Chapter 9
Amos 9:1 | |
1. I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered. | 1. Vidi Dominum stantem super altare, et dixit, Percute superliminare et coommovebunter postes, et affliget (vel, afflige, in modo imperativo) in capite omnes, et novissimum ipsorum (vel, posteritatem) gladio occidam; non effuget ex ipsis fugiens, neque evadet ex ipsis qui evadit. |
The Prophet confirms the threatening which we have already explained; for he says that the people would be soon removed, as there was now no hope of repentance. But it must first be observed, that he speaks not here of the profane temples which Jeroboam the first had built in Dan and in Bethel, but of the true and lawful temple; for it would not have been befitting that this vision should have been made to the Prophet in one of those profane temples, from which, we know, God was far away. Had God appeared in Dan or Bethel, it would have been an indirect approbation of superstition. They are then mistaken who think that the vision was given to the Prophet in any other place than on mount Zion, as we have shown in other places. For the Prophets say not, that God had spoken either in Dan or in Bethel, nor had there been any oracle announced from these places; for God designed in every way to show that he had nothing to do with those profane rites and abominations. It is then certain that God appeared to his Prophet on mount Zion, and on the lawful altar. 1
Let us now see the design of the vision. The greater part of interpreters think that the destruction of the kingdom and of the priesthood is predicted here, at the time when Zedekiah was taken and led ignominiously into exile, and when his children were killed, and when afterwards the temple was erased and the city demolished. But this prediction, I doubt not, ought to be extended much farther, even to the many calamities which immediately followed, by which at length the whole people were destroyed. I therefore do not confine what is here said to the demolition of the city and of the temple. But the meaning of the Prophet is the same as though he had said, that the Israelites as well as the Jews in vain boasted of their descent and of other privileges with which they had been honored: for the Lord had resolved to destroy them, and also the temple, which they employed as a cloak to cover their iniquities. We now then understand the intention of the Prophet. But this also must be noticed, -- that if the Lord spared not his own temple, which he had commanded to be built, and in which he had chosen a habitation for himself, those profane temples, which he had ever despised, could not possibly escape destruction. We now see the design of this prophecy, which is the last, with the exception of the promise that is given, of which we shall speak in its proper place.
He says then that he
It now follows,
It is easy now to gather the meaning of the Prophet: A vision was exhibited to him which showed that it was decreed by God himself to smite both the chiefs and the common people: and since God begins with his temple, how can profane men hope for pardon, who had deserted the true and pure worship of God? They were all apostates: how then could they have hoped that God would be placable to them, inasmuch as he had broken down his own temple?
He now adds,
He afterwards says,
And since the Prophet denounces such and so dreadful a destruction of an elect people, and since the vision was exhibited to him in the temples there is no reason for us to trust in our outward profession, and to wait till God's judgments come, as we see many are doing in our day, who are wholly careless, because they think that no evil can happen to them, inasmuch as they bear the name of God. But the Prophet here shows, that God sits in his temple, not only to protect those whom he has adopted as his people and peculiar possession, but also to vindicate his own honor, because the Israelites had corrupted his worship; and the Jews also had departed from true religion. Since then impiety everywhere prevailed, he now shows that God sits there as the punisher of sins, that his people may know that they are not to tolerate those evils, which for a time he does not punish, as though he had forgotten his office, or that he designs his favor to be the cover of their iniquity; but because he designs by degrees to draw to repentance those, who are healable, and at the same time to take away every excuse frown the reprobate. Let us proceed --
1 Calvin is not without many expounders, who agree with him in this view; yet the reasons assigned do not apply. "Though the true God," as Dr. Henderson justly observes, "was seen beside the idolatrous altar, it was not for the purpose of receiving homage, but of commanding that the whole of the erection and worship at Bethel should be destroyed." -- Ed.
2 These two lines are variously explained. The words can hardly admit the meaning here given to them. The scene was in the temple, and worshippers were present. The command was to strike the lintel; the fall of the pillars or posts was the consequence: many were destroyed, and those who remained were to be killed by the sword, and not one was to escape. There seems to be here an allusion to two previous events -- the shaking and pulling down of the pillars of the house of Dagon by Sampson, -- and the slaughter of the priests of Baal by Jehu. I render the verse thus: --
I saw the Lord standing on the altar, and he said, --
"Strike the lintel, that the pillars may shake,
And break them down on the head of them all;
And the remainder of them with the sword will I slay;
Flee away from them shall not he who fleeth,
And escape from them shall not he who escapeth."
Junius and Tremelius, as well as Dathius, render the third and fourth lines, where the difficulty alone exists, according to the version given above; and Henderson renders the third line materially the same, --
And break them in pieces on the heads of them all.
But he retains "posterity" in the fourth line, which seems not consistent with the tenor of the passage.
The version of Junius and Tremelius is this, --
Quod autem post ipsos est gladio interrficam
Dathius is more paraphrastic, and gives the same sense, --
Reliquos vero gladio interficam
Newcome, who is too fond of emendations, folllows Houbigant, who, for no reason that appears, turns the verb into the first person; and he gives this rendering of the third line, --
For I will wound them in the head, even all of them:
But this evidently does not comport with the context. -- Ed.