Here commences the third portion of the prophecy. It is of a different
class from that which has preceded, and may have formed the main heads of public
discourses, the parabolic ministry of the prophet in the earlier stages of his career.
These fiats of destruction, contained in the visions and dreams of coming doom, had
been arrested by the intercession of the prophet himself. But the time was
approaching when prayer would be of no avail, and the desolation of the kingdom
would be complete.
Verse 1
(1) Each of the visions is introduced with closely resembling words. For
“grasshopper,” read locusts. The phrase “king’s mowings” suggests that the king
claimed tyrannically the first-fruits of the hay harvest, which was ordinarily
followed by the early “rain upon the mown grass.” (Comp. 1 Kings 18:5.)
TRAPP, "Verse 1
Amos 7:1 Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed
grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, [it
was] the latter growth after the king’s mowings.
Ver. 1. Thus hath the Lord God showed unto me] sc. In a prophetic vision: this
being the first of those five that follow to the end of the prophecy; all foretelling the
evils that should befall this people, to whom Amos is again sent, as Ahijah was to
Jeroboam’s wife, with heavy tidings, and as Ezekiel was afterwards to his rebellious
countrymen, with a roll written full of lamentations, and mourning, and woe,
Ezekiel 2:10.
And, behold, he formed grasshoppers] Or, locusts, forerunners of famine, Joel 1:4,
{See Trapp on "Joel 1:4"} or (as some will), of the Assyrians, whom the Divine
justice made a scorpion to Israel, as Israel had been a scourge to Judah. When the
Israelites were in their flourish, as the grass or wheat is in the beginning of the

9. shooting up of the latter growth, they had been first mowed by Benhadad, King of
Syria; but, growing up again under Jeroboam, their king, they were devoured by
Pul and his army, as by so many greedy locusts.
In the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth] For in those fat and fertile
countries they use
“ Luxuriem segetum tenera depascere in herba. ”
ow if the latter growth were eaten up too, what else could follow but extreme
famine?
It was the latter growth after the king’s mowings] Or sheep shearings, as some read
it; but the former is better: and Diodati here noteth that it is thought that the kings
did take the first crop, in esum et usum iumentorum, to keep their wax horses and
for other services; leaving the latter mowings for other cattle, who were taught to
say, After your majesty, is good manners.
CO STABLE, "Verse 1
Sovereign Yahweh showed Amos a mass of locusts swarming in the springtime after
the first harvest and before the second. The Lord was forming this swarm of locusts.
Ideally the very first crops harvested in the spring went to feed the king"s
household and animals (cf. 1 Kings 18:5). The crops that the people harvested later
in the spring fed their animals and themselves. If anything happened to prevent that
second harvesting, the people would have little to eat until the next harvest in the
fall. The summer months were very dry and the Israelites had nothing to harvest
during that season of the year.
Locusts swarming indicated that they were about to sweep through an area and
destroy all the crops. There was no way to prevent this in Amos" day. Locust
invasions were a perennial threat, and they were a method of discipline that God
had said He might use if His people proved unfaithful to His covenant with them (
Deuteronomy 28:38; Deuteronomy 28:42; cf. Joel 1:1-7; Amos 4:9).
EBC, "5. THE PROPHET A D HIS MI ISTRY
Amos 7:1-17 - Amos 8:1-4
We have seen the preparation of the Man for the Word; we have sought to trace to
its source the Word which came to the Man. It now remains for us to follow the
Prophet, Man and Word combined, upon his Ministry to the people.
For reasons given in a previous chapter, there must always be some doubt as to the
actual course of the ministry of Amos before his appearance at Bethel. Most
authorities, however, agree that the visions recounted in the beginning of the

10. seventh chapter form the substance of his address at Bethel, which was interrupted
by the priest Amaziah. These visions furnish a probable summary of the prophet’s
experience up to that point. While they follow the same course, which we trace in
the two series of oracles that now precede them in the book, the ideas in them are
less elaborate. At the same time it is evident that Amos must have already spoken
upon other points than those which he puts into the first three visions. For instance,
Amaziah reports to the king that Amos had explicitly predicted the exile of the
whole people [Amos 7:11] -a conviction which, as we have seen, the prophet reached
only after some length of experience. It is equally certain that Amos must have
already exposed the sins of the people in the light of the Divine righteousness. Some
of the sections of the book which deal with this subject appear to have been
originally spoken; and it is unnatural to suppose that the prophet announced the
chastisements of God without having previously justified these to the consciences of
men.
If this view be correct, Amos, having preached for some time to Israel concerning
the evil state of society, appeared at a great religious festival in Bethel, determined
to bring matters to a crisis, and to announce the doom which his preaching
threatened and the people’s continued impenitence made inevitable Mark his choice
of place and of audience. It was no mere king he aimed at. athan had dealt with
David, Gad with Solomon, Elijah with Ahab and Jezebel. But Amos sought the
people, them with whom resided the real forces and responsibilities of life: the
wealth, the social fashions, the treatment of the poor, the spirit of worship, the ideals
of religion. And Amos sought the people upon what was not only a great popular
occasion, but one on which was arrayed, in all pomp and lavishness, the very system
he essayed to overthrow The religion of his time-religion as mere ritual and
sacrifice-was what God had sent him to beat down, and he faced it at its
headquarters, and upon one of its high days, in the royal and popular sanctuary
where it enjoyed at once the patronage of the crown, the lavish gifts of the rich, and
the thronged devotion of the multitude. As Savonarola at the Duomo in Florence, as
Luther at the Diet of Worms, as our Lord Himself at the feast in Jerusalem, so was
Amos at the feast in Bethel. Perhaps he was still more lonely. He speaks nowhere of
having made a disciple, and in the sea of faces which turned on him when he spoke,
it is probable that he could not welcome a single ally. They were officials, or
interested traders, or devotees; he was a foreigner and a wild man, with a word that
spared the popular dogma as little as the royal prerogative. Well for him was it that
over all those serried ranks of authority, those fanatic crowds, that lavish splendor,
another vision commanded his eyes. "I saw the Lord standing over the altar, and He
said, Smite."
Amos told the pilgrims at Bethel that the first events of his time in which he felt a
purpose of God in harmony with his convictions about Israel’s need of punishment
were certain calamities of a physical kind. Of these, which in chapter 4 he describes
as successively drought, blasting, locusts, pestilence, and earthquake, he selected at
Bethel only two-locusts and drought-and he began with the locusts. It may have
been either the same visitation as he specifies in chapter 4, or a previous one; for of
all the plagues of Palestine locusts have been the most frequent, occurring every six

11. or seven years. "Thus the Lord Jehovah caused me to see: and, behold, a brood of
locusts at the beginning of the coming up of the spring crops." In the Syrian year
there are practically two tides of verdure: one which starts after the early rains of
October and continues through the winter, checked by the cold; and one which
comes away with greater force under the influence of the latter rains and more
genial airs of spring. Of these it was the later and richer which the locusts had
attacked. "And, behold, it was after the king’s mowings." These seem to have been a
tribute which the kings of Israel levied on the spring herbage, and which the Roman
governors of Syria used annually to impose in the month isan. "After the king’s
mowings" would be a phrase to mark the time when everybody else might turn to
reap their green stuff. It was thus the very crisis of the year when the locusts
appeared; the April crops devoured, there was no hope of further fodder till
December. Still, the calamity had happened before, and had been survived; a nation
so vigorous and wealthy as Israel was under Jeroboam II need not have been
frightened to death. But Amos felt it with a conscience. To him it was the beginning
of that destruction of his people which the spirit within him knew that their sin had
earned. So "it came to pass when" the locusts "had made an end of devouring the
verdure of the earth, that I said, Remit, I pray Thee," or "pardon"-a proof that
there already weighed on the prophet’s spirit something more awful than loss of
grass-"how shall Jacob rise again? for he is little." The prayer was heard. "Jehovah
repented for this: It shall not be, said Jehovah." The unnameable "it" must be the
same as in the frequent phrase of the first chapter: "I will not turn it back" namely,
the final execution of doom on the people’s sin. The reserve with which this is
mentioned, both while there is still chance for the people to repent and after it has
become irrevocable, is very impressive.
The next example which Amos gave at Bethel of his permitted insight into God’s
purpose was a great drought. "Thus the Lord Jehovah made. me to see: and,
behold, the Lord Jehovah was calling fire irate the quarrel." There was, then,
already a quarrel between Jehovah and His people-another sign that the prophet’s
moral conviction of Israel’s sin preceded the rise of the events in which he
recognized its punishment. "And" the fire "devoureth the Great Deep, yea, it was
about to devour the land." Severe drought in Palestine might well be described as
fire, even when it was not accompanied by the flame and smoke of those forest and
prairie fires which Joel describes as its consequences. [Amos 1:1-15] But to have the
full fear of such a drought, we should need to feel beneath us the curious world
which the men of those days felt. To them the earth rested in a great deep, from
whose stores all her springs and fountains burst. When these failed it meant that the
unfathomed floods below were burnt up. But how fierce the flame that could effect
this! And how certainly able to devour next the solid land which rested above the
deep-the very "Portion" assigned by God to His people. Again Amos interceded:
"Lord Jehovah, I pray Thee forbear: how shall Jacob rise? for he is little." And for
the second time Jacob was reprieved. "Jehovah repented for this: It also shall not
come to pass, said the Lord Jehovah."
We have treated these visions, not as the imagination or prospect of possible
disasters, but as insight into the meaning of actual plagues. Such a treatment is

12. justified, not only by the invariable habit of Amos to deal with real facts, but also by
the occurrence of these same plagues among the series by which, as we are told, God
had already sought to move the people to repentance. The general question of
sympathy between such purely physical disasters and the moral evil of a people we
may postpone to another chapter, confining ourselves here to the part played in the
events by the prophet himself.
Surely there is something wonderful in the attitude of this shepherd to the fires and
plagues that ature sweeps upon his land. He is ready for them. And he is ready not
only by the general feeling of his time that such things happen of the wrath of God.
His sovereign and predictive conscience recognizes them as her ministers. They are
sent to punish a people whom she has already condemned. Yet, unlike Elijah, Amos
does not summon the drought, nor even welcome its arrival. How far has prophecy
traveled since the violent Tishbite! With all his conscience of Israel’s sin, Amos yet
prays that their doom may be turned. We have here some evidence of the struggle
through which these later prophets passed, before they accepted their awful
messages to men. Even Amos, desert-bred and living aloof from Israel, shrank from
the judgment which it was his call to publish. For two moments-they would appear
to be the only two in his ministry-his heart contended with his conscience, and twice
he entreated God to forgive. At Bethel he told the people all this, in order to show
how unwillingly he took up his duty against them, and how inevitable he found that
duty to be. But still more shall we learn from his tale, if we feel in his words about
the smallness of Jacob, not pity only, but sympathy. We shall learn that prophets
are never made solely by the bare word of God, but that even the most objective and
judicial of them has to earn his title to proclaim judgment by suffering with men the
agony of the judgment he proclaims. ever to a people came there a true prophet
who had not first prayed for them. To have entreated for men, to have represented
them in the highest courts of Being, is to have deserved also supreme judicial rights
upon them. And thus it is that our Judge at the Last Day shall be none other than
our great Advocate who continually maketh intercession for us. It is prayer, let us
repeat, which, while it gives us all power with God, endows us at the same time with
moral rights over men. Upon his mission of judgment we shall follow Amos with the
greater sympathy that he thus comes forth to it from the mercy-seat and the
ministry of intercession.
The first two visions which Amos told at Bethel were of disasters in the sphere of
nature, but his third lay in the sphere of politics. The two former were, in their
completeness at least, averted; and the language Amos used of them seems to imply
that he had not even then faced the possibility of a final overthrow. He took for
granted Jacob was to rise again: he only feared as to how this should be. But the
third vision is so final that the prophet does not even try to intercede. Israel is
measured, found wanting, and doomed. Assyria is not named, but is obviously
intended; and the fact-that the prophet arrives at certainty with regard to the doom
of Israel, just when he thus comes within sight of Assyria, is instructive as to the
influence exerted on prophecy by the rise of that empire.
"Thus He gave me to see: and, behold, the Lord had taken His station"-‘tis a more

13. solemn word than the "stood" of our versions-"upon a city wall" built to "the
plummet, and in His hand a plummet. And Jehovah said unto me, What art thou
seeing, Amos?" The question surely betrays some astonishment shown by the
prophet at the vision or some difficulty he felt in making it out. He evidently does
not feel it at once, as the natural result of his own thinking: it is objective and
strange to him; he needs time to see into it. "And I said, A plummet. And the Lord
said, Behold, I am setting a plummet in the midst of My people Israel. I will not
again pass them over." To set a measuring line or a line with weights attached to
any building means to devote it to destruction; but here it is uncertain whether the
plummet threatens destruction, or means that Jehovah will at last clearly prove to
the prophet the insufferable obliquity of the fabric of the nation’s life, originally set
straight by Himself-originally "a wall of a plummet." For God’s judgments are
never arbitrary: by a standard we men can read He shows us their necessity.
Conscience itself is no mere voice of authority: it is a convincing plummet, and
plainly lets us see why we should be punished. But whichever interpretation we
choose, the result is the same. "The high places of Israel shall be desolate, and the
sanctuaries of Isaac laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with
the sword." A declaration of war! Israel is to be invaded, her dynasty overthrown.
Everyone who heard the prophet would know, though he named them not, that the
Assyrians were meant.
It was apparently at this point that Amos was interrupted by Amaziah. The priest,
who was conscious of no spiritual power with which to oppose the prophet, gladly
grasped the opportunity afforded him by the mention of the king, and fell back on
the invariable resource of a barren and envious sacerdotalism: "He speaketh
against Caesar." [John 19:12] There follows one of the great scenes of history-the
scene which, however fast the ages and the languages, the ideals and the deities may
change, repeats itself with the same two actors. Priest and Man face each other-
Priest with King behind, Man with God-and wage that debate in which the whole
warfare and progress of religion consist. But the story is only typical by being real.
Many subtle traits of human nature prove that we have here an exact narrative of
fact. Take Amaziah’s report to Jeroboam. He gives to the words of the prophet just
that exaggeration and innuendo which betray the wily courtier, who knows how to
accentuate a general denunciation till it feels like a personal attack. And yet, like
every Caiaphas of his tribe, the priest in his exaggerations expresses a deeper
meaning than he is conscious of. "Amos"-note how the mere mention of the name
without description proves that the prophet was already known in Israel, perhaps
was one on whom the authorities had long kept their eye-"Amos hath conspired
against thee"-yet God was his only fellow-conspirator!-"in the midst of the house of
Israel"-this royal temple at Bethel. "The land is not able to hold his words"-it must
burst; yes, but in another sense than thou meanest, O Caiaphas-Amaziah! "For thus
hath Amos said, By the sword shall Jeroboam die"-Amos had spoken only of the
dynasty, but the twist which Amaziah lends to the words is calculated-"and Israel
going shall go into captivity from off his own land." This was the one unvarnished
spot in the report.
Having fortified himself, as little men will do, by his duty to the powers that be,

14. Amaziah dares to turn upon the prophet; and he does so, it is amusing to observe,
with that tone of intellectual and moral superiority which it is extraordinary to see
some men derive from a merely official station or touch with royalty. "Visionary,
begone! Get thee off to the land of Judah; and earn thy bread there, and there play
the prophet. But at Bethel"-mark the rising accent of the voice-"thou shalt not again
prophesy. The King’s Sanctuary it is, and the House of the Kingdom." With the
official mind this is more conclusive than that it is the House of God! In fact the
speech of Amaziah justifies the hardest terms which Amos uses of the religion of his
day. In all this priest says there is no trace of the spiritual-only fear, pride, and
privilege. Divine truth is challenged by human law, and the Word of God silenced in
the name of the king.
We have here a conception of religion, which is not merely due to the unspiritual
character of the priest who utters it, but has its roots in the far back origins of
Israel’s religion. The Pagan Semite identified absolutely State and Church; and on
that identification was based the religious practice of early Israel. It had many
healthy results: it kept religion in touch with public life; order, justice, patriotism,
self-sacrifice for the common weal, were devoutly held to be matters of religion. So
long, therefore, as the system was inspired by truly spiritual ideals, nothing for
those times could be better. But we see in it an almost inevitable tendency to harden
to the sheerest officialism. That it was more apt to do so in Israel than in Judah, is
intelligible from the origin of the orthern Schism, and the erection of the national
sanctuaries from motives of mere statecraft. [1 Kings 12:26-27] Erastianism could
hardly be more flagrant or more ludicrous in its opposition to true religion than at
Bethel. And yet how often have the ludicrousness and the flagrancy been repeated,
with far less temptation! Ever since Christianity became a state religion, she that
needed least to use the weapons of this world has done so again and again in a
thoroughly Pagan fashion. The attempts of Churches by law established, to stamp
out by law all religious dissent; or where such attempts were no longer possible, the
charges now of fanaticism and now of sordidness and religious shop keeping, which
have been so frequently made against dissent by little men who fancied their state
connection, or their higher social position to mean an intellectual and moral
superiority: the absurd claims which many a minister of religion makes upon the
homes and the souls of a parish, by virtue not of his calling in Christ, but of his
position as official priest of the parish, -all these are the sins of Amaziah, priest of
Bethel. But they are not confined to an established Church. The Amaziahs of dissent
are also very many. Wherever the official masters the spiritual; wherever mere
dogma or tradition is made the standard of preaching; wherever new doctrine is
silenced, or programs of reform condemned, as of late years in Free Churches they
have sometimes been, not by spiritual argument, but by the ipse dixit of the
dogmatist, or by ecclesiastical rule or expediency, -there you have the same spirit.
The dissenter who checks the Word of God in the name of some denominational law
or dogma is as Erastian as the churchman who would crush it, like Amaziah, by
invoking the state. These things in all the Churches are the beggarly rudiments of
Paganism; and religious reform is achieved, as it was that day at Bethel, by the
adjuring of officialism.

15. "But Amos answered and said unto Amaziah, o prophet I, nor prophet’s son. But
a herdsman I, and a dresser of sycamores; and Jehovah took me from behind the
flock, and Jehovah said unto me, Go, prophesy unto My people Israel."
On such words we do not comment; we give them homage. The answer of this
shepherd to this priest is no mere claim of personal disinterestedness. It is the
protest of a new order of prophecy, the charter of a spiritual religion. As we have
seen, the "sons of the prophets" were guilds of men who had taken to prophesying
because of certain gifts of temper and natural disposition, and they earned their
bread by the exercise of these. Among such abstract craftsmen Amos will not be
reckoned. He is a prophet, but not of the kind with which his generation was
familiar. An ordinary member of society, he has been suddenly called by Jehovah
from his civil occupation for a special purpose and by a call which has not
necessarily to do with either gifts or a profession. This was something new, not only
in itself, but in its consequences upon the general relations of God to men. What we
see in this dialogue at Bethel is, therefore, not merely the triumph of a character,
however heroic, but rather a step forward and that one of the greatest and most
indispensable-in the history of religion.
There follows a denunciation of the man who sought to silence this fresh voice of
God. " ow therefore hearken to the word of Jehovah thou that sayest, Prophesy not
against Israel, nor let drop thy words against the house of Israel; therefore thus
saith Jehovah "Thou hast presumed to say; Hear what God will say." Thou hast
dared to set thine office and system against His word and purpose. See how they
must be swept away. In defiance of its own rules the grammar flings forward to the
beginnings of its clauses, each detail of the priest’s estate along with the scene of its
desecration. "Thy wife in the city-shall play the harlot; and thy sons and thy
daughters by the sword-shall fall; and thy land by the measuring rope-shall be
divided; and thou in an unclean land-shalt die. Do not let us blame the prophet for a
coarse cruelty in the first of these details. He did not invent it. With all the rest it
formed an ordinary consequence of defeat in the warfare of the times-an inevitable
item of that general overthrow which, with bitter emphasis, the prophet describes in
Amaziah’s own words: "Israel going shall go into captivity from off his own land."
There is added a vision in line with the three which preceded the priest’s
interruption. We are therefore justified in supposing that Amos spoke it also on this
occasion, and in taking it as the close of his address at Bethel. "Then the Lord
Jehovah gave me to see: and, behold, a basket of Kaits," that is, "summer fruit. And
He said, What art thou seeing, Amos? And I said, A basket of Kaits. And Jehovah
said unto me, The Kets-the End - has come upon My people Israel. I will not again
pass them over." This does not carry the prospect beyond the third vision, but it
stamps its finality, and there is therefore added a vivid realization of the result. By
four disjointed lamentations, "howls" the prophet calls them, we are made to feel
the last shocks of the final collapse, and in the utter end an awful silence. "And the
songs of the temple shall be changed into howls in that day, saith the Lord Jehovah.
Multitude of corpses! In every place! He hath cast out! Hush!"

16. These then were probably the last words which Amos spoke to Israel. If so, they
form a curious echo of what was enforced upon himself, and he may have meant
them as such. He was "cast out"; he was "silenced." They might almost be the
verbal repetition of the priest’s orders. In any case the silence is appropriate. But
Amaziah little knew what power he had given to prophecy the day he forbade it to
speak. The gagged prophet began to write; and those accents which, humanly
speaking, might have died out with the songs of the temple of Bethel were clothed
upon with the immortality of literature. Amos silenced wrote a book-first of
prophets to do so-and this is the book we have now to study.
PETT, "Verses 1-3
The First Vision - The Locust Swarm (Amos 7:1-3).
In this vision ‘the Lord YHWH’ showed Amos the forming of a huge swarm of
locusts which devoured the vegetation of the whole land. Amos, a farmer himself, is
horrified at the sight and asks that Jacob (Israel) might be spared because they are
so puny that they will be unable to recover from it. At this YHWH ‘repents’ and
promises that it will not happen. Israel meanwhile were blissfully unaware of what
Amos’s intercession had saved them from.
ote the careful use of ‘the Lord YHWH’ in order to bring out YHWH’s sovereign
activity in judgment, and ‘YHWH’ as the covenant God and the One Who shows
mercy.
Amos 7:1
‘Thus the Lord YHWH showed me, and, behold, he formed locusts in the beginning
of the shooting up of the latter growth, and, lo, it was the latter growth after the
king’s mowings.’
The Lord YHWH showed Amos the first vision. It commenced with the formation of
a huge swarm of locusts, larger than any ever known before, which took place after
the king had received the benefit of the first ‘mowing’ (gathering in of the initial
growth). It would appear from this that the custom was for the initial growth to be
reserved for the king as a kind of taxation (although it is not testified to anywhere
else). Thus what would be destroyed would only indirectly affect the palace initially,
but it would totally devastate the land and the people and ensure no food for the
people as a whole, with no prospect of food in the future. The result would be death
on a large scale, and the cessation of Israel as a nation. Amos would have seen
swarms of locusts before, and the devastating effect on the trees and crops as they
descended and stripped them bare, but we are quite clearly intended to see that this
swarm of locusts was of supernatural magnitude like nothing ever known before.
The delay until after the initial growth was not because YHWH was showing
sympathy to the king, but because it was the main crops which fed the people that
were being depicted as subject to destruction. A double appearance of locusts would
have been unnatural. However, there may be in this an indirect reference which

17. would remind the people of how Joseph had stored up grain in the barns of Pharaoh
so that when the huge famine came its effects fell on the ordinary people who were
made destitute by it while the king gloated. Possibly here Amos is preparing for his
declaration against the house of Jeroboam.
PETT, "Verses 1-14
The Four Visions (Amos 7:1 to Amos 8:14).
In a similar way to the seven judgments in Amos 1:2 to Amos 2:5, followed by the
expanded judgment on Israel, which all initially followed a similar pattern, so here
Amos now recounts three visions threatening judgment on Israel, followed by a
fourth which again expands into a judgment on Israel, and all four initially follow a
similar pattern. All commence with ‘thus YHWH (He) showed me, and behold --’
(Amos 7:1; Amos 7:4, Amos 7 : Amos 8:1), but they then divide into two distinct
patterns as in the first two Amos appeals to YHWH to show mercy, and YHWH
grants it and promises that He will not carry out the judgment, whereas in the
remaining two YHWH asks Amos what he sees, and when Amos replies, declares
what action He is going to take. These remaining two then expand into a wider
application resulting from the action.
The patterns may be seen as follows:
Visions 1 & 2. The Locust Swarm and the Devouring Fire.
a YHWH shows Amos the essence of the judgment.
b Amos sees the judgment carried out in vision.
c The judgment comes to its completion.
b Amos intercedes on the grounds of how puny Israel is.
a YHWH repents and promises that it will not be.
Visions 3 & 4 The Plumbline and The Basket Of Summer Fruit.
a YHWH shows Amos the essence of the judgment.
b YHWH asks Amos what he sees.
c Amos replies by describing what he sees.
b YHWH declares what He is going to do and that He will not pass by Israel
any more.
a YHWH declares doom on their sanctuaries accompanied by death.
· In both cases this is then followed by an application related to what has been
said.
Thus in the first two visions we have an indication of YHWH’s compassion and
unwillingness totally to destroy His people, and in the second two we have an
indication of the inevitability of YHWH’s determined judgments and the effects that
they will have on the sanctuaries and the people.
K&D 1-3, "The first two visions. - Amo_7:1-3. The Locusts. - Amo_7:1. “Thus the Lord
Jehovah showed me; and, behold, He formed locusts in the beginning of the springing
up of the second crop; and, behold, it was a second crop after the king's mowing. Amo_

18. 7:2. And it came to pass, when they had finished eating the vegetable of the land, I said,
Lord Jehovah, forgive, I pray: how can Jacob stand? for he is small. Amo_7:3. Jehovah
repented of this: It shall not take place, saith Jehovah.” The formula, “Thus the Lord
Jehovah showed me,” is common to this and the three following visions (Amo_7:4,
Amo_7:7, and Amo_8:1), with this trifling difference, that in the third (Amo_7:7) the
subject (the Lord Jehovah) is omitted, and 'Adōnâi (the Lord) is inserted instead, after
ve
hinnēh (and behold). ‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ፍ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫ה‬ denotes seeing with the eyes of the mind - a visionary seeing.
These visions are not merely pictures of a judgment which was ever threatening, and
drawing nearer and nearer (Baur); still less are they merely poetical fictions, or forms of
drapery selected arbitrarily, for the purpose of clothing the prophet's thoughts; but they
are inward intuitions, produced by the Spirit of God, which set forth the punitive
judgments of God. Kōh (ita, thus) points to what follows, and ve
hinnēh (and behold)
introduces the thing seen. Amos sees the Lord form locusts. Baur proposes to alter ‫ר‬ ֵ‫יוֹצ‬
(forming) into ‫ר‬ ֶ‫צ‬ֵ‫י‬ (forms), but without any reason, and without observing that in all
three visions of this chapter hinnēh is followed by a participle (‫א‬ ֵ‫ּר‬‫ק‬ in Amo_7:4, and ‫ב‬ ָ ִ‫נ‬
in Amo_7:7), and that the 'Adōnâi which stands before ‫ב‬ ָ ִ‫נ‬ in Amo_7:7 shows very clearly
that this noun is simply omitted in Amo_7:1, because 'AdōnâI Ye
hōvâh has immediately
preceded it. ‫י‬ ַ‫ּב‬ (a poetical form for ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ּב‬ , analogous to ‫י‬ ַ‫ד‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ for ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ד‬ ָ‫,שׂ‬ and contracted into ‫וֹב‬
in Nah_3:17) signifies locusts, the only question being, whether this meaning is derived
from ‫וּב‬ = Arab. jâb, to cut, or from ‫ה‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ = Arab. jb‛a, to creep forth (out of the earth). The
fixing of the time has an important bearing upon the meaning of the vision: viz., “at the
beginning of the springing up of the second crop (of grass);” especially when taken in
connection with the explanation, “after the mowings of the king.” These definitions
cannot be merely intended as outward chronological data. For, in the first place, nothing
is known of the existence of any right or prerogative on the part of the kings of Israel, to
have the early crop in the meadow land throughout the country mown for the support of
their horses and mules (1Ki_18:5), so that their subjects could only get the second crop
for their own cattle. Moreover, if the second crop, “after the king's mowings,” were to be
interpreted literally in this manner, it would decidedly weaken the significance of the
vision. For if the locusts did not appear till after the king had got in the hay for the
supply of his own mews, and so only devoured the second crop of grass as it grew, this
plague would fall upon the people alone, and not at all upon the king. But such an
exemption of the king from the judgment is evidently at variance with the meaning of
this and the following visions. Consequently the definition of the time must be
interpreted spiritually, in accordance with the idea of the vision. The king, who has had
the early grass mown, is Jehovah; and the mowing of the grass denotes the judgments
which Jehovah has already executed upon Israel. The growing of the second crop is a
figurative representation of the prosperity which flourished again after those judgments;
in actual fact, therefore, it denotes the time when the dawn had risen again for Israel
(Amo_4:13). Then the locusts came and devoured all the vegetables of the earth. ‫ב‬ ֶ‫שׂ‬ ֵ‫ע‬
‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ፎ ָ‫ה‬ is not the second crop; for ‫ב‬ ֶ‫שׂ‬ ֵ‫ע‬ does not mean grass, but vegetables, the plants of the
field (see at Gen_1:11). Amo_7:2 and Amo_7:3 require that this meaning should be
retained. When the locusts had already eaten the vegetables of the earth, the prophet
interceded, and the Lord interposed with deliverance. This intercession would have been
too late after the consumption of the second crop. On the other hand, when the

19. vegetables had been consumed, there was still reason to fear that the consumption of the
second crop of grass would follow; and this is averted at the prophet's intercession. ‫ה‬ָ‫י‬ ָ‫ה‬ְ‫ו‬
for ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫,ו‬ as in 1Sa_17:48; Jer_37:11, etc. ‫א‬ָ‫ח־נ‬ ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫,ס‬ pray forgive, sc. the guilt of the people (cf.
Num_14:19). ‫קוּם‬ָ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫,מ‬ how (‫י‬ ִ‫מ‬ qualis) can Jacob (the nation of Israel) stand (not arise),
since it is small? ‫ּן‬‫ט‬ ָ‫,ק‬ small, i.e., so poor in sources and means of help, that it cannot
endure this stroke; not “so crushed already, that a very light calamity would destroy it”
(Rosenmüller). for ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ם‬ ַ‫ח‬ִ‫,נ‬ see Exo_32:14. ‫ּאת‬‫ז‬ (this) refers to the destruction of the people
indicated in ‫קוּם‬ָ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫;מ‬ and ‫ּאת‬‫ז‬ is also to be supplied as the subject to ‫ה‬ֶ‫י‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫ת‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬.
BI 1-6, "O Lord, forgive, I beseech Thee . . . The Lord repented for this: It shall not be,
saith the Lord.
Intercession for pardon prevailing
I. Concerning intercession.
1. This intercession was made by Amos alone. Neither Hosea nor Isaiah, nor any
other God-fearers of the time joined in it. To Amos alone the vision appeared, and by
him alone the intercession was made.
2. This intercession was made in the behalf of a wicked people. Amos calls them
Jacob, but they had renounced the principles of that holy man, and stained their
manners with the vilest corruptions. Corruption in manners, the effect of corruption
in principles, like a spreading pestilence, infected the whole kingdom.
3. The form of this intercession is a prayer for pardon. Sin is the cause of misery, and
misery is the effect and punishment of sin. By pardon sin is taken away, and when
the cause is taken away the effect ceases. In going to the throne for deliverance from
misery, if we have a true sense of sin, pardon will be our chief concern.
4. This intercession was made in a moment of extremity. In the preceding reigns the
kingdom had been mortally wounded, and though under Jeroboam some of its
wounds were bound up and healed, others continued bleeding, and terminated in a
universal mortification.
5. Importunity in this intercession is tempered with reverence. For the preservation
of the house of Israel, the man of God is earnest and fervent in prayer; but his prayer
is blended with the reverence that is suitable to Divine majesty and holiness.
6. This intercession is exemplary; an example and pattern to after ages.
II. Concerning the prevailing of this intercession. “The Lord repented for this.” His
meaning is, the Lord accepted his importunity, granted the desire of his heart, and
assured him that the miseries, represented under the emblem of the grasshoppers,
would not eat up and consume all things. Illustrate the form of words in which this
meaning is expressed.
1. The holy writings frequently contain this expression.
2. Changes in the administration of providence, according to the purpose of God, are
expressed by these words.
3. These changes of administration encourage intercession, and furnish excitements
and motives to repentance. Encouraged by considerations of the grace, mercy, and

20. kindness of the God of Israel, Amos stood and interceded.
III. The sovereign manner in which the Lord was pleased to express and communicate
the prevailing of the intercession. “It shall not be, saith the Lord.”
1. This intimation came immediately from the Holy One, by whom alone pardon of
sin and remission of punishment is granted.
2. This intimation was made by the Saviour of Israel, who alone had power to
restrain and countermand the destroyers of Israel. The waster is the creature of His
power, and the servant of His providence.
3. The intimation came to the individual who had made intercession.
4. This intimation is effective and sovereign. “He spake, and it was done; He
commanded, and it stood fast.”
5. The intimation is solemnly authenticated. Amos heard the words distinctly
pronounced, and “saith the Lord,” solemnly added by the glorious Speaker. This
encouraged him to continue interceding, and raised his hope of prevailing.
Inferences.
1. Intercession for a wicked and perverse people is a duty. The Lord allows, requires,
and commands it, and in accepting it hath glorified Himself.
2. Supplication for pardon is an essential part of intercession.
3. Through the forbearance and long-suffering of God, some temporal strokes may
be mitigated, or removed, upon intercession; while the desolation determined,
deserved, and denounced, is making ready and hastening forwards.
4. Intercessors, though friends to their country, are sometimes treated in it as
enemies. Toward the restoration of the country Amos contributed more by prayer
than Jeroboam did by the sword. A few men who have power with God in prayer are
better than chariots of war, and stronger than standing armies. Exhort—
(1) Men who are lively and warm in prayer. Do not faint because prayer doth not
always prevail, nor because evidences of acceptance are withheld for a time. Men
ought always to pray, and never to faint.
(2) Men who are cold and spiritless in prayer. Deadness of heart in devotion is
one of the distempers of our time.
(3) Men who are formalists, who multiply prayers, but never pray from the heart,
and with the Spirit. Whatever be your own opinion of these, forms, no petition
which is not conceived and uttered by the Spirit, and offered in the name of
Christ, comes into His censer, nor goes up before the throne with acceptance.
(4) Men who neglect prayer. Such are enemies to themselves, to their country, to
their king, and to their God. (A. Shanks.)
Revelation and prayer
I. A divine revelation leading to human prayer.
1. A Divine revelation. A vision of judgments symbolically represented to the mind of
the prophet. Destruction by grasshoppers. Destruction by fire.

21. 2. A human prayer. “Forgive.” This calamity is brought on by the sin of the nation.
Forgive the sin; remove the moral cause of the judgment. “By whom shall Jacob
arise?” Or, better, “How can Jacob stand? for he is small.” Jacob’s—the nation’s—
weakness, is the plea of the prayer for forgiveness. The Israelites had been greatly
reduced by repeated invasions on the part of the Assyrian kings, and were now on
the point of being attacked by the Assyrians, but purchased their retreat by one
thousand talents of silver (2Ki_15:19-20). The nation was now so weakened that it
was unable to stand before another invader. How can Jacob stand? The time has
come when men may well ask this question in relation to the Church. By whom shall
it arise? Not by statesmen, scientists, etc.
II. Human prayer leading to a Divine revelation. The prophet prays, and the great God
makes a new revelation of mercy. “The Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith the
Lord.” (Homilist.)
2 When they had stripped the land clean, I cried
out, “Sovereign Lord, forgive! How can Jacob
survive? He is so small!”
CLARKE, "By whom shall Jacob arise? - The locusts, the symbols of the many
enemies that had impoverished Jerusalem, having devoured much of the produce of the
land, were proceeding, till, at the intercession of the prophet, they were removed. Then,
seeing in the light of prophecy the nation in every sense brought low, he cries, “By whom
shall Jacob arise? for he is small.” Calmet justly remarks: “After the death of Jeroboam
the second, the kingdom, so flourishing and powerful before, was reduced to such
weakness that it was obliged to have recourse to strangers for support. Menahem
applied to Pul, king of Assyria, whence arose the final misery of the state.
GILL, "And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the
grass of the land,.... That is, the grasshoppers or locusts; when in the vision it seemed
to the prophet that almost all the grass of the land was eaten up, and they were going to
seize upon the corn, and other fruits of the earth: this signifies not Sennacherib's
invasion of the land of Judea, but Pul's invasion of the land of Israel, whose army
seemed like these locusts; and spreading themselves over the land, threatened it with
desolation, as these locusts seemed to have wholly consumed all the grass of the land;
then the prophet said what follows:
then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee; the sins of the people, as the
Targum, which were the cause of these locusts coming, or of the Assyrian army invading

22. the land; and the prophet prays that God would avert this judgment, signified in this
vision, or remove it, which is often in Scripture meant by the forgiveness of sin, Exo_
32:31; this is the business of the prophets and ministers of the Lord, to intercede for a
people when ruin is near; and happy is that people, when they have such to stand up in
the breach for them. The argument the prophet uses is,
by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small; or "little" (a); like the first shooting up
of the grass, after it has been own: or, as Noldius (b) renders it, "how otherwise should
Jacob stand?" and so Kimchi, how should there be a standing for him? that is, unless
God forgives his sin, and turns away his wrath, how shall he stand up under the weight
of his sins, which must lie upon him, unless forgiven? and how shall he bear the wrath
and indignation of God for them? and so if any sinner is not forgiven, how shall he stand
before God to serve and worship him now? or at his tribunal with confidence hereafter?
or sustain his wrath and displeasure to all eternity? see Psa_130:3; or, "who of" or "in
Jacob shall stand" (c)? not one will be left; all must be cut off, if God forgive not; for all
are sinners, there are none without sin: or, "who shall stand for Jacob?" (d) or intercede
for him? it will be to no purpose, if God is inexorable: so the Targum,
"who will stand and ask "pardon" for their sins?''
or, "who will raise up Jacob?" (e) from that low condition in which he is, or likely to be
in, if God forgive not, and does not avert the judgment threatened, to a high and glorious
state of prosperity and happiness; for, if all are cut off, there will be none left to be
instruments of such a work: "for he is small"; few in number, and greatly weakened by
one calamity or another; and, if this should take place, would be fewer and weaker still.
So the church of Christ, which is often signified by Jacob, is sometimes in a very low
estate; the number of converts few; has but a little strength to bear afflictions, perform
duty, and withstand enemies; it is a day of small things with it, with respect to light and
knowledge, and the exercise of grace, especially faith; when some like the prophet are
concerned for it, by whom it shall arise; the God of Jacob can cause it to arise, and can
raise up instruments for such service, and make his ministers, and the ministry of the
word and ordinances, means of increasing the number, stature, spiritual light,
knowledge, grace, and strength of his people.
HE RY, ". The prophet goes forth to meet him in the way of his judgments, and by
prayer seeks to turn away his wrath, Amo_7:2. When he saw, in vision, what dreadful
work these caterpillars made, that they had eaten up in a manner all the grass of the
land (he foresaw they would do so, if suffered to go on), then he said, O Lord God!
forgive, I beseech thee (Amo_7:2); cease, I beseech thee, Amo_7:5. He that foretold the
judgment in his preaching to the people, yet deprecated it in his intercessions for them.
He is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee. It was the business of prophets to pray for
those to whom they prophesied, and so to make it appear that though they denounced
they did not desire the woeful day. Therefore, God showed his prophets the evils
coming, that they might befriend the people, not only by warning them, but by praying
for them, and standing in the gap, to turn away God's wrath, as Moses, that great
prophet, often did. Now observe here,
(1.) The prophet's prayer: O Lord God! [1.] Forgive, I beseech thee, and take away the
sin, Amo_7:2. He sees sin at the bottom of the trouble, and therefore concludes that the
pardon of sin must be at the bottom of deliverance, and prays for that in the first place.
Note, Whatever calamity we are under, personal or public, the forgiveness of sin is that
which we should be most earnest with God for. [2.] Cease, I beseech thee, and take away

23. the judgment; cease the fire, cease the controversy; cause they anger towards us to
cease. This follows upon the forgiveness of sin. Take away the cause and effect will cease.
Note, Those whom God contends with will soon find what need they have to cry for a
cessation of arms; and there are hopes that though God has begun, and proceeded far, in
his controversy, yet it may be obtained.
JAMISO , "by whom shall Jacob arise? — If Thou, O God, dost not spare, how
can Jacob maintain his ground, reduced as he is by repeated attacks of the Assyrians,
and erelong about to be invaded by the Assyrian Pul (2Ki_15:19, 2Ki_15:20)? Compare
Isa_51:19. The mention of “Jacob” is a plea that God should “remember for them His
covenant” with their forefather, the patriarch (Psa_106:45).
he is small — reduced in numbers and in strength.
CALVI ,"Verse 2
But we must supply this prophecy or vision to its proper time. I doubt not, and I
think that I can gather this from certain considerations, that the Prophet here
compares the time which had preceded the reign of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, with
the prosperous time which followed. For when Jeroboam the Second began to reign,
the kingdom was laid waste, partly by hostile incursions, and partly by drought and
heat, by inclement weather, or by pestilence. Since then the condition of the people,
as sacred history relates, was most miserable, hence the Prophet says, that locusts
had been shown to him, which devoured all the grass and standing corn: for he not
only says, that locusts were formed, but also that they devoured the grass, so that
nothing remained, When they had finished, he says, to eat the grass of the earth,
then I said, Lord Jehovah, etc. Thus then the Prophet shows that sure tokens of
God’s wrath had then already appeared, and that the people had in part been
already afflicted, but yet that God had afterwards given them time for repentance.
ow by locusts I understand a moderate kind of punishment. We have seen
elsewhere (Joel 1:4) that the country had been then nearly consumed by the locusts
and the cankerworms, and the like pests. But in this place the Prophet
metaphorically designates hostile invasions, which had not immediately laid waste
the whole country but in some measure desolated it. This was indeed manifest to all,
but few viewed it as the judgment of God, as also the Lord complains, that the
perverse regard not the hand of the smiter, (Isaiah 10:3) Though then the Israelites
saw their land consumed, they did not think that God was displeased with them; for
ungodly men do not willingly examine themselves nor raise their eyes to heaven,
when the Lord chastises them: for they would grow, as it were, stupid in their
calamities rather than set before themselves the judgment of God, that they may be
seriously led to repentance: this they naturally shun almost all. Hence the Prophet
says that this was especially shown to him. The calamity then was known to all, and
evident before the eyes of the people; but the Prophet alone, by a vision, understood
that God in this manner punished the sins of the people: at the same time, the
special object of the vision was, — to make the Israelites to know that the hand of
God was withheld, as it were, in the middle of its work. They had seen the enemies
coming, they had felt many evils; but they thought that the enemies retreated either

24. through good fortune or some other means. They did not consider that God had
spared them, which was the main thing. It was therefore shown to the prophet in a
vision, that God spared his people, though he had resolved to destroy the whole
land.
And the Prophet expressly declares, that God had been pacified through his
intercession and prayer: hence appears very clearly what I have already referred to,
that is, that the Prophet condemns the unbelieving for having perversely trifled with
God; for they regarded the threatening which they had heard from the mouth of
Amos and of others as jests. Whence was this? Because God had spared them. The
Prophet shows how this took place; “The Lord,” he says, “had at first resolved to
destroy you, but yet he waits for you, and therefore suspends his extreme vengeance,
that by his kindness he may allure you to himself; and this has been done through
my prayers: for though ye think me to be adverse to you, as I am constrained daily
to threaten you, and as a heavenly herald to denounce war on you; I yet feel
compassion for you, and wish you to be saved. There is, therefore, no reason for you
to think that I am influenced by hatred or by cruelty, when I address you with so
much severity: this I do necessarily on account of my office; but I am still concerned
and solicitous for your safety; and of this the Lord is a witness, and the vision I now
declare to you.” We now see that God’s servants had so ruled and moderated their
feelings, that pity did not prevent them from being severe whenever their calling so
required; and also, that this severity did not obliterate from their minds the feelings
of compassion. Amos, as we have already seen, severely inveighed against the
people, sharply reproved their vices, and daily summoned irreclaimable men to the
tribune it of God: as he was so vehemently indignant on account at their vices, and
as he so sharply threatened them, he might have appeared to have forgotten all
compassion; but this place shows that he had not yet divested himself of pity, though
he faithfully discharged his office, and was not diverted from his purpose, when he
saw that he had to do with wicked and obstinate men. He was therefore severe,
because God so commanded him; it was what his calling required; but at the same
time he pitied the people.
Let then all teachers in the Church learn to put on these two feelings — to be
vehemently indignant whenever they see the worship of God profaned, to burn with
zeal for God, and to show that severity which appeared in all the Prophets,
whenever due order decays, — and at the same time to sympathize with miserable
men, whom they see rushing headlong into destruction, and to bewail their madness,
and to interpose with God as much as is in them; in such a way, however that their
compassion render them not slothful or indifferent, so as to be indulgent to the sins
of men. Indeed, the temper of mind which I have mentioned ought to be possessed,
so that they may go forth as suppliants before God, and implore pardon for
miserable and wretched men: but when they come to the people, in their new
character, that they may be severe and rigid, let them remember by whom they are
sent and with what commands, let them know that they are the ministers of God,
who is the judge of the world, and ought not therefore to spare the people: this then
is to be attended to by us.

25. ow as to the word repent, as applied to God, let us know, as it has been elsewhere
stated, that God changes not his purpose so as to retract what he has once
determined. He indeed knew what he would do before he showed the vision to his
Prophet Amos: but he accommodates himself to the measure of men’s
understanding, when he mentions such changes. It was then the eternal purpose of
God, to threaten the people, to show tokens of his displeasure, and yet to suspend
for a time his vengeance, that their perverseness might be the more inexcusable. But
in the meantime, as this was without advantage, he sets forth another thing — that
he was already armed to execute his vengeance. God then does not relate what he
had decreed, but what the Israelites deserved, and what punishment or reward was
due to them. When, therefore, God begins to inflict punishment on sinners, it is as
though he intended to execute fully his vengeance; he however forms a purpose in
himself, but that is hid from us. As soon then as he lifts up his finger, we ought to
regard it as owing to his mercy, that we are not instantly reduced to nothing; when
it so happens, it is as though he changed his purpose, or as though he withheld his
hand. This then ought to be borne in mind, when the prophet says, that God created
locusts to devour all the grass, but that he suppliantly entreated God to put an end
to this calamity. He then adds, that it repented God, not that there was any change
of mind in God, but because God suddenly and beyond hope suspended the
vengeance which was near at hand. It shall not then be
With regard to the clause, Be propitious, I pray; how will Jacob rise up, or who will
raise up Jacob? it appears that the Prophet saw no other remedy, except the Lord,
according to his infinite goodness, forgave the people, and hence he prays for
pardon. In the meantime, he shows that he prayed for the Church, “Lord,” he says,
“thy hand does not now pursue strangers, but an elect people, thy peculiar
possession:” for by the name, Jacob, the Prophet extols the covenant which God
made with Abraham and the Patriarchs; as though he said, “O God, wilt thou be
inexorable towards the people whom thou hast chosen and adopted, of whom thou
art the Father? Remember that they are neither Babylonians, nor Egyptians, nor
Assyrians, but a royal priesthood, and thy holy and peculiar people.” And there is
nothing that inclines God more to mercy than the recollection of his gratuitous
covenant, as we have elsewhere seen.
He then says, that Jacob was small. He does not allege the worthiness of Jacob, or
adduce any proof of excellency, but says that he was small; as though he said, “O
Lord, thou drawest forth now thy power against miserable creatures, who are
already enfeebled enough” for he calls him small, because he had been worn out by
many calamities: and hence I said, that reference is here made to that miserable
time, of which Scripture records, when it declares that the free as well as the captive
were reduced to extreme distress, before Jeroboam the second began to reign. Then
indeed God restored his people; but short was that favor; for immediately after the
death of king Jeroboam, a sedition arose, which proved ruinous to the whole
kingdom: his son Zachariah, as it is well known, was slain by Shallum, (2 Kings
15:8)
How then will Jacob rise up? Some take the verb ‫,יקום‬ ikum, (48) in a transitive

26. sense, “Who will raise him up?” but others think it to be a neuter verb, “How will
Jacob rise up?” that is, by what means will Jacob rise up? as ‫,מי‬ mi, may be taken to
mean, how, or by what means: How then will Jacob rise up? But this difference has
little to do with the main point It is then enough to say, that the Prophet here speaks
of the weakness of the people, that on this account God might be more ready to
forgive them. It now follows —
BE SO , "Verse 2-3
Amos 7:2-3. When they had made an end of eating the grass — With us
grasshoppers are not hurtful, but those in our text were locusts, as the word ‫,גבי‬
here used, is rendered, Isaiah 33:4 : in which sense the word is understood by the
Vulgate and Houbigant: see also ab. 3:17. By whom shall Jacob arise? — Or, who
shall raise up Jacob; for he is small? — If thou suffer these calamities to proceed to
extremities, by what means shall the small remains of the riches and strength of the
kingdom be rescued from utter destruction? The Lord repented for this, &c. — The
prophet here informs us, that it was represented to him in his vision, that the Lord
was pleased to hearken to his earnest supplication, and to promise that the
threatened judgment should not proceed to an utter destruction of the whole
kingdom. Those who suppose all this to be metaphorically expressed, understand
this of Pul’s being induced by a sum of money to depart out of the land, as we read 2
Kings 15:20 : but it may be understood of a threatened judgment of locusts and
other insects, which was deprecated by the prophet’s prayers, and so not executed.
COFFMA , "Verse 2
"And it came to pass when they made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I
said, O Lord Jehovah, forgive, I beseech thee: how shall Jacob stand? for he is
small. Jehovah repented concerning this: It shall not be, saith Jehovah."
Foremost in this is the prayer of the prophet with the resulting deliverance of the
people. It would appear to be obvious that the reason for the inclusion of these
visions by Amos, visions which he had actually had, in his proclamations against
Bethel, is that of disarming any suspicion that the people might have entertained to
the effect that Amos hoped for, or desired, any calamity to befall them. On the other
hand, he was the source of prayers which had actually averted disasters from them
many times in the past.
"Jehovah repented ..." Such expressions in the scriptures do not imply any
instability, fickleness, or indecision on the part of God, his repentance always
meaning that some justifying change had occurred in the threatened people
themselves.
"When they made an end of eating the grass of the land ..." This indicates that the
disasters which had been averted through prayer were not totally avoided, but that
they were interrupted and averted before fatal damage was inflicted. This would fit
the interpretation of such things by Deane who cited one of them thus:

27. "This refers to the retreat of the Assyrians under Pul, the usurping monarch who
assumed the name of Tiglath-Peleser II (2 Kings 15:17ff). Some commentators
consider this judgment to be literally a plague of locusts; but this is not
probable."[8]
TRAPP, "Verse 2
Amos 7:2 And it came to pass, [that] when they had made an end of eating the grass
of the land, then I said, O Lord GOD, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob
arise? for he [is] small.
Ver. 2. When they had made an end of eating] ot the grain only, but the grass, to
the very roots; besides a pestilent stench left behind them; when, I say, they had
done their worst. Prayer is the best lever at a dead lift; as is to be seen, James 5:18;
upon the prayer of Elias the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit,
after three years and a half’s drought; when it might well have been thought that
root, and fruits, and all had been dried up, and that prayer had come too late. But
that is seldom seen; as all God’s people can say experimentally. But whatshall we
think of Jamblicus, a heathen author, who hath such a commendation of prayer,
which might well beseem an experienced Christian? He calleth it Rerum divinarum
ducem et lucem, copulam qua homines cum Deo coniunguntur, the guide and light
of Divine duties, the band whereby men are united to God (Lib. 5, cap. 27). ay, he
proceedeth and saith, that prayer is clavis instar, qua Dei penetralia aperiuntur,
instead of a key, wherewith God’s cabinet is opened; and much more to the same
purpose. All this the prophet knew full well, and therefore sets to work in good
earnest; and, as when a cart is in a quagmire, if the horses feel it coming they will
pull the harder till they have it out, So he.
Then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee] Sin, he knew, was their greatest
enemy; the mother of all their misery. Of that therefore he prays for pardon, and
then he knew all should be well; as when the sore is healed, the plaster falleth off. Of
Christ it is said, that "He shall save his people from their sins," Matthew 1:21, as
the greatest of evils; and the Church in Hosea 14:2, cries, "Take away all iniquity."
Feri Domine, feri, saith Luther, nam a peccatis absolutus sum. Smite me as much as
thou pleasest, now that thou hast forgiven my sins.
By whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small] Here is much in few. It is Jacob, thy
confederate; and he is down upon all four: and he is but small, low, and little, and
(as some render it) Quis stabit Iacobo? "Behold, he whom thou lovest is sick," John
11:3. They that are thine by covenant are at a very great under; trodden on by the
bulls of Bashan, as a poor shrub of the wilderness; so the Psalmist’s word imports,
Psalms 102:17. "Why shouldest thou be as a man astonished" (that knows not
whether he had best help or not), or "as a mighty man that cannot save? yet thou, O
Lord, art in the midst of us, and we are called by thy name; leave us not," Jeremiah
14:9. Thus the prophets indeed prayed for their unkind countrymen; so did Paul,

28. Athanasius, Luther. I have obtained of God, said he, that never while I live shall the
Pope prevail against my country: when I am gone let those pray that can pray. And,
indeed, he was no sooner gone but all Germany was on a flame: as when Austin’s
head was laid, Hippo was soon surprised by the enemy; and when Pareus’s,
Heidelberg.
CO STABLE, "Verse 2
In his vision Amos saw the locusts strip the land of its vegetation. Then he prayed
and asked the sovereign Lord to pardon Jacob (Israel) for its covenant
unfaithfulness. Jacob was only a small nation and could not survive such a
devastating judgment if the Lord allowed it to happen as Amos had seen in his
vision.
Amos" view of Israel as small and weak stands in contrast to that of Israel"s leaders
who believed it was strong and invincible (cf. Amos 6:1-3; Amos 6:8; Amos 6:13;
Amos 9:10). Israel occupied a large territory under Jeroboam II, second only in its
history to what Solomon controlled, but it was still small in relation to the larger
empires of the ancient ear East. Amos may have meant that Israel was small in the
sense of helpless. God had promised to take care of Jacob when that patriarch
encountered Yahweh at Bethel, now a center of apostate worship in Israel (cf.
Genesis 28:10-22). Perhaps that is why Amos appealed to God with the name of
Jacob (cf. Amos 3:13; Amos 6:8; Amos 7:5; Amos 8:7; Amos 9:8).
SIMEO , "GOD’S CO DESCE SIO TO PRAYER
Amos 7:2-3. Then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob
arise? for he is small. The Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith the Lord.
IT is very instructive to see, amongst all the servants of Jehovah, whether Prophets
or Apostles, how love was blended with fidelity in the whole of their ministrations.
They were constrained to declare all which “God had shewed unto them [ ote: ver.
1, 4, 7.].” But did they “desire the woeful events” which they predicted? They could
appeal to God that they did not [ ote: Jeremiah 17:16.]. The Prophet Amos had
been commanded to foretell that the fruits of the earth, with the exception of those
which had been gathered in, should be eaten up by grasshoppers [ ote: ver. 1, 2.].
But he immediately betook himself to prayer, and, by his importunity, prevailed on
God to suspend the threatened judgment. He was directed afterwards to foretell the
destruction of a part of the land by fire [ ote: ver. 4.]: and again, in the same terms
as before, he interceded for the land; and obtained for it a similar relaxation of the
impending calamity. The judgments had been begun to be inflicted [ ote: Amos 4:9;
Amos 4:11.]; but at his request they were removed. It is probable that these
judgments were also threatened in a figurative sense; and related to the invasions of
Pul, king of Assyria, who contented himself with imposing a tribute of a thousand
talents of silver; and that of Tiglath-pileser, who took several cities, and carried
away the inhabitants captives to Assyria [ ote: 2 Kings 15:19; 2 Kings 15:29.]. But,
without entering into the history of these events, I wish to fix your attention on the
repeated intercessions of the prophet, (for the repetition of them in the same words,

29. and the repeated answer to them in the same words, render them peculiarly
deserving of our attention;) and to shew you from them these blessed truths;
I. That the judgments we fear may be averted by prayer—
Judgments of the heaviest kind are denounced against us—
[Temporal judgments, such as those referred to in the passage before us, would be
very terrible: yet are they nothing, in comparison of what we have cause to fear.
“The wicked,” says David, “shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget
God [ ote: Psalms 9:17.].” In another psalm he is more explicit still: “Upon the
wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall
be the portion of their cup [ ote: Psalms 11:6.].” Who amongst us has not forgotten
God, days without number? and who, therefore, has not reason to tremble at these
awful declarations?]
But they may all be removed by fervent and believing prayer—
[Look into the Scriptures, and see the wonderful efficacy of prayer! If ever there
was a person that had reason to fear his prayers could not be heard, it was David:
because he had long known the Lord; had received the most distinguished favours
at his hands; and yet committed adultery and murder, and continued impenitent for
a long period, till his sin was charged home upon him by the Prophet athan: yet,
behold, he, the very instant he acknowledged his transgressions, was forgiven. “I
have sinned against the Lord,” says he: and instantly the prophet replies, “The Lord
hath put away thy sin: thou shalt not die [ ote: 2 Samuel 12:13.].” Hear the prayers
which he offered on the occasion: “Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and
cleanse me from my sin.” “Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, thou God of my
salvation [ ote: Psalms 51:2; Psalms 51:14.]!” Hear with what confidence he
prayed: “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter
than snow [ ote: Psalms 51:7.].” What! you clean! you whiter than snow? Yes, I,
even I. Hear how particularly he himself notices the speed with which his prayer
was answered. “When I kept silence (and refrained from prayer), my bones waxed
old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy
upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. But at last I
acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity I hid not: I said, I will confess my
transgressions unto the Lord; and (instantly) thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin
[ ote: Psalms 32:3-5.].”
We may notice, also, the instance of Manasseh, who was perhaps the most daring in
his impieties of all the human race: “He built up again the high places which
Hezekiah his father had destroyed; he reared up altars for Baal, and worshipped all
the host of heaven; he built altars for them all, even in the house of the Lord itself,
and set a graven image there; he made his son to pass through the fire; he caused his
subjects to do more evil than had been committed by the nations whom God had
driven out before them; and to all these impieties he added this, that he shed
innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem with it from one end to the

30. other [ ote: 2 Kings 21:3-16.]. ow can we suppose that such a monster of impiety
as this could ever be forgiven? Yes: not even his prayer was shut out, when he
besought the Lord. We are told, that “in his affliction he besought the Lord his God,
and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto him;
and He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication. Then Manasseh knew that
the Lord he was God [ ote: 2 Chronicles 33:12-13.].” Repeatedly is this noticed in
the history respecting him; “his prayer unto his God, his prayer, and how God was
entreated of him [ ote: 2 Chronicles 33:18-19.]:” and no doubt it is thus repeated in
order to shew us, that, whatever be our demerits, we shall not be cast out, if, with
humble, fervent, and believing supplications, we betake ourselves to the prayer-
hearing and sin-pardoning God.
The whole people of ineveh attest this blessed truth. There was no call to
repentance suggested by the Prophet Jonah: the judgments denounced by him were
altogether unqualified with the smallest hope of mercy: the Prophet himself seems
scarcely to have contemplated a possibility of forgiveness to them; yet were they,
even the whole population, spared at the voice of their cry [ ote: Jonah 3:10.].
I say then, without hesitation, to all the sinners of mankind, “Let the wicked forsake
his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord;
and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon,”
and multiply his pardons above all the multitude of their sins [ ote: Isaiah 55:7.
The margin.].]
My text leads me to notice another most important truth; namely,
II. That the weakness we feel may be urged by us as a plea—
The state of Israel at that time seemed indeed to be very desperate: for “God had
already begun to cut them short.” But the prophet, instead of desponding, twice
urged this very circumstance as a plea with God to grant him his request: “O Lord
God, forgive, I beseech thee! by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.” And each
time the success of his plea is mentioned, “The Lord repented for this: it shall not
be, saith the Lord [ ote: Compare ver. 2, 3, and 5, 6.].”
ow such may be our plea before God—
[We are ready to make our weakness a ground of despondency before God: “How
can I turn to him? How Song of Solomon 1 effect a reconciliation with him? How
can I hope ever to emancipate myself from my cruel bondage?” “There is no hope:”
‘I may as well continue as I am: I can but perish at last [ ote: Jeremiah 3:25.].’ But
all this is wrong: for God often delays his interpositions for this very end, that he
may bring us to see how destitute we are of help or hope in ourselves: nor is he ever
better pleased, than when, with a total dereliction of all hope in ourselves, we cast
ourselves wholly and unreservedly on him. Let us once be brought to say with king
Jehoshaphat, “We have no might; but our eyes are unto thee;” and we may be sure
that our deliverance is nigh at hand [ ote: 2 Chronicles 20:12.]. The prophet

31. succeeded thus.]
And such success shall we also obtain—
[I have said that God orders his dispensations, for the most part, so as to bring us to
self-despair. Hear his own words: “The Lord shall judge his people, and repent
himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none
shut up or left [ ote: Dent. 32:36.]. If there were any power in ourselves, we should
be ascribing our deliverance to our own arm: but when we see how destitute we are
of all strength, then are we willing to give God the glory of all that he effects in our
behalf. See this in the Apostle Paul. He was assaulted with some grievous
temptation, which he calls “a thorn in his flesh.” Thrice he cried to the Lord to
remove it: and by his repeated entreaties he obtained this answer; “My grace is
sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” And what was the
effect? His fears are dissipated; his sorrows are dispelled; and instantly he bursts
forth into these triumphant exclamations: “Most gladly therefore will I glory in my
infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me: for when I am weak, then
am I strong [ ote: 2 Corinthians 12:7-10.].” Here is the great truth which I would
impress upon your minds; “When I am weak, then am I strong.” It is not possible to
have too deep a sense of your own weakness.” Perhaps in the whole world there does
not exist another passage comparable to that in the Prophet Isaiah, where he
represents whole mountains of difficulty to be encountered, and Israel, as a mere
insignificant worm, groaning under them: “Fear not, thou worm Jacob: I will make
thee a new sharp threshing instrument, having teeth: thou shalt thresh the
mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff: thou shalt fan
them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them:
and thou shalt rejoice in the Lord, and shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel [ ote:
Isaiah 41:14-16.].” Endeavour to realize this idea. Place mountains before your eyes:
then look down upon a poor helpless worm; and then see, through his exertions, the
whole mountains beaten to dust and scattered as by a mighty whirlwind; and then
you will have some faint conception of the truth inculcated in my text; sins, that
reach unto the heavens, scattered to the winds; and judgments, deep as hell,
removed for ever from your sight. Bring every threatening which the word of God
contains: and to every one in succession I will say, “Respecting this the Lord hath
repented: and this shall not be;” “neither shall that be.”]
Let me now, in my application of this subject, adress,
1. Those who despise the judgments of the Lord—
[Many there are who look upon the threatenings of God with as little concern as if
there were no truth in them; and who, like Amaziah in the chapter before us,
condemn the preachers as exciting groundless fears; and say to them, “Prophesy not
against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Israel [ ote: ver. 10,
16.].” But to all such persons I must say, that the word of God shall stand, and not
one jot or tittle of it shall ever fall to the ground. Look back, and see, “Did not God’s
word take hold of” the disobedient Jews [ ote: Zechariah 1:6.]? Go to Assyria, and

32. see; or go to Babylon, and see; or look upon them in their present dispersion, and
see. You may put far from you the evil day; but it will come at last; and with
augmented terror, in proportion as it has been despised. I call upon you, then, yea,
on every one amongst you, to turn unto the Lord, and to cry, “O Lord God, forgive,
I beseech thee [ ote: The Text.]!” For where is there one amongst you that does not
need forgiveness? or who can obtain forgiveness, if he will not ask? But, “if ye will
not turn to God, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye
shall weep sore, and rundown with tears, because of the ruin that awaits you [ ote:
Jeremiah 13:17.].”
If you would ask, “How shall I arise?” gladly do I declare, that there is One able to
save, and as willing as He is able. “God has laid help for you on One that is mighty:”
and you shall have no want of grace or strength if only you will flee to him for
succour.
But this leads me to address,]
2. Those who are sinking under discouraging apprehensions—
[Beloved Brethren, what is that which you are saying? “How shall I arise? for I am
small.” Hear the answer which God gave to his Church of old. Zion of old laboured
under your very infirmity: “Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful
captive delivered? Yes, saith the Lord; even the captives of the mighty shall be taken
away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that
contendeth with thee; and I will save thy children [ ote: Isaiah 49:24-25.].” You see
how readily God interposed for Israel, at the cry of Amos; and that too for an
obstinate and rebellious people: and will he not hear your cry, which is offered for
yourselves? Moreover, you have a better intercessor than Amos: the Son of God
himself “ever lives” in heaven, whither he is gone on purpose “to make intercession
for you.” Put your cause into his hands: commit yourselves entirely to him, and you
have nothing to fear: for “him the Father heareth always.” Say to him, as Hezekiah
did under the most desponding apprehensions that could be conceived, “Lord, I am
oppressed; undertake for me [ ote: Isaiah 38:14.]:” and be assured, that if, with a
renunciation of all self-dependence, you cast your care on Him, he will speedily
interpose for your relief: “he will, in love to your souls, deliver them from the pit of
corruption, and cast all your sins behind his back [ ote: Isaiah 38:17.].”]
PETT, "Amos 7:2
‘And it came about that, when they made an end of eating the grass of the land, then
I said, “O Lord YHWH, forgive, I beseech you, how will Jacob stand, for he is
small?” ’
As Amos then watched in horror, the locusts ate up all the vegetation in the land,
stripping the trees and the fields bare until nothing was left in the whole of Israel.
Recognising that Israel could never recover from devastation and inevitable death
on such a large scale Amos pleaded with the Lord YHWH for forgiveness for
Israel/Jacob on the grounds of Israel’s puniness. This plea reflects Amos’s

33. awareness that he could no longer plead the covenant, or the promises to their
forefathers. He knew that the covenant was no longer valid for Israel because they
had rejected it, and that such judgment was in fact the fulfilment of what the
covenant had promised when such a rejection occurred. Thus he pleads with the
Lord YHWH by emphasising the puniness of Israel. It was recognised that great
kings revealed their greatness by their attitude towards the weakest in the land. And
that was the basis of Amos’s plea. ote that there is a direct contrast in the
narrative between Israel’s boast in its strength in Amos 6:13, and the declaration of
its puniness here. Israel thought that it was strong an powerful, but Amos and
YHWH knew that it was weak and puny.
‘Jacob’ (y ‘qb) may have been used here instead of ‘Israel’ so as to resonate with the
verb (yqwm), although the thought may have in mind Jacob’s ‘smallness’ before he
became ‘Israel’. As we have already seen the term is used throughout the prophecy
in a chiastic pattern, thus:
a ‘The house of Jacob’ who are to be testified against (Amos 3:13).
b ‘The excellency (pride, manifested wealth) of Jacob’ which is hated by
YHWH (Amos 6:8).
c ‘How shall Jacob stand?’ because he is so puny (Amos 7:2).
c ‘How shall Jacob stand?’ because he is so puny (Amos 7:5).
b ‘The excellency (pride, manifested wealth) of Jacob’ whose works will never
be forgotten (Amos 8:7).
a ‘The house of Jacob’ who will nevertheless not be fully destroyed (Amos 9:8).
Thus the name brings out both all that is worst in Israel, and their puniness, and yet
promises in the end that YHWH will show mercy, just as He had with Jacob.
3 So the Lord relented.
“This will not happen,” the Lord said.
BAR ES, "The Lord repented for this - God is said to “repent, to have strong
compassion upon” or “over” evil, which He has either inflicted Deu_32:36; 1Ch_21:15,
or has said that He would inflict Exo_32:12; Joe_2:13; Jon_3:10; Jer_18:8, and which,
upon repentance or prayer, He suspends or checks. Here, Amos does not intercede until
after the judgment had been, in part, inflicted. He prayed, when in vision the locust “had

34. made an end of eating the grass of the land,” and when “the fire had eaten up a part.”
Nor, until Israel had suffered what these visions foretold, was he “small,” either in his
own or in human sight, or in relation to his general condition. The “this” then, “of which
God repented” and said, “it shall not be,” is that further undefined evil, which His first
infliction threatened. Evil and decay do not die out, but destroy. Oppression does not
weary itself out, but increases. Visitations of God are tokens of His displeasure, and, in
the order of His justice, rest on the sinner. Pul and Tiglath-pileser, when they came with
their armies on Israel, were instruments of God’s chastening. According to the ways of
God’s justice, or of man’s ambition, the evil now begun, would have continued, but that
God, at the prayer of the prophet, said, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further” Job_
38:11.
CLARKE, "The Lord repented - Changed his purpose of destroying them by the
locusts. See Amo_7:6.
GILL, "The Lord repented for this,.... He heard the prayer of the prophet, and at
his intercession averted, the threatened judgment; thus the effectual fervent prayer of a
righteous man avails much, Jam_5:16; this is spoken after the manner of men; as men,
when they repent of a thing, desist from it, so the Lord desisted from going on with this
judgment; he did not change his mind, but changed the dispensations of his providence
according to his mind and will:
it shall not be, saith the Lord; these grasshoppers or locusts, the Assyrian army,
shall not at this time destroy the land of Israel: Pul king of Assyria took a sum of money
of the king of Israel, and so turned back, and stayed not in the land, 2Ki_15:19.
JAMISO , "repented for this — that is, of this. The change was not in the mind of
God (Num_2:19; Jam_1:17), but in the effect outwardly. God unchangeably does what is
just; it is just that He should hear intercessory prayer (Jam_5:16-18), as it would have
been just for Him to have let judgment take its course at once on the guilty nation, but
for the prayer of one or two righteous men in it (compare Gen_18:23-33; 1Sa_15:11;
Jer_42:10). The repentance of the sinner, and God’s regard to His own attributes of
mercy and covenanted love, also cause God outwardly to deal with him as if he repented
(Jon_3:10), whereas the change in outward dealing is in strictest harmony with God’s
own unchangeableness.
It shall not be — Israel’s utter overthrow now. Pul was influenced by God to accept
money and withdraw from Israel.
TRAPP, "Verse 3
Amos 7:3 The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.
Ver. 3. The Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith the Lord] Here was mutatio
rei, non Dei; facti, non consilii: a change, not of God’s will, but of his work;
therefore (by way of explication) it followeth, "It shall not be, saith the Lord." To
speak properly, there can be no repentance in God, 1 Samuel 15:20, but this is
spoken after the manner of men; and it notably setteth forth the power of faithful

35. prayer, able, after a sort, to alter God’s mind, and to transfuse a dead palsy into the
hands of omnipotence, Exodus 32:10, where God is fain to bespeak his own
freedom; and Moses is represented as the great chancellor of heaven
CO STABLE, "Verse 3
In response to Amos" prayer, the Lord relented and said He would not bring a
completely devastating judgment on Israel, at least then. He would be merciful and
patient and would grant Israel more grace (cf. Exodus 32:14).
The prayers of righteous individuals, like Amos , can alter the events of history (cf.
James 5:16-18). Some things that God intends to do are not firmly determined by
Him; He is open to changing His mind about these things. However, He has decreed
other things and no amount of praying will change His mind about those things (cf.
Jeremiah 7:16; Jeremiah 11:14; Jeremiah 14:11-12; Acts 1:11; Revelation 22:20). It
is important, therefore, that we understand, from Scripture, what aspects of His will
are fixed and which are negotiable. The same distinction between determined
choices and optional choices is observable in human interpersonal relations. Good
parents, for example, will not permit their children to do certain things no matter
how much the children may beg, but they do allow their children to influence their
decisions in other matters. [ ote: For further discussion of this issue, see Thomas L.
Constable, Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer, pp149-52; idem,
"What Prayer Will and Will ot Change," in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight
Pentecost, pp99-113; John Munro, "Prayer to a Sovereign God," Interest56:2
(February1990):20-21; and Robert B. Chisholm Jeremiah , "Does God "Change His
Mind"?" Bibliotheca Sacra152:608 (October-December1995):387-99.]
PETT, "Amos 7:3
‘YHWH repented concerning this. “It shall not be, says YHWH”.’
The consequence was that YHWH repented of what He had intended to do to His
people and promised that it would not happen, thereby demonstrating His love and
compassion towards them. It was not forgiveness, as the second set of visions will
make clear. But it was a stay of execution and a deliverance from immediate and
total destruction.
As always this is seen from man’s viewpoint. Something initially prophesied would
in fact now not happen. This apparently demonstrated a ‘change of mind’. God,
however, Who knew the end from the beginning, had intended just such a situation
from the beginning. (Compare how He sent Jonah to ineveh to announce
judgment, knowing that they would repent and escape the judgment, even though
from Jonah’s viewpoint it would look as though He had ‘changed His mind’). But
the emphasis on His ‘repentance’ was intended to remind His people of His good
intentions towards them if only they would put their hearts right towards Him. It
was an example for the people to follow. While the Muslim would resign himself and
say, ‘it is the will of God’ and expect no change in the situation, the Bible believer
does believe that appealing to God can alter situations because of His personal

36. interest in them.
4 This is what the Sovereign Lord showed me:
The Sovereign Lord was calling for judgment by
fire; it dried up the great deep and devoured the
land.
BAR ES, "God called to contend by fire - that is, He “called” His people to
maintain their cause with Him “by fire,” as He says, “I will plead” in judgment “with
him” (Gog) “with” (that is,” by”) pestilence and blood” Eze_38:22; and, “by fire and by
His sword will the Lord plead with all flesh” Isa_66:16; and, “The Lord standeth up to
plead and standeth to judge the people” Isa_3:13. Man, by rebellion, challenges God’s
Omnipotence. He will have none of Him; he will find his own happiness for himself,
apart from God and in defiance of Him and His laws; he plumes himself on his success,
and accounts his strength or wealth or prosperity the test of the wisdom of his policy.
God, sooner or later, accepts the challenge. He brings things to the issue, which man had
chosen. He “enters into judgment” (Isa_3:14, etc.) with him. If man escapes with
impunity, then he had chosen well, in rejecting God and choosing his own ways. If not,
what folly and misery was his short-sighted choice; short-lived in its gain; its loss,
eternal! “Fire” stands as the symbol and summary of God’s most terrible judgments. It
spares nothing, leaves nothing, not even the outward form of what it destroys. Here it is
plainly a symbol, since it destroys “the sea” also, which shall be destroyed only by the fire
of the Day of Judgment, when “the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also
and the works that are therein shall be burned up” 2Pe_3:10. The sea is called the “great
deep,” only in the most solemn language, as the history of the creation or the flood, the
Psalms and poetical books. Here it is used, in order to mark the extent of the desolation
represented in the vision.
And did eat up a part - Rather literally, “The portion,” that is, probably the definite
“portion” foreappointed by God to captivity and desolation. This probably our English
Version meant by “a part.” For although God calls Himself “the Portion” of Israel Deu_
32:9; Jer_10:16; Zec_2:12, and of those who are His (Psa_16:5; Psa_73:26, etc; Jer_
10:16), and reciprocally He calls the people “the Lord’s portion Jer_12:10, and the land,
the portion Mic_2:4 of God’s people; yet the land is nowhere called absolutely “the
portion,” nor was the country of the ten tribes specially “the portion,” given by God.
Rather God exhibits in vision to the prophet, the ocean burned up, and “the portion” of
Israel, upon which His judgments were first to fall. To this Amos points, as “the
portion.” God knew “the portion,” which Tiglath-Pileser would destroy, and when he

37. came and had carried captive the east and north of Israel, the pious in Israel would
recognize the second, more desolating scourge, foretold by Amos; they would own that it
was at the prayer of the prophet that it was stayed and went no further, and would await
what remained.
CLARKE, "The Lord God called to contend by fire - Permitted war, both civil
and foreign, to harass the land, after the death of Jeroboam the second. These wars
would have totally destroyed it, had not the prophet interceded.
It devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part - We are here to understand
the partially destructive wars which afterwards took place; for the Lord causes all these
things to pass before the eyes of Amos in the vision of prophecy; and intimates that, at
the intercession of his prophets, total ruin should be prevented.
GILL, "Thus hath the Lord showed unto me,.... Another vision after this manner:
and, behold, the Lord God called to contend by fire; gave out that he would have
a controversy with his people Israel, and proclaimed the time when he would try the
cause with them, and that by fire: or he called his family, as Jarchi; that is, his angels, as
Kimchi, to cause fire to descend upon Israel, as upon Sodom and Gomorrah; so other
Rabbins Kimchi mentions: or, as he interprets it, the scorching heat of the sun, like fire
that restrained the rain, dried up the plants, and lessened the waters of the river, and so
brought on a general drought, and in consequence famine: or rather a foreign army,
involving them in war, burning their cities and towns; see Amo_1:4;
and it devoured the great deep; it seemed, as if it did; as the fire from heaven, in
Elijah's time, licked up the water in the trench, 1Ki_18:38; so this, coming at God's
command, seemed to dry up the whole ocean; by which may be meant the multitude of
people, nations, and kingdoms, subdued by the Assyrians; see Rev_17:15;
and did eat up a part; a part of a field, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra; of the king's field,
Amo_7:1; as Kimchi; showing, as he observes, that the reigning king was a bad king, and
that this was for his sin: or rather a part of the land of Israel; and so refers, as is
generally thought, to Tiglathpileser's invasion of the land, who carried captive a part of
it, 2Ki_15:29.
HE RY, "He proceeds to the judgment of fire, to show that he has many arrows in
his quiver, many ways of humbling a sinful nation (Amo_7:4): The Lord God called to
contend by fire. He contended, for God's judgment upon a people are his controversies
with them; in them he prosecutes his action against them; and his controversies are
neither causeless nor groundless. He called to contend; he did by his prophets give them
notice of his controversy, and drew up a declaration, setting forth the meaning of it. Or
he called for his angels, or other ministers of his justice, that were to be employed in it. A
fire was kindled among them, by which perhaps is meant a great drought (the heat of the
sun, which should have warmed the earth, scorched it, and burnt up the roots of the
grass which the locusts had eaten the spires of), or a raging fever, which was as a fire in
their bones, which devoured and ate up multitudes, or lightning, fire from heaven, which
consumed their houses, as Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed (Amo_4:11), or it was

38. the burning of their cities, either by accident or by the hand of the enemy, for fire and
sword used to go together; thus were the towns wasted, as the country was by the
grasshoppers. This fire, which God called for, did terrible execution; it devoured the
great deep, as the fire that fell from heaven on Elijah's altar licked up the water that was
in the trench. Though the water designed for the stopping and quenching of this fire was
as the water of the great deep, yet it devoured it; for who, or what, can stand before a fire
kindled by the wrath of God! It did eat up a part, a great part, of the cities where it was
sent; or it was as the fire at Taberah, which consumed the outermost parts of the camp
(Num_11:1); when some were overthrown others were as brands plucked out of the fire.
All deserved to be devoured, but it ate up only a part, for God does not stir up all his
wrath.
JAMISO , "called to contend — that is, with Israel judicially (Job_9:3; Isa_66:16;
Eze_38:22). He ordered to come at His call the infliction of punishment by “fire” on
Israel, that is, drought (compare Amo_4:6-11), [Maurer]. Rather, war (Num_21:28),
namely, Tiglath-pileser [Grotius].
devoured the ... deep — that is, a great part of Israel, whom he carried away.
Waters are the symbol for many people (Rev_17:15).
did eat up a part — namely, all the land (compare Amo_4:7) of Israel east of Jordan
(1Ch_5:26; Isa_9:1). This was a worse judgment than the previous one: the locusts ate
up the grass: the fire not only affects the surface of the ground, but burns up the very
roots and reaches even to the deep.
K&D 4-6, "The Devouring Fire. - Amo_7:4. “Thus the Lord Jehovah showed me:
and, behold, the Lord Jehovah called to punish with fire; and it devoured the great
flood, and devoured the portion. Amo_7:5. And I said, Lord Jehovah, leave off, I pray:
how can Jacob stand? for it is small. Amo_7:6. Jehovah repented of this; this also shall
not take place, said the Lord Jehovah.” That the all-devouring fire represents a much
severer judgment than that depicted under the figure of the locusts, is generally
acknowledged, and needs no proof. But the more precise meaning of this judgment is
open to dispute, and depends upon the explanation of the fourth verse. The object to ‫א‬ ֵ‫ּר‬‫ק‬
is ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ ‫יב‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫,ל‬ and ‫יב‬ ִ‫ר‬ is to be taken as an infinitive, as in Isa_3:13 : He called to strive (i.e.,
to judge or punish) with fire. There is no necessity to supply ministros suos here. The
expression is a concise one, for “He called to the fire to punish with fire” (for the
expression and the fact, compare Isa_66:16). This fire devoured the great flood. Te
hōm
rabbâh is used in Gen_7:11 and Isa_51:10, etc., to denote the unfathomable ocean; and in
Gen_1:2 te
hōm is the term applied to the immense flood which surrounded and covered
the globe at the beginning of the creation. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫כ‬ ֽፎְ‫,ו‬ as distinguished from ‫ל‬ ַ‫ּאכ‬ ַ‫,ו‬ signifies an
action in progress, or still incomplete (Hitzig). The meaning therefore is, “it also
devoured (began to devour) 'eth-hachēleq;” i.e., not the field, for a field does not form at
all a fitting antithesis to the ocean; and still less “the land,” for chēleq never bears this
meaning; but the inheritance or portion, namely, that of Jehovah (Deu_32:9), i.e.,
Israel. Consequently te
hōm rabbâh cannot, of course, signify the ocean as such. For the
idea of the fire falling upon the ocean, and consuming it, and then beginning to consume
the land of Israel, by which the ocean was bounded (Hitzig), would be too monstrous;

39. nor is it justified by the simple remark, that “it was as if the last great conflagration
(2Pe_3:10) had begun” (Schmieder). As the fire is to earthly fire, but the fire of the
wrath of God, and therefore a figurative representation of the judgment of destruction;
and as hachēleq (the portion) is not the land of Israel, but according to Deuteronomy
(l.c.) Israel, or the people of Jehovah; so te
hōm rabbâh is not the ocean, but the heathen
world, the great sea of nations, in their rebellion against the kingdom of God. The world
of nature in a state of agitation is a frequent symbol in the Scriptures for the agitated
heathen world (e.g., Psa_46:3; Psa_93:3-4). On the latter passage, Delitzsch has the
following apt remark: “The stormy sea is a figurative representation of the whole
heathen world, in its estrangement from God, and enmity against Him, or the human
race outside the true church of God; and the rivers are figurative representations of the
kingdoms of the world, e.g., the Nile of the Egyptian (Jer_46:7-8), the Euphrates of the
Assyrian (Isa_8:7-8), or more precisely still, the arrow-swift Tigris of the Assyrian, and
the winding Euphrates of the Babylonian (Isa_27:1).” This symbolism lies at the
foundation of the vision seen by the prophet. The world of nations, in its rebellion
against Jehovah, the Lord and King of the world, appears as a great flood, like the chaos
at the beginning of the creation, or the flood which poured out its waves upon the globe
in the time of Noah. Upon this flood of nations does fire from the Lord fall down and
consume them; and after consuming them, it begins to devour the inheritance of
Jehovah, the nation of Israel also. The prophet then prays to the Lord to spare it,
because Jacob would inevitably perish in this conflagration; and the Lord gives the
promise that “this shall not take place,” so that Israel is plucked like a firebrand out of
the fire (Amo_4:11).
If we inquire now into the historical bearing of these two visions, so much is à priori
clear, - namely, that both of them not only indicate judgments already past, but also
refer to the future, since no fire had hitherto burned upon the surface of the globe, which
had consumed the world of nations and threatened to annihilate Israel. If therefore there
is an element of truth in the explanation given by Grotius to the first vision, “After the
fields had been shorn by Benhadad (2Ki_13:3), and after the damage which was then
sustained, the condition of Israel began to flourish once more during the reign of
Jeroboam the son of Joash, as we see from 2Ki_14:15,” according to which the locusts
would refer to the invasion on the part of the Assyrians in the time of Pul; this
application is much too limited, neither exhausting the contents of the first vision, nor
suiting in the smallest degree the figure of the fire. The “mowing of the king” (Amo_7:1)
denotes rather all the judgments which the Lord had hitherto poured out upon Israel,
embracing everything that the prophet mentions in Amo_4:6-10. The locusts are a
figurative representation of the judgments that still await the covenant nation, and will
destroy it even to a small remnant, which will be saved through the prayers of the
righteous. The vision of the fire has a similar scope, embracing all the past and all the
future; but this also indicates the judgments that fall upon the heathen world, and will
only receive its ultimate fulfilment in the destruction of everything that is ungodly upon
the face of the earth, when the Lord comes in fire to strive with all flesh (Isa_66:15-16),
and to burn up the earth and all that is therein, on the day of judgment and perdition of
ungodly men (2Pe_3:7, 2Pe_3:10-13). The removal of the two judgments, however, by
Jehovah in consequence of the intercession of the prophet, shows that these judgments
are not intended to effect the utter annihilation of the nation of God, but simply its
refinement and the rooting out of the sinners from the midst of it, and that, in
consequence of the sparing mercy of God, a holy remnant of the nation of God will be
left. The next two visions refer simply to the judgment which awaits the kingdom of the

40. ten tribes in the immediate future.
CALVI ,"Verse 4
The Prophet shows that God had not once only spared the people, but that when he
was again prepared for vengeance, he still willingly deferred it, that, if possible, the
people might willingly recover themselves: but as all were unhealable, this
forbearance of God produced no fruit. ow as to the words of the Prophet, we see
that a heavier punishment is designated by the similitude of fire, than by what he
said before when he spoke of locusts. We stated that by locusts is to be understood
ordinarily a moderate punishment, one not so dreadful at first sight. For though the
want and famine introduced by locusts, when they consume all kinds of fruit, are
most grievous evils; yet fire sometimes strikes people with much greater dread.
Hence the Prophet shows by mentioning fire, that God had become very indignant,
having seen that the people had hardened themselves and could not be reformed by
common and usual remedies. The Lord’s usual mode of proceeding, as he declares
everywhere in Scriptures is this: At first he tries to find whether men are capable of
being healed, and applies not the most grievous punishment, but such as may be
endured; but when he perceives in sinners hardness and obstinacy, he doubles and
trebles the punishment, yea, as he says by Moses, he increases his judgments
sevenfold (Deuteronomy 28:25.) Such then was the manner which Amos now
records; for God at first created the locusts, and then he kindled a fire, which
consumed the great deep, and devoured their possession.
The point, denoting a participial form in the word here used, shows that they are
mistaken who render ‫,יוצר‬ iutsar, creation, of which we have spoken before; for the
point here corresponds with that in ‫,יוצר‬ iutsar, (49). In both places the Lord shows
himself to be the author of punishment, which is wont to be ascribed to chance; for
men imagine that evils proceed from something else rather than from God. Hence it
was necessary for this to be distinctly expressed, as the Prophet does also, when he
says that locusts had been created by God, and that fire had been kindled by him.
God then called to contend by fire. It was not without a design that the Prophet uses
the verb ‫,רוב‬ rub, which yet expositors have not duly weighed. For he indirectly
condemns the hardness of the people, inasmuch as the Lord had already not only
chastised the vices of the people, but had also contended with men depraved and
obstinate: as when no justice can be obtained, a litigation becomes necessary; so the
Prophet says here, that God was coming prepared with fire, to contend with the
stubbornness of the people. The great deep, he says, was consumed by this fire.
Hence what I have already said becomes more evident, — that a more dreadful
punishment is here described than in the first vision. The locusts devoured the grass
only but the fire penetrates into the utmost deep; it consumes and destroys not only
the surface of the earth, but burns up the very roots, yea, it descends to the center
and consumes the whole earth. They who render ‫,חלק‬ chelak, a part, do not
sufficiently attend to the design of the Prophet, for he concludes that the surface of
the earth had been laid waste, because the very gulfs had not escaped the burning.
And when the fire reaches to the very bowels of the earth, how could their

41. possession stand, which was also exposed to the heat of the sun? We see how the
earth is burnt up by heat, when the sun is scorching at Midsummer. We now
perceive the Prophet’s design.
BE SO , "Verses 4-6
Amos 7:4-6. The Lord God called to contend by fire, &c. — This represented a sorer
judgment than the former, and, in the opinion of some expositors, denoted the
invasion of Tiglath-pileser, who carried a great part of Israel away captive, 2 Kings
15:29, and so was properly represented by a raging fire, which consumed the sea by
turning it into vapours, and then devoured a great part of the land. Then said I, O
Lord God, cease, I beseech thee, &c. — Here the prophet observes, that upon this
judgment being represented to him in his vision, he made supplication to God as he
had done before, and that God hearkened to him in this instance also, and promised
that this judgment should not be executed, or should have a stop put to it.
COFFMA , "Verse 4
"Thus the Lord Jehovah showed me: and, behold, the Lord Jehovah called to
contend by fire; and it devoured the great deep, and would have eaten up the land.
Then said I, O Lord Jehovah, cease, I beseech thee: how shall Jacob stand? for he is
small. Jehovah repented concerning this: This shall not be, saith the Lord Jehovah."
o matter how this vision is understood, the meaning of it is exactly that of the
preceding vision, namely, great disasters threatening Israel, and yet being averted
through the intercession of the prophet. Since it was a vision, it could have been a
fire so great that it burned up the sea (the "great deep"),[9] and even the earth itself
was threatened, carrying with it suggestions of the great and final Judgment Day
itself. "This is not for Amos a naturalistic vision. This is the supernatural fire of the
Lord's judgment."[10] There is certainly nothing wrong with this interpretation.
Some scholars, however perhaps overlooking the fact that this is a vision, have
interpreted it naturalistically, making it, "A drought so intense that the great
subterranean depths which supply the springs and streams with water dried
up."[11] It really makes no difference at all which view is taken; the message is the
same either way. It would appear that the vision's being that of a supernatural event
is preferable. Keil understood the fire as, "not an earthly fire, but the fire of the
wrath of God";[12] and Barnes thought that the destruction of the sea by fire (in the
vision) was a symbol of, "The fire of the Day of Judgment."[13] Schultz and others
insist that it is "the summer heat."[14] Refer to the interpretation of the first vision,
above, for the meaning here; for it is identical with this. Regarding some particular
historical situation that may, along with others, be symbolized by this, Dean has:
"The particular calamity alluded to is the second invasion of Tiglath-Pelese II, when
he conquered Gilead and the northern part of the kingdom, and carried some of the
people captive to Assyria (2 Kings 15:29)."[15]
The spiritual overtones of the passage describing these two visions are definite and
impressive; and the introduction of what appeared to be a threat of the final
judgment itself is a strong suggestion that all of the great punitive judgments of God
upon rebellious humanity are typical of the ultimate and final judgment that will be

42. executed at the Last Day. Mankind should never forget that the entire race of
Adam's posterity are still living under the primeval sentence of death imposed in
Genesis 2:17, a sentence which was never vacated or repealed, but only deferred,
and is yet destined to be executed in its fullness upon humanity. There are surely
overtones of that in the passage before us.
COKE, "Amos 7:4. The Lord God called to contend by fire— In many places of
Scripture war is denoted by fire. We observed, that after the death of Jeroboam the
kingdom of Israel was laid waste by civil, and perhaps by foreign wars; for we are
not well acquainted with the history of that time. The fire here spoken of was to
have dried up the sea, and consumed a great part of the earth, figuratively speaking,
had it not been for the prophet, who interposes, and arrests the effect, Amos 7:5-6.
The wars here mentioned were to destroy every thing so far as they were kindled
and spread; but the Lord set bounds to his anger. Houbigant reads, The Lord God
called the fire to avenge his cause.
ELLICOTT, "(4) Fire.—The poetical description of a yet more terrible calamity.
God announces His intention of judging, i.e., punishing by fire (the word in E.V.,
“contend,” is to be understood in this sense). For “a portion” read the portion. The
image is that of a prairie fire, that should eat up the later grass spared by the
locusts. The consuming of the “great deep” is a strong hyperbole, and can scarcely
refer to the “heathen world,” as Keil maintains. The meaning rather appears to be
that not only the solitary remnant of pasture, but the deepest springs of moisture,
will be scorched up in the blaze. The same word for “deep” (tehôm) is used in
Genesis 1:2; Gen_7:11; Gen_8:2. (Comp. the Assyrian tihamtu.)
TRAPP, "Verse 4
Amos 7:4 Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord GOD
called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.
Ver. 4. And, behold, the Lord God] Whose asterisk, or starry note, this "behold" is,
saith Tarnovius, stirring up to attention. Another compareth it to a hand in the
margin of a book, pointing to some notable thing. Another, to the sounding of a
trumpet before some proclamation; or to the ringing of a bell before the sermon of
some famous preacher.
The Lord God called to contend by fire] That is, by parching heat and drought,
causing dearth, as Joel 1:19. For which purpose God called his angels, those
ministering spirits, that execute his judgments upon the wicked (as they did once
upon Sodom), to contend for him (a metaphor from civil courts), to plead for him by
fire, to destroy the perverse Israelites by fire and brimstone, Isaiah 66:16, Ezekiel
38:22, as they had done Sodom and Gomorrah (so some interpret it according to the
letter); or by the woe of war, compared to fire, Isaiah 26:11, as being a misery which
all words (however wide) want compass to express; or, by immoderate heat and
drought, as before; so great, that

43. it devoured the great deep] as that fire of the Lord in Elijah’s time licked up the
water that was in the trench, 1 Kings 18:38. See Isaiah 51:10.
And did eat up a part] Or, it devoured also the field: not only the waters in and
under the earth, that serve to make it fruitful, but a part of the earth itself; which
was altogether above and against the common course of nature. Some render it, and
did eat up that part, or that field, sc. that mentioned Amos 7:1, the king’s field; that
as the king had chiefly offended, so he should be principally punished. Others
interpret it by Amos 4:7, "One piece was rained upon, and the piece whereon it
rained not withered."
CO STABLE, "Verse 4
Sovereign Yahweh also showed Amos a vision of a great fire that was burning up
everything. Like a great drought it consumed all the water and all the farmland (or
people) in Israel (cf. Amos 1:9-10). What he saw may have been a scorching heat
wave that resulted in a drought.
The "great deep" is a phrase that refers to subterranean waters that feed springs
(cf. Genesis 1:2; Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:2; Genesis 49:25; Deuteronomy 8:7; Ezekiel
31:4). So intense was the fire that Amos saw that it dried up even these underground
water reservoirs. Great heat with consequent drought was another of the
punishments that the Lord warned of for covenant unfaithfulness ( Deuteronomy
28:22).
PETT, "Verses 4-6
The Second Vision - The Consuming Fire (Amos 7:4-6).
We must remember that this was a vision not something that actually happened. It
commenced with a fire from YHWH which ‘devoured the great deep’. As we have
seen fire was regularly a picture of YHWH’s judgments in the initial judgments
(Amos 1:4; Amos 1:7; Amos 1:10; Amos 1:12; Amos 1:14; Amos 2:2; Amos 2:5,
compare also Amos 5:6), but so awesome was it that it here that it dried up the ‘the
great deep (tehom)’. To the Canaanites the sea itself contained divinity as they
worshipped Yam (sea). Thus as had happened with the Egyptian gods in the plagues
of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), the gods of Canaan, in which Israel took such delight, were
being annihilated. There may, however, be a case for seeing the great deep here as
indicating the nations which had sought to swamp Israel, which as we know from
chapters 1-2 were to suffer the fire of YHWH (compare how Egypt could be seen in
terms of the ile, and Mesopotamia in terms of the Tigris and the Euphrates (Isaiah
27:1; Ezekiel 29:3 and compare Psalms 46:3; Psalms 93:3-4). It is not, however, until
the ew Testament that such an idea becomes explicit (Revelation 13:1). Having
accomplished its work in the great deep the consuming fire was about to move from
sea to land and devour up the whole of the land. It was evident that so all-
consuming was the fire that nothing could stand before it. All would be swallowed
up. It was fire of a kind that was totally outside Amos’s experience, even though he

44. would probably have experienced relatively large scale local fires before in the dry
hot climate around Tekoa. But he had never before seen one that dried up the sea,
not even the Dead Sea.
Amos therefore called on YHWH to ‘stop’ before the land had been fully devoured,
again on the grounds of Israel’s puniness. He did not cry for forgiveness because
YHWH’s previous reaction had demonstrated that forgiveness was not possible,
only mercy. And again God had compassion on His people and spared them.
Amos 7:4
‘Thus the Lord YHWH showed me, and, behold, the Lord YHWH called to contend
by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and would have eaten up the inheritance.’
What YHWH now showed Amos was the Lord YHWH contending by fire (or we
could repoint, using the same consonants, as ‘a rain of fire’) and initially devouring
‘the great deep’. In Isaiah 51:10 ‘the great deep’ is the equivalent of ‘the depths of
the sea’, and thus here the awesome vision in mind is that of the sea being dried up
with the intensity of the consuming fire. We need not go into detail because this was
all in a vision and visions are not necessarily intended to be taken literally.
Alternatively we might see the great deep as representing surrounding peoples on
whom YHWH had already threatened fire (Amos 1:4; Amos 1:7; Amos 1:10; Amos
1:12; Amos 1:14; Amos 2:2; Amos 2:5; Amos 5:6; compare also Psalms 46:3; Psalms
93:3-4) with Israel and Judah in the midst of them now about to experience the
same.
Then the fire advanced on the inheritance (cheleq) of Israel and would have eaten it
up. We have only to imagine the intensity of a fire that dries up the sea, especially
as, to the Israelites, the sea was an enemy to be feared. This was not an example of a
normal fire caused by the dryness of the vegetation and the heat of the sun. It was a
supernatural visitation. And the idea was of the whole land being consumed with
everything in it. The drying up of the great deep (tehom) would indicate among
other things the defeat of the Canaanite god Yam (at Ugarit ‘prince sea (yam)’). The
raining of fire would indicate that Baal (the Canaanite of storm and lightning) had
been superseded.
We may compare with this picture of a consuming fire the words of Deuteronomy
32:22 which were the result of His people having moved Him to jealousy by their
behaviour, ‘for a fire is kindled in My anger, and burns to the depths of Sheol, and
devours the earth with her increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the
mountains’. ote that the ‘foundations of the mountains’ were regularly seen as in
the depths of the sea (Psalms 46:2; Jonah 2:6). Here therefore Moses’ words are
seen as being literally fulfilled. It is the ‘fiery heat’ of Deuteronomy 28:22, but
multiplied and extended. There may well here be an indication that YHWH was
(theoretically) considering bringing about the final conflagration.
BI 4-6, "The Devouring Fire. - Amo_7:4. “Thus the Lord Jehovah showed me: and,
behold, the Lord Jehovah called to punish with fire; and it devoured the great flood,

45. and devoured the portion. Amo_7:5. And I said, Lord Jehovah, leave off, I pray: how
can Jacob stand? for it is small. Amo_7:6. Jehovah repented of this; this also shall not
take place, said the Lord Jehovah.” That the all-devouring fire represents a much
severer judgment than that depicted under the figure of the locusts, is generally
acknowledged, and needs no proof. But the more precise meaning of this judgment is
open to dispute, and depends upon the explanation of the fourth verse. The object to ‫א‬ ֵ‫ּר‬‫ק‬
is ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ ‫יב‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫,ל‬ and ‫יב‬ ִ‫ר‬ is to be taken as an infinitive, as in Isa_3:13 : He called to strive (i.e.,
to judge or punish) with fire. There is no necessity to supply ministros suos here. The
expression is a concise one, for “He called to the fire to punish with fire” (for the
expression and the fact, compare Isa_66:16). This fire devoured the great flood. Te
hōm
rabbâh is used in Gen_7:11 and Isa_51:10, etc., to denote the unfathomable ocean; and in
Gen_1:2 te
hōm is the term applied to the immense flood which surrounded and covered
the globe at the beginning of the creation. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫כ‬ ֽፎְ‫,ו‬ as distinguished from ‫ל‬ ַ‫ּאכ‬ ַ‫,ו‬ signifies an
action in progress, or still incomplete (Hitzig). The meaning therefore is, “it also
devoured (began to devour) 'eth-hachēleq;” i.e., not the field, for a field does not form at
all a fitting antithesis to the ocean; and still less “the land,” for chēleq never bears this
meaning; but the inheritance or portion, namely, that of Jehovah (Deu_32:9), i.e.,
Israel. Consequently te
hōm rabbâh cannot, of course, signify the ocean as such. For the
idea of the fire falling upon the ocean, and consuming it, and then beginning to consume
the land of Israel, by which the ocean was bounded (Hitzig), would be too monstrous;
nor is it justified by the simple remark, that “it was as if the last great conflagration
(2Pe_3:10) had begun” (Schmieder). As the fire is to earthly fire, but the fire of the
wrath of God, and therefore a figurative representation of the judgment of destruction;
and as hachēleq (the portion) is not the land of Israel, but according to Deuteronomy
(l.c.) Israel, or the people of Jehovah; so te
hōm rabbâh is not the ocean, but the heathen
world, the great sea of nations, in their rebellion against the kingdom of God. The world
of nature in a state of agitation is a frequent symbol in the Scriptures for the agitated
heathen world (e.g., Psa_46:3; Psa_93:3-4). On the latter passage, Delitzsch has the
following apt remark: “The stormy sea is a figurative representation of the whole
heathen world, in its estrangement from God, and enmity against Him, or the human
race outside the true church of God; and the rivers are figurative representations of the
kingdoms of the world, e.g., the Nile of the Egyptian (Jer_46:7-8), the Euphrates of the
Assyrian (Isa_8:7-8), or more precisely still, the arrow-swift Tigris of the Assyrian, and
the winding Euphrates of the Babylonian (Isa_27:1).” This symbolism lies at the
foundation of the vision seen by the prophet. The world of nations, in its rebellion
against Jehovah, the Lord and King of the world, appears as a great flood, like the chaos
at the beginning of the creation, or the flood which poured out its waves upon the globe
in the time of Noah. Upon this flood of nations does fire from the Lord fall down and
consume them; and after consuming them, it begins to devour the inheritance of
Jehovah, the nation of Israel also. The prophet then prays to the Lord to spare it,
because Jacob would inevitably perish in this conflagration; and the Lord gives the
promise that “this shall not take place,” so that Israel is plucked like a firebrand out of
the fire (Amo_4:11).
If we inquire now into the historical bearing of these two visions, so much is à priori
clear, - namely, that both of them not only indicate judgments already past, but also

46. refer to the future, since no fire had hitherto burned upon the surface of the globe, which
had consumed the world of nations and threatened to annihilate Israel. If therefore there
is an element of truth in the explanation given by Grotius to the first vision, “After the
fields had been shorn by Benhadad (2Ki_13:3), and after the damage which was then
sustained, the condition of Israel began to flourish once more during the reign of
Jeroboam the son of Joash, as we see from 2Ki_14:15,” according to which the locusts
would refer to the invasion on the part of the Assyrians in the time of Pul; this
application is much too limited, neither exhausting the contents of the first vision, nor
suiting in the smallest degree the figure of the fire. The “mowing of the king” (Amo_7:1)
denotes rather all the judgments which the Lord had hitherto poured out upon Israel,
embracing everything that the prophet mentions in Amo_4:6-10. The locusts are a
figurative representation of the judgments that still await the covenant nation, and will
destroy it even to a small remnant, which will be saved through the prayers of the
righteous. The vision of the fire has a similar scope, embracing all the past and all the
future; but this also indicates the judgments that fall upon the heathen world, and will
only receive its ultimate fulfilment in the destruction of everything that is ungodly upon
the face of the earth, when the Lord comes in fire to strive with all flesh (Isa_66:15-16),
and to burn up the earth and all that is therein, on the day of judgment and perdition of
ungodly men (2Pe_3:7, 2Pe_3:10-13). The removal of the two judgments, however, by
Jehovah in consequence of the intercession of the prophet, shows that these judgments
are not intended to effect the utter annihilation of the nation of God, but simply its
refinement and the rooting out of the sinners from the midst of it, and that, in
consequence of the sparing mercy of God, a holy remnant of the nation of God will be
left. The next two visions refer simply to the judgment which awaits the kingdom of the
ten tribes in the immediate future.
5 Then I cried out, “Sovereign Lord, I beg you,
stop! How can Jacob survive? He is so small!”
BAR ES, "As our Lord repeated the same words in the Garden, so Amos interceded
with God with words, all but one, the same, and with the same plea, that, if God did not
help, Israel was indeed helpless. Yet a second time God spared Israel. To human sight,
what so strange and unexpected, as that the Assyrian and his army, having utterly
destroyed the kingdom of Damascus, and carried away its people, and having devoured,
like fire, more than half of Israel, rolled back like an ebb-tide, swept away to ravage other
countries, and spared the capital? And who, looking at the mere outside of things, would
have thought that that tide of fire was rolled back, not by anything in that day, but by the
prophet’s prayer some 47 years before? Man would look doubtless for motives of human
policy, which led Tiglath-pileser to accept tribute from Pekah, while he killed Rezin; and
while he carried off all the Syrians of Damascus, to leave half of Israel to be removed by

47. his successor.
Humanly speaking, it was a mistake. He “scotched” his enemy only, and left him to
make alliance with Egypt, his rival, who disputed with him the possession of the
countries which lay between them. If we knew the details of Assyrian policy, we might
know what induced him to turn aside in his conquest. There were, and always are,
human motives. They do not interfere with the ground in the mind of God, who directs
and controls them. Even in human contrivances, the wheels, interlacing one another,
and acting one on the other, do but transmit, the one to the other, the motion and
impulse which they have received from the central force. The revolution of the earth
around its own center does not interfere with, rather it is a condition of its revolving
round the center of our system, and, amidst the alternations of night and day, brings
each several portion within the influence of the sun around which it revolves. The affairs
of human kingdoms have their own subordinate centers of human policy, yet even
thereby they the more revolve in the circuit of God’s appointment. In the history of His
former people God gives us a glimpse into a hidden order of things, the secret spring and
power of His wisdom, which sets in motion that intricate and complex machinery which
alone we see, and in the sight of which people lose the consciousness of the unseen
agency. While man strives with man, prayer, suggested by God, moves God, the Ruler of
all.
GILL, "Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee,.... From destroying the
land; suffer not this calamity to proceed any further; using the same argument as before:
by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small; See Gill on Amo_7:2.
HE RY, "The prophet's plea to enforce this prayer: By whom shall Jacob arise, for
he is small? Amo_7:2. And it is repeated (Amo_7:5) and yet no vain repetition. Christ, in
his agony, prayed earnestly, saying the same words, again and again. [1.] It is Jacob
that he is interceding for, the professing people of God, called by his name, calling on his
name, the seed of Jacob, his chosen, and in covenant with him. It it Jacob's case that is
in this prayer spread before the God of Jacob. [2.] Jacob is small, very small already,
weakened and brought low by former judgments; and therefore, it these come, he will be
quite ruined and brought to nothing. The people are few; the dust of Jacob, which was
once innumerable, is now soon counted. Those few are feeble (it is the worm Jacob, Isa_
41:14); they are unable to help themselves or one another. Sin will soon make a great
people small, will diminish the numerous, impoverish the plenteous, and weaken the
courageous. [3.] By whom shall he arise? He has fallen, and cannot help himself up, and
he has no friend to help him, none to raise him, unless the hand of God do it; what will
become of him, then, if the hand that should raise him to stretched out against him?
Note, When the state of God's church is very low and very helpless it is proper to be
recommended by our prayers to God's pity.
TRAPP, "Verse 5
Amos 7:5 Then said I, O Lord GOD, cease, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob
arise? for he [is] small.
Ver. 5. Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee] See Amos 7:2; and
persevering in prayer for the public remember to plead, not merit, but misery,

48. Psalms 79:8-9, and with all humility to acknowledge that "it is of the Lord’s mercies
that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not," Lamentations 3:22.
ISBET, "WEAK ESS A D STRE GTH
‘By whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.’
Amos 7:5
As uttered by the prophet, this may be regarded as the language of complaint, of
sorrow, of despondency; and yet also of inquiry, of hope, and of prayer.
I. Jacob symbolises the Church; and there may be in the Church certain elements of
weakness.—A church may be weak because its members are few, poor, and
scattered, and without much worldly influence; but there are other elements of
weakness, which render the most numerous, and wealthy, and compact Church
weak indeed. One of these is inactivity; an inactive Church must be weak.
Another element of weakness is worldliness; and the inactive Church is sure to be
worldly. And then follows illiberality; when nothing is done little is given. Then
prayer is restrained; the family altar is deserted; and the social circle of prayer is
not frequented.
The Church may be weakened, too, by the neglect of discipline. Thus the standard
of piety becomes low, and there is but little difference between the Church and the
world. In view of these things, we may ask, ‘By whom shall Jacob arise? for he is
small.’ And we may use these words as expressive of complaint, of sorrow, of
despondency; and yet, too, of inquiry, of hope, and of prayer, as did Amos.
II. And the prayer is for strength, that Jacob may arise and be strong.—And
strength does not consist wholly in numbers, nor wealth, nor influence; we may be
few, and poor, and scattered, and yet be strong. The elements of strength are these:
Union—a united people are strong, for union is strength; love—love to Christ, to
each other, to the souls of men—a loving people are strong; faith—confidence in
God as the founder and Saviour of Zion—a faithful, confiding people are strong;
zeal—a zealous people are strong; activity, effort—an active, laborious people are
strong; liberality—a giving people are strong; prayer—a prayerful people are
strong, for prayer prevails with God; it moves the hand that moves the world.
III. But by whom shall Jacob arise and become strong?—By God only; and yet He
will use the Church’s instrumentality in this work. He may raise up some special
leader for the work; but usually He employs her present clergy and people. He
arouses them to a sense of their personal responsibilities and duties. He leads every
one to feel that there is a work for him to do, and He constrains each one to do his
own proper work; to repent of his deadness and worldliness, and return unto God.
And then He pours out a spirit of grace and of supplication, and leads to earnestness
and importunity in prayer. Then He blesses His Word and ordinances; and He
answers prayer; revives His work; souls are converted; and Zion arises and puts on
strength, she arises and shines, because the glory of Christ rises upon her. Thus it is

49. that Jacob, though small, is made strong; and he shall thus wax stronger and
stronger.
IV. Let us remember that every one who is connected with this Church also adds
either to its weakness or its strength.—If we are inactive, worldly, illiberal,
prayerless, then we take just so much from the strength of the Church and add just
so much to its weakness. Alas! were all like us, how small and weak must Jacob be!
But if we abound in love, and faith, and zeal, and effort, and liberality, and prayer,
and also keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, then we add to the
strength of the Church. How strong and vigorous would Zion be did all possess and
manifest this spirit! Let us so live that this Church shall be stronger, and better, and
purer for our connection with it. And let us never despair. Jacob shall arise! And,
with God’s help, whatever is needful to be done can be done. Though numbers may
be few, and wealth not abundant, yet what ought to be done can be done! Where
there is a will there is a way!
PETT, "Amos 7:5
‘Then said I, “O Lord YHWH, cease, I beseech you. How will Jacob stand, for he is
small?” ’
This time a horrified Amos called on ‘the Lord YHWH’ and begged Him to ‘cease’.
He could not bear what he was seeing. And although he had now recognised as a
result of YHWH’s previous reply that forgiveness was not available, he once more
drew attention to the puniness of ‘Jacob’. How could such a great Lord totally
destroy what was so puny?
6 So the Lord relented.
“This will not happen either,” the Sovereign Lord
said.
GILL, "The Lord repented for this,.... He heard the prophet's prayer, and desisted
from going on with the threatened destruction:
this also shall not be, saith the Lord God; the whole land shall not be destroyed,
only a part of it carried captive.

50. HE RY, " God graciously lets fall his controversy, in answer to the prophet's prayer,
once and again (Amo_7:3): The Lord repented for this. He did not change his mind, for
he is one mind and who can turn him? But he changed is way, took another course, and
determined to deal in mercy and not in wrath. He said, It shall not be. And again (Amo_
7:6), This also shall not be. The caterpillars were countermanded, were remanded; a
stop was put to the progress of the fire, and thus a reprieve was granted. See the power
of prayer, of effectual fervent prayer, and how much it avails, what great things it
prevails for. A stop has many a time been put to a judgment by making supplication to
the Judge. This was not the first time that Israel's life was begged, and so saved. See
what a blessing praying people, praying prophets, are to a land, and therefore how highly
they ought to be valued. Ruin would many a time have broken in if they had not stood in
the breach, and made good the pass. See how ready, how swift, God is to show mercy,
how he waits to be gracious. Amos moves for a reprieve, and obtains it, because God
inclines to grant it and looks about to see if there be any that will intercede for it, Isa_
59:16. Nor are former reprieves objected against further instances of mercy, but are
rather encouragements to pray and hope for them. This also shall not be, any more than
that. It is the glory of God that he multiplies to pardon, that he spares, and forgives, to
more than seventy times seven times.
CALVI , "Verse 6
He adds, that God was again pacified. We must ever bear in mind the object he had
in view; for ungodly men thought the Prophets to be liars, whenever God did not
immediately execute the vengeance he had denounced: but Amos here reminds
them, that when God defers punishment, he does not in vain threaten, but waits for
men to repent; and that if they still go on in abusing his patience, they will have at
last to feel how dreadful is the vengeance which awaits all those who thus pervert
the goodness of God, who hear not God inviting them so kindly to himself. This is
the meaning. It follows —
TRAPP, "Verse 6
Amos 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.
Ver. 6. The Lord repented for this] As he is gracious, Exodus 22:27, and quickly
repenteth him of the evil, Joel 2:13. Redire nos, non perire desiderat (Chrysologus).
"I said, I would scatter them into corners," &c., Deuteronomy 32:26-27. Mercy
could not behold such strange wrath and cruelty and not weep herself even sick, as
it were.
This also shall not be, saith the Lord] So ready is he to yield himself overcome by the
suits of his servants, Flectitur iratus voce rogante Deus. See Amos 7:3.
PETT, "Amos 7:6
‘YHWH repented concerning this. “This also shall not be, says the Lord YHWH.” ’
Again YHWH ‘repented’ and declared that what he had shown Amos would not in
fact now happen as a result of his intercession. Perhaps also in the light of Genesis

51. 18:23-33 it was intended to indicate that there were sufficient righteous people in
Israel and Judah for YHWH to spare the world from total destruction. However
that may be the visions underline the fact that YHWH was not now about to destroy
His people completely. That did not, however, mean that they would escape
punishment.
7 This is what he showed me: The Lord was
standing by a wall that had been built true to
plumb,[a] with a plumb line[b] in his hand.
BAR ES, "Stood upon - (Rather “over” “a wall” made by “a plumbline;” lit. “a wall
of a plumbline,” that is, (as our’s has it) “made” straight, perpendicular, “by” it. The wall
had been “made by a lead” or “plumbline;” by it, that is, according to it, it should e
destroyed. God had made it upright, He had given to it an undeviating rule of right, He
had watched over it, to keep it, as He made it. Now “He stood over it,” fixed in His
purpose, to destroy it. He marked its inequalities. Yet this too in judgment. He destroys
it by that same rule of right wherewith He had built it. By that law, that right, those
providential leadings, that grace, which we have received, by the same we are judged.
CLARKE, "With a plumbline in his hand - This appears to be intended as an
emblem of strict justice, and intimated that God would now visit them according to their
iniquities.
GILL, "Thus he showed me,.... A third vision, which was in the following manner:
and, behold, the Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a
plumbline in his hand: this "wall" was the people of Israel, who were built up as a
wall, firm and strong; and so stood against their enemies, while supported by the Lord,
and he stood by them. The Septuagint version is, "an adamantine wall". In their
constitution, both civil and ecclesiastic, they were formed according to the good and
righteous laws of God, which may be signified by the plumbline; and so the Targum
renders it, "the wall of judgment". And now the Lord appears standing upon this wall, to
trample it down, and not to support it; and with a plumbline in his hand, to examine and
try whether this wall was as it was first erected; whether it did not bulge out, and vary
from its former structure, and was not according to the line and rule of his divine word,
which was a rule of righteousness.

52. HE RY, " We have here the rejection of those at last who had been often reprieved
and yet never reclaimed, reduced to straits and yet never reduced to their God and their
duty. This is represented to the prophet by a vision (Amo_7:7, Amo_7:8) and an express
prediction of utter ruin, Amo_7:9.
1. The vision is of a plumb-line, a line with a plummet at the end of it, such as masons
and bricklayers use to run up a wall by, that they may work it straight and true, and by
rule. (1.) Israel was a wall, a strong wall, which God himself had reared, as a bulwark, or
wall of defence, to his sanctuary, which he set up among them. The Jewish church says
of herself (Son_8:10), I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. This wall was made
by a plumb-line, very exact and firm. So happy was its constitution, so well compacted,
and every thing so well ordered according to the model; it had long stood fast as a wall of
brass. But, (2.) God now stands upon this wall, not to hold it up, but to tread it down, or,
rather, to consider what he should do with it. He stands upon it with a plumb-line in his
hand, to take measure of it, that it may appear to be a bowing, bulging wall. Recti est
index sui et oblique - This plumb-line would discover where it was crooked. Thus God
would bring the people of Israel to the trial, would discover their wickedness, and show
wherein they erred; and he would likewise bring his judgments upon them according to
equity, would set a plumb-line in the midst of them, to mark how far their wall must be
pulled down, as David measured the Moabites with a line (2Sa_8:2) to put them to
death. And, when God is coming to the ruin of a people, he is said to lay judgment to the
line and righteousness to the plummet; for when he punishes it is with exactness. It is
now determined: “I will not again pass by them any more; they shall not be spared and
reprieved as they have been; their punishment shall not be turned away,” Amo_1:3.
Note, God's patience, which has long been sinned against, will at length be sinned away;
and the time will come when those that have been spared often shall be no longer
spared. My spirit shall not always strive. After frequent reprieves, yet a day of execution
will come.
JAMISO , "wall made by a plumb-line — namely, perpendicular.
K&D 7-9, "The Third Vision. - Amo_7:7. “Thus he showed me: and, behold, the Lord
stood upon a wall made with a plumb-line, and a plumb-line in His hand. Amo_7:8.
And Jehovah said to me, What seest thou, Amos? And I said, A plumb-line. And the
Lord said, Behold, I put a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel: I shall pass by it
no more. Amo_7:9. And the sacrificial heights of Isaac are laid waste, and the holy
things of Israel destroyed; and I rise up against the house of Jeroboam with the
sword.” The word ְ‫ך‬ָ‫נ‬ ֲ‫,א‬ which only occurs here, denotes, according to the dialects and the
Rabbins, tin or lead, here a plumb-line. Chōmath 'ănâkh is a wall built with a plumb-line,
i.e., a perpendicular wall, a wall built with mechanical correctness and solidity. Upon
this wall Amos sees the Lord standing. The wall built with a plumb-line is a figurative
representation of the kingdom of God in Israel, as a firm and well-constructed building.
He holds in His hand a plumb-line. The question addressed to the prophet, “What does
he see?” is asked for the simple purpose of following up his answer with an explanation
of the symbol, as in Jer_1:11, Jer_1:13, since the plumb-line was used for different
purposes, - namely, not only for building, but partly also for pulling buildings down
(compare 2Ki_21:13; Isa_34:11). Jehovah will lay it be
qerebh ‛ammı, to the midst of His
people, and not merely to an outward portion of it, in order to destroy this building. He

53. will no longer spare as He has done hitherto. ְ‫ל‬ ‫ר‬ ַ‫ב‬ ָ‫,ע‬ to pass by any one without taking any
notice of him, without looking upon his guilt or punishing him; hence, to spare, - the
opposite of ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ק‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ַ‫ב‬ ָ‫ע‬ in Amo_5:17. The destruction will fall upon the idolatrous
sanctuaries of the land, the bâmōth (see at 1Ki_3:2), i.e., the altars of the high places, and
the temples at Bethel, at Daniel (see at 1Ki_12:29), and at Gilgal (see Amo_4:4). Isaac
(‫ק‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ִ‫,י‬ a softened form for ‫ק‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫צ‬ִ‫,י‬ used here and at v. 16, as in Jer_33:26) is mentioned here
instead of Jacob, and the name is used as a synonym for Israel of the ten tribes. Even the
house of Jeroboam, the reigning royal family, is to perish with the sword (‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫ק‬ as in
Isa_31:2). Jeroboam is mentioned as the existing representative of the monarchy, and
the words are not to be restricted to the overthrow of his dynasty, but announce the
destruction of the Israelitish monarchy, which actually was annihilated when this
dynasty was overthrown. The destruction of the sacred places and the overthrow of the
monarchy involve the dissolution of the kingdom. Thus does Amos himself interpret his
own words in Amo_7:11 and Amo_7:17.
CALVI , "Verse 7
This vision opens more clearly to us what the Prophet meant before, and what was
the object of his doctrine: his intention was to show the people that what they had
gained by their obstinacy was only to render God implacable, and to cause him not
to spare them any longer, as he had hitherto done. The meaning is, — “God has
hitherto borne with you according to his own goodness, promise not to yourselves
that he will ever deal in the same manner with you; for your contumacy and
waywardness has provoked him. As he sees you to be beyond measure obstinate, he
must now necessarily execute on you final vengeance. There is therefore now no
forgiveness provided for you; but as ye are incurable, so the Lord on his part will
remain unchangeable in the rigor of his judgment, and will by no means turn to
mercy.”
Interpreters explain this vision in various ways, and refinedly philosophize on the
word,plumbline; and yet frigid are almost all their refinements. Were I disposed
plausibly to handle this passage, I would say, that the plumbline is the law of God;
for it prescribed to his people a regular order of things, which might serve as a
plumbline; inasmuch as all things were directed according to the best rule. I might
speak thus; but I am not disposed to refine in this manner; for I doubt not but that
God meant only that this would be the last measuring; for he would punish his
people without any remission and without any delay. We now apprehend the
Prophet’s meaning: but all this will become more evident from the words of the
passage.
Thus he showed to me; and, behold, the Lord stood on a wall of a plumbline. The
wall of a plumbline he calls that which had been formed by rule, as though he had
said that it was a wall by a plumbline. God then stood on a plumbline-wall, and a
plumbline, he says, was in his hand False then is what some interpreters say, that a
plumbline was cast away by God, because he would no more perform the office of a

54. mason in ruling his people. This is frivolous; for the Prophet testifies here expressly
that a plumbline was in the hand of God.
BE SO , "Verses 7-9
Amos 7:7-9. The Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumb-line — A wall strongly
and beautifully built. God’s judgments are sometimes represented in Scripture by a
line and a plummet, to denote that they are measured out by the exactest rules of
justice. Behold, I will set a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel — I will
exactly measure my people Israel; I will take a particular view of the whole kingdom
of the ten tribes, and notice how far it is right, or how far it is out of order, and will
judge and punish according to their sins. I will not again pass by them any more —
I will not any longer pass over their transgressions. The high places of Isaac shall be
desolate — The idolatrous altars and groves which they have erected at Beer-sheba,
where their holy ancestor Jacob erected an altar to the true God, and devoutly
worshipped him, shall be entirely spoiled and made desolate. And the sanctuaries of
Israel shall be laid waste — All the other places in Israel, set apart for idolatrous
worship, shall also be entirely destroyed.
COFFMA , "Verse 7
"Thus he showed me: and, behold, the Lord stood beside a wall made by a plumb-
line, with a plumb-line in his hand."
The proper understanding of this vision must include the recognition that the
plumb-line was a symbol both of building and of destruction, the plumb-line
symbolizing the testing required for the construction of a sound building, and for
revealing those defects that required the destruction of a building. The figure
elaborated in this vision, "represents the Lord himself as coming to examine the
conduct of Israel, and finally deciding upon its entire ruin."[16] In this vision,
"Amos makes no prayer, and Yahweh, on his part, confirms the meaning with an
interpretative oracle."[17] It is significant that the same plumb-line used to build
Israel was that which was used in their destruction. "By that law, that right, those
Providential leadings, and that grace which we have received, by the same we are
judged."[18]
COKE, "Amos 7:7. Upon a wall made by a plumb-line— Literally, Upon a wall of a
plumb-line; or, erected by a plumb-line, in order to be perpendicular and firm. God
is exhibited in this vision, as erecting, or as repairing Israel, like a wall, that it might
not fall into ruin. For the kingdom of Israel had stood hitherto by the providence of
God alone, though given to idolatry; and had been repaired under the reign of
Jeroboam the second. Afterwards, in the next verse, the Lord denounces that he
would let down, or give up the plumb-line in Israel; for so it should be translated;
that is, that the kingdom of Israel should be given up by him to their own counsels
and strength; and that he would no more pass by among them, to repair and re-
establish them. See Houbigant.
ELLICOTT, "(7) Wall made by a plumbline—i.e., a perpendicular wall, the
stability of the kingdom being represented by the closely-fitting well-jointed stones

55. of a lofty wall. Right in the heart of this strong-built city, the Lord Himself marks
the extent of the desolation, the plumb-line being used in dismantling buildings, as
well as erecting them (2 Kings 21:13; Isaiah 34:11).
TRAPP, "Verse 7
Amos 7:7 Thus he shewed me: and, behold, the Lord stood upon a wall [made] by a
plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand.
Ver. 7. This he showed me, and behold] See Amos 7:4.
The Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, &c.] Here he was set, or stood
firm (as the word signifieth), as not to be removed from his purpose by any
entreaties: he was fully resolved upon their ruin, and it should be done exactly, ad
amussim, by line and by rule, as it were, and with so much justice, and most
exquisite diligence, that against it should lie no manner of exception. It is said of the
Areopagites, in Athens, that their sentence was so upright that none could ever say
he was unjustly condemned of them. How much more true is this of the righteous
judgment of God, who must needs therefore be justified, and every mouth stopped?
Matthew 22:12. And he was speechless, because self-condemned, Titus 3:11, and had
not what to request.
With a plumbline in his hand] To show that he would accurately examine their
actions and punish their depravities, [Lamentations 2:8 2 Kings 21:13] not sparing
them as heretofore. A heavy sentence surely, Psalms 130:8.
CO STABLE, "Amos saw a third vision. The Lord was standing beside a vertical
wall with a plumb line in His hand. The wall was probably a city wall rather than
the wall of a house. [ ote: George Adam Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets
Commonly Called the Minor, 1:114; Ellison, p66.] iehaus believed Amos saw a
wall of tin, symbolic of Assyria"s power, and the Lord standing above the wall
judging it. [ ote: iehaus, p456. See also Chisholm, Handbook on . . ., pp397-98.] A
plumb line was a string with a weight on the end. People used it, and still use it, to
determine if a vertical structure is completely straight. God was testing something
by a true standard; His judgment is not arbitrary.
PETT, "Verses 7-17
The Third Vision. The Vision Of The Plumb-line And The Resulting Response
(Amos 7:7-17).
In this third vision YHWH carried some kind of measuring device as He stood
beside a wall, presumably with the purpose of measuring it. He wanted to
demonstrate to Amos that He was not acting without reason in what He was doing.
Then He explained that this was also what He intended to do with Israel. He
intended to measure them and not pass by them any more. It is a theme of Scripture
that when YHWH measures something in one way or another divine action results

56. (compare Isaiah 28:17; Jeremiah 31:39; Zechariah 2:1). The result in this case
would be that the high places of Isaac would be desolate and the sanctuaries of
Israel would be laid waste, and He would rise against the house of Jeroboam (who
were responsible for not having righted the false religion set up by Jeroboam I) with
the sword.
It was bad enough threatening the sanctuaries, but the reference to judgment on the
king’s house could hardly have failed to produce a response, and sure enough
Amaziah, the priest of the high place in Bethel, sent word to Jeroboam about what
Amos had prophesied concerning him. It says much for the status of genuine
prophets in Israel and Judah that Amos was not immediately arrested. But even in
their deteriorated state Israel recognised that they had to handle YHWH’ prophets
carefully. Their history was full of examples of what happened to those who did not
(consider Moses, Elijah, Elisha, the man of God who went to Jeroboam I and so on).
So Amaziah simply told him to go back to Judah, where he had come from, to which
Amos replied that that was not possible because it was YHWH Who had sent him to
prophesy against Israel. And he then declared what punishment would come, both
on Amaziah personally, and on Israel.
Amos 7:7
‘Thus he showed me, and, behold, the Lord stood beside a wall made by a plumb-
line, with a plumb-line in his hand.’
There is a slight change in the opening phrase in that ‘the Lord YHWH’ is not
mentioned. But as we already know Who ‘He’ is, and to have mentioned His name
and title here would have been to conflict with the immediate mention of ‘the Lord’,
it is not surprising. We know that ‘He’ is ‘the Lord’ Who will now measure Israel.
ote that Amos has seen locusts, and then consuming fire, both symbols of YHWH’s
judgment. But now he sees ‘the Lord’ Himself. YHWH’s direct intervention is now
being made clear.
And ‘the Lord’ (adonai) stood beside a wall with ‘a measuring tool’ (literally ‘a tin’)
in his hand. If it was not a plumb-line it was something similar to it. The word ’nk
means ‘lead’ or ‘tin’ (compare Akkadian ‘anaku’) and clearly here indicated a
builder’s measuring instrument of some kind. It is not, however, the usual word for
plumb-line, although ’nk may have been used deliberately because it sounds very
similar to words for ‘moaning, groaning’ (’nch, ’nq). It may on the other hand
simply have been a recognised technical term for a kind of measuring instrument or
tool. The point is that YHWH was about to ‘measure’ His people like a builder
would measure a wall, probably in order to see if it was straight (thus the
translation plumb-line).
BI 7-8, "The Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in His
hand.
God in relation to human work
All men are workers, the world is “full of labour.” The words suggest two facts in relation

57. to it.
I. God has a commanding view of it. “He stands upon the wall” high up, so that every
portion comes within His glance. He observes—
1. Its quality, good or bad.
2. Its variety, overt or occult.
3. Its influence, useful or pernicious.
Solemn thought, that God’s eye is on us in all our activities, and that the most, secret act
eludes not His glance.
II. God tests the character of it. “A plumbline in His hand.” The mason uses the
“plumbline” to determine the straightness of the wall, and thus God tests the character
of human actions. What is God’s “plumbline”?
1. His law as inscribed upon the human conscience. By this He tries all men,
heathen, etc.
2. God’s law as written in the Scriptures. By this He tries all who possess the
revelation.
3. God’s law as embodied in Christ. By this He tries all who have the Gospel.
(Homilist.)
Man’s moral character
I. There is a kind of masonry in the formation of man’s character. Man’s character may
be compared to masonry in several respects.
1. It has one foundation. Walls are built, not upon two, but upon one foundation. So
is every man’s character. There is some one principle on which it is organised. That
principle is the paramount affection of the man. Whatever he loves most, governs
him. If he loves pleasure most, his character is sensual; if he loves money most, his
character is worldly. If he loves wisdom most, his character is philosophic; if he loves
God most, his character is Divine, etc.
2. It has a variety of materials. In a building there are earth, lime, stones, bricks,
wood, iron, etc. etc. These are brought together into a whole. Character is not formed
of one set of actions, thoughts, impulses, volitions. All kinds of acts enter into it,
mental, moral, muscular, personal, political, religious—all are materials in the
building.
3. It is a gradual advancement.
II. There is a divine standard by which to test man’s character. What is the Divine
“plumbline” by which to test character? Here it is. “Whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.” Or, perhaps more intelligibly, the moral
character of Christ. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”
III. There is a terrible ruin for those whose characters will not bear the test of this
plumbline. “Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of My people Israel: I will not
again pass by them any more: and the high places of Israel shall be desolate, and the
sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam
with the sword” (Mat_25:31-46). (Homilist.)

58. A test for uprightness
Italy is a land of volcanoes, and earthquakes, and other shaking things of the sort, so that
it is not easy to build tall and slender towers and yet keep them true to the plummet:
There comes a shake, or the foundation yields a little, and the towers tilts—like the
leaning tower of Pisa, and the two leaning towers of Turin. It is natural then that
builders who have taken pains to do their work thoroughly should seek for some way to
“prove” it, so as to show that what they have done is both upright and downright. The
builders of the cathedral in Florence took a very ingenious way of proving tiffs. High up,
in the centre of that beautiful building, is a lofty dome, like that of St. Paul’s, with
stained windows all round. On the casement of one of these windows is a small iron ring,
and it is by this the uprightness of the tower is tested every year. For, on a certain day in
June, at a certain hour, the sun shines through that ring, and its light falls on a brass
plate let into the marble floor far beneath. So long as the sunbeam falls on a spot there,
on that day and at that moment, it proves that the building is as erect as on the day it
was finished; if it had tilted over so little to the one side or the other, that long ray of
light would have proved it, for then it could not have fallen exactly on the right spot. (J.
Reid Howatt.)
What seest thou? And I said, A plumbline.—
Straight up and down religion
Bricklayers, and stone masons, and carpenters, in the building of walls, use an
instrument made of a cord, at the end of which a lump of lead is fastened. They drop it
over the side of the wall, and, as the plummet naturally seeks the centre of gravity in the
earth, the workman discovers where the wall recedes and where it bulges out, and just
what is the perpendicular. Our text represents God as standing on the wall of character,
which the Israelites had built, and in that way testing it. What the world wants is a
straight up and down religion. Much of the so-called piety of the day tends this way and
that to suit the times. We have all been building a wall of character, and it is glaringly
imperfect, and needs reconstruction. How shall it be brought into perpendicular? Only
by the Divine measurement. The whole tendency of the times is to make us act by the
standard of what others do. There are ten thousand plumblines in use, but only one is
true and exact, and that is the line of God’s eternal righteousness. Nothing would make
times so good, and the earning a livelihood so easy, as the universal adoption of the law
of right. Suspicion strikes through all bargain-making. In the same way we need to
measure our theologies. All sorts of religions are putting forth their pretensions. All
religions but one begin at the wrong end, and in the wrong place. The Bible religion
demands that we first get right with God My text gives me a grand opportunity of saying
a useful word to all young men who are now forming habits for a lifetime. A young man
is in danger of getting a defect in his wall of character that may never be corrected. Oh,
this plumbline of the everlasting right! God will throw it over all our lives to show us our
moral deflections. (T. De Witt Talmage, D. D.)
The plumbline
Builders could not build our houses as they ought without a plumbline. Israel had been

59. built up as a people, so to speak, with a plumbline; everything was right; God approved
of them. But now Israel had become a very different people from what they were at the
beginning. Very early Jeroboam began to introduce calf worship. The people thus
became very wicked, and departed from the way of the Lord more and more. Amos went
to warn Jeroboam the Second. But all his warnings were in vain. Amaziah the high priest
told him to go away, for they did not want his services there. God comforted Amos by
showing him a plumbline, and in effect saying, “I have noticed how Israel, like a wall
which was once upright, has been gradually giving way, and yet I have passed it by, but I
cannot do so any more.” This is what God says at last to every kingdom or nation that
ceases to be upright and true. How many nations there have been that have begun fairly,
but have got worse as time passed by! God is always with His plumbline trying our lives.
What is His plumbline? The grand old Book. By this, too, we ought all to be trying
ourselves. You are building up a life. Every thought you cherish, every word you utter,
and every deed you perform is the building up of character and life. Bricklayers are not
foolish enough to think that if they build a wall out of perpendicular it Will stand. If a
man will grow up crooked, or dishonest, or untruthful, he is bound to come down sooner
or later. If Jesus comes to us, He is sure to find something or other in our character that
is not right, and very likely He will find a good many bulging defects. It may be
selfishness, untruthfulness, unkindness, or some other sin. We must build up our life
according to His law. We cannot do anything ourselves without His help; but that help
He is ever ready to give. (David Davies.)
8 And the Lord asked me, “What do you see,
Amos?”
“A plumb line,” I replied.
Then the Lord said, “Look, I am setting a plumb
line among my people Israel; I will spare them no
longer.
BAR ES, "Amos, what seest thou? - o: “He calls the prophet by name, as a
familiar friend, known and approved by Him, as He said to Moses, “I know thee by
name” Exo_33:12, Exo_33:17. For “the Lord knoweth them that are His. What seest
thou?” 2Ti_2:19. God had twice heard the prophet. Two judgments upon His people He
had mitigated, not upon their repentance, but on the single intercession of the prophet.

60. After that, He willed to be no more entreated. And so He exhibits to Amos a symbol,
whose meaning He does not explain until He had pronounced their doom. “The
plumbline” was used in pulling down, as well as in building up. Whence Jeremiah says,
“The Lord hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion; He hath stretched
out a line; He hath not withdrawn His hand from destroying; therefore He made the
rampart and wall to lament” Lam_2:8 : and Isaiah; “He shall stretch out upon it the line
of wasteness” (as in Gen_1:2) “and the stone of emptiness” Isa_34:11 (as in Gen_1:2):
and God said of Judah, “I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the
plummet of the house of Ahab” 2Ki_21:13.
Accordingly God explains the vision, “Behold I will set,” that is, shortly, (literally, “am
setting”) “a plumbline in the midst of My people Israel.” The wall, then, is not the
emblem of Samaria or of any one city. It is the strength and defense of the whole people,
whatever held it together, and held out the enemy. As in the vision to Belshazzar, the
word “Tekel,” He “weighed,” was explained, “Thou art weighed in the balances and art
found wanting” Dan_5:27, so God here applies the plumbline, at once to convict and to
destroy upon conviction. In this Judgment, as at the Last Day, God would not condemn,
without having first made clear the justice of His condemnation. He sets it “in the midst
of” His “people,” showing that He would make trial of all, one by one, and condemn in
proportion to the guilt of each. But the day of grace being past, the sentence was to be
final. “I will not pass by them,” literally, “I will not pass over” (that is, their
transgressions) “to them (as in Amo_8:2) anymore,” that is, I will no more forgive them.
CLARKE, "I will set a plumbline - I will visit them by justice without any mixture
of mercy.
GILL, "And the Lord said unto me, Amos, what seest thou?.... This question
was put to him, the rather, since he was silent, and did not upon this vision, as the
former, make any supplication to the Lord; as also, because this vision portended
something of moment and importance, which he would have the prophet attend to:
and I said, a plumbline; the same word as before, and is differently rendered, as
already observed. The Vulgate Latin version renders it, "a plasterer's" or "mason's
trowel"; with which they lay their plaster and mortar on in building: the Septuagint, an
adamant: and which, by Pliny (f), is called "anachites"; a word in sound near to this here
used: the Targum renders it, "judgment": but Jarchi and Aben Ezra observe, that in the
Arabic tongue it signifies lead or tin, as it does (g); and so a line with lead at the end of it;
then said the Lord, behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people
Israel; take an exact account of their actions, and see how they agree or disagree with
the rule of the word; and in the most strict and righteous manner deal with them for
their sins and transgressions, "lay judgment to the line, and righteousness to the
plummet", Isa_28:17;
I will not again pass by them any more; wink at their sins, and overlook their
transgressions, by not correcting and punishing for them; or will not pardon them, but
inflict punishment on them. So the Targum,

61. "behold, I will exercise judgment in the midst of my people Israel, and I will not add any
more to pardon them.''
Though some understand it of God's making such an utter end of them, that he should
no more "pass through them" (h), to destroy them, having done it at once, and
thoroughly.
JAMISO , "plumb-line in ... midst of ... Israel — No longer are the symbols, as
in the former two, stated generally; this one is expressly applied to Israel. God’s long-
suffering is worn out by Israel’s perversity: so Amos ceases to intercede (compare Gen_
18:33). The plummet line was used not only in building, but in destroying houses (2Ki_
21:13; Isa_28:17; Isa_34:11; Lam_2:8). It denotes that God’s judgments are measured
out by the most exact rules of justice. Here it is placed “in the midst” of Israel, that is, the
judgment is not to be confined to an outer part of Israel, as by Tiglath-pileser; it is to
reach the very center. This was fulfilled when Shalmaneser, after a three years’ siege of
Samaria, took it and carried away Israel captive finally to Assyria (2Ki_17:3, 2Ki_17:5,
2Ki_17:6, 2Ki_17:23).
not ... pass by ... any more — not forgive them any more (Amo_8:2; Pro_19:11;
Mic_7:18).
CALVI , "Verse 8
But that which follows has an important meaning: God asks his Prophet, What sees
thou, Amos? It is probable that the Prophet was astonished at a thing so mysterious.
When locusts were formed, and when there was a contention by fire, he might have
easily gathered what God meant; for these visions were by no means ambiguous:
but when God stood on a wall with a plumbline, this was somewhat more hard to be
understood; and the probability is, that the Prophet was made to feel much
astonishment, that the people might be more attentive to hear his vision, as we
commonly apply our thoughts more to hidden things; for we coldly attend to what
we think to be easily understood; but mysteriousness, or something difficult to be
known, sharpens our minds and attention. I do not then doubt but that God made
the Prophet for a time to feel amazed, with the view of increasing the attention of the
people. What then dost thou see, Amos? A plumbline, he says: but, at the same time,
he knew not what was the meaning of this plumbline, or what was its design. Then
God answers, Behold, I set a plumbline in the midst of my people; that is, I fix this
to be the last rule, or the final measure, and I will not add any more to pass by them
As God had twice leaped over the bounds of his judgment by sparing them, he says,
now that the last end was come, “I will proceed no farther,” he says, “in forgiving
them: as when a wall is formed to the plumbline, that no part may, in the least,
exceed another, but that there may be regularity throughout so also this shall be the
last order; this measuring shall be true and just. I will pass by them no more.” This,
I have no doubt, is the real meaning of the Prophet. We now also perceive the design
of the other two visions to have been to prevent the Israelites from deceiving
themselves by false self-flatteries, because God was kind and favorable to them. He
shows that he dealt so with them, not because they were just; for God had already
begun to execute his judgments on them; and the punishments with which they had
been visited were strong evidences of their crimes: for God is not without reasons
angry with men, especially with his chosen people. Since then they had been already

62. smitten once and again, the Prophet proves that they were worthy of heavier
punishments; and that punishments had been mild and moderated, was to be
ascribed, he says, to the indulgence of God, because he was willing to forgive his
people; but that the time had now come when he would no longer pardon them; for
he saw that he had to do with irreclaimable obstinacy. This is the meaning.
COFFMA , "Verse 8
"And Jehovah said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumb-line. Then
said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel; I will
not again pass by them any more."
The direct conversation which Amos here mentions as occurring between himself
and the Lord was probably for the purpose of emphasizing the truth that Amaziah
later ignored in his message to the king, namely, that the words of denunciation
uttered by the prophet were not his words at all, but the words of the true God of
Israel.
"A plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel ..." This was an ominous promise:
"The plumb-line was used not only in building, but in destroying houses (2 Kings
21:13; Isaiah 28:17; 34:11, and Lamentations 2:8). It denotes that God's judgments
are measured out by the most exact rules of justice."[19]
"I will not again pass by them any more ..." Again, the clear reference to the ancient
Passover is evident; only, this time, he will not do a similar thing. As Smith said:
"The word `pass by' here and in Amos 5:17 was probably deliberately used by
Amos (rather, by the Lord) to represent the reversal of the "passover" when God
passed through Egypt in judgment, but delivered Israel (Exodus 12:23)."[20]
Through the passage of time, the word "passover" had come to have somewhat the
same meaning as forgiveness. As Motyet noted, "The phrase "pass by", used again
at Amos 8:2, appears in Micah 7:18 in the meaning `to forgive.'"[21]
Before leaving this passage, it should be noted that some allegations commonly made
regarding this passage should be rejected. "In spite of his plans to punish Israel, for
Yahweh they will always remain his beloved and chosen people."[22] As regards the
secular, fleshly descendants of Abraham, nothing could be further wrong that such
a view, except in its unique application to the true Israel of God, the church of Jesus
Christ. That the rebellious and grossly wicked children of Abraham in the fleshly
sense whose notorious rebellions against God and all righteousness are the burden
of the entire Old Testament, and who climaxed their unrighteousness by the murder
of the Son of God Himself - that that people are, in some sense, still "the chosen
people of God" is a monstrous error.
TRAPP, "Verse 8
Amos 7:8 And the LORD said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A
plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my
people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more:

63. Ver. 8. Behold, I will set a plumbline] I will call them to a strict account, and show
them no favour, Jeremiah 16:3, I will now actually execute my justice which I have
hitherto suspended; and pay them home for the new and the old; bringing upon
them an evil, an only evil, without mixture of mercy, Ezekiel 7:5.
I will not again pass by them any more] A metaphor from men that pass by such
things as they slight and count inconsiderable; winking at small faults as not worthy
to be reckoned upon. Hence, Micah 7:18, God is said to pardon iniquity and pass by
transgression; as elsewhere he is said to bind them up in a bundle, to seal them up in
a bag, to cast them behind his back, to remove them "as far as the east is from the
west," Psalms 103:12, so that he beholdeth no sin in Jacob nor perverseness in
Israel, umbers 22:21. The Church, privy to her own infirmities, calleth herself
black, Song of Solomon 1:5, but Christ calleth her fair all over, Song of Solomon
4:7. She saith, God hath punished us less than our sins, Ezra 9:13. He saith, She
hath received double for her sins, Isaiah 40:2. Too much, saith God; too little, saith
she. O beautiful contention! But this is a privilege proper to the communion of
saints, with whom God will not deal according to the rigour of his law (as he doth
with the wicked), but according to his prerogative.
CO STABLE, "Verse 8
The Lord asked the prophet what he saw, and Amos replied that he saw a plumb
line. Then the Lord explained that He was about to test Israel as a builder uses a
plumb line. The true standard by which He would judge Israel was undoubtedly the
Mosaic Law, the covenant that He had given her by which God measured her
uprightness (cf. Exodus 19:6). The Lord further announced that He would not spare
the Israelites from His judgment any longer; Amos" prayers for Israel would not
turn away His punishment as earlier ( Amos 7:3; Amos 7:6). The nation was so far
out of plumb that God would tear it down.
PETT, "Amos 7:8
‘And YHWH said to me, “Amos, what do you see?” And I said, “A plumb-line.”
Then the Lord said, “Behold, I will set a plumb-line in the midst of my people Israel.
I will not again pass by them any more.” ’
YHWH then asked Amos what he saw (YHWH, the covenant name, is used on its
own because He was talking to Amos). He wanted to ensure that Amos had observed
what He was doing. And when Amos replied ‘a measuring instrument’, ‘the Lord’
(adonai - now acting over against the people) replied, ‘ See, I will set a measuring
instrument in the midst of My people Israel.’ Amos could be assured that YHWH
would not judge them without measuring them. ot for Him the unfair process
which passed for justice in Israel. But once He had measured them He would not
pass them by any more. He would ensure strict justice.
It will be noted that Amos was now silenced. He had realised that he could plead for
Israel no more. Justice, tempered with mercy, must be allowed to run its course.

64. 9 “The high places of Isaac will be destroyed
and the sanctuaries of Israel will be ruined;
with my sword I will rise against the house of
Jeroboam.”
Amos and Amaziah
BAR ES, "The high places of Isaac - He probably calls the ten tribes by the name
of Isaac, as well as of Israel, in order to contrast their deeds with the blameless, gentle
piety of Isaac, as well as the much-tried faithfulness of Israel. It has been thought too
that he alludes to the first meaning of the name of Isaac. His name was given from the
joyous laughter at the unheard-of promise of God, to give children to those past age;
their high places should be a laughter, but the laughter of mockery . The “sanctuaries”
were perhaps the two great idol-temples at Bethel and Dan, over against the one
“sanctuary” of God at Jerusalem; the “high places” were the shrines of idolatry,
especially where God had shown mercy to the patriarchs and Israel, but also all over the
land. All were to be wasted, because all were idolatrous.
I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword - God speaks after
the manner of people, who, having been still, arise against the object of their enmity. He
makes Himself so far one with the instruments of His sentence, that, what they do, He
ascribes to Himself. Jeroboam II must, from his military success, have been popular
among his people. Successful valor is doubly prized, and he had both valor and success.
God had “saved Israel by” His “hand” 2Ki_14:27. A weak successor is often borne with
for the merits of his father. There were no wars from without which called for strong
military energy or talent, and which might furnish an excuse for superseding a faineant
king. Ephraim had no ambition of foreign glory, to gratify. Zechariah, Jeroboam’s son,
was a sensualist ; but many sensualists have, at all times, reigned undisturbed. Shallum
who murdered Zechariah was simply a “conspirator” 2Ki_15:10; he represented no
popular impulse, and was slain himself a month 2Ki_15:13-14 after. Yet Amos foretells
absolutely that the house of Jeroboam should perish by the sword, and in the next
generation his name was clean put out.
CLARKE, "And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate - Their total
destruction is at hand. The high place of Isaac was Beer-sheba, where Isaac had built an
altar to the Lord, Gen_26:25. This high place, which had been abused to idolatrous uses,

65. was demolished by Josiah, king of Judah, as we read in 2Ki_23:8, for he defiled all the
high places from Geba to Beersheba.
I will rise against the house of Jeroboam - The Lord had promised to Jehu, the
ancestor of Jeroboam, that his family should sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth
generation. Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam, was the fourth in order after Jehu; and on
him the threatening in this verse fell; for he was murdered by Shallum after he had
reigned six months, and in him the family became extinct. See 2Ki_10:30; 2Ki_15:8-10.
GILL, "And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate,.... Such as the ten tribes of
Israel, who descended from Isaac, built at Beersheba, in imitation of Isaac, and pleading
his example; who worshipped there, though not idols, as they, but the true God; and in
commemoration of his being bound upon an altar on Mount Moriah: but these, as the
Septuagint version renders it, were "high places of laughter", ridiculous in the eyes of the
Lord, despised by him, and so should be made desolate:
and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; the temples built for the calves
at Dan and Bethel, and other places:
and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword; or, as the
Targum,
"I will raise up against the house of Jeroboam those that slay with the sword;''
this was fulfilled by Shallum, who conspired against Zachariah the son of Jeroboam, and
slew him, and reigned in his stead, which put an end to the family of Jeroboam, 2Ki_
15:10.
HE RY, " The prediction is of utter ruin, Amo_7:9. (1.) The body of the people shall
be destroyed, with all those things that were their ornament and defence. They are here
called Isaac as well as Israel, the house of Isaac (Amo_7:16), some think in allusion to
the signification of Isaac's name; it is laughter; they shall become a jest among all their
neighbours; their neighbours shall laugh at them. The desolation shall fasten upon their
high places and their sanctuaries, either their castles or their temples, both built on high
places. Their castles they thought safe, and their temples sacred as sanctuaries. These
shall be laid waste, to punish them for their idolatry and to make them ashamed of their
carnal confidences, which were the two things for which God had a controversy with
them. When these were made desolate they might read their sin and folly in their
punishment. (2.) The royal family shall sink first, as an earnest of the ruin of the whole
kingdom: I will rise against the house of Jeroboam, Jeroboam the second, who was now
king of the ten tribes; his family was extirpated in his son Zecharias, who was slain with
the sword before the people, by Shallum who conspired against him, 2Ki_15:10. How
unrighteous soever the instruments were, God was righteous, and in them God rose up
against that idolatrous family. Even king's houses will be no shelter against the sword of
God's wrath.
JAMISO , "high places — dedicated to idols.
of Isaac — They boasted of their following the example of their forefather Isaac, in

66. erecting high places at Beer-sheba (Amo_5:5; compare Gen_26:23, Gen_26:24; Gen_
46:1); but he and Abraham erected them before the temple was appointed at Jerusalem -
and to God; whereas they did so, after the temple had been fixed as the only place for
sacrifices - and to idols. In the Hebrew here “Isaac” is written with s, instead of the usual
ts; both forms mean “laughter”; the change of spelling perhaps expresses that their “high
places of Isaac” may be well so called, but not as they meant by the name; for they are
only fit to be laughed at in scorn. Probably, however, the mention of “Isaac” and “Israel”
simply expresses that these names, which their degenerate posterity boasted in as if
ensuring their safety, will not save them and their idolatrous “sanctuaries” on which they
depended from ruin (compare Amo_8:14).
house of Jeroboam with ... sword — fulfilled in the extinction of Zachariah, son
of Jeroboam II, the last of the descendants of Jeroboam I, who had originated the
idolatry of the calves (2Ki_15:8-10).
CALVI ,"Verse 9
It now follows, And destroyed shall be the high places of Isaac, and overthrown
shall be the sanctuaries (some render palaces) of Israel; and I will rise up against the
house of Jeroboam with the sword. The Prophet here distinctly declares, that the
people in vain trusted in their temples and superstitions, for by these they kindled
the more against themselves the wrath of God. He would not indeed have expressly
threatened the high places and the temples, unless the Israelites had provoked in
this way, as I have already said, the vengeance of God against themselves, inasmuch
as they had corrupted the true and lawful worship of God.
Destroyed then shall be the high places of Isaac It may be asked, Why does he
mention here the name of Isaac, which is rarely done by the Prophets? And there is
also a change of one letter; for the word Isaac is commonly written with ‫,ץ‬ tsade, but
here it is written with ‫,ש‬ shin; but it is well known that ‫,ש‬ shin and ‫,ץ‬ tsade, are
interchangeably used. It is, however, beyond dispute, that the Prophet speaks here
of the holy man Isaac; and the reason seems to be plainly this, — because the
Israelites absurdly pretended to imitate their father in their superstitions; for
temples, we know, had been erected where Isaac had worshipped God, and also
their father Abraham and Jacob. Inasmuch then as the Israelites boasted of the
examples of holy fathers, the Prophet here condemns this vain and false boasting.
They who understand by the word Isaac, that the Prophet threatens the Idumeans
as well as the Israelites, have no reason for their opinion; but the reason which I
have already mentioned is quite sufficient.
We indeed know, that the Israelites had ever in their mouths the examples of the
fathers, like the woman of Samaria, who said to Christ, ‘Our fathers worshipped in
this mountain,’ (John 4:20) So also the Israelites were wont formerly to allege, that
the holy patriarchs worshipped God in those places, — that God appeared in Bethel
to holy Jacob, and also that in other places altars were built. Being armed with the
examples of the fathers, they thought them to be their shield. The case is the same
with the Papists in our day; when they hear of anything as having been done by the
fathers, they instantly lay hold on it; but these are vain excuses. Like them were also

67. the Israelites; hence the Prophet says, “Behold, ye gain nothing by this fallacious
pretense; for destroyed shall be the high places of Isaac, even those which are now
covered by an honorable name: and at the same time the temples or palaces of Israel
shall be overthrown.
And I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword We learn from this last
clause that things were then, as we have stated elsewhere, in a prosperous state in
the kingdom of Israel, though God had in various ways wasted it before Jeroboam:
but they had been ever obstinate. He afterwards restored them to a better condition;
for the state of the people greatly improved under Jeroboam: he recovered many
cities enlarged the borders of his kingdoms and then the people, in their affluence
began to grow wanton against God. As then the Prophet thus saw that they abused
God’s goodness, he denounced destruction on Jeroboam; hence he says, Against the
house of Jeroboam I will rise up with the sword; that is, “I will begin to execute my
judgment on the offspring of the king himself; though I may spare him, yet his
posterity shall not escape my hand.”
COFFMA , "Verse 9
"And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be
laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword."
"The high places of Isaac ..." "Isaac" is here a title of Israel, as the parallel in the
next line shows. It is not the religious conduct of the patriarch Isaac that is under
indictment here, but that of the orthern Kingdom. The amazing notion current
among many scholars to the effect that there was nothing wrong with those shrines
which the rebellious people had built upon the very sites of the old pagan shrines
that Once were there before Israel came into the land could not possibly be correct.
Some of the patriarchs indeed had been associated with some of those places,
through events that marked their lives; and, no doubt, the paganized priesthood of
Jeroboam's Israel had, from such premises, alleged the legitimacy of their shrines; it
was, nevertheless, a deception. Harper's opinion that, "Down to the days of Josiah,
the nation worshipped Yahweh regularly and legitimately upon the so-called high
places,"[23] cannot be allowed, the sole reason for the shrine of Bethel, for example,
having been Jeroboam's repudiation of God's true religion and the institution of
another, as a political device to establish his throne. "Even the priesthood which
Jeroboam I appointed was absolutely illegitimate (1 Kings 12:31f)."[24] This latter
fact was one of the gross sins of Israel that would be exposed by God's plumb-line,
of which Thorogood gives this excellent definition:
"First, He was using the Law which he had given to the Israelites long before, as the
standard of their faith and conduct. Secondly, He was using the prophets, such as
Amos ... Their preaching was a standard by which the Israelites could judge their
own lives."[25]
One false idea which is almost invariably associated with these vigorous
condemnations is expressed as follows, "Amos also taught that the most elaborate
worship, if insincere, is but an insult to God." This is true enough, except for the
implication that, if the worship of the Israelites of the orthern Kingdom at the

68. pagan shrines of Dan, Bethel and other high places had been "sincere" it would
have been acceptable to God; and this is not the case at all. As Christ himself
declared, "In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men" (Matthew 15:9). This applies pointedly to the very thing that characterized the
worship in the orthern Kingdom; it was founded on practically nothing that God
commanded, but was built altogether upon traditional, pagan and opportunistic
practices.
"The sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste ..." This refers to the, "idol-temples at
Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:29), at Gilgal (Amos 4:4), and perhaps in other
places."[26] It was not merely the social indifference and oppression of the poor,
and not merely a matter of their insincerity, but their whole rotten system of gross
paganism, garnished and embellished with a few trappings from God's true religion,
that was marked for destruction here. Furthermore, not merely the overthrow of
false religion would occur, but also the overthrow of the evil dynasty that had
initiated it, and the whole people of that evil generation which had received and
reveled in the false religion.
"And I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword ..." As Keil pointed
out, this is a reference to the dynasty of Jeroboam I, "but not to be restricted to the
overthrow of his dynasty, but an announcement of the destruction of the Israelitish
monarchy."[27] Three things should be noted, no special king is mentioned here,
but a dynasty, such being the meaning of "the house of Jeroboam"; secondly, this is
something which God promised to do, not Amos; and in the third place, the name,
or identity of any ruler to be killed by the sword was definitely not mentioned.
ELLICOTT, "(9) High places of Isaac.—The name Isaac is here spelt somewhat
differently in the Hebrew from the form we have in Genesis. The LXX.
misunderstand the word, and render “altars of laughter,” in accordance with the
etymological sense of the proper name. The residents in the neighbourhood of
Beersheba may have boasted of the favour or honour belonging to them, as
occupying the home of Isaac and the birthplace of Jacob.
Will rise against.—This dreadful doom fell on the house of Jeroboam, and was the
prelude of the final destruction of the nations by Shalmaneser IV., in 721 (2 Kings
15:10).
TRAPP, "Verse 9
Amos 7:9 And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of
Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the
sword.
Ver. 9. And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate] The Edomites also came of
Isaac; but by a synecdoche (a) the Israelites only are here, and Amos 7:16, to be
understood. Like as elsewhere Heber is put for the Israelites only, umbers 24:24,
and Joseph for Ephraim, Revelation 7:8. Some think that the high places of Isaac
are here mentioned to show that they were erected by the people in an apish

69. imitation, either of Beersheba, where Isaac worshipped, or of Mount Moriah, where
Isaac should have been offered: and that Isaac is here written with sin, and not
tsadi, to show that God held himself not adored, but derided by those high places of
derision, or those ridiculous altars, which therefore he threateneth to desolate and
lay waste.
And I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword] As a prelude to the
utter extermination of all by the Assyrians. See this fulfilled, 2 Kings 15:10; 2 Kings
17:5-6; Jeroboam was very prosperous and victorious; yet designed to destruction.
It is said of wicked men, that foenea quadam felicitate temporaliter floreant, they
flourish today as grass, and tomorrow are cast into the oven, Matthew 6:30 : and as
the metal whereof men make glass is nearest melting when it shineth brightest, so
are graceless persons nearest destruction when at greatest lustre. The Turks,
observing that few of their viziers die in their beds, have this proverb among them,
that the greatest man is but as a statue of glass.
CO STABLE, "Verse 9
The method of judgment God would use would not be locust invasion or fire but the
sword. An enemy would invade Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 28:49-50). This enemy, as
Yahweh"s agent, would destroy the outdoor high places on hilltops and the temple
sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel where the people worshipped God and idols, namely,
all their worship centers.
Amos probably used "Isaac" simply as a synonym for "Jacob" and "Israel."
Another view follows.
"Amos seems to have in mind the special veneration for Isaac which members of the
orthern Kingdom displayed in making pilgrimages south to Beersheba (cf. Amos
5:5; Amos 8:14), Isaac"s birthplace." [ ote: Hubbard, p210.]
The "house of Jeroboam" probably refers to the dynasty of Jeroboam II, but it
could refer to the nation of Israel as headed by Jeroboam I. Jeroboam II"s dynasty
came to an end with the assassination of his son and successor Zechariah ( 2 Kings
15:8-10).
These three visions appear to have come to Amos in close succession. The final
compiler of Amos" prophecies, probably Amos himself, undoubtedly grouped them
because of their similarity. They are obviously alike and together present a picture
of judgment mercifully deferred twice but finally brought on Israel. They clarify the
method of Israel"s punishment, namely, defeat by an enemy"s invading army, and
they show that judgment would come after God"s patience with the nation had been
exhausted.
PETT, "Amos 7:9
“And the high places of Isaac will be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel will be

70. laid waste, and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.”
And the result was that ‘the high places of Isaac’ (the high places in Beersheba
where Isaac had lived much of his adult life, compare Amos 5:5; Amos 8:14; Genesis
27:23-25) would be desolate because they would receive no more worshippers, and
the sanctuaries within Israel would be laid waste, and the ones responsible for the
continuation of the false cult (the king and his house) would be put to the sword as a
result of the direct intervention of YHWH. This judgment appears to very much
have in mind Leviticus 26:31 where YHWH had warned, ‘and I will lay your cities
waste, and will make your sanctuaries desolate’, and Leviticus 26:25 where the
sword will ‘execute vengeance for the covenant’. The word of YHWH is thus seen as
being fulfilled.
Alternatively ‘Isaac’ may simply be an alternative word for ‘Jacob’ and apply to all
Israel’s sanctuaries (see Amos 7:16 where ‘the house of Isaac’ is paralleled with
‘Israel’).
So we see that central to YHWH’s judgment on Israel was that they had put other
things before Him and had so diluted His worship and their view of Him, that they
ignored His requirements concerning their behaviour towards others.
10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a
message to Jeroboam king of Israel: “Amos is
raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart
of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words.
BAR ES, "Amaziah, the priest of Bethel - Was probably the high priest, in
imitation of the high priest of the order of Aaron and of God’s appointment. For the
many high places around Bethel required many idol-priests; and a splendid counterfeit
of the ritual at Jerusalem, which should rival it in the eyes of Israel, was part of the
policy of the first Jeroboam. Amaziah was at the head of this imposture, in a position
probably of wealth and dignity among his people. Like “Demetriers the silversmith” Acts
19, he thought that the craft whereby he had his wealth was endangered. To Jeroboam,
however, he says nothing of these fears. To the king he makes it an affair of state. He
takes the king by what he expected to be his weak side, fear for his own power or life.
“Amos hath conspired against thee.” So to Jeremiah “the captain of the ward” said,

71. “Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans” Jer_37:13.
And the princes; “Let this man be put to death, for thus he weakeneth the hands of the
men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such
words unto them: for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt” Jer_
38:4. And of our Lord they said to Pilate, “If thou let this Man go, thou art not Caesar’s
friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king, is an enemy to Caesar” Joh_19:12. And of the
Apostles; “these men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, and teach customs
which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans” Act_16:20-21;
and, “these that have turned the world upside down are come hither also - and these all
do contrary to the decrees of Cesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” Act_17:6-7.
And so the pagan, who were ever conspiring against the Roman Emperors, went on
accusing the early Christians as disloyal to the Emperors, factious, impious, because they
did not offer sacrifices for them to false gods, but prayed for them to the True God .
Some doubtless, moved by the words of Amos, had forsaken the state-idolatry, reformed
their lives, worshiped God with the prophet; perhaps they were called in contempt by his
name, “Amosites” or “Judaizers,” and were counted as “his” adherents, not as the
worshipers of the one true God, “the God of their fathers.” Whence Amaziah gained the
plea of a “conspiracy,” of which Amos was the head. For a “conspiracy” cannot be of one
man. The word, by its force, signifies “banded;” the idiom, that he “banded” others
“together against” 1Sa_22:8, 1Sa_22:13; 1Ki_15:27; 1Ki_16:9, 1Ki_16:16; 2Ki_10:9;
2Ki_14:19; 2Ki_15:10, 2Ki_15:15, 2Ki_15:25; 2Ki_21:23 the king. To us Amaziah attests
the power of God’s word by His prophet; “the land,” that is, the whole people, “is not
able to bear his words,” being shaken through and through.
CLARKE, "Amaziah the priest of Beth-el - The idolatrous priest who had been
established by the king to maintain the worship of the golden calves which Jeroboam the
elder had set up at this place.
Amos hath conspired against thee - This was truly a lying prophet; there is not
one word of truth in this message which he sent to Jeroboam. Amos had not conspired
against the king - had not said that Jeroboam should die by the sword - and had not said
that Israel should be carried away captive, though this last was implied in God’s
threatening and afterwards delivered by this prophet; see Amo_7:17.
GILL, "Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel,.... The Targum calls him the prince or
president of Bethel; and the word used signifies both a prince and a priest; and very
probably this man had the care of the civil as well as religious matters in Bethel. Aben
Ezra styles him the priest of Baal; he was one that succeeded the priests that Jeroboam
the son of Nebat placed here, to offer sacrifices to the calf he set up in this place, 1Ki_
12:32; who hearing the above three visions of Amos delivered, and fearing that he would
alienate the people from the idolatrous worship he was at the head of, and frighten them
from an attendance on it, which would lessen his esteem with the people, and also his
worldly gain and profit; and observing that Amos did not make any intercession for the
averting of the judgment threatened in the last vision, as in the other two, and which
particularly concerned the king's family: he
sent to Jeroboam king of Israel; either letters or messengers, or both; who, it
seems, was not at this time at Bethel, but at some other place; perhaps Samaria, which

72. was not a great way from hence:
saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the land of Israel;
he speaks of Amos as if he was well known to the king, and perhaps he might be, having
long prophesied in the land of Israel, and near the court; and represents him as a
seditious person, not as affecting the crown and kingdom himself, but as stirring up a
spirit, of rebellion among the people; taking off their affections from their prince, and
them from their allegiance to him, by representing him as a wicked person that would in
a little time be cut off; and this he did not privately, and in a corner, but publicly, in the
midst of the land, and before all the people of Israel; and this was no new and unusual
thing to represent good man, and especially ministers of the word, as enemies to the civil
government, when none are truer friends to it, or more quiet under it:
the land is not able to bear all his words; either to withstand the power of them;
they will have such an influence upon the people, if timely care is not taken, as to cause
them both to reject the established religion and worship at Dan and Bethel, and to rise
up in arms against the civil government, and dethrone him the king; such terrible things
he says to the people, as will frighten them, and put them upon taking such measures as
these: or else the prophet's words were so intolerable, that his good subjects, the
inhabitants of the land could not bear them; and if he did not give orders himself to take
away his life, they would rise up against him, and dispatch him themselves.
HE RY10-11, "One would have expected, 1. That what we met with in the former
part of the chapter would awaken the people to repentance, when they saw that they
were reprieved in order that they might have space to repent and that they could not
obtain a pardon unless the did repent. 2. That it would endear the prophet Amos to
them, who had not only shown his good-will to them in praying against the judgments
that invaded them, but had prevailed to turn away those judgments, which, if they had
had any sense of gratitude, would have gained him an interest in their affections. But it
fell out quite contrary; they continue impenitent, and the next news we hear of Amos is
that he is persecuted. Note, As it is the praise of great saints that they pray for those that
are enemies to them, so it is the shame of many great sinners that they are enemies to
those who pray for them, Psa_35:13, Psa_35:15; Psa_109:4. We have here,
I. The malicious information brought to the king against the prophet Amos, Amo_
7:10, Amo_7:11. The informer was Amaziah the priest of Bethel, the chief of the priests
that ministered to the golden calf there, the president of Bethel (so some read it), that
had the principal hand in civil affairs there. He complained against Amos, not only
because he prophesied without license from him, but because he prophesied against his
altars, which would soon be deserted and demolished if Amos's preaching could but gain
credit. Thus the shrine-makers at Ephesus hated Paul, because his preaching tended to
spoil their trade. Note, Great pretenders to sanctity are commonly the worst enemies to
those who are really sanctified. Priests have been the most bitter persecutors. Amaziah
brings an information to Jeroboam against Amos. Observe, 1. The crime he is charged
with is no less than treason: “Amos has conspired against thee, to depose and murder
thee; he aims at succeeding thee, and therefore is taking the most effectual way to
weaken thee. He sows the seeds of sedition in the hearts of the good subjects of the king,
and makes them disaffected to him and his government, that he may draw them by
degrees from their allegiance; upon this account the land is not able to bear his words.”
It is slyly insinuated to the king that the country was exasperated against him, and it is
given in as their sense that his preaching was intolerable, and such as nobody could be
reconciled to, such as the times would by no means bear, that is, the men of the times

73. would not. Both the impudence of his supposed treason, and the bad influence it would
have upon the country, are intimated in that part of the charge, that he conspired against
the king in the midst of the house of Israel. Note, It is no new thing for the accusers of
the brethren to misrepresent them as enemies to the king and kingdom, as traitors to
their prince and troublers of the land, when really they are the best friends to both. And
it is common for designing men to assert that as the sense of the country which is far
from being so. And yet here, I doubt, it was too true, that the people could not bear plain
dealing any more than the priests. 2. The words laid in the indictment for the support of
this charge (Amo_7:11): Amos says (and they have witnesses ready to prove it)
Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall be led away captive; and hence they
infer that he is an enemy to his king and country, and not to be tolerated. See the malice
of Amaziah; he does not tell the king how Amos had interceded for Israel, and by his
intercession had turned away first one judgment and then another, and did not let fall
his intercession till he saw the decree had gone forth; he does not tell him that these
threatenings were conditional, and that he had often assured them that if they would
repent and reform the ruin should be prevented. Nay, it was not true that he said,
Jeroboam shall die by the sword, nor did he so die (2Ki_14:28), but that God would rise
against the house of Jeroboam with the sword, Amo_7:9. God's prophets and ministers
have often had occasion to make David's complaint (Psa_56:5), Every day they wrest
my words. But shall it be made the watchman's crime, when he sees the sword coming,
to give warning to the people, that they may get themselves secured? or the physician's
crime to tell his patient of the danger of his disease, that he may use means for the cure
of it? What enemies are foolish men to themselves, to their own peace, to their best
friends! It does not appear that Jeroboam took any notice of this information; perhaps
he reverenced a prophet, and stood more in awe of the divine authority than Amaziah
his priest did.
JAMISO , "Amo_7:10-17. Amaziah’s charge against Amos: His doom foretold.
priest of Beth-el — chief priest of the royal sanctuary to the calves at Beth-el. These
being a device of state policy to keep Israel separate from Judah. Amaziah construes
Amos words against them as treason. So in the case of Elijah and Jeremiah (1Ki_18:17;
Jer_37:13, Jer_37:14). So the antitype Jesus was charged (Joh_19:12); political
expediency being made in all ages the pretext for dishonoring God and persecuting His
servants (Joh_11:48-50). So in the case of Paul (Act_17:6, Act_17:7; Act_24:5).
in the midst of ... Israel — probably alluding to Amos’ own words, “in the midst of
... Israel” (Amo_7:8), foretelling the state’s overthrow to the very center. Not secretly, or
in a corner, but openly, in the very center of the state, so as to upset the whole utterly.
land is not able to bear all his words — They are so many and so intolerable. A
sedition will be the result. The mention of his being “priest of Beth-el” implies that it was
for his own priestly gain, not for the king or state, he was so keen.
CALVI , "Verse 10
The Prophet here relates the device by which Satan attempted to depress his mind,
that he might not go on in the discharge of his prophetic office. He says, that
Amaziah had sent to the king to induce him to adopt some severe measure; for he
pretended that as Amos scattered words full of sedition, and made turbulent
speeches, the affairs of the king could not be carried on, except the king in due time
prevented him: and besides, the same Amaziah said, that nothing could be better for
the Prophet than to flee into the land of Judah, as he might live in safety there; for

74. he had incurred great danger in having dared to prophesy against the king. It hence
appears that Amaziah was a perfidious and cunning man, but not so bloody as to
attempt openly anything serious against the Prophet’s life; unless perhaps he
thought that this could not be done, and gave this advice, not so much through his
kindness, as that the thing was impracticable: and this second supposition is
probable from the words of the passage.
For, in the first place the Prophet says, that Amaziah had sent to the king He then
tried whether he could excite the king’s mind to persecute Amos. It may be that his
design did succeed: hence he undertook what in the second place is related, that is,
he called the Prophet to himself, and tried to frighten him, and drive him by fear
from the land of Israel, that he might no longer be troublesome to them. But we
must, in the first place, notice the motive by which this Amaziah was influenced,
when he endeavored so much, by any means possible, to banish the Prophet from
the kingdom of Israel. It is certainly not credible that he was influenced by what he
pretended to the king, that there was a danger of sedition; but it was a pretense
cunningly made. Amaziah then had a care for his own advantage, as we see to be the
case in our day with cardinals and milted bishops who frequent the courts of
princes, and do not honestly profess what their designs are; for they see that their
tyranny cannot stand unless the gospel be abolished; they see that our doctrine
threatens to become a cold and even an ice to their kitchens; and then they see that
they can be of no account in the world, except they crush us. And what do they at
the same time pretend? that our doctrine cannot be received without producing a
change in the whole world, without ruin to the whole civil order, without depriving
kings of their power and dignity. It is then by these malicious artifices that they gain
favor to themselves. Such was the device of Amaziah, and such was his manoeuvre
in opposing the Prophet Amos.
Behold, he says to the king, he has conspired against thee ‫,קשר‬ kosher, is to bind,
but, by a metaphor, it signifies to conspire: Conspired then has Amos against thee.
But who speaks? Amaziah; and the Prophet omits not the title of Amaziah; for he
says that he was the priest of Bethel He might have only said, “Amaziah sent to king
Jeroboam”, but by mentioning that he was a priest, the Prophet shows that Amaziah
did not strive for the peace of the public, as he pretended; and that this was
therefore a fallacious pretense, for he fought for his own Helen, that is, he fought for
his own kitchen, in short, for his living: for he would have been deprived, with
disgrace, of his priesthood, and then reduced to penury and want, except he had
driven away the Prophet Amos. Since then he saw that such and so great an evil was
nigh him except Amos was banished, he had this object in view, and pretended
another thing, and sent to the king and said, Amos has conspired; and he enhances
the crime, In the midst of the house of Israel. “This is not done,” he says “in a
corners or in some obscure place; but his doctrine is heard on all the public roads,
whole cities are filled with it; in short, it burns like fire in the very bosom, in the
very midst of the kingdom; and thou wilt soon find thy own house to be all in a
flame, unless thou applies a remedy, yea, except thou extinguishest it.” We hence see
how Amaziah acted, and the reason why he so earnestly persuaded the king to give
liberty no longer to the Prophet Amos.

75. With regard to what follows, — that the land could no longer bear his words, the
sentence admits of two probable meanings. The first is, that he said, that the people,
being offended with his turbulent doctrine, did now of themselves hate and detest
the Prophet Amos, as a seditious man. Kings are in our day stirred on in like
manner, — “Why do you delay? Your subjects desire nothing so much as to
extinguish this evil, and all of them will eagerly assist you: ye are in the meantime
idle, and your people complain of your tardiness. They think the princes in power
are unworthy of their station, since they thus suffer the ancient rites and ordinances
of holy Mother Church to fall into decay.” So they speak: and we may imagine the
words of Amaziah to have been in the same strain, — that he stimulated the king by
this artifice — that the people were prepared to do their part. The other meaning is
this, The land cannot bear his words; that is, “If he goes on here with full liberty to
raise tumults, as he has begun, the whole kingdom will be on the verge of ruin, for
many will follow him; and when an open sedition will arise, it cannot be checked
without great difficulty. We must therefore make every haste, lest Amos should get
the upper hand; for there is already the greatest danger.” As the Pharisees held a
consultation, and said,
‘Lest the Romans come and take away our place and nation,’
(John 11:48)
so also Amaziah might have excited the king by causing him to fear, that the land,
the country, or its inhabitants, had been disturbed by the words of Amos, and that
therefore it was time to put a stop to him. Such was the message of Amaziah to the
king.
BE SO , "Verse 10-11
Amos 7:10-11. Then Amaziah the priest of Beth-el sent to Jeroboam — This was a
priest not of the tribe of Levi, but such a one as those were whom Jeroboam I. had
consecrated to perform the idolatrous services at Beth-el: see 1 Kings 12:31. Amos
hath conspired against thee in the midst, &c. — That is, in an open and barefaced
manner. He represents the prophet as exciting sedition, because he denounced
destruction against the kingdom, and threatened the house of Jeroboam. The same
crime was objected to Jeremiah 26:9-10; to Christ, Luke 23:2; and to St. Paul, Acts
24:5. The land is not able to bear all his words — The friends of the government
cannot patiently hear his words, and the enemies of it will take advantage from
them to make some disturbance. If he proceed to speak in this manner, the
inhabitants will be moved to take up arms against each other. For Amos saith,
Jeroboam shall die by the sword — This was a perverting of the prophet’s words;
for he did not prophesy against the king himself, but against his family, or posterity.
COFFMA , "Verse 10
"Then Amaziah, the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, Amos
hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the land is not able to
bear his words. For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel

76. shall surely be led away captive out of his land."
"Amaziah ..." othing has been seen any more astounding than the argument from
this pagan priests' name that he was a true priest of God! "His name (Yahweh is
strong) is compounded with Yahweh and would indicate that the sanctuaries of
Israel maintained the worship of Yahweh."[28] The same kind of argument would
prove that the great ew Testament preacher Apollos was a worshipper of Apollo.
One can hardly understand the tenderness of so many commentators with regard to
that utterly pagan and depraved worship of the Israelites.
These two verses (Amos 7:10-11) are the first of a three-fold division of this last
section of the chapter, and relates to Amaziah's report to the king. The other two
are: Amaziah's taking matters into his own hands (Amos 7:12-13), and Amos'
answer to Amaziah (Amos 7:14-17). The whole passage is one of remarkable
strength and effectiveness. Smith's quotation from George Adam Smith is
appropriate:
"It `is one of the great scenes of history.' It reports the conflict between a priest who
spoke for and with the authority of a king, and a prophet who delivered the Word of
God."[29]
"Jeroboam shall die by the sword ..." Incredibly, some have defended this slander
upon the basis that, "it is basically correct."[30] Indeed no! On the contrary, it is a
base and unprincipled lie. As the Catholic Bible puts it:
"The prophet did not say this, but "that the Lord would rise up against the house of
Jeroboam with the sword," as was verified when Zacharias, son and successor of
Jeroboam, was slain with the sword."[31]
Amaziah's report was false for these reasons:
1. It falsely reported who was to be killed.
2. It falsely attributed the prediction to Amos, instead of the Lord.
3. It is false in that it omitted any mention of the sins of Israel which were the reason
for this prophecy.
4. It is false in that it made no mention of any call to repentance, or to the hope
extended if they did repent.
If this report is "basically correct," it would be interesting to see one that was
"basically in error!"
ote particularly the point in Amos' preaching at which this rude interruption by
the pagan priest occurred. either of the first two visions occasioned any objection
from Amaziah, for they were accounts of deliverances which God had extended to
Israel; but this third vision, which was a bold and thundering prophecy of the
immediate and impending doom of the whole nation, to be effected by the overthrow

77. of the monarchy, the destruction of the sanctuaries, and the captivity of the whole
nation, aroused the "high priest" of Bethel to action, which issued in his sending a
hasty message to the king, and then, apparently not waiting for any authority,
nevertheless took what action he could against Amos without any authority. It
would appear that Amaziah had been listening to all that Amos said.
Some have found it amazing that Jeroboam II is not represented here as taking any
action whatever against Amos; and we believe that this is evidence enough that he
took none, a conclusion that might seem incredible. However, this man, Jeroboam
II, had evidently known personally the prophet Jonah, upon whose prophecies he
had relied when he came to the throne, and in accordance with which he had won
the great military triumphs which had led so disastrously to the sin and
overconfidence of Israel. Jeroboam's respect for the prophetic office must,
therefore, have been very considerable. In this light, Jamieson's conclusion is
reasonable, "The king, however, did not give ear to Amaziah, probably from
religious awe of the prophet of Jehovah."[32] Barnes was also of this opinion,
pointing out that Jeroboam would also have had knowledge "of the true prophecies
of Elisha with reference to the successes of his father, Jeroboam I."[33] The action
of Amaziah in himself, taking the authority to forbid Amos to speak and ordering
him to leave the country, does not nullify this; because it is exactly the kind of
conduct one might have anticipated in a time-serving self-seeking pagan priest like
Amaziah. The next sub-section of this episode presents Amaziah's action against
Amos.
TRAPP, "Verse 10
Amos 7:10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel,
saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the
land is not able to bear all his words.
Ver. 10. Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel] Observing that the prophet had foretold
a desolation, and not prayed as before that it might be averted; because he saw God
was fully resolved, and their destruction determined.
Amos hath conspired against thee in the land] Thus Elijah was the troubler of
Israel, Jeremiah a seedsman of sedition, Christ an enemy to Caesar, Luther a
trumpet of rebellion; all contra-remonstrants, anti-magistratical. As Athaliah cried,
Treason, treason, when herself was the greatest traitor; and as in ero’s days
sedition was unicum crimen eorum qui crimine vacabunt (Lipsius), laid ordinarily
to the charge of those that were most free from it, so was it here. "Amos hath
conspired," &c., whereas Amos might well have said, as Latimer did, As for
sedition, for aught that I know, methinks I should not need Christ, if I might so say.
Religion is an utter enemy to rebellion; and as there are few conscionable Christians
(prophets especially) that have not passed under this calumniation, so he cannot be
rightly esteemed such a one that deserveth it. But Amaziah’s honour and incomes
were now at stake; as he well perceived when he heard Amos say, Go not up to
Bethel, &c., the high places of Isaac shall be destroyed; and hence his zeal against

78. the prophet; like as Erasmus told the Elector of Saxony, that the Pope and his
shavelings were therefore so sharp set against Luther because he lifted at the triple
crown, and sought to bring down the monks’ fat paunches.
The land is not able to bear all his words] His burdensome prophecies, [Malachi 1:1]
{See Trapp on "Malachi 1:1"} much less can I endure them, or any faithful servant
of thine, true to his trust. Such a lying accusation we read of, Esther 3:8, made by
haughty Haman against the innocent Jews, that they kept not the king’s laws, and
that therefore it were good policy to weed them out, as not to be longer endured. So
Francis, King of France, desiring to excuse to the Protestant princes of Germany his
cruel persecution of the Lutherans in his kingdom, wrote to them that he looked
upon them all as Anabaptists, and as enemies to civil government; and therefore
used such severity against them. This gave occasion to Calvin to write his admirable
Institutions, to vindicate our religion from that foul aspersion (Saultet. Annal. 454).
The like devilish policy was afterwards used to blanch over that horrid French
massacre. For it was given out, that the Protestants had conspired against the king,
the queen mother, the king’s brethren, the King of avarre, and the princes of the
blood. There was also coin stamped in memory of the matter, in the forepart
whereof with the king’s picture, was this inscription, Virtus in rebelles; power on
rebels, and on the other side, Pietas excitavit iustitiam: Piety hath stirred up justice.
Here was a fair glove drawn upon a foul hand; and this they learned from the devil,
who was first a slanderer and then a murderer; as those that have a mind to kill
another man’s dog make the world believe he was mad first, that they may do it
with the better pretext.
CO STABLE, "Verse 10
Amaziah, who was one of the apostate priests who served at the Bethel sanctuary
(cf. 1 Kings 12:26-33), felt that Amos was being unpatriotic in what he was
prophesying. So Amaziah sent a message to King Jeroboam II charging Amos with
conspiring against the king within the land. He felt that Israel could not afford to
endure Amos" prophesying any longer. Previously internal revolt against a king
had sometimes followed a prophet"s pronouncements (cf. 1 Samuel 16:1-13; 1 Kings
11:29-39; 1 Kings 16:1-13; 1 Kings 19:15-17; 2 Kings 8:7-15; 2 Kings 9:1-28; 2 Kings
10:9).
PETT, "Amos 7:10
‘Then Amaziah the priest of Beth-el sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, “Amos
has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel. The land is not able to
bear all his words.” ’
On hearing what Amos had said against the king, Amaziah immediately sent a
messenger to the king to inform him of what Amos was saying, and made it sound as
treasonable as possible. He claimed that Amos was ‘conspiring against’ the king,
and was proclaiming treasonable words in order to stir up any disgruntled people of
Israel against the king, so much so that the land could not stand his words, they
overflowed too voluminously and were too horrible. (It was, of course, incumbent on

79. any who heard about threats to the king’s person to report the fact, but he should
have reported what was actually said. There is a warning to us all here not to believe
anything that we are told until we have checked the facts. More trouble has been
caused by the distortion of what people have said than by almost anything else in
history. Such regular distortion is one of the proofs of the utter sinfulness of the
world).
K&D 10-11, "Opposition to the Prophet at Bethel. - The daring announcement of the
overthrow of the royal family excites the wrath of the high priest at Bethel, so that he
relates the affair to the king, to induce him to proceed against the troublesome prophet
(Amo_7:10 and Amo_7:11), and then calls upon Amos himself to leave Bethel (Amo_
7:12 and Amo_7:13). That this attempt to drive Amos out of Bethel was occasioned by
his prophecy in Amo_7:7-11, is evident from what Amaziah says to the king concerning
the words of Amos. “The priest of Bethel” (Kōhēn Bēth-ēl) is the high priest at the
sanctuary of the golden calf at Bethel. He accused the prophet to the king of having made
a conspiracy (qâshar; cf. 1Ki_15:27, etc.) against the king, and that “in the midst of the
house of Israel,” i.e., in the centre of the kingdom of Israel - namely at Bethel, the
religious centre of the kingdom - through all his sayings, which the land could not bear.
To establish this charge, he states (in Amo_7:11) that Amos has foretold the death of
Jeroboam by the sword, and the carrying away of the people out of the land. Amos had
really said this. The fact that in Amo_7:9 Jeroboam is named, and not the house of
Jeroboam, makes no difference; for the head of the house if naturally included in the
house itself. And the carrying away of the people out of the land was not only implied in
the announcement of the devastation of the sanctuaries of the kingdom (Amo_7:9),
which presupposes the conquest of the land by foes; but Amos had actually predicted it
in so many words (Amo_5:27). And Amaziah naturally gave the substance of all the
prophet's addresses, instead of simply confining himself to the last. There is no reason,
therefore, to think of intentional slander.
SBC, "I. There is something very wonderful, and at the same time most natural, in the
expansion of mind which a man brought up as Amos was, acquires when he has been
raised out of himself and has been made to understand the glory and the guilt of his
country. He knew that he was speaking of one who was true and in whom was no lie; he
knew that he was testifying against lies; he knew that the whole universe and the
consciences of those who heard him, however they might turn away from him or
persecute him, were on his side, and were acknowledging his sentence to have issued
from the mouth of the Lord Himself.
II. Amos would not have left his sheepfolds to denounce the idolatries of Israel if he had
not felt that men, that his own countrymen, were maintaining a fearful fight against a
will which had a right to govern them, and which could alone govern them for their
good. He could not have been sustained in the witness which He bore if an ever-
brightening revelation of the perfect goodness—of that goodness, active, energetic,
converting all powers and influences to its own righteous and gracious purposes—had
not accompanied revelations, that became every moment more awful, of the selfishness
and disorder to which men were yielding themselves. It is precisely because he has not
only history and experience to guide him, but the certainty of an eternal God, present in
all the convulsions of society, never ceasing to act upon the individual heart when it is
most wrapped in the folds of its pride and selfishness—it is precisely because he finds

80. this to be true, whatever else is false, that he must hope.
F. D. Maurice, Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, p. 155.
BI 10-17, "Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel.
The conventional and the genuine priests of a people
I. The conventional priest. Amaziah was chief priest of the royal sanctuary of the calves
at Bethel.
1. He was in close intimacy with the king.
2. He seeks to expel an independent teacher from the dominion of the king.
(1) By appeal to the king. By bringing against Amos the groundless charge of
treason. By a base slander he endeavours to influence the king against the true
teacher. He does this—
(2) By alarming the prophet. Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thee
away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there: but
prophesy not again any more at Bethel: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the
king’s court.” It does not appear that the king took any notice of the message
which this authorised religious teacher had sent him concerning Amos; hence, in
order to carry out his malignant purpose, he addresses the prophet and says, “O
thou seer, go, flee thee away.” Not imagining that Amos could be actuated by any
higher principle than that of selfishness, which reigned in his own heart, the
priest advised him to consult his safety by fleeing across the frontier into the
kingdom of Judah, where he might obtain his livelihood by the unrestrained
exercise of his prophetical gifts. Thank God, the days of the Amaziahs, through
the advancement of popular intelligence, are drawing to a close!
II. Here we have the genuine priest of a people. Amos seems to have been a prophet not
nationally recognised as such.
1. He is not ashamed of his humble origin. “I was no prophet,” that is, I am not a
prophet by profession, “neither was I a prophet’s son.” By the son of a prophet he
means a disciple or pupil. He had not studied in any prophetic college. No true
prophet is ever ashamed of his origin, however humble. As a rule the greatest
teachers of the world have struggled up from the regions of poverty and obscurity.
2. He is conscious of the Divinity of his mission. “The Lord took me as I followed the
flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto My people Israel.” Amos seems
to have had no doubt at all as to the fact that the Lord called him. How he was called
does not appear. When God calls a man to work, the man knows it. No argument will
convince him to the contrary.
3. In the name of heaven he denounces the conventional priest. In return for this
rebellion against Jehovah, Amos foretells for the priest the punishment which will
fall upon him when the judgment shall come upon Israel, meeting his words, “Thou
sayest, Thou shalt not prophesy” with the keen retort, “Thus saith Jehovah.” The
punishment is described in verse 17. (Homilist.)

81. 11 For this is what Amos is saying:
“‘Jeroboam will die by the sword,
and Israel will surely go into exile,
away from their native land.’”
BAR ES, "For thus Amos saith - Amos had said, “Thus saith the Lord;” he never
fails to impress on them, whose words he is speaking. Amaziah, himself bound up in a
system of falsehood and imposture, which, being a creature-worship, gave itself out as
the worship of the true God, believed all besides to be fraud. Fraud always suspects
fraud; the irreligious think devotion, holiness, saintliness to be hypocrisy: vice imagines
virtue to be well-masked vice. The false priest, by a sort of law of corrupt nature,
supposed that Amos also was false, and treats his words as the produce of his own mind.
Jeroboam shall die by the sword - Amos had not said this. The false prophet
distorts the last words of Amos, which were yet in his ears, and reports to Jeroboam, as
said of himself, what Amos had just said of his “house.” Amos “was” opposed to the
popular religion or irreligion of which Jeroboam was the head, to the headship over
which he had succeeded. Jeroboam, like the Roman Emperors, was high priest, Pontifex
Maximus, in order to get the popular worship under his control. The first Jeroboam had
himself consecrated the calf-priests 1Sa_22:8, 1Sa_22:13; 1Ki_15:27; 1Ki_16:9, 1Ki_
16:16; 2Ki_10:9; 2Ki_14:19; 2Ki_15:10, 2Ki_15:15, 2Ki_15:25; 2Ki_21:23. Amos bore
also the message from God, that the reprieve, given to the house of Jehu, would not be
extended, but would end. Amaziah would act on the personal fears of the king, as though
there had been some present active conspiracy against him. A lie, mixed with truth, is
the most deadly form of falsehood, the truth serving to gain admittance for the lie, and
color it, and seeming to require explanation, and being something to full back upon.
Since thus much is certainly true, why should not the rest be so? In slander, and heresy
which is slander against God, truth is used to commend the falsehood; and falsehood, to
destroy the truth. The poison is received the more fearlessly because wrapt up in truth,
but loses none of its deadliness.
And Israel shall surely be led away captive - This was a suppression of truth, as
the other was a falsification of it. Amaziah omits both the ground of the threat, and the
hope of escape urged and impressed upon them. On the one side he omits all mention of
what even such a king as Jeroboam would respect, the denunciation of oppression of the
poor, injustice, violence, robbery, and all their other sins against man. On the other
hand, he omits the call to repentance and promises on it, “seek ye the Lord and live.” He
omits too the prophet’s intercession for his people, and selects the one prophecy, which

82. could give a mere political character to the whole. Suppression of truth is a yet subtler
character of falsehood. Hence, witnesses on oath are required to tell, not the truth only.,
but the whole truth. Yet in daily life, or in accusation of others, in detraction, or evil-
speaking, people daily act, as though, suppression were no lie.
GILL, "For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword,.... Which was
not saying truth; for Amos said not that Jeroboam should die by the sword, but that God
would raise up the sword against his house or family; nor did Jeroboam die by the
sword, but his son Zachariah did:
and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land; this was true;
Amos did say this, and he afterwards confirms it. This is the amount of the charge
brought against the prophet, which has some truth and some falsehood mixed together;
and by which method the priest hoped to gain his point, and get the prophet either
banished or put to death.
HE RY, "I. The malicious information brought to the king against the prophet
Amos, Amo_7:10, Amo_7:11. The informer was Amaziah the priest of Bethel, the chief of
the priests that ministered to the golden calf there, the president of Bethel (so some read
it), that had the principal hand in civil affairs there. He complained against Amos, not
only because he prophesied without license from him, but because he prophesied against
his altars, which would soon be deserted and demolished if Amos's preaching could but
gain credit. Thus the shrine-makers at Ephesus hated Paul, because his preaching
tended to spoil their trade. Note, Great pretenders to sanctity are commonly the worst
enemies to those who are really sanctified. Priests have been the most bitter persecutors.
Amaziah brings an information to Jeroboam against Amos. Observe, 1. The crime he is
charged with is no less than treason: “Amos has conspired against thee, to depose and
murder thee; he aims at succeeding thee, and therefore is taking the most effectual way
to weaken thee. He sows the seeds of sedition in the hearts of the good subjects of the
king, and makes them disaffected to him and his government, that he may draw them by
degrees from their allegiance; upon this account the land is not able to bear his words.”
It is slyly insinuated to the king that the country was exasperated against him, and it is
given in as their sense that his preaching was intolerable, and such as nobody could be
reconciled to, such as the times would by no means bear, that is, the men of the times
would not. Both the impudence of his supposed treason, and the bad influence it would
have upon the country, are intimated in that part of the charge, that he conspired against
the king in the midst of the house of Israel. Note, It is no new thing for the accusers of
the brethren to misrepresent them as enemies to the king and kingdom, as traitors to
their prince and troublers of the land, when really they are the best friends to both. And
it is common for designing men to assert that as the sense of the country which is far
from being so. And yet here, I doubt, it was too true, that the people could not bear plain
dealing any more than the priests. 2. The words laid in the indictment for the support of
this charge (Amo_7:11): Amos says (and they have witnesses ready to prove it)
Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall be led away captive; and hence they
infer that he is an enemy to his king and country, and not to be tolerated. See the malice
of Amaziah; he does not tell the king how Amos had interceded for Israel, and by his
intercession had turned away first one judgment and then another, and did not let fall
his intercession till he saw the decree had gone forth; he does not tell him that these
threatenings were conditional, and that he had often assured them that if they would
repent and reform the ruin should be prevented. Nay, it was not true that he said,

83. Jeroboam shall die by the sword, nor did he so die (2Ki_14:28), but that God would rise
against the house of Jeroboam with the sword, Amo_7:9. God's prophets and ministers
have often had occasion to make David's complaint (Psa_56:5), Every day they wrest
my words. But shall it be made the watchman's crime, when he sees the sword coming,
to give warning to the people, that they may get themselves secured? or the physician's
crime to tell his patient of the danger of his disease, that he may use means for the cure
of it? What enemies are foolish men to themselves, to their own peace, to their best
friends! It does not appear that Jeroboam took any notice of this information; perhaps
he reverenced a prophet, and stood more in awe of the divine authority than Amaziah
his priest did.
JAMISO , "Jeroboam shall die, etc. — Amos had not said this: but that “the
house of Jeroboam” should fall “with the sword” (Amo_7:9). But Amaziah exaggerates
the charge, to excite Jeroboam against him. The king, however, did not give ear to
Amaziah, probably from religious awe of the prophet of Jehovah.
CALVI , "Verse 11
ow our Prophet is wholly silent as to the answer of the king: it is therefore
probable, either that the king was not much excited, — or that he dared not openly
to take away the life of Amos; for he had probably obtained some authority among
the people; and though he was hated, yet his name as a Prophet and his office were
had in reverence, — or that the matter was by agreement arranged between the two
enemies of sound doctrine, as flatterers often gratify kings by putting themselves in
their place, and by bearing all the ill will. However this might have been, it is
certainly a probable conjecture, that the king did not interfere, because he was so
persuaded by the priest Amaziah, or because he feared the people, or because
religion restrained him, as even the ungodly are sometimes wont to contain
themselves within the bounds of moderation; not that they are touched by real fear
towards God, or that they desire to embrace his true worship: they wish God to be
thrust down from heaven, they wish all knowledge of religion to be obliterated; but
yet they dare not pour forth their fury. Such fear then might have seized the mind of
Jeroboam, that he did not tyrannically rage against the Prophet Amos. But if we
regard the tendency of the words of Amaziah, he certainly wished the Prophet Amos
to be immediately visited with capital punishment; for conspiracy is a crime worthy
of death; and then, fear might have impelled the king to put the holy Prophet
immediately to death. Amaziah therefore expected more than what he attained: and
then appeared his vulpine wiliness, for he sent for the Prophet and advised him to
withdraw to the land of Judah. Hence, as I said at the beginning, it is very probable
that Jeroboam was not excited according to the expectation of the ungodly priest of
Bethel, who at first was a cruel wild beast; but when he could not proceed openly to
destroy Amos, he put on a new character; he became a fox, because he could do
nothing as a raging lion. Hence follows his second attempt, And Amaziah said to
Amos, etc.
I have passed over one clause in the last verse: Amos says, By the sword shall
Jeroboam die, and Israel, by migrating, shall migrate from their own land. These, in
short, are two heads of accusation. Some interpreters think that Amaziah had

84. slanderously perverted the words of the Prophet Amos; for he did not denounce
death on king Jeroboam, but only on his people and posterity: but I do not insist on
this. It might then be, that Amaziah did not designedly pervert the words of Amos,
but only wished to excite the ill will of the king. Die then shall Jeroboam or his
posterity with the sword, and Israel also, by migrating, shall migrate from their own
land. We hence learn, that Amaziah was not impelled only by the last address of the
Prophet Amos, but that he then discovered the hatred which he had long harbored.
Amaziah therefore had been, no doubt, on his watch, and had heard what Amos
daily taught, and when he thought the matter ripe, he sent to the king. Having tried
this way, and found that it did not answer, he came to his second attempt, which we
are now to consider.
TRAPP, "Verse 11
Amos 7:11 For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall
surely be led away captive out of their own land.
Ver. 11. For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, &c.] When did
Amos say so? He said indeed that the house of Jeroboam should be smitten with the
sword, Amos 7:9, and this Amaziah maliciously transferreth to the person of
Jeroboam, the more to enrage him against the prophet; whom therefore he nameth
once and again, to create him the more displeasure. That Jeroboam died by the
sword we read not, but that his son Zachariah was slain, and his house destroyed in
the next generation, we find 2 Kings 15:10, according to Amos’s prophecy. But to
colour this calumny, some truth shall be admingled.
And Israel shall surely be led away captive] This indeed the prophet had often
affirmed (though not in any of those three last visions), and it proved too true: but
because Amos saith so he must pass for a traitor against the majesty both of the king
and of the people. What an impudent informer was this! The king and people are
pretended; and what good subject can endure it? but that which irked him was, that
his own authority was by this plain dealing prophet impaired, and his gain like to be
lessened, if the superstition of Bethel were thus decried. It is said of Phlugius and
Sidonius (authors of the Interim in Germany) that, among other points of Popery
therein defended, they spake much for chrism and extreme unction, ut ipsi
discederent unctores, that thereby they might hold fat bishoprics. Such arguments
prevail much with all self-seekers, whose covetousness and ambition usually ride
without reins, and over whose neck it mattereth not.
CO STABLE, "Verse 11
Amaziah reported that Amos was saying that the king would die by the sword and
that the Israelites would definitely go into exile. While we have no record that Amos
said these exact words, they do represent fairly the message that Amos was
announcing (cf. Amos 7:8-9). By claiming that Amos was predicting Jeroboam"s
death, the priest was personalizing the danger of Amos" ministry to the king and
was emotionally inciting him to take action against the prophet. Amaziah regarded
Amos" prophecies as simply the prophet"s own words. He had no respect for them

85. as messages from Israel"s God but viewed them only as a challenge to the status
quo.
12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Get out, you
seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your
bread there and do your prophesying there.
BAR ES, "Jeroboam apparently took no account of the false priest’s message.
Perhaps the memory of the true prophecies of Elisha as to the successes of his father,
and of Jonah as to his own, fulfilled in his own person and still recent, inspired him with
a reverence for God’s prophets. To know his motive or motives, we must know his whole
character, which we do not. Amaziah, failing of his purpose, uses his name as far as he
dares. “Seer, go flee thee.” He probably uses the old title for a prophet, in reference to
the visions which he had just related. Perhaps, he used it in irony also . “Thou who seest,
as thou deemest, what others see not, “visionary! visionist!” flee thee,” that is, for thy
good; (he acts the patron and the counselor;) “to the land of Judah, and there eat bread,
and there prophesy.” Worldly people always think that those whose profession is
religious make “a gain of godliness.” “He is paid for it,” they say. “Whose bread I eat, his
song I sing.” Interested people cannot conceive of one disinterested; nor the worldly, of
one unworldly; nor the insincere, of one sincere. Amaziah thought then that Amos,
coming out of Judah, must he speaking in the interests of Judah; perhaps, that he was in
the pay of her king. Anyhow, prophecies, such as his against Israel, would be acceptable
there and be well paid. The words are courteous, like so much patronizing language now,
as to God or His revelation, His prophets or His Apostles, or His divine word. The words
are measured: the meaning blasphemy. Perhaps, like the Scribes and Pharisees
afterward, “he feared the people” Mat_21:26; Act_5:26. : “Seeing that there were many
among the people who beard him gladly, he dared not do him any open wrong, lest he
should offend them.”
CLARKE, "O thou seer - He pretends kindness to the prophet, and counsels him to
go into Judea, and prophesy there and be safe, even in the time that he had accused him
of high treason against Jeroboam. Hireling priests of this kind have ever been the great
enemies of the true prophets of God; and when they could bring no charge of false
doctrine or immorality against them, have accused them of conspiring against the
government; and because they have preached against sin, have held them up as exciting
insurrection among the people.

86. GILL, "Also Amaziah said unto Amos,.... Either at the same time; or, it may be,
after he had waited for the king's answer, and received none; or what did not come up to
his expectations and wishes. We have no account of any answer the king returned; who
either gave no heed to the representations of the priest, or had a better opinion of, he
prophet, and did not credit the things imputed to him; which the priest observing, took
another way to get rid of the prophet, and that by flattery:
O thou seer; that seest visions, and foretells things to come. This title, which of right
belonged to him, and is given to the true prophets of God sometimes, is here given to
Amos, either seriously or ironically:
go, flee thee away into the land of Judah; to which he belonged, and where the
temple stood, and the true worship of God was performed; and where the king, princes,
and people, were on his side of the question; and where his prophecies would be
received, and he caressed for them, being against the ten tribes, with whom they were at
variance, and where also he would be safe; for he suggests, that, in giving this advice, he
consulted his good and safety; for, if he stayed here long, King Jeroboam would certainly
take away his life; and therefore he advised him to flee with all haste to his own country:
and there eat bread, and prophesy there: he took him for a mercenary man like
himself, and that he prophesied for bread; which he intimates he would never be able to
get in the land of Israel, but in all probability might in the land of Judea.
HE RY, " The method he used to persuade Amos to withdraw and quit the country
(Amo_7:12, Amo_7:13); when he could not gain his point with the king to have Amos
imprisoned, banished, or put to death, or at least to have him frightened into silence or
flight, he tried what he could do by fair means to get rid of him; he insinuated himself
into his acquaintance, and with all the arts of wheedling endeavored to persuade him to
go and prophesy in the land of Judah, and not at Bethel. He owns him to be a seer, and
does not pretend to enjoin him silence, but suggests to him,
1. That Bethel was not a proper place for him to exercise his ministry in, for it was the
king's chapel, or sanctuary, where he had his idols and their altars and priests; and it
was the king's court, or the house of the kingdom, where the royal family resided and
where were set the thrones of judgment; and therefore prophesy not any more here. And
why not? (1.) Because Amos is too plain and blunt a preacher for the court and the king's
chapel. Those that wear silk and fine clothing, and speak silken soft words, are fit for
king's palaces. (2.) Because the worship that is in the king's chapel will be a continual
vexation and trouble to Amos; let him therefore get far enough from it, and what the eye
sees not the heart grieves not for. (3.) Because it was not fit that the king and his house
should be affronted in their own court and chapel by the reproofs and threatenings
which Amos was continually teazing them with in the name of the Lord; as if it were the
prerogative of the prince, and the privilege of the peers, when they are running headlong
upon a precipice, not to be told of their danger. (4.) Because he could not expect any
countenance or encouragement there, but, on the contrary, to be bantered and ridiculed
by some and to be threatened and brow-beaten by others; however, he could not think to
make any converts there, or to persuade any from that idolatry which was supported by
the authority and example of the king. To preach his doctrine there was but (as we say)
to run his head against a post; and therefore prophesy no more there. But,
2. He persuades him that the land of Judah was the fittest place for him to set up in:

87. Flee thee away thither with all speed, and there eat bread, and prophesy there. There
thou wilt be safe; there thou wilt be welcome; the king's court and chapel there are on
thy side; the prophets there will second thee; the priests and princes there will take
notice of thee, and allow thee an honourable maintenance. See here, (1.) How willing
wicked men are to get clear of their faithful reprovers, and how ready to say to the seers,
See not, or See not for us; the two witnesses were a torment to those that dwelt on the
earth (Rev_11:10), and it were indeed a pity that men should be tormented before the
time, but that it is in order to the preventing of eternal torment. (2.) How apt worldly
men are to measure others by themselves. Amaziah, as a priest, aimed at nothing but the
profits of his place, and he thought Amos, as a prophet, had the same views, and
therefore advised him to prophesy were he might eat bread, where he might be sure to
have as much as he chose; whereas Amos was to prophesy where God appointed him,
and where there was most need of him, not where he would get most money. Note,
Those that make gain their godliness, and are governed by the hopes of wealth and
preferment themselves, are ready to think these the most powerful inducements with
others also.
JAMISO , "Also — Besides informing the king against Amos, lest that course
should fail, as it did, Amaziah urges the troublesome prophet himself to go back to his
own land Judah, pretending to advise him in friendliness.
seer — said contemptuously in reference to Amos’ visions which precede.
there eat bread — You can earn a livelihood there, whereas remaining here you will
be ruined. He judges of Amos by his own selfishness, as if regard to one’s own safety and
livelihood are the paramount considerations. So the false prophets (Eze_13:19) were
ready to say whatever pleased their hearers, however false, for “handfuls of barley and
pieces of bread.”
CALVI , "Verse 12
Amaziah then said to Amos, — that is, after his first proceeding disappointed him;
for he did not obtain from king Jeroboam what he expected, — then Amaziah said
to Amos, Seer, go, flee to the land of Judah! By saying Go, he intimates that he was
at liberty to depart, as though he said, “Why wouldest thou willfully perish among
us?” At the same time, the two clauses ought to be joined together. He says first, Go,
and then, flee When he says Go, he reminds him, as I have already said, that if he
wished, he might go away, as no one prevented his departure: “Go, then, for the way
is open to you.” But when he says, flee, he means that he could not long remain safe
there: “Except thou provident for thy life, it is all over with you: flee then quickly
away from us, else thou art lost.” We hence see how cunningly Amaziah assailed
God’s Prophet. He proposed to him an easy way of saving his life; at the same time
he urged him with the fear of danger, and declared that he could not remain safe,
except he immediately fled. These then were the two reasons which he used as
mighty engines to depress the heart of the holy Prophet.
He afterwards subjoins, And eat there thy bread This is the third argument. He
might be allowed to live in his own country, and be supplied there with sustenance;
for Amos was, as we have said, one of the shepherds of Tekoa. He must then have
arisen from the tribe of Judah, and he had his habitation and his relations in that
kingdom. Besides, Azariah was not an ungodly king: though not one of the most

88. perfect, he yet respected and honored the servants of God. Hence, by saying, Eat
there thy bread, Amaziah means that there was a safe residence for the Prophets in
the kingdom of Judah, and that they were there esteemed both by the king and by
the people, and that they might live there. This is the third argument.
ow follows the fourth: “If thou dost object to me, and say that thou art a Prophet,
and that it is neither lawful nor right in thee to be silent, be a prophet there. Thou
knowest that prophets are attended to in the kingdom of Judah; thou mayest then
perform thine office there, and live at liberty, and without fear.” We hence see four
of the reasons by which Amaziah attempted to persuade the Prophet Amos to leave
the people of Israel, and to go to his own kindred.
But there follows a fifth reason: But in Bethel prophesy no more; for the sanctuary
of the king it is, and his court. Here Amaziah annoys the Prophet by another
pretense, or he tries, at least, to shake his courage, by intimating that it was
unbecoming to raise commotions in the kingdom of Israel, and also that, by so
doing, he offended God, because Jeroboam was a divinely appointed king, and
endued with the chief authority. Since then the king could, by his own right,
institute new modes of worship, Amaziah here argues that it is not in the power of
any one who pleased to pull down those rites which had been universally received,
and then confirmed by a royal edict, but that they ought to be received without any
dispute. We then perceive now the import of the whole.
But it must be noticed in this place, that we must be watchful, not only against the
open violence and cruelty of enemies, but also against their intrigues; for as Satan is
a murderer, and has been so from the beginning, so he is also the father of lies.
Whosoever then wishes strenuously and constantly to spend his labors for the
Church and for God, must prepare himself for a contest with both: he must resist all
fears and all intrigues. We see some not so fearful, though a hundred deaths were
denounced upon them, who are yet not sufficiently cautious when enemies craftily
insinuate themselves. I have not, therefore, said without reason, that God’s servants
have need of being fortified against both; that they ought to be prepared against the
fear of death, and remain intrepid, though they must die, and that they ought to lay
down their necks, if needs be, while performing their office, and to seal their
doctrine with their own blood; — and that, on the other hand, their ought to be
prudent; for oftentimes the enemies of the truth assail them by flatteries; and the
experience of our own times sufficiently proves this. More danger, I know, has ever
been from this quarter; that is, when enemies attempt to terrify by such objections
as these, “What is your purpose? See, the whole world must necessarily at length be
consumed by calamities. What else do you seek, but that religion should everywhere
flourish, that sound learning should be valued, that peace should prevail
everywhere? But we see that the fiercest war is at hand: if once it should arise, all
places would be full of calamities, savage barbarity, and cruelty, would follow, and
religion would perish: all this ye will effect by your pertinacity.” These things have
often been said to us. When therefore we read this passage, we ought to notice the
arts by which Satan has been trying to undermine the efforts of the godly, and the
constancy of God’s servants.

89. As to the first argument, there is no need much of dwelling longer upon it; for every
one can of himself perceive the design of all this crafty proceeding. He says first,
Seer, go. Amaziah addresses Amos in a respectful way: he does not reproachfully
call him, either an exile, or a seditious man, or one unlearned, or a cowherd, or a
person unworthy of his office. He does not use any such language, but calls him a
seer; he concedes to him the honorable title of a Prophet; for by the word ‫,חזה‬ chese,
he means this “I confess thee to be God’s Prophet: I grant that thou art a Prophet,
but not our Prophet; Seer, then, go.” We hence see that he left to him untouched the
honor of being a Prophet, that he might more easily creep into his favor, lest by
raising a dispute at first, there should be between them a violent contest: he
therefore avoided all occasions of contention.
It might however have been asked him, Why he was blind? For the office of a priest
was to watch; and the Prophets were in such a manner joined to the priests, that
when God substituted Prophets in their place, he indirectly charged them with
idleness and indifference. For why were the priests appointed? That they might be
the messengers of the Lord of hosts, as it is said by Malachi,
‘The people shall seek from the mouth of the priest my law, for he is the messenger
of the Lord of hosts,’ (Malachi 2:7)
Amaziah then ought especially to have performed himself the Prophet’s office, for
he was a priest. He was indeed, I allow, a spurious priest; but having claimed so
honorable a name, he ought to have discharged its duties: this he did note and
conceded that title to the Prophet. So now our milted bishops are very liberal in
conceding titles, “O, Mr. Teacher, ye can indeed see and understand many things:
but yet ye ought, at the same time, to consult the peace of the community.” They call
those teachers who have been invested with no public office, but are yet under the
necessity of undertaking the duties of others, for they see that these milted bishops
are dumb dogs. In a like manner, also, did Amaziah act towards the Prophet Amos;
for he was content with his own splendor and great pomp, and with his own riches;
he lived sumptuously, and enjoyed a rich booty, and superstitions well warmed his
kitchen. He therefore easily surrendered to others the title of a Prophet: in the
meantime, he prided himself on his priesthood.
But as to the second argument, there was a sharper sting in it, Flee, he says. By
flight he intimates, that it was necessary for the Prophet to depart, though he wished
to remain. So this second reason was borrowed from necessity; for the Prophet
could no longer be borne with, if he proceeded in the free discharge of his office.
Flee then to the land of Judah, and there eat bread
With regard to this third reason, he seems to imply that the Prophet Amos would be
too pertinacious and too much wedded to his own opinion, if he preferred not to live
safely and quietly in his own country, rather than to endanger his life in another
land. Go then. Where would he send him? To his own country. Why? “Thou art
here a foreigner, and sees thyself to be hated; why then dost thou not rather return

90. to thine own country, where thy religion prevails?” Amaziah did not indeed address
the Prophet Amos, as man of profane men do at this day, who are less like
Epicureans than they are to swine and filthy dogs; for they object and say, “Thou
mayest return to thine own country; why hast thou come to us?” They send us away
to our own country, when they know that there is there no safe place for us. But at
that time pure religion flourished in the land of Judah: hence Amaziah says, “Why
dost thou not live with thy own countrymen? for there are many there who will
supply thee with sustenance; the king himself will be thy friend, and the whole
people will also help thee.”
As to the fourth argument, we see what a crafty sophist is the devil, Be a Prophet
there Who speaks? Amaziah, who perfectly hated the temple at Jerusalem, who
would have gladly with his own hands set it on fire, who would have gladly put to
death all the pious priests; and yet he allows to holy Amos a free liberty to prophesy,
and he allows this, because he could not immediately in an open manner stop the
holy Prophet in his course: he therefore sends him away to a distance. We hence see
that Satan, by various arts and means, tempts the servants of God, and has
wonderful turnings and windings, and sometimes transforms himself into an angel
of light, as it is said by Paul, (2 Corinthians 11:14) and in this place we have a
remarkable instance of this. Is not Amaziah an angel of light, when he advises the
Prophet Amos to serve God freely in his own country, and to prophesy there, and to
open his mouth in defense of God’s worship and of pure religion? provided he did
not do all this in the land of Israel. We have then in this chapter, as I have said, a
remarkable instance of the wiliness of Satan.
BE SO , "Verse 12-13
Amos 7:12-13. Amaziah said, O thou seer, go flee, &c. — Thou that sayest thou art a
prophet, get thee hence, where thou signifiest that thou art so much displeased with
the actions of the people, and go into the land of Judah — Where it is likely thou
wilt be better entertained than thou art here. And there eat bread, &c. — There
they will feed thee well, because thou pretendest to be a prophet. Prophesy not at
Beth-el, for it is the king’s chapel, &c. — This is the place where the king performs
his religious worship in person, and often resides here with his court, that he may
the better attend upon the service performed at this place; (see 1 Kings 13:1;) and
therefore thou oughtest to reverence it, and not utter thy sham prophecies here.
COFFMA , "Verse 12
"Also Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go flee thou away into the land of
Judah, and there eat bread, and prophecy there: but prophecy not again any more
at Bethel; for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a royal house."
"O seer, go flee thou away ..." It is puzzling why so many find nothing
contemptuous or patronizing in such a statement as this, for there would appear to
be plenty of both. It is true, of course, that some have made "seer" in every way a
synonym of prophet; but there were "seers" by the hundreds in antiquity who were
of the devil. The word also carries the thought captured by McFadden's paraphrase
of it as, "Thou visionary,"[34] which, in the light of the visions Amaziah had just

91. been hearing from Amos, would seem to be accurate. Dummelow was doubtless
correct in his equating the words of Amaziah here with, "the proverbial saying, `eat
your pudding slave, and hold your tongue.'"[35]
"Eat bread, and prophecy there ..." the implications of this are a gross reflection
upon Amaziah himself, as many have pointed out. He did not recognize any such
thing as a truly prophetic office; to him all prophets were concerned merely with
what they could get out of it, this being a perfect reflection of his own character. The
argument he makes, to the extent that there is any, is that Judah would pay more
for prophecies against Israel than could be received for such prophecies being
delivered in Israel itself! The expression "eat bread" means "make your living,"
"peddle your wares," or "do your thing" in Judah, and not at Bethel.
"It is the king's sanctuary ..." "It was founded by the king (1 Kings 12:28), and not
by God; so, in truth, it had only an earthly sanction,"[36] although it may be
doubted that Amaziah noticed the self-convicting admission of these words. There is
a world of difference in God's sanctuary and the king's sanctuary. Barnes said that
in three places only in the Old Testament is the alleged sanctuary of God called the
sanctuary of Israel, here, and in Lamentations 1:10, and Leviticus 26:31.[37] Christ
likewise designated the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:38), "Behold, your
house is left unto you desolate."
The balance of this chapter is comprised of Amos' undaunted response to Amaziah's
peevish and blasphemous efforts to thwart the prophet's holy mission, namely, that
of turning Israel to repentance before it would be everlastingly too late. It appears
that Amos was in no way intimidated or silenced by Amaziah's interruption.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 12-13
(12, 13) Jeroboam treated the charge made by Amaziah with indifference, or
perhaps with awe: at least, with silence. And so the priest of Bethel takes upon
himself to dismiss the prophet from the kingdom. The word for “seer” is here
chozeh, one who has visions, a word not used in a contemptuous sense here or in the
Old Testament generally. The expression “there eat bread and prophecy” is a
hendiadys for “there live on your profession as a prophet,” not here. To this Amos
replies that that was not his profession (Amos 7:14). Bethel is spoken of as the “holy
place,” or sanctuary, and also as the “royal residence” (E.V., “king’s court”). Men
blinded by prejudice, and bewildered by the light of our Lord’s holy presence,
besought him to depart from them. The awful peril of imploring God’s messenger to
withdraw is frequently referred to in Scripture. (Comp. Luke 10:10-12.)
TRAPP, "Verse 12
Amos 7:12 Also Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the
land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there:
Ver. 12. Also Amaziah said unto Amos] After he had maliciously misinformed the
king, but prevailed not; so God would have it, in whose heart is the king’s hand, and
who rebuketh even kings for their sakes, saying, Do my prophets no harm.

92. O thou seer] Fair words; the better to insinuate.
“ Mel in ore, verba lactis:
Fel in corde, fraus in factis. ”
Some think he calleth the prophet thus by way of jeer, quasi fatidicum aut
fanaticum, as a fortune teller or distracted. Others, that he giveth the prophet good
words, and seemeth to give him good counsel, as fearing the people, with whom
Amos was in some credit; and therefore the king was told of a conspiracy against
him "in the midst of the house of Israel," Amos 7:10.
Flee thee away into the land of Judah] Age, fuge: as a friend wrote to Brentius,
when he was in danger to be surprised by the emperor’s agent, Fuge, fuge, Brenti
cito, citius, citissime, Fly for thy life, haste, haste, haste. So the Pharisees (for no
great love, be sure, but only to be fairly rid of him) came and said to Christ, "Get
thee out and depart hence; for Herod will kill thee," Luke 13:31.
Into the land of Judah] This he speaketh scornfully, q.d. we are not good enough for
you; you are so strict, &c.
And there eat bread, and prophesy there] Invidiose omnia et contemptim dicit: If
you stay here you may hap to starve for it. Away, therefore, into your own country;
and there make thee a living by prophesying. He seems to measure Amos by himself;
as if he were of those that prophesied for a handful of barley and a morsel of bread,
Ezekiel 13:19, Micah 3:11; and as a certain Popish priest confessed concerning
himself and his symmists, We preach the gospel, said he, tantum ut nos pascat et
vestiat, only to pick a living out of it.
CO STABLE, "Verse 12-13
Amaziah then approached Amos and told him to move back to Judah and to earn
his living in his home country (cf. Amos 1:1). By referring to Amos as a seer
(another term for a prophet, cf. 1 Samuel 9:9; 2 Samuel 24:11; Isaiah 29:10),
Amaziah was probably disparaging the visions that Amos said he saw ( Amos 7:1-9).
[ ote: See Stuart, p376; and E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos: A
Commentary, p116.] By telling him to eat (earn) his bread in Judah, he was hinting
that Amos needed to get a "legitimate" job rather than living off the contributions
he received for prophesying (cf. Genesis 3:19; 2 Kings 4:8; Ezekiel 13:17-20; Micah
3:5; Micah 3:11). Amaziah told Amos to stop prophesying in Bethel (emphatic in the
Hebrew text) because it was one of the king"s sanctuaries (places of worship) as well
as one of the king"s residences (places of living). Bethel, of all places, was an

93. inappropriate town in which Amos should utter messages of doom against Israel,
from Amaziah"s perspective. Amos had become an embarrassment to the political
and religious establishment in Israel.
PETT, "Amos 7:12
‘Also Amaziah said to Amos, “O you seer, go, flee you away into the land of Judah,
and there eat bread, and prophesy there, but do not prophesy again any more at
Beth-el, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a royal house.” ’
Amaziah then himself turned on Amos. It would be seen as his responsibility to
preserve the public peace at Bethel and he would want it on record that he had tried
to get rid of Amos without incurring the wrath of YHWH. Although accepting that
he was ‘a seer’ (he may have meant it slightly insultingly indicating that he was but
a small time prophet, or it may simply have indicated a prophet from Judah as
opposed to Israel), he bade Amos to return to Judah, and make his living
prophesying there. He clearly considered that Amos saw his position as a means of
making a living. Let him then make his living in Judah, where people might be more
willing to listen to him, rather than in Bethel at the sanctuary of the king of Israel.
ote his emphasis on the high status of Bethel. It was the king’s sanctuary, and
under the auspices of royalty. And Amaziah was proud of it. In his view therefore
Amos, as a minor Judean prophet, was getting above himself and out of his depth.
K&D 12-13, "The king appears to have commenced no proceedings against the
prophet in consequence of this denunciation, probably because he did not regard the
affair as one of so much danger. Amaziah therefore endeavours to persuade the prophet
to leave the country. “Seer, go, and flee into the land of Judah.” ָ‫ך‬ ְ‫ח־ל‬ ַ‫ר‬ ְ , i.e., withdraw
thyself by flight from the punishment which threatens thee. “There eat thy bread, and
there mayst thou prophesy:” i.e., in Judah thou mayst earn thy bread by prophesying
without any interruption. It is evident from the answer given by Amos in Amo_7:14, that
this is the meaning of the words: “But in Bethel thou shalt no longer prophesy, for it is a
king's sanctuary (i.e., a sanctuary founded by the king; 1Ki_12:28), and bēth
mamlâkhâh,” house of the kingdom, i.e., a royal capital (cf. 1Sa_27:5), - namely, as being
the principal seat of the worship which the king has established for his kingdom. There
no one could be allowed to prophesy against the king.
13 Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because
this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the
kingdom.”

94. BAR ES, "It is the king’s chapel - Better, as in the English margin, “sanctuary.” It
is the name for “the sanctuary” of God. “Let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell
among them” Exo_25:8. “Ye shall reverence My sanctuary: I am the Lord” Lev_19:30;
Lev_26:2. It is most often spoken of as, “The sanctuary” ; elsewhere, but always with
emphasis, of reverence, sanctity, devotion, protection, it is called “His sanctuary; My
sanctuary; Thy sanctuary; the sanctuary of the Lord of God, of his God ; whence God
Himself is called “a sanctuary” Isa_8:14; Eze_11:16, as a place of refuge. In three places
only, is it called the sanctuary of Israel; “her sanctuary.” God, in His threat to cast them
off, says, “I will bring your sanctuaries to desolation” Lev_26:31; Jeremiah laments, “the
pagan have entered into her sanctuary” Lam_1:10; he says, “the place of our sanctuary is
a glorious high throne from the beginning” Jer_17:12, inasmuch as God was enthroned
there.
In this case too it is “the sanctuary for” Israel, not a mere property of Israel. “The
sanctuary of God” could not he called the sanctuary of any man. One man could not so
appropriate “the sanctuary.” God had ordained it for Himself. His presence had
sanctified it. Heresy, in unconsciousness, lets out more truth than it means. A high priest
at Jerusalem could not have said this. He knew that “the temple” was the “sanctuary” of
God, and could not have called it the “king’s sanctuary.” The sanctuary at Bethel had no
other sanction, than what it had from the king. Jeroboam I consecrated it and its priests
1Ki_12:31-33; and from him it and they had their authority. Amaziah wished to use a
popular plea to rid himself of Amos. Bethel was “the king’s sanctuary and the house,” not
of God, but “of the kingdom,” that is, “the house,” which had the whole royal sanction,
which with its Worship was the creature of royal authority, bound up in one with the
kingdom, and belonging to it.
Or it may be, “a royal house,” (not a palace, or court, for the king’s palace was at
Samaria, but) “a royal temple,” the state-Church. So the Arians betrayed their
worldliness by dating one of their Creeds from the Roman Consuls of the year, its month
and day” , thereby to show all thinking people, that their faith dates, not of old but now.”
Their faith was of yesterday. “They are accustomed to say,” says Jerome, “the Emperor
communicates with us, and, if anyone resists them, immediately they calumniate. ‘Actest
thou against the Emperor? Despisest thou the Emperor’s mandate?’ And yet we may
think, that many Christian kings who have persecuted the Church of God, and essayed to
establish the Arian impiety in the whole world, surpass in guilt Jeroboam king of Israel.
He despised the message of a false priest, nor would he make any answer to his
suggestions. But these, with their many Amaziahpriests, have slain Amos the prophet
and the priest of the Lord by hunger and penury, dungeons and exile.”
CLARKE, "But prophesy not - at Beth-el - He must not speak against idolatry,
because that was the king’s religion; and he who speaks against the king’s religion must
be an enemy to the state. This was the doctrine held in England by popish James 2 and
his insidious Jesuit hireling priests, till God in his mercy put this pitiful tyrant down,
and with him his false prophets, and the degrading superstition which they endeavored
to establish in these lands.

95. GILL, "But prophesy not again any more at Bethel,.... He might prophesy any
where, if he did not there, for what the priest cared, that so his honour and interest were
not hurt. The reasons he gave were,
for it is the king's chapel; or "sanctuary" (i); where a temple was built for the idol
calf, and where the king worshipped it, and attended all other religious service:
and it is the king's court; or "the house of the kingdom" (k); the seat of it, where the
king had a royal palace, and sometimes resided here, and kept his court, as well as at
Samaria; often coming hither to worship, it being nearer to him than Dan, where the
other calf was placed; intimating hereby that the king would never suffer such a
troublesome man as he to be so near him; and by prophesying to interrupt him, either in
his religious or civil affairs; and therefore advises him by all means to depart, if he had
any regard to his life or peace.
JAMISO , "prophesy not again — (Amo_2:12).
at Beth-el — Amaziah wants to be let alone at least in his own residence.
the king’s chapel — Beth-el was preferred by the king to Dan, the other seat of the
calf-worship, as being nearer Samaria, the capital, and as hallowed by Jacob of old
(Gen_28:16, Gen_28:19; Gen_35:6, Gen_35:7). He argues by implication against Amos’
presumption, as a private man, in speaking against the worship sanctioned by the king,
and that in the very place consecrated to it for the king’s own devotions.
king’s court — that is, residence: the seat of empire, where the king holds his court,
and which thou oughtest to have reverenced. Samaria was the usual king’s residence: but
for the convenience of attending the calf-worship, a royal palace was at Beth-el also.
CALVI , "Verse 13
ow as to the fifth argument, it is especially needful to dwell on it. In Bethel, he
says, add no more to prophesy, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is the house of
the kingdom Here only Amaziah shows what he wished, even to retain possession of
his priesthood; which he could not have done without banishing the Prophet: for he
could not contend with him in arguments. He consulted then his own advantage by
getting rid of the Prophet. Whatever various characters therefore he assumed in the
last verse, and notwithstanding the many coverings by which he concealed himself,
the ape now, as they say, appears as the ape. Amaziah then shows what he had in
views even that he might remain quiet in the possession of his own tyrannical
powers and that Amos should no more molest him, and pull up by the roots the
prevailing superstitions: for Amaziah was a priest, and Amos could not perform his
office without crying out daily against the temple of Bethel; for it was a brothel,
inasmuch as God was there robbed of his own honor; and we also know that
superstitions are everywhere compared to fornication. Amaziah then now betrays
his wicked intention, In Bethel prophesy not; he would retain his quiet state, and
wished not the word of God to be heard there. His desire was, as we have already
said, to extinguish everywhere the light of heavenly truth; but as he could not do
this, he wished to continue at least in his own station without any disputes, as we see
the case to be in our time with the Pope and his milted bishops. They became quite

96. mad when they heard that many cities and some princes made commotions in
Germany, and departed from their submission to them; but as they could not
subdue them by force, they said, “Let us leave to themselves these barbarians; why,
more evil than good has hitherto proceeded from them; it is a barren and dry
country: provided we have Spain, France, and Italy, secured to us, we have enough;
for we have probably lost more than what we have gained by Germany. Let them
then have their liberty, or rather licentiousness; they will again some time return,
and come under our authority: let us not in the meantime be over-anxious about
them. But let not this contagion penetrate into France, for one of our arms has been
already cut off; nor let Spain nor Italy be touched by it; for this would be to aim at
our life.” Such also was this Amaziah, as it evidently appears, — Prophesy not then
in Bethel.
And he spoke cunningly when he said, Add no more to prophecy; for it was the
same as though he pardoned him. “See, though thou hast hitherto been offending
the king and the common feeling of the people, I will not yet treat you with strict
justice, I will forgive thee all, let what thou hast done amiss remain buried, provided
thou ‘addest no more’ in future.” We hence see that there is emphasis in the
expression, when he says, Proceed not, or, add not; as though he had said, that he
would not inquire into the past, nor would accuse Amos of having been seditious:
provided he abstained for the future, Amaziah was satisfied, as we may gather from
his words, Add then no more to prophesy.
And why? Because it is the king’s sanctuary This was one thing. Amaziah wished
here to prove by the king’s authority that the received worship at Bethel was
legitimate. How so? “The king has established it; it is not then lawful for any one to
say a word to the contrary; the king could do this by his own right; for his majesty
is sacred.” We see the object in view. And how many are there at this day under the
Papacy, who accumulate on kings all the authority and power they can, in order
that no dispute may be made about religion; but power is to be vested in one king to
determine according to his own will whatever he pleases, and this is to remain fixed
without any dispute. They who at first extolled Henry, King of England, were
certainly inconsiderate men; they gave him the supreme power in all things: and this
always vexed me grievously; for they were guilty of blasphemy (erant blasphemi )
when they called him the chief Head of the Church under Christ. This was certainly
too much: but it ought however to remain buried, as they sinned through
inconsiderate zeal. But when that impostor, who afterwards became the chancellor
of that Proserpina, (50) who, at this day, surpasses all devils in that kingdom —
when he was at Ratisbon, he contended not by using any reasons, (I speak of the last
chancellor, who was the Bishop of Winchester, (51)) and as I have just said, he cared
not much about the testimonies of Scripture, but said that it was in the power of the
king to abrogate statutes and to institute new rites, — that as to fasting, the king
could forbid or command the people to eat flesh on this or that days that it was
lawful for the king to prohibit priests from marrying, that it was lawful for the king
to interdict to the people the use of the cup in the Supper, that it was lawful for the
king to appoint this or that thing in his own kingdom. How so? because supreme
power is vested in the king. The same was the gloss of this Amaziah of whom the

97. Prophet now speaks: It is the sanctuary of the king.
But he adds afterwards a second thing, It is the house of the kingdom (52) These
words of Amaziah ought to be well considered. He says first, It is the king’s
sanctuary, and then, It is the house of the kingdom. Hence he ascribes to the king a
twofold office, — that it was in his power to change religion in any way he pleased,
— and then, that Amos disturbed the peace of the community, and thus did wrong
to the king by derogating from his authority. With regard to the first clause, it is
indeed certain that kings, when they rightly discharge their duty, become patrons of
religion and supporters (nutricios — nursers) of the Church, as Isaiah calls them,
(Isaiah 49:23) What then is chiefly required of kings, is this — to use the swords
with which they are invested, to render free (asserendum ) the worship of God. But
still they are inconsiderate men, who give them too much power in spiritual things;
(qui faciunt illos nimis spirituales —who make them too spiritual) and this evil is
everywhere dominant in Germany; and in these regions it prevails too much. And
we now find what fruit is produced by this root, which is this, — that princes, and
those who are in power, think themselves so spiritual, that there is no longer any
church discipline; and this sacrilege greatly prevails among us; for they limit not
their office by fixed and legitimate boundaries, but think that they cannot rule,
except they abolish every authority in the Church and become chief judges as well in
doctrine as in all spiritual government. The devil then suggested at that time this
sentiment to Amaziah, — that the king appointed the temple: hence, since it was the
king’s sanctuary, it was not lawful for a private man, it was not even lawful for any
one, to deny that religion to be of authority, which had been once approved of, and
pleased the king. And princes listen to a sweet song, when impostors lead them
astray; and they desire nothing more than that all things without any difference or
distinction should be referred to themselves. They then gladly interfere, and at first
show some zeal, but mere ambition impels them, as they so carefully appropriate
every thing to themselves. Moderation ought then to be observed; for this evil has
ever been dominant in princes — to wish to change religion according to their will
and fancy, and at the same time for their own advantage; for they regard what is of
advantage to themselves, as they are not for the most part guided by the Spirit of
God, but impelled by their own ambition. Since then we see that Satan by these
hidden arts formerly contended against God’s prophets, we ought to bewail and
lament our own courses. But whosoever desires to conduct himself as it behaves
him, let him watch against this evil.
It now follows, And it is the house of the kingdom Amaziah contends here no more
for the royal prerogative, with regard to spiritual power. “Be it, that the king ought
not to have appointed new worship, thou hast yet offended against the peace of the
community.” The greater part of the princes (53) at this day seek nothing so much
as that they might enjoy their own quietness. They ever declare that they would he
courageous enough even to death in the defense of their first confession; but yet
what are the teachers they seek for themselves? Even those who avoid the cross and
who, to gratify the Papists, or to render them at least somewhat milder, change
according to their wishes: for we see at this day that the minds of princes are
inflamed by these fanners, not to spare the sacramentarians, nor allow to be called

98. into question what is asserted, not less grossly than foolishly and falsely, respecting
the presence of Christ’s body, or his body being included under the bread. “When
we show that we contend against them, and that we are separated from them, nay,
that we will be their mortal enemies, we in this agree with the Papists; there will
then be some access to them, at least their great fury will cease, the Papists will
become gentle: they will no more be so incensed against us; we shall hereafter obtain
some middle course.” So things are at this day carried on in the world; and nothing
is more useful than to compare the state of our time with this example of the
Prophet, so that we may go on in our works employing the same weapons with
which he contended and not be moved by these diabolical arts; for we have no
enemies more hostile and open than these domestic traitors.
It is then the house of the kingdom He now speaks of the secular arm, as they say,
and shows that though religion were to perish a hundred times, yet care was to be
taken, lest Amos should pull up by the roots the kingdom of Jeroboam, and the
customs of the people. It now follows —
TRAPP, "Verse 13
Amos 7:13 But prophesy not again any more at Bethel: for it [is] the king’s chapel,
and it [is] the king’s court.
Ver. 13. But prophesy not any more at Bethel] Take heed of that; lest, by diffusing
too much light among us, thou mar our markets, and hinder the sale of our false
wares. This was the naked truth of the business; though something else was
pretended, and the king’s interest pleaded.
For it is the king’s chapel, and the king’s court] Touch these mountains and they
wiil smoke. Truth is a good mistress, but such of her servants as follow her too close
at heels may hap to have their teeth struck out. Ahab hateth Micaiah, and Herod
John Baptist, and the Pope Savonarola, for their plain dealing, laying them fast
enough for it. Great ones love it, ηδιστα η ηκιστα, they must hear pleasing things;
or if told of their faults, it must be done with silken words, as she said, λογοις
βυδινοις. They are usually beset with their Aiones and egones, as one hath it, that
will say as they say: et mirifica est sympathia inter magnates et parasites, and there
is a wonderful sympathy between kings and court parasites, as was between Ahab
and the false prophets. Few Vespasians are to be found, of whom as it was said, that
he was the only one who was made the better man by being made emperor, so
Quintilian commendeth him for this, that he was patientissimus veri, most patient of
truth, though never so sharp. Jeroboam was none such; or at least Amaziah, the
priest of Bethel, would make the prophet so believe, when he tells him it is the king’s
court, an ill air for truth to breathe in. ihil veritate gravius, nihil assentatione
suavius.

99. 14 Amos answered Amaziah, “I was neither a
prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a
shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig
trees.
BAR ES, "I was no prophet - The order of the words is emphatic. “No prophet I,
and no prophet’s son I, for a herdsman I, and dresser of sycamores.” It may be, Amos
would meet, for the people’s sake, Amaziah’s taunt. He had a living, simple indeed, yet
that of the prophets was as simple. But chiefly he tells them of the unusual character of
his mission. He did not belong to the order of the prophets, nor had he been educated in
the schools of the prophets, nor had he any human training. He was thinking of nothing
less; he was doing the works of his calling, until “God took him from following the flock,”
and gave him his commission. Rup.: “He promises humbly what he had been, what he
had been made, not by merits, but by grace, that he had not assumed the prophetic office
by hereditary right, nor had he begun to prophesy out of his own mind, but, being under
the necessity of obeying, he had fulfilled the grace and the command of God who
inspired and sent Him.” Twice he repeats, “The Lord took me; the Lord said unto me;”
inculcating that, what Amaziah forbade, God bade. All was of God. “He” had but obeyed.
Jerome: “As then the Apostles, when the Scribes and Pharisees forbade them to teach in
the Name of Jesus, answered, ‘We must obey God rather than man’ Act_5:29, so Amos,
when forbidden by the idol-priests to prophesy, not only prophesies, shewing that he
feared God bidding, more than their forbidding, but he boldly and freely denounces the
punishment of him who endeavored to forbid and hinder the word of God.” Rup.:
“heaven thundered and commanded him to prophesy; the frog croaked in answer out of
his marsh, ‘prophesy no more. ‘“
CLARKE, "I was no prophet - I am an extraordinary messenger of God. I am not
called to the prophetic office but for this occasion. I have no message to Judah, and
therefore need not go there. I have a message to Israel alone, and I must faithfully
deliver it.
For the account which Amos gives here of himself, see the introduction.
GILL, "Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah,.... With much freedom,
boldness, and intrepidity, and yet with modesty and humility; not at all moved by his
frowns or his flattery:
I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son: he was not a prophet originally,
or from his youth, as Kimchi; he was not born and bred one; neither his father was a

100. prophet, by whom he could get any instructions in the mystery of prophesying; nor was
he a disciple of any of the prophets, or brought up in any of their schools as some were;
he was no prophet till the Lord called him immediately, at once, from his secular
employment to this office; and therefore did not take it up to get a livelihood by Jarchi
and Aben Ezra interpret it, that he was not one of the false prophets that prophesied for
hire, and took a reward:
but I was an herdsman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit; that is, originally:
this was the employment he was brought up in from his youth, and was in it when he
was called to be a prophet; he looked after cattle, both great and small; and at a certain
time of the year used, to gather sycamore fruit, which was a kind of figs; and by, its name
had the resemblance both of figs and mulberries. Some take it to be what were called
Egyptian figs; these he gathered, either for the use of his masters, or for food for himself,
or for the cattle, or both: or he was an "opener" of them, as the Septuagint; he cut, them,
and made incisions in them; for, as Pliny (l), Dioscorides (m), and Theophrastus (n)
observe, this fruit must be cut or scratched, either with the nail, or with iron, or it will
not ripen; but, four days after being scratched or cut, will become ripe. Mr. Norden (o), a
late traveller in Egypt, has given us a very particular account of this tree and its fruit.
"This sycamore (he says) is of the height of a beech, and bears its fruit in a manner quite
different from other trees; it has them on the trunk itself, which shoots out little sprigs
in form of grape stalks; at the end of which grow the fruit close to one another, almost
like bunches of grapes. The tree is always green, and bears fruit several times in the year,
without observing any certain seasons: for I have seen (says he) some sycamores that
have given fruit two months after others. The fruit has the figure and smell of real figs,
but is inferior to them in the taste, having a disgusting sweetness. Its colour is a yellow,
inclining to an ochre, shadowed by a flesh colour. In the inside it resembles the common
figs, excepting that it has a blackish colouring with yellow spots. This sort of tree is
pretty common in Egypt; the people for the greater part live upon its fruit, and think
themselves well regaled when they have a piece of bread, a couple of sycamore figs, and a
pitcher filled with water from the Nile.''
This account in several things agrees with what Pliny (p) and Solinus (q) relate of this
tree and its fruit; very likely there might be many of these trees in Judea; there seem to
have been great numbers of them in Solomon's time, 1Ki_10:27; and perhaps it was one
of these that Zacchaeus climbed, in order to see Christ, Luk_19:4; for this sort of trees
delight in vales and plains, such as were the plains of Jericho; and in the Talmud (r) we
read of sycamore trees in Jericho; and of the men of Jericho allowing the branches of
them to be cut down for sacred uses. These also grew in lower Galilee, but not in upper
Galilee; and that they were frequent in the land of Israel appears from the rules the
Misnic doctors (s) give about the planting, and cutting them down; and in the opening of
these trees, and making incisions in them, and in gathering the fruit of them, Amos
might be concerned. Kimchi and Ben Melech say the word signifies to "mix", and that his
business was to mix these together with other fruit. Aben Ezra observes, that in the
Arabic language it signifies to dry; and then his work was, after he had gathered them, to
lay them a drying. Some render the word a "searcher" (t) of them; as if his employment
was to look out for them, and seek them where they were to be got: however, be this as it
will, the prophet suggests that he had been used to a low life, and to mean fare, with
which he was contented, and did not take up this business of prophesying for bread, and
could return to his former employment without any regret, to get a maintenance, if so
was the will of God. The Targum gives it a different sense,

101. "for I am a master of cattle, and have sycamores in the fields;''
and so Jarchi, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, represent him as suggesting that he was rich,
and had no need of bread to be given him, or to prophesy for that.
HE RY 14-15, "He justified himself in his constant adherence to his work and to his
place (Amo_7:14, Amo_7:15); and that which he was sure would not only bear him out,
but bind him to it, was that he had a divine warrant and commission for it: “I was no
prophet, nor prophet's son, neither born nor bred to the office, not originally designed
for a prophet, as Samuel and Jeremiah, not educated in the schools of the prophets, as
many others were; but I was a herdsman, a keeper of cattle, and a gatherer of
sycamore-fruit.” Our sycamores bear no fruit, but, it seems, theirs did, which Amos
gathered either for his cattle or for himself and his family, or to sell. He was a plain
country-man, bred up and employed in country work and used to country fare. He
followed the flocks as well as the herds, and thence God took him, and bade him go and
prophesy to his people Israel, deliver to them such messages as he should from time to
time receive from the Lord. God made him a prophet, and a prophet to them, appointed
him his work and appointed him his post. Therefore he ought not to be silenced, for, (1.)
He could produce a divine commission for what he did. He did not run before he was
sent, but pleads, as Paul, that he was called to be an apostle; and men will find it is at
their peril if they contradict and oppose any that come in God's name, if they say to his
seers, See not, or silence those whom he has bidden to speak; such fight against God. An
affront done to an ambassador is an affront to the prince that sends him. Those that
have a warrant from God ought not to fear the face of man. (2.) The mean character he
wore before he received that commission strengthened his warrant, so far was it from
weakening it. [1.] He had no thoughts at all of ever being a prophet, and therefore his
prophesying could not be imputed to a raised expectation or a heated imagination, but
purely to a divine impulse. [2.] He was not educated nor instructed in the art or mystery
of prophesying, and therefore he must have his abilities for it immediately from God,
which is an undeniable proof that he had his mission from him. The apostles, being
originally unlearned and ignorant men, evidenced that they owed their knowledge to
their having been with Jesus, Act_4:13. When the treasure is put into such earthen
vessels, it is thereby made to appear that the excellency of the power is of God, and not
of man, 2Co_4:7. [3.] He had an honest calling, by which he could comfortably maintain
himself and his family; and therefore did not need to prophesy for bread, as Amaziah
suggested (Amo_7:12), did not take it up as a trade to live by, but as a trust to honour
God and do good with. [4.] He had all his days been accustomed to a plain homely way of
living among poor husbandmen, and never affected either gaieties or dainties, and
therefore would not have thrust himself so near the king's court and chapel if the
business God had called him to had not called him thither. [5.] Having been so meanly
bred, he could not have the courage to speak to kings and great men, especially to speak
such bold and provoking things to them, if he had not been animated by a greater spirit
than his own. If God, that sent him, had not strengthened him, he could not thus have
set his face as a flint, Isa_50:7. Note, God often chooses the weak and foolish things of
the world to confound the wise and mighty; and a herdman of Tekoa puts to shame a
priest of Bethel, when he receives from God authority and ability to act for him.
JAMISO , "I was no prophet — in answer to Amaziah’s insinuation (Amo_7:12),

102. that he discharged the prophetical office to earn his “bread” (like Israel’s mercenary
prophets). So far from being rewarded, Jehovah’s prophets had to expect imprisonment
and even death as the result of their prophesying in Samaria or Israel: whereas the
prophets of Baal were maintained at the king’s expense (compare 1Ki_18:19). I was not,
says Amos, of the order of prophets, or educated in their schools, and deriving a
livelihood from exercising the public functions of a prophet. I am a shepherd (compare
Amo_7:15, “flock”; the Hebrew for “herdsman” includes the meaning, shepherd,
compare Amo_1:1) in humble position, who did not even think of prophesying among
you, until a divine call impelled me to it.
prophet’s son — that is, disciple. Schools of prophets are mentioned first in First
Samuel; in these youths were educated to serve the theocracy as public instructors. Only
in the kingdom of the ten tribes is the continuance of the schools of the prophets
mentioned. They were missionary stations near the chief seats of superstition in Israel,
and associations endowed with the Spirit of God; none were admitted but those to whom
the Spirit had been previously imparted. Their spiritual fathers traveled about to visit
the training schools, and cared for the members and even their widows (2Ki_4:1, 2Ki_
4:2). The pupils had their common board in them, and after leaving them still continued
members. The offerings which in Judah were given by the pious to the Levites, in Israel
went to the schools of the prophets (2Ki_4:42). Prophecy (for example, Elijah and
Elisha) in Israel was more connected with extraordinary events than in Judah, inasmuch
as, in the absence of the legal hierarchy of the latter, it needed to have more palpable
divine sanction.
sycamore — abounding in Palestine. The fruit was like the fig, but inferior; according
to Pliny, a sort of compound, as the name expresses, of the fig and the mulberry. It was
only eaten by the poorest (compare 1Ki_10:27).
gatherer — one occupied with their cultivation [Maurer]. To cultivate it, an incision
was made in the fruit when of a certain size, and on the fourth day afterwards it ripened
[Pliny, Natural History, 13.7, 14]. Grotius from Jerome says, if it be not plucked off and
“gathered” (which favors English Version), it is spoiled by gnats.
K&D 14-15, "Amos first of all repudiates the insinuation that he practises
prophesying as a calling or profession, by which he gets his living. “I am no prophet,” sc.
by profession, “and no prophet's son,” i.e., not a pupil or member of the prophets'
schools, one who has been trained to prophesy (on these schools, see the comm. on 1Sa_
19:24); but (according to my proper calling) a bōqēr, lit., a herdsman of oxen (from
bâqâr); then in a broader sense, a herdsman who tends the sheep (‫ּאן‬‫צ‬), a shepherd; and a
bōlēs shiqmım, i.e., one who plucks sycamores or mulberry-figs, and lives upon them. The
ᅋπ. λεγ. bōlēs is a denom. from the Arabic name for the mulberry-fig, and signifies to
gather mulberry-figs and live upon them; like συκάζειν and ᅊποσυκάζειν, i.e., according
to Hesych. τᆭ σሞκα τρώγειν, to eat figs. The rendering of the lxx κνίζων, Vulg. vellicans,
points to the fact that it was a common custom to nip or scratch the mulberry-figs, in
order to make them ripen (see Theophr. Hist. plant. iv. 2; Plin. Hist. nat. 13, 14; and
Bochart, Hieroz. i. 384, or p. 406 ed. Ros.); but this cannot be shown to be the true
meaning of bōlēs. And even if the idea of nipping were implied in the word bōlēs, it would
by no means follow that the possession of a mulberry plantation was what was intended,
as many commentators have inferred; for “the words contain an allusion to the 'eating of

103. bread' referred to in Amo_7:12, and the fruit is mentioned here as the ordinary food of
the shepherds, who lived at the pasture grounds, and to whom bread may have been a
rarity” (Hitzig). From this calling, which afforded him a livelihood, the Lord had called
him away to prophesy to His people Israel; so that whoever forbade him to do so, set
himself in opposition to the Lord God.
CALVI , "Verse 14
The Prophet Amos first pleads for himself, that he was not at liberty to obey the
counsel of Amaziah, because he could not renounce a calling to which he was
appointed. As then he had been sent by God, he proves that he was bound by
necessity to prophesy in the land of Israel. In the first place, he indeed modestly
says, that he was not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet: why did he say this? To
render himself contemptible? By no means, though the words apparently have this
tendency; but it was to gain for himself more authority; for his extraordinary call
gave him greater weight than if he had been brought up from his childhood in the
schools of the prophets. He then shows that he became a prophet by a miraculous
interposition, and that the office was not committed to him by human authority, and
in the usual way; but that he had been led to it as it were by force, so that he could
not cast aside the office of teaching, without openly shaking off the yoke laid upon
him by God.
This account then which Amos gives of himself ought to be noticed, I was not a
Prophet, nor the son of a Prophet Had he said simply that he was not a Prophet, he
might have been accused of presumption: how so? o one takes to himself this
honor in the Church of God; a call is necessary; Were an angel to descend from
heaven, he ought not to subvert public order; (Galatians 1:8) for all things, as Paul
reminds us, ought to be done decently and in lawful order in the Church; for the
God of peace presides over us. Had Amos then positively denied that he was a
Prophet, he might on this account have been thrust away from his office of teaching,
for he wanted a call. But he means that he was not a Prophet who had been from his
childhood instructed in God’s law, to be an interpreter of Scripture: and for the
same reason he says that he was not the son of a Prophet; for there were then, we
know, colleges for Prophets; and this is sufficiently evident from sacred history. As
then these colleges were instituted for this end — that there might be always
seminaries for the Church of God, so that it might not be destitute of good and
faithful teachers, Amos says that he was not of that class. He indeed honestly
confesses that he was an illiterate man: but by this as I have already said, he gained
to himself more authority inasmuch as the Lord had seized on him as it were by
force, and set him over the people to teach them: “See, thou shalt be my Prophet,
and though thou hast not been taught from thy youth for this office, I will yet in an
instant make thee a Prophet.” It was a greater miracle, that Christ chose rude and
ignorant men as his apostles, than if he had at first chosen Paul or men like him who
were skillful in the law. If then Christ had at the beginning selected such disciples,
their authority would have appeared less: but as he had prepared by his Spirit those
who were before unlearned, it appeared more evident that they were sent from
above. And to this refers the expression the Prophet uses, when he says, Jehovah

104. took me away: for it intimates that his calls as we have said, was extraordinary. The
rest we shall defer till to-morrow.
BE SO , "Verse 14-15
Amos 7:14-15. I was no prophet — ot originally, or by study, or by any human
designation; neither was I a prophet’s son — either was I bred up at the schools of
the prophets; as those usually were who took that office upon them. But I was a
herdman — By breeding and occupation I was, and still am, a herdman; and a
gatherer of sycamore fruit — I got my livelihood also in part by gathering wild figs
for those who had occasion for them. The Lord took me, &c. — As I was following
my flock, and thinking of nothing else; and said unto me — By an extraordinary
irradiation, or impulse of his Divine Spirit; Go, prophesy unto my people — Go, and
as a prophet divinely commissioned, reprove, instruct, exhort, and warn my people
of the calamities impending over them, and which will assuredly fall upon them,
unless they avert them by turning to me in true repentance.
COFFMA , "Verse 14
"Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a
prophet's son; but I was a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees."
This was leveled squarely at Amaziah's unjust charge, by implication, that Amos
was a cheap "seer" picking up a little money where he might for prophesying
against Israel, there being also some implications in Amos' reply, namely, that the
regular line of prophets, especially those identified as "the sons of the prophets,"
those attending the prophetic schools and following the traditions that many of them
followed, were indeed the same type of "seer" with whom Amaziah sneeringly
sought to identify Amos.
"I was no prophet ..." The past tense is vital to this verse, for in no sense whatever
was it Amos' purpose here to deny his divine commission and calling as a true
prophet of the Almighty God. We may only deplore the fact that both the RSV and
the ew English Bible, by rendering the verb here in the present, "I am no prophet,
etc.," put in Amos' mouth a denial of the very thing he so emphatically affirmed in
Amos 7:15 (next). To be sure, the passage could be rendered in either fashion. "The
doubt about the tense arises because in Hebrew the verb is not expressed, but left to
be understood."[38] Smith included this further explanation:
"The Hebrew language often used nominal sentences without verbs. In such a case,
the tense of the verb was usually supplied by adopting that of the previous verb. If
that principle were followed in this case, the past tense would be required, `I was no
prophet.'"[39]
Our own choice of the ASV for these studies is due to the fact of there being in it
strong evidence of a much greater respect for considerations of this kind than is
evident in other versions.
Rowley's paraphrase of these verses was given thus by Hammershaimb:

105. "It is not money I prophecy for; I am a prophet by divine constraint. I had not
chosen the calling of a prophet, or trained to be a prophet. God laid his hand upon
me, and charged me with his word, and I have delivered it where he constrained me
to deliver it."[40]
"Dresser of sycamore trees ..." "The phrase [~boles] [~shiqmim] may mean either
one who plucks mulberry-figs for his own sustenance, or one who cultivates them
for others."[41] Dean thought it was the latter in the case of Amos, and Keil believed
it was the other. We do not know. In any event, it was a humble calling.
COKE, "Amos 7:14. I was no prophet, &c.— Houbigant reads this, I am no
prophet, neither am I a prophet's son; that is, "I am not accustomed to act as a
prophet; this is not my condition of life, and therefore it is in vain that you bid me to
go and prophesy in Judah; I have only this once taken upon me the person and
office of a prophet, because such was God's immediate command to me." We may
collect from this answer, that Amos did not prophesy at other periods of his life; but
that what we now have of his prophesies were delivered almost all at the same time;
for, if he had frequently been in this capacity, he would not have said, I am not a
prophet. By sycamore fruit, is generally understood a kind of wild figs, which were
common in Egypt and Palestine. See Zechariah 13:5.
ELLICOTT, "(14) I was . . .—An interesting biographical touch. Prophecy, like
other occupations, tended to form a hereditary guild, but Amos was not by birth a
prophet. The word for “gatherer” is rendered in the LXX. and Vulg. “nipper,” or
“pincher.” There was a custom mentioned in Theophrastus, Hist. Plant., iv. 2, Pliny,
Hist. at., xiii. 14, of pinching or scratching the mulberry-fig in order to make it
ripen. But it is very doubtful whether this is the meaning of the Hebrew word here,
which is nowhere else employed.
TRAPP, "Verse 14
Amos 7:14 Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I [was] no prophet, neither
[was] I a prophet’s son; but I [was] an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:
Ver. 14. Then answered Amos and said to Amaziah] With no less courage, I
suppose, than Paul and Barnabas used to the stubborn Jews, Acts 13:46; see John
1:19; John 1:21; or Basil to Valent, the emperor, or Johannes Sarisburieusis to the
Pope, A.D. 1540; or Bishop Ridley, when offering to preach before the Lady Mary,
and receiving a repulse, he was brought by Sir Thomas Wharton, her servant, to the
dining place, and desired to drink, which after he had done, he paused a while,
looking very sadly; and suddenly broke out into these words: Surely I have done
amiss. Why so? quoth the knight. For I have drunk, said he, in that place where
God’s word offered hath been refused; whereas, if I had remembered my duty, I
had departed immediately and shaken off the dust of my shoes for a testimony
against this house. These words were by the said bishop spoken with such a
vehemence, that some of the hearers afterwards confessed the hairs to stand upright
on their heads.

106. I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son] either born nor bred a prophet;
neither have I rashly or ambitiously put myself upon this tremend employment; my
call thereto was extraordinary. The prophet’s scholars were called their sons, 2
Kings 2:8; 2 Kings 2:5; 2 Kings 2:7; 2 Kings 2:15, Isaiah 8:18, Mark 10:24, 1
Corinthians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 4:17.
But I was a herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit] Of low condition, and
hardly bred; so that I could live with a little, and needed not to turn prophet, ventris
causa, for food sake. When one said to the philosopher, If you will but please
Dionysius you need not feed upon green herbs, he presently replied. And if you can
feed upon green herbs you need not please Dionysius. ature is content with a little,
grace with less. It is not for a servant of God to be a slave to his palate: Luther made
many a meal of a herring.
CO STABLE, "Verse 14
Amos replied that he was not a prophet by his own choosing; he did not decide to
pursue prophesying as a career. either had he become a prophet because his father
had been one. In Amos" culture it was common and expected for sons to follow in
their father"s line of work, though this was not true of genuine prophets. It is
possible that Amos meant that he was not the son of a prophet in the sense that he
had not been trained in one of the schools of the prophets under the tutelage of a
fatherly mentor (cf. 2 Kings 2:1-15; 2 Kings 4:1; 2 Kings 4:38; 2 Kings 5:22; 2 Kings
6:1-7; 2 Kings 9:1). [ ote: B. Smith, p139 , n56.] Rather Amos had previously
earned his living in a totally unrelated occupation. He had been a herdsman and a
nipper of sycamore figs. The term "herdsman" refers to someone who bred
livestock, not just a shepherd who looked after animals. A nipper of sycamore figs
was one who pierced sycamore figs so they would be edible.
"The fruit is infested with an insect (the Sycophaga crassipes), and till the "eye" or
top has been punctured, so that the insects may escape, it is not eatable." [ ote: W.
R. Smith, cited in Samuel R. Driver, The Books of Joel and Amos , p212.]
"Or, the term may refer to the practice of slitting the sycamore-fig before it ripens-a
process that ensures that it will turn sweet." [ ote: iehaus, p463. Cf. Wolff, p314.]
Thus Amos had a respectable agricultural business background before he moved to
Israel to prophesy. He had not been a "professional" prophet like many of the false
prophets. He had not always made his living by being a prophet but only functioned
as a "called" prophet. Therefore, Amaziah should not think that Amos came to
Israel to prophesy because that was the only work that he could do or to make
money.
PETT, "Amos 7:14
‘Then Amos answered, and said to Amaziah, “I was no prophet, nor was I a
prophet’s son, but I was a cattle breeder, and a dresser of sycomore-mulberry

107. trees,”
Amos recognised the imputation and assured Amaziah firmly that he was not that
kind of prophet, nor was he a novitiate (a son of a prophet), rather he had been a
small-time cattle-breeder and dresser of sycomore-mulberry trees. he had thus had
every opportunity of earning a living. Sycomore-mulberry trees did not tend to grow
in the highlands (and thus around Tekoa) but in the Shephelah (the lower hills) in
western Judah, nearer the Philistine border. Thus it suggests that he regularly
moved from one place to the other. Such trees produced a mulberry fig which
dressers would nick with a sharp instrument some time prior to its being picked in
order that it might ripen into a sweeter and softer fruit. Without this process it was
less pleasant when it ripened. That may well have been part of Amos’s task, which
would suggest that he was not a wealthy cattle-breeder but had to subsidise his
income by this kind of work. On the other hand it may indicate that he was a
specialist consultant.
15 But the Lord took me from tending the flock
and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people
Israel.’
GILL, "And the Lord took me as I followed the flock,.... Or "from behind" it (u);
a description of a shepherd, such an one Amos was, and in this employ when the Lord
called him, and took him to be a prophet; he did not seek after it, nor did he take this
honour to himself; by which it appears that his mission was divine, and that he did not
enter on this work with lucrative views: thus God took David in a like state of life, and
made him king of Israel; and Elisha from the plough, and made him a prophet: and
Christ several of his disciples from being fishermen, and made them fishers of men, or
ministers of the word; and so their call appeared more clear and manifest;
and the Lord said unto me; in a vision or dream by night; or by an articulate voice he
heard; or by an impulse upon his spirit, which comes from the Spirit of God:
go, prophesy unto my people Israel; for so they were by profession, and
notwithstanding their apostasy; as yet they were not tallied "Loammi", Hos_1:9; to these
the prophet was bid to go out of the land of Judea, where he was a herdsman, and
prophesy in the name of the Lord to them; wherefore what he did was in obedience to
the command of God, and he did but his duty; and what he in this verse and Amo_7:14
declares, is a sufficient vindication of himself, his character, and conduct; and having
done this, he has something to say to the priest, as follows.

108. JAMISO , "took me as I followed the flock — So David was taken (2Sa_7:8;
Psa_78:70, Psa_78:71). Messiah is the antitypical Shepherd (Psa_23:1-6; Joh_10:1-18).
unto my people — “against” [Maurer]; so Amo_7:16. Jehovah claims them still as
His by right, though slighting His authority. God would recover them to His service by
the prophet’s ministry.
COFFMA , "Verse 15
"And Jehovah took me from following the flock, and Jehovah said unto me, Go
prophesy unto my people Israel."
The acceptance of such a commission meant that Amos was no longer his own
master, and that not even the words he was to deliver were to be his own, but the
true Word of God. Thus it has ever been with the true prophet or apostle. (See
umbers 22:38; Jeremiah 20:9; and Acts 4:19-20.) Therefore, "Whoever sought to
oppose the message of Amos opposed the Most High God."[42] Thus, Amaziah, in
his opposition to Amos, had rebelled against God's Word; and therefore, God,
through Amos, spoke a prophecy of doom against Amaziah. We may not, therefore,
interpret Amos' rejoinder here as the mere "venting of his spite" against the priest
of Bethel.
TRAPP, "Verse 15
Amos 7:15 And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto
me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.
Ver. 15. And the Lord took me, as I followed the flock] As he took Elisha from the
plough tail, the apostles from casting and mending their nets, &c. Asinos elegit
Christus et idiotas, sed oculavit in prudentes: simulque dona dedit, et ministeria, he
called them to the office, and withal he gifted them. He called also learned
athanael, and icodemus, a master in Israel; lest, if he had called none but such as
were simple (saith John de Turrecremata), it should have been thought they had
been deceived through their simplicity. But it is God’s way to choose the foolish
things of the world to confound the wise; and things that are not, to bring to nought
things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29.
And the Lord said unto me] He often inculcates the name of the Lord, to show that
there was a necessity of his prophesying; for who can safely disobey such a
commander? see Amos 3:8. Aut faciendum, aut patiendum. The philosopher could
tell the emperor, who challenged him to dispute, that there was no contesting with
him that had twenty legions at his command.
Go, prophesy unto my people Israel] Keep within my precincts, and thou shalt be
sure of my protection; be true to thy trust, and I will see to thy safety. If thou have
not fine manchet (as Bucer said to Bradford, encouraging him to bestow his talent in

109. preaching), yet give the poor people barley bread, or whatever else the Lord hath
committed unto thee. Having therefore such a call from heaven to this work, with
what face canst thou hinder me therein? With what countenance will ye appear
before the judgment seat of Christ (said Dr Taylor, martyr, to Stephen Gardiner,
Lord Chancellor, who had thus saluted him, Art thou come, thou villain? how
darest thou look me in the face for shame? knowest thou not who I am, &c.?) How
dare ye for shame look any Christian man in the face, seeing you have forsaken the
truth, denied our Saviour Christ and his word, and done contrary to your own oath
and writing? And, if I should be afraid of your lordly looks, why fear you not God,
the Lord of us all? who hath sent us on his errand, which we must deliver, and truth
be spoken, however it be taken, 1 Corinthians 9:16.
ISBET, "TAKE I TO FELLOWSHIP
‘The Lord took me as I followed the flock.’
Amos 7:15
It was so with the shepherd-king. ‘He chose David also His servant, and took him
from the sheepfolds: from following the ewes that gave suck He brought him to feed
Jacob His people, and Israel His inheritance.’ It is a blessed experience when the
Lord takes man or woman from the ordinary avocations of life, and gives them
specific work for the souls of men.
I. He takes us into covenant relationship with Himself.—This is the greatest
experience which can befall us, when God comes into our lives and says, ‘I have
redeemed thee: thou art Mine.’ He puts the ring of changeless love upon our finger,
and binds us to Himself and Himself to us for ever. This is fundamental to all our
after-influence.
II. He takes us into fellowship with His purposes.—He shows us those other sheep
which are not of this fold, and whispers: ‘These also I must bring.’ He shows us the
great multitudes that sit in darkness and the shadow of death, as He did to Carey,
who kept the map of the world before him as he cobbled shoes. And, lastly, He lays
on us the burden of the perishing souls of men, so that we rest not day nor night
thinking of them.
III. He takes us into the chamber of His anointing.—The servants are bidden to go
on before, our relatives are not told; but God takes the vial of oil, and pours the
chrism of Pentecost on our heads, and from that moment we are His anointed ones.
Oh, that we may never come to our Gilboa! (Cf. 1 Samuel 10 with 2 Samuel 1.)
Illustration
‘Often in the story of Israel, prophet and priest were in collision, because the
prophet rebuked the priest for his heartless ritual and shameless life. So it was here,
and, as so often, the false priest accused the prophet to the king. Amaziah felt that so
long as Amos persisted in making Bethel the scene of his ministry, there would be no
foothold there for himself; so by approaching the king on the one hand, and by
suggesting to Amos to remove Judah where he would be sure at least of his bread,

110. he hoped to secure relief. In answer, Amos could only fall back on his original
commission which had come to him unsought. But, instead of Amaziah speaking
against him, it would have been wiser far to have joined forces in a common effort
to bring Israel back to God, because the sins which were rife could only bring the
punishment of those ruthless Assyrian soldiers, who would show no mercy to man
or woman.’
PETT, "Amos 7:15
“And YHWH took me from following the flock, and YHWH said to me, ‘Go,
prophesy to my people Israel’.”
And he emphasised that it was YHWH Who had called him from following the
flock, and had told him to, ‘Go, prophesy to My people Israel’. Thus he was not to
be seen as a professional prophet, but as a man constrained and called by YHWH.
He had therefore had no choice where he served. He had simply done as YHWH
had told him just as David had done before him (compare 2 Samuel 7:8).
ote how YHWH’s, ‘Go prophesy to my people Israel’ stands over against
Amaziah’s ‘Go --- into the land of Judah --- and prophesy there.’ (It necessarily
raised the question, which Amos answered, as to whether he should obey God rather
than man. God does not always call the person that we think most appropriate.
16 ow then, hear the word of the Lord. You say,
“‘Do not prophesy against Israel,
and stop preaching against the descendants of
Isaac.’
BAR ES, "Amaziah then was in direct rebellion and contradiction against God. He
was in an office forbidden by God. God’s word came to him. He had his choice; and, as
people do, when entangled in evil courses, he chose the more consciously amiss. He had
to resign his lucrative office and to submit to God speaking to him through a shepherd,
or to stand in direct opposition to God, and to confront God; and in silencing Amos, he
would silence God. But, like one who would arrest the lightning, he draws it on his own

111. head. Amos contrasts the word of Amaziah, and the word of God; Rup.: “Hear thou the
word of the Lord; Thou sayest; prophesy not against Israel. Therefore thus saith the
Lord.” Not only will I not cease to prophesy against Israel, but I will also prophesy to
thee. Hear now thine own part of the prophecy.”
Drop not - The form of expression, (not the word) is probably taken from Moses.
“My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew; as the small rain
upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass” Deu_32:2. Micah speaks of
the word as used by those who forbade to prophesy, as though the prophecy were a
continual wearisome “dropping.” God’s word comes as a gentle dew or soft rain, not
beating down but refreshing; not sweeping away, like a storm, but sinking in and
softening even hard ground, all but the rock; gentle, so as they can bear it. God’s word
was to people, such as they were toward it; dropping like the dew on those who received
it; wearing, to those who hardened themselves against it. It drops in measure upon the
hearts which it fertilizes, being adapted to their capacity to receive it. And so
contrariwise as to the judgments with which God’s prophets are charged. : “The
prophets do not discharge at once the whole wrath of God, but, in their threatenings,
denounce little drops of it.”
CLARKE, "Now therefore hear thou the word of the Lord - While he was
speaking in his own vindication, God seems to have inspired him with the awful
prediction which he immediately delivers.
GILL, "Now therefore hear thou the word of the Lord,.... Which I have from
him concerning thee, and which he has pronounced upon thee and thy family:
thou sayest, prophesy not against Israel; when God has bid me prophesy:
and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac; say nothing against it, though
in ever so soft and gentle a manner: it designs the same thing as before, only in different
words; and is a prohibition of the prophet to prophesy against the ten tribes that
descended from Isaac, in the line of Jacob. So the Targum paraphrases it,
"thou shalt not teach against the house of Isaac;''
or deliver out any prophecy or doctrine that is against them, or threatens them with any
calamity. Jarchi says the phrase is expressive of prophecy; see Deu_32:2.
HE RY 16-17, "He condemns Amaziah for the opposition he gave them, and
denounces the judgments of God against him, not from any private resentment or
revenge, but in the name of the Lord and by authority from him, Amo_7:16, Amo_7:17.
Amaziah would not suffer Amos to preach at all, and therefore he is particularly ordered
to preach against him: Now therefore hear thou the word of the Lord, hear it and
tremble. Those that cannot bear general woes may expect woes of their own. The sin he
is charged with is forbidding Amos to prophesy; we do not find that he beat him, or put
him in the stocks, only he enjoined him silence: Prophesy not against Israel, and drop
not thy word against the house of Isaac; he must not only thunder against them, but he
must not so much as drop a word against them; he cannot bear, no, not the most gentle

112. distilling of that rain, that small rain. Let him therefore hear his doom.
(1.) For the opposition he gave to Amos God will bring ruin upon himself and his
family. This was the sin that filled the measure of his iniquity. [1.] He shall have no
comfort in any of his relations, but be afflicted in those that were nearest to him: His
wife shall be a harlot; either she shall be forcibly abused by the soldiers, as the Levite's
concubine by the men of Gibeah (they ravish the women of Zion, Lam_5:11), or she shall
herself wickedly play the harlot, which, though her sin, her great sin, would be his
affliction, his great affliction and reproach, and a just punishment upon him for
promoting spiritual whoredom. Sometimes the sins of our relations are to be looked
upon as judgments of God upon us. His children, though they keep honest, yet shall not
keep alive: His sons and his daughters shall fall by the sword of war, and he himself
shall live to see it. He has trained them up in iniquity, and therefore God will cut them
off in it. [2.] He shall be stripped of all his estate; it shall fall into the hand of the enemy,
and be divided by line, by lot, among the soldiers. What is ill begotten will not be long
kept. [3.] He shall himself perish in a strange country, not in the land of Israel, which
had been holiness to the Lord, but in a polluted land, in a heathen country, the fittest
place for such a heathen to end his days in, that hated and silenced God's prophets and
contributed so much to the polluting of his own land with idolatry.
(2.) Notwithstanding the opposition he gave to Amos, God will bring ruin upon the
land and nation. He was accused for saying, Israel shall be led away captive (Amo_
7:11), but he stands to it, and repeats it; for the unbelief of man shall not make the word
of God of no effect. The burden of the word of the Lord may be striven with, but it
cannot be shaken off. Let Amaziah rage, and fret, and say what he will to the contrary,
Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land. Note, it is to no purpose to contend
with the judgments of God; for when God judges he will overcome. Stopping the mouths
of God's ministers will not stop the progress of God's word, for it shall not return void.
JAMISO , "drop — distil as the refreshing drops of rain (Deu_32:2; Eze_21:2;
compare Mic_2:6, Mic_2:11).
K&D 16-17, "In return for this rebellion against Jehovah, Amos foretels to the priest
the punishment which will fall upon him when the judgment shall come upon Israel,
meeting his words, “Thou sayst, Thou shalt not prophesy,” with the keen retort, “Thus
saith Jehovah.” ‫יף‬ ִ ִ‫,ה‬ to drip, applied to prophesying here and at Mic_2:6, Mic_2:11, and
Eze_21:2, Eze_21:7, is taken from Deu_32:2, “My teaching shall drip as the rain,” etc.
Isaac (yishâq) for Israel, as in Amo_7:9. The punishment is thus described in Amo_7:17 :
“Thy wife will be a harlot in the city,” i.e., at the taking of the city she will become a
harlot through violation. His children would also be slain by the foe, and his landed
possession assigned to others, namely, to the fresh settlers in the land. He himself, viz.,
the priest, would die in an unclean land, that is to say, in the land of the Gentiles, - in
other words, would be carried away captive, and that with the whole nation, the carrying
away of which is repeated by Amos in the words which the priest had reported to the
king (Amo_7:11), as a sign that what he has prophesied will assuredly stand.
CALVI , "Verse 16
Amos having shown that he must obey God, who had committed to him the office of
teaching, now turns his discourse to Amaziah, and points out what he would gain by

113. his insolence in daring to forbid a Prophet, an ambassador of the God of heaven, to
proclaim what he had in command. As, then, Amaziah had proceeded into such a
degree of rashness or rather of madness Amos now assails him and says, Hear then
now the word of Jehovah He sets here the word or the decree of God in opposition
to the prohibition of Amaziah: for the ungodly priest had forbidden God’s servant
to proclaim his words any more in the land of Israel: “Who art thou? Thou indeed
thus speakest; but God will also speak in his turn.” He shows, at the same time, the
difference between the speech of Amaziah and the word of God: the impostor had
indeed attempted to terrify the holy man so as to makehim to desist from his office,
though the attempt was vain; but Amos shows that God’s word would not be
without effect: “Whether I hold my peace or speak,” he seems to say, “this
vengeance is suspended over thee.” But he, at the same time, connects God’s
vengeance with his doctrine; for this was also necessary, that the ungodly priest
might know that he gained nothing else, by attempting to do everything, than that
he had doubly increased the vengeance of God.
There is, therefore, great emphasis in these words, ow hear the word of Jehovah
thou who sayest, Prophesy not. Amaziah was indeed worthy of being destroyed by
God a hundred times, together with all his offspring: but Amos intimates that God’s
wrath was especially kindled by this madness, — that Amaziah dared to put a
restraint on God, and to forbid his Spirit freely to reprove the sins of the whole
people. Since, then, he proceeded so far, Amos shows that he would have justly to
suffer the punishment due to his presumption, yea, to his furious and sacrilegious
audacity, inasmuch as he set himself up against God, and sought to take from him
his supreme authority, for nothing belongs more peculiarly to God than the office of
judging the world; and this he does by his word and his Prophets. As, then,
Amaziah had attempted to rob God of his own right and authority, the Prophet
shows that vengeance had been thereby increased: Thou then, who sayest, Prophesy
not against Israel, and speak not, hear the word of Jehovah
Remarkable is this passage, and from it we learn that nothing is better for us, when
God rebukes us, than to descend into our own consciences, and to submit to the
sentence which proceeds from his mouth, and humbly to entreat pardon as soon as
he condemns us: for if we be refractory, God will not cease to speak, though we a
hundred times forbid him; he will therefore go on notwithstanding our
unwillingness. Further, we may vomit forth many blasphemies; but what can our
clamorous words do? The Lord will, at the same time, speak with effect; he will not
scatter his threatening in the air, but will really fulfill what proceeds from his
mouth; and for this reason Paul compares heavenly truth to a sword, for vengeance
is prepared for despisers. We ought therefore to take notice of this in the Prophet’s
words, — that when profane men attempt to repel every tenth and all threatening,
they gain nothing by their perverseness; for the lord will exercise his own right; and
he will also join to his word, as they say, its execution. Thou then who sayest,
Prophesy not, hear the word of Jehovah; though thou mayest growl, yet God will
not be hindered by these thy commands; but he will ever continue complete in his
own authority.” And he mentions word, as we have already said, to show that the
truth, with which the ungodly contend, is connected with the power of God. God

114. might indeed destroy all the unbelieving in silence, without uttering his voice; but he
will have his Word honored, that the ungodly may know that they contend in vain,
while they vomit forth their rage against his word, for they will at length find that in
his word is included their condemnation.
ow, when he says, Prophecy not against Israel, and speak not against the house of
Isaac, we may learn again from these words, that the word Isaac is used by the
Prophet by way of concession; for the people of Israel were then wont to adduce the
example of this holy patriarch. Thus superstitious men, neglecting the law of God,
the common rule, ever turn aside to the examples of the saints; and they do this
without any discrimination; nay, as their minds are perverted, when anything has
been wrongfully done by the fathers, they instantly lay hold on it: and then, when
there is anything peculiar, which God had approved in the fathers but wished not to
be drawn, as they commonly say, into a precedent, the superstitious think that they
have the best reason in their favor, when they can set up such a shield against God.
As, then, the Israelites had at that time the name of their father Isaac in their
mouths while they were foolishly worshipping God in Bethel and in other places,
contrary to what the law prescribed, the Prophet Amos designedly repeats here
again the name of Isaac, expressing it probably in imitation of what had been said
by Amaziah.
BE SO , "Verse 16-17
Amos 7:16-17. ow, hear thou the word of the Lord — Who hath sent me, and
whom thou contradictest; from him I have a message to thee also, which much
concerns thee. Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel — Thou usest thy power to
silence me; therefore thus saith the Lord — Because thou hast so directly and
wilfully opposed the Lord; Thy wife shall be a harlot in the city — Shall be treated
as a harlot in this very city of Beth-el. The meaning probably is, that she should be
abused, or ravished, by the Assyrian soldiers, when they should take Beth-el. Thy
land shall be divided by line — Conquerors were used to divide conquered lands in
portions among their soldiers, which was done by measuring out every one’s part by
a line; so that this expression signified, his land should be divided among the enemy.
And thou shalt die in a polluted land — Thou shalt be carried captive from thine
own country, and die in a land where the inhabitants are idolatrous.
COFFMA , "Verse 16
" ow therefore hear thou the word of Jehovah: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against
Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac."
"Drop not thy word ..." Dummelow seems to have captured the thought behind this
second clause thus: "Don't let it drip, drip, drip, in imbecile and wearisome fashion
(Micah 2:6,11; and Ezekiel 21-2,7)."[43] Harper, and others, rejected this view:
"The word does not carry with it any contemptuous idea";[44] but the idea,
especially in English, is certainly there; furthermore, it fits the context perfectly.
Before leaving this verse, the rendition of this in the Catholic Bible seems pertinent
and is included. It has, "Thou shalt not drop thy word upon the house of the idol

115. (instead of "the house of Isaac.")."[45] Their authority for this rendition is not
cited, and it certainly could be wrong; but, regardless of that, it properly identifies
that "house" at Bethel!
TRAPP, "Verse 16
Amos 7:16 ow therefore hear thou the word of the LORD: Thou sayest, Prophesy
not against Israel, and drop not [thy word] against the house of Isaac.
Ver. 16. ow therefore hear thou the word of the Lord] Hear, thou despiser, and
wonder, and perish; for I work a work in thy days, a work which thou wilt in
nowise believe, though a man declare it unto thee, Acts 13:41. But whether thou wilt
hear or forbear, believe or otherwise, thy doom is determined, and shall be
pronounced, Ezekiel 3:27 : "Hear, therefore, and give ear; be not proud: for the
Lord hath spoken it." Oh that thou wouldst give glory to the Lord, and confess thy
sin! Jeremiah 13:15-16. Oh that thou wouldst submit to Divine justice, implore his
mercy, and putting thy mouth in the dust, say, as once that good man did, Veniat,
veniat, verbum Domini, et submittemus, ei sexcenta si nobis essent colla. Let the
Lord speak, for his servant heareth! But because there is little hopes of that, stand
forth and hear thy sentence, and the evil that shall befall thee, as sure as the coat is
on thy back, or the heart in thy body. For hath the Lord spoken, and shall he not do
it?
Thou sayest, Prophesy not] By a bold countermand to that of God in the former
verse, "Go, prophesy," &c. "But woe to him that striveth with his Maker I Let the
potsherds strive with the potsherds of the earth," Isaiah 45:9; let men meddle with
their matches, and not "with him that is mightier than they," Ecclesiastes 6:10.
And drop not thy word] Which is as sharp as vinegar and nitre. Or, though it were
as sweet as honey, yet it would cause pain to exulcerate parts when dropped upon
them.
Against the house of Isaac] Though commanded so to do, Amos 7:9. Toothless truths
would be better digested.
CO STABLE, "Verse 16-17
Amos then announced a prophecy from the Lord for Amaziah. Because the priest
had told the prophet to stop doing what Yahweh had commanded him to do (cf.
Amos 2:12), Amaziah"s wife would become a harlot in Bethel. She would have to
stoop to this to earn a living because she would have no husband or sons to support
her. Her children would die by the sword. This may also imply the end of
Amaziah"s family line. Amaziah"s land would become the property of others,
presumably the Assyrians, and he himself would die in a foreign, pagan land. All
these things would evidently happen when the foreign enemy destroyed Israel.
Stifling the word of God proved disastrous for Amaziah, as it still does today.

116. Finally, Amos repeated that Israel would indeed go into exile, the message that
Amaziah had reported that Amos was preaching (cf. Amos 7:11).
Amaziah had told Amos to stop prophesying, namely, to stop preaching ( Amos
7:16). "Preaching" is from a verbal root meaning "drip" (Heb. natap), as the
heavens drip rain ( Judges 5:4; cf. Amos 9:13). The idea is that Amos should stop
raining down messages from heaven on his hearers. True prophets were people who
spoke fervently for Yahweh. [ ote: Leon J. Wood, The Prophets of Israel, p63.]
"Amaziah"s loyalty was to Jeroboam, who probably appointed him as priest at
Bethel. Amos"s loyalty was to God, who sent him to prophesy against Israel.
Conflict between Amaziah and Amos was inevitable since their loyalties were in
conflict. Primary loyalty to God in their service to Israel would have eliminated
conflict between the king, the priest, and the prophet. The answer to conflict among
God"s people is always to place loyalty to God above all else." [ ote: B. Smith,
p136.]
PETT, "Amos 7:16-17
“ ow therefore hear you the word of YHWH, “You say, ‘Do not prophesy against
Israel, and do not go on preaching (literally ‘do not drop’) against the house of
Isaac’. Therefore thus says YHWH. Your wife will be a harlot in the city, and your
sons and your daughters will fall by the sword, and your land will be divided by
line, and you yourself will die in a land which is unclean, and Israel will surely be
led away captive out of his land.”
Amaziah was now to discover why it was dangerous to mess around with a prophet
of YHWH, for Amos responded with a message from YHWH. He first gave the
charge against Amaziah, in that he had told Amos not to prophesy in Israel, and not
‘drop’ against the house of Isaac, (this clearly equates ‘Israel’ with ‘Isaac’ as a name
for Israel), in spite of the fact that he had been commanded to do so by YHWH. The
idea of ‘dropping’ is taken from Deuteronomy 32:2 where it says, ‘My teaching will
drop as the rain’. Incipient in this was the later teaching concerning the work of the
Spirit seen in terms of rain (Isaiah 44:1-5) and the power of the word of YHWH
seen in the same terms (Isaiah 55:10-13).
Then he announced YHWH’s sentence, every word of which spelled invasion and
exile. Amaziah’s wife would be a prostitute in the city, presumably because she had
lost her male providers through the invasion and thus had to resort to prostitution
in order to survive, no doubt after having been raped by the invaders. As a
consequence she would become unfit to continue as a priest’s wife, bearing his
children. Their children would die by the sword so that neither the family name nor
the priesthood could be perpetuated in the family. Their land would be divided up
systematically by use of a measuring line. And Amaziah himself would be carried
away into an unclean land, i.e. a foreign land, something totally abhorrent to a
priest of the sanctuary, and something which would render him unfit to serve
because he would be unable to observe fully the rules regarding cleanness and
uncleanness. It is clear from this that some Levitical rules were still in place at

117. Bethel.
It is possibly significant that the same punishments, being sent into harlotry,
execution of children and dividing of the land are found in Assyrian vassal treaties.
It might indicate either that they were common to many treaties, or that there is in
mind here the fact that Israel would at some time be subjugated to Assyria and
would then rebel. Compare Deuteronomy 28:30, although harlotry of a wife and
execution of children does not appear as a consequence of rebellion in either
Deuteronomy 28 or Leviticus 26.
“And Israel will surely be led away captive out of his land.” His final words then
boldly cited Amaziah’s charge to the king, ‘and Israel will surely be led away
captive out of his land’ (Amos 7:11). In that at least Amaziah had correctly cited
him and thus he boldly confirmed it in Amaziah’s own words. As both Leviticus 26
and Deuteronomy 28 had made clear, failure to observe the covenant would involve
being ‘scattered among the nations’. And within forty years, in two main stages, the
cream of Israelite society would be so scattered (2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 17:6). Their
day of YHWH had come.
17 “Therefore this is what the Lord says:
“‘Your wife will become a prostitute in the city,
and your sons and daughters will fall by the
sword.
Your land will be measured and divided up,
and you yourself will die in a pagan[c] country.
And Israel will surely go into exile,
away from their native land.’”
BAR ES, "Thy wife shall be a harlot - These were, and still are, among the

118. horrors of war. His own sentence comes last, when he had seen the rest, unable to hinder
it. Against his and her own will, she should suffer this. Jerome: “Great is the grief, and
incredible the disgrace, when the husband, in the midst of the city and in the presence of
all, cannot hinder the wrong done to his wife , for the husband had rather hear that his
wife had been slain, than defiled.” What he adds “thy daughters” (as well as his “sons”)
“shall fall by the sword,” is an unwonted barbarity, and not part of the Assyrian customs,
who carried off women in great numbers, as wives for their soldiery .
Perhaps Amos mentions the unwonted cruelty, that the event might bring home the
more to the minds of the people the prophecies which relate to themselves. When this
had been fulfilled before his eyes , “Amaziah himself, who now gloried in the authority of
the priesthood, was to be led into captivity, die in a land polluted by idols, yet not before
be saw the people whom he had deceived, enslaved and captive.” Amos closes by
repeating emphatically the exact words, which Amaziah had alleged in his message to
Jeroboam; “and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land.” He had not said it
before in these precise words. Now he says it, without reserve of their repentance, as
though he would say, “Thou hast pronounced thine own sentence; thou hast hardened
thyself against the word of God; thou hardenest thy people against the word of God; it
remains then that it should fall on thee and thy people.” Rup.: “How and when the
prophecy against Amaziah was fulfilled, Scripture does not relate. He lies hid amid the
mass of miseries” . Scripture hath no leisure to relate all which befalls those of the viler
sort “The majesty of Holy Scripture does not lower itself to linger on baser persons,
whom God had rejected.
CLARKE, "Thy wife shall be a harlot - As this was the word of the Lord, so it was
fulfilled; but as we have no farther account of this idolatrous priest, so we cannot tell in
what circumstances these threatenings were executed.
1. His wife was to be a public prostitute; she was probably such already privately in
the temple, as the wife of an idolatrous priest.
2. His sons and daughters were to fall by the sword.
3. Their inheritance was to be taken by strangers.
4. And himself was to die a captive in a heathen land.
Israel shall surety go into captivity - He now declares fully what he had not
declared before, though Amaziah had made it a subject of accusation. This particular
was probably revealed at this instant, as well as those which concerned Amaziah and his
family.
GILL, "Therefore thus saith the Lord,.... For withstanding the prophet of the Lord,
and forbidding him to speak in his name against the idolatry of Israel, as well as for his
own idolatry:
thy wife shall be an harlot in the city: either of Bethel or Samaria; either through
force, being ravished by the soldiers upon taking and plundering the city; so Theodoret
and others: or rather of choice; either, through poverty, to get bread, or through a
vicious inclination, and that in a public manner: the meaning is, that she should be a
common strumpet; which must be a great affliction to him, and a just punishment for

119. his idolatry, or spiritual adultery; this must be before the siege and taking of Samaria,
since by that time the priest's wife would be too old to be used as a harlot:
and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword; either of Shallum, who
smote Zachariah the son of Jeroboam with the sword, before the people, and very
probably many of his friends with him, among whom this family was; or of Menahem,
who slew Shallum, and destroyed many places that opened not to him, with their
inhabitants, and ripped up the women with child; or in the after invasions by Pul,
Tiglathpileser, and Shalmaneser, 2Ki_15:10;
and thy land shall be divided by line; either the whole land of Israel be lived in, or
the land that was in the possession of this priest, and was his own property; this should
be measured with a line, and be parted among foreigners, that should invade the land,
and subdue it; a just punishment of the sins he had been guilty of, in getting large
possessions in an ill manner:
and thou shall die in a polluted land; not in his own land, reckoned holy, but in a
Heathen land, which was accounted defiled, because the inhabitants of it were
uncircumcised and idolaters, and he was no better; perhaps the land of Assyria, whither
he might with others be carried captive; or some other land he was forced to flee into:
and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land; as he had before
prophesied, and here confirms it; and which was fulfilled in the times of Hoshea king of
Israel, by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, 2Ki_17:6.
JAMISO , "Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city — that is, shall be forced by
the enemy, while thou art looking on, unable to prevent her dishonor (Isa_13:16; Lam_
5:11). The words, “saith THE LORD are in striking opposition to “Thou sayest” (Amo_
7:16).
divided by line — among the foe.
a polluted land — Israel regarded every foreign land as that which really her own
land was now, “polluted” (Isa_24:5; Jer_2:7).
CALVI , "Verse 17
ow follows a denunciation, Therefore thus saith Jehovah This ‫,לכן‬ lacen, therefore,
shows that Amaziah suffered punishment, not only because he had corrupted God’s
worship, because he had deceived the people by his impostures and because he had
made gain by the disguise of religion; but because he had insolently dared to oppose
the authority of God, and to turn aside the Prophet from his office, both by hidden
crafts and by open violence. Inasmuch then as he had attempted to do this, Amos
now declares that punishment awaited him. We hence see that destruction is doubly
increased, when we set up a hard and iron neck against God, who would have us to
be pliant, and when he reproves us, requires from us at least this modesty — that we
confess that we have sinned. But when we evade, or when we proceed still outward,
this issue will at last follow — that God will execute double vengeance on account of
our obstinacy. Therefore then Jehovah saith: and O! that this were deeply engraven
on the hearts of men; there would not then be so much rebellion at this day
prevailing in the world. But we see how daring men are; for as soon as the Lord
severely reproves them, they murmur; and then, if they have any authority they

120. stretch every nerve to take away from God his own rights, and from his servants
their liberty. At the same time, when we observe the ungodly to be so blind, that
they perceive not the vengeance, such as the Prophet here denounces, to be nigh
them, and dread it not, it behooves us duly to weigh what the Prophet here declares
and that is, that perverse men, as I have already said, do gain this only by their
obstinacy — that they more and more inflame God’s displeasure.
With respect to the kind of punishment he was to suffer, it is said, Thy wife in the
city shall be wanton: it is so literally; but the Prophet speaks not here of voluntary
wantonness. He then intimates that Amaziah could not escape punishment, but that
his wife would be made a prostitute, when the enemies occupied the land of Israel.
We indeed know that it was a common thing for conquerors to abuse women: and
well would it be, were the practice abolished at this day. Besides, it was deemed
lawful in that age for the conqueror to take to himself not only the daughter but also
the wife of another. This then is the reason why the Prophet says, Thy wife shall be
a prostitute. But he says, in the city; which was far more grievous, than if the wife of
Amaziah had been led to a distance, and suffered that reproach in an unknown
country: it would have less wounded the mind of Amaziah, if the enemies had taken
away his wife, and this disgrace had continued unknown to him, it being done in a
distant land. But when his wife was publicly and before the eyes of all constrained to
submit to this baseness and turpitude, it was much more hard to be endured, and
occasioned much greater grief. We hence see that the punishment was much
increased by this circumstance, which the Prophet states when he says, Thy wife
shall in the city be a prostitute.
Then it follows, Thy sons and thy daughters shall by the sword fall It is a second
punishment, when he declares, that the sons and also the daughters of the ungodly
priest would be slain by the enemies. It was indeed probable, that some also of the
common people had suffered the same evils; but God no doubt punished the
willfulness and madness of Amaziah for having dared to resist admonitions as well
as threatening.
But he also adds, Thy land shall be divided by a line He means by this statement,
that there should be none to succeed Amaziah; but that whatever land he possessed
should become a prey to the enemies. Thy land then shall be divided by a line. It
may at the same time be, that Amos speaks here generally of the land of Israel; and
this seems to me probable. I indeed allow that neither by Amaziah nor by the other
priests was the law of God kept; but we yet know that there was some affinity
between the lawful priesthood, and the spurious priesthood which the first
Jeroboam had introduced. Hence I conjecture that Amaziah had no possessions, it
being lawful for priests to have only gardens and pastures for their cattle; but they
cultivated no lands. I am therefore disposed to extend to the whole people what is
said of the land of one man; and this opinion is confirmed by what immediately
follows.
But thou shalt die in a polluted land. He called that the land of Amaziah in which he
and the rest of the people dwelt; but he calls the land into which he, with all the rest,

121. were to be driven, a polluted land. If any one objects and says that this punishment
did not apply to one man, the ready answer is this, — that God meant that an
especial mark should be imprinted on his common judgment, that Amaziah might
know, that he had as it were accelerated God’s vengeance, which yet he intended to
turn aside, when he sent away, as we have seen, the Prophet Amos into the land of
Judah.
It follows at last, Israel by migrating shall migrate from his own land We here see
that the Prophet proclaimed no private threatening, either to Amaziah himself or to
his wife or to his children, but extended his discourse to the whole people: the fact at
the same time remains unchanged that God intended to punish the perverseness of
that ungodly man, while executing his vengeance on the whole people. ow follows
COFFMA , "Verse 17
"Therefore thus saith Jehovah: Thy wife will be a harlot in the city, and thy sons
and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and
thou thyself shalt die in a land that is unclean, and Israel shall surely be led away
captive out of his land."
This terrible prophecy against Amaziah was doubtless fulfilled exactly, as were all
the other prophecies, the evident truth and divine origin of them being the primary
reason that the prophecy of Amos has survived some 27 centuries of human history.
It is a perpetual memorial to the grand truth that what God prophesies through his
prophets will surely come to pass.
"Thy wife will be a harlot ..." Such a result as this would have been an inevitable
consequence of the great military disaster that loomed upon the horizon of the
doomed people:
"Rape of women, slaying of youth, partition of property among the victors, and
exile of the leaders were all part of the ordinary treatment of a conquered people by
the victorious invaders."[46]
It is not necessary to assume that Amaziah's wife willingly became a harlot of the
city, although some have assumed that she did. What seems more likely is that,
violated by the soldiers of Assyria, and left behind with the residue of the people
after the deportation, she could have had no other means of sustenance.
"Thy sons and thy daughters ..." That these were not mentioned as among those to
be "carried away," is likely because they were too young to have any value as slaves,
or as objects of gratification; and they were therefore brutally slain by the heartless
invaders.
"Thy land shall be divided by line ..." that is, parceled out as "booty" among those,
including some of the soldiery, with whom the Assyrians repopulated the land.
"Thou thyself shall die in a land that is unclean ..." This referred to any land where
God was not worshipped, and where paganism was established, here, meaning the

122. land of the Assyrians; and here is powerful evidence that the "repentance" of
ineveh under the preaching of Jonah produced no lasting changes in the character
of the fierce, sadistic, and bloodthirsty Assyrians.
Behold in this terrible fate of Amaziah the utter worthlessness of a false religion.
The trouble in Israel was not merely their "insincerity" in their worship, and not
even their "oppression of the poor," which is made out by most modern
commentators to be the sum and substance of all that was wrong; but it was their
total departure from the Word of God in (1) setting up shrines without divine
authority; (2) commissioning priests who according to the Law of Moses were not
legitimate; (3) installing idols, such as the golden calves of Jeroboam; (4) polluting
their worship through the burning of "leavened bread" to produce an aromatic
smell; (5) omitting all sin-offerings, as if they were not sinners; (6) introducing the
unauthorized instruments of music "like David"; (7) committing fornication after
the ancient pagan rites observed by the followers of Baal, and doing it in the very
shrines and lying down by every altar (!) in Israel "upon the clothing" extorted
from the poor; (8) drinking wine out of sacred vessels dedicated to God's service,
etc. The very suggestion that a tender regard for the poor and a deep sincerity on
the part of the people could have sanctified and legitimatized such a bastard religion
as that is an affront to all that is written in the Holy Scriptures. The religion by
which men hope to receive and retain the favor of Almighty God must be something
far more than a sensitive humanism with reference to the common needs and
sufferings of mankind, and something far more than a "sincere" following of and
participation in some traditional system of worship. Just as ancient Israel had a
plumb-line, by which they could have measured, corrected, and constructed a
proper and obedient faith, our own generation has the same privilege, that plumb-
line, of course, being the teaching of the Word of God. Despite this, many, it would
appear, are still making the same fatal mistake as that of the ancient Israelites.
As Smith said:
"Amaziah undoubtedly felt secure behind the defenses of Samaria and the religious
observances at Bethel. He erred in considering the word of God to be just the word
of a man and in failing to examine himself and his society (and may we add: and his
religion) in light of the covenant privileges and responsibilities."[47]
The word of the Lord endureth forever; and it is our humble prayer that the Lord's
followers may never forsake that holy word.
COKE, "Verse 17
Amos 7:17. In a polluted land— By a polluted land is meant a heathen country far
from the land of Israel; for the Hebrews considered every other country as polluted
in comparison with theirs. History has not preserved to us enough of the life of
Amaziah to give a minute account of the accomplishment of this prophesy in his
person. It has been said, that Amos was put to death by him. See the introductory
note.

123. REFLECTIO S.—1st, The prophet before spoke what he heard from God in
words; here he relates what was revealed to him in vision; and both confirming the
same event, the ruin of a rebellious people. We have,
1. The judgment of grasshoppers or locusts, which are removed at the prophet's
intercession. They were formed in the vision by God's hand, and commissioned to
devour the after-grass, after the first mowings. Some understand this figuratively of
the Assyrian army, which, under Pul their king, plundered the country, 2 Kings
15:19 after it had begun to revive a little under Jeroboam, 2 Kings 13:25 from the
ravages it had before suffered; see 2 Kings 3:22. Affected with the melancholy scene,
the prophet becomes an earnest advocate for this miserable land: then I said, O
Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: sin was the cause of all their sufferings, and the
removal of that was the great object of the prophet's prayer. Cease, I beseech thee,
the unequal controversy, which must else quickly consume that sinful people, unable
to stand before God's judgments: and he enforces his plea by their relation to him as
the seed of Jacob; the low estate of misery to which they were already reduced; and
the absolute despair into which they must fall, unless he was pleased graciously to
pity, pardon, and save them. By whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small. The Lord
heard and was intreated; he repented for this; removed this afflictive dispensation
of his providence at the prophet's instance. It shall not be, saith the Lord; either the
locusts, or the Assyrian army, shall not be permitted utterly to destroy the land; see
2 Kings 15:19-20. ote; (1.) While we declare to sinners the judgments that they
provoke, every pious prophet cannot but be an earnest advocate to avert them, so
far is he from desiring the woeful day. (2.) Sin is the cause of every human misery;
and the pardon of that is to be sought in the first place, in order to open the door for
every other mercy. (3.) The low and afflicted state of the church at any time is a
powerful argument to plead for present help. (4.) Powerfully effectual, and mightily
availing, is the fervent prayer of a righteous man. Such advocates with God are the
greatest blessings to their country.
2. Another judgment by fire succeeds, and this also is extinguished at the prophet's
prayer. The Lord God called to contend by fire, and, ready at his commands, the
elements obey him: it devoured the great deep; it seemed to dry up the ocean; and
did eat up a part of the earth; which may refer either to some remarkable visitation
of lightning, consuming part of their country; or to the intense heat of the sun,
occasioning a drought through the land, and consuming them by famine; or
figuratively describes the devastations of the Assyrian army under Tiglath-Pileser, 2
Kings 15:29 and the captivity of a part of the land. Hereupon the prophet repeats
his former request, and again succeeds in preventing their final ruin. ote; (1.) God
hath many arrows in his quiver; and when one judgment does not humble a sinful
soul, he will send another. (2.) God is not unwilling to multiply his pardons, if we
are not weary in waiting upon him with our prayers.
3. In a third vision their final ruin is predicted; for reprieves are not pardons; and
they whom neither mercies nor judgments effectually work upon, may expect to be
at last utterly abandoned of God. And he shewed me, and behold the Lord stood
upon a wall made by a plumb-line: the Jewish state was like a wall of adamant,

124. strong, and raised by the divine architect straight and regular; and now he came,
with a plumb-line in his hand, to discover their crookedness, who had so departed
from the line of duty and his pure worship. On the proof, therefore, of their
incorrigible perverseness, he now resolves to pass by them no more; and therefore
the prophet may no more intercede for them. Their doom is fixed; their high places
shall be destroyed; their idol-temples demolished; notwithstanding the holy
progenitors from whom they descended, which they might flatter themselves would
be their protection; and the house of Jeroboam, the great author of their apostacy
from God, shall be cut off; as was shortly after accomplished by Shallum; 2 Kings
15:10. ote; (1.) o outward privileges will protect apostates from ruin. (2.) Walls of
adamant are no defence against God's judgments. (3.) In all God's visitations he acts
with strictest justice; so that they who suffer have not the shadow of complaint. (4.)
Though God bears long with impenitent sinners, he will not bear always: vengeance,
though slow, is sure.
2nd, From the kindness which the prophet had shewn by his intercession in behalf
of the land, and the manifest design of all the judgments threatened, which was to
lead them to repentance, one might have expected that the most grateful returns
would have been made to their affectionate friend and faithful reprover; but let not
the best of men be surprised at the basest ingratitude which they meet with.
1. Amaziah, the priest of Beth-el, or prince, the chief ruler perhaps both in
ecclesiastical and civil affairs, could not bear the threatenings of the prophet, and
therefore transmits to court an accusation against him as a traitor against the
nation; as one that sowed sedition among the people, and spirited them up to
murder the king: so that, if timely care was not taken, the land would not be able to
bear all his words: either they would breed a revolt, or the country was so
exasperated against him, that he would insinuate as if nothing could be a more
popular act than to silence or punish him. For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die
by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land;
which was partly false and partly true. Israel's ruin indeed the prophet foretold; but
Amaziah suppresses the circumstances of Amos's intercession, and his declarations
that their repentance would prevent the judgment. As for Jeroboam's death, the
prophet said no such thing: the threatening was against his house, not himself; but
this was easily perverted. ote; (1.) Apostate priests are the bitterest persecutors of
the true prophets. (2.) It is a common method with designing men to represent the
faithful as seditious, and troublers of the land, though in fact they are the best
friends of it. (3.) They who bear testimony for God against men's sins, may expect to
meet with the most malicious insinuations against them, and to have their words
often tortured to a meaning of which they never dreamed.
2. Amaziah endeavours to drive Amos out of the country. What answer he received
from court is not said; it should seem, not one so favourable as he expected; and
therefore, to be rid of him at any rate, by pretending regard for his safety, which he
insinuates would be in danger, he advises him to quit Beth-el, and fly to Judah,
where he would be better received and rewarded; judging from his own case that
Amos prophesied for bread, which at Beth-el he would never get: besides, the place

125. was improper; it was the king's chapel, and court, where his plain speaking could
not fail of being disagreeable, court-preaching requiring soft words, and smooth
prophesies; nor could he think of making converts there, where the torrent ran so
strong against him, and would the more endanger his safety the more he attempted
to oppose it. ote; (1.) False and faithless prophets measure the faithful by
themselves, and think their only motive to be that filthy lucre and worldly esteem
which they adore. (2.) A zealous, active minister is a burthensome stone in the eyes
of the lazy and negligent, especially when he happens to be in a very public
situation, where his conduct more glaringly reflects on theirs; and therefore by fair
means or foul they will strive to get rid of him.
3. Amos answers this wicked priest with the steadiness which becomes his office, and
as one not to be intimidated by danger from the discharge of his duty. As for
himself, he was not descended from a prophet, nor bred up in the schools of the
prophets; but was an herdsman, and a gatherer of sycamore-fruit, to serve his
family or cattle; and from this employment the Lord called him to go and prophesy
unto Israel. His divine mission, therefore, authorized him; he dared not desert his
post, since he was sent thither of God; and, as he had been accustomed to hard fare,
he was the better prepared to meet with any hardships in the course of his ministry;
though they who dared oppose and oppress him should suffer for it; and Amaziah,
who had forbad him to prophesy, among the first. His wife will be an harlot, and
her wickedness will reflect infamy on him: his children shall fall by the sword of an
enemy, and his eyes shall behold it; his estate shall be divided among the
conquerors, and himself survive these miseries to die a wretched captive in a
polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land, as he would
see fatally verified. ote; (1.) God often chooses weak and unlikely instruments; but
whom he sends he will qualify for their office. (2.) Persecutors of God's prophets
shall shortly meet their fearful doom. (3.) God's word will surely take place,
whatever opposition sinners may make against it.
ELLICOTT, "(17) Harlot.—This doom on Amaziah’s wife is to be regarded as the
hideous consequence of war. She shall be ravished. By the polluted land we are to
understand Assyria, or the land of exile; for food eaten in any other land than
Canaan, the land of Jehovah, was regarded as unclean (see W. R. Smith, O.T. in
Jewish Church, pp. 235-8). We hear no more of Amaziah, nor do we know how or
where he met his doom.
TRAPP, "Verse 17
Amos 7:17 Therefore thus saith the LORD Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city,
and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided
by line; and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into
captivity forth of his land.
Ver. 17. Therefore thus saith the Lord: Thy wife, &c.] Thou shalt be sure of thy
share in the common calamity, which thou wilt not hear of; but thou shalt hear and
be ashamed, &c., Isaiah 26:11. So little is gotten by thwarting with God, and seeking

126. to frustrate his counsel. With these froward pieces God will show himself froward,
Psalms 16:4; and if they walk contrary to him, he will also walk as cross to them,
Leviticus 26:21; he will tame such sturdy rebels as he did Pharaoh, and that way
raise him a name; all they shall get by him is but more weight of punishment: as
when Jehoiakim had burnt Jeremiah’s roll of curses, all that he gained was that the
roll was renewed, "and there were added besides thereunto many like words,"
Jeremiah 36:32. See the like, Jeremiah 20:2, 1 Kings 13:4; 1 Kings 22:25, Acts 5:38-
39. The counsel of God (saith Gregory) while shunned is executed; the wisdom of
man may wriggle, but cannot escape.
Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city]. A common strumpet, for a punishment of
thy spiritual harlotry; together with thy "seducing my servants to commit
fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols," Revelation 2:20.
Or, thy wife shall be an harlot] That is, she shall be ravished by the enemy before
thy face ( Per vim stuprabitur); so Theodoret, Calvin, Mercer, &c. See Isaiah 13:16,
Lamentations 5:11. The Irish rebels bound the husband to the bedpost, while they
abused his wife before his face.
And thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword] Because thou hast taken my
sons and my daughters, and these hast thou sacrificed unto devils to be devoured.
"Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my children," and
brought them forth to the murderer? Ezekiel 16:20-21; that thou hast sent so many
souls to hell, and nuzled up thine own sons and daughters in ignorance and
superstition, being therein rather a parricide than a parent, peremptores potius
quam parentes (Bern.)?
Thy land shall be divided by line] Thy purchases shall be parted among the
enemies; thine ill gotten riches shall be made a spoil to the soldier.
And thou shalt die in a polluted land] i.e. In Assyria, filled with the uncleanness of
the inhabitants from corner to corner, as Canaan was, Ezra 9:11, Leviticus 26:38.
Here thou shalt die for thine abominable idolatries, to thy great regret. Seldom do
such escape the visible vengeance of God, as by virulent tongues or violent hands
persecute his true prophets. Whether Amos for his boldness was first scourged by
Amaziah, and then wounded to death by his son Uzziah (as some will), is uncertain.
And Israel shall surely] Though thou wouldst not believe it, Amos 7:11.