Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Amos 3:3
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
3. Can ] better Will? or Do? if one sees two persons walking together, it may be inferred that, either at the time or previously, they have come to some agreement to do so. The example may have been suggested by Amos’s experience of the wild moorlands of Tekoa, or of the desert regions of Judah, in which “men meet and take the same road by chance as seldom as ships at sea” (G. A. Smith, p. 82).
be agreed ] lit. have appointed themselves (or each other), i.e. have met by agreement (Job 2:11; Jos 11:5), or have agreed to be together.
Additional Note
The title “Jehovah of hosts” is one which occurs with great frequency in the prophets (except Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Daniel, and, somewhat remarkably, Ezekiel: Hosea, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, however use it each once only), and fifteen times in eight Psalms (Psalms 24, 46, 48, 59, 69, 80, 84, 89): in the historical books it is found only in 1Sa 1:3; 1Sa 1:11 ; 1Sa 4:4; 1Sa 15:2 ; 1Sa 17:45, 2Sa 5:10 (= 1Ch 11:9), 2Sa 6:2; 2Sa 6:18 , 2Sa 7:8; 2Sa 7:26 (= 1Ch 17:7; 1Ch 17:24), 2Sa 7:27 , 1Ki 18:15; 1Ki 19:10; 1Ki 19:14 , 2Ki 3:14; 2Ki 19:31, several of these occurrences being in the mouth of prophets: it is thus preeminently the prophetical title of Jehovah. The origin of the expression is not certainly known. Host is used in Hebrew in the sense of an army of men (as in the common phrase, “captain of the host,” 1Ki 1:19 &c.); in addition to this, however, the Hebrews pictured the angels (1Ki 22:19; cf. Psa 68:17; Psa 103:21; Psa 148:2), and also the stars (Deu 4:19; Jer 8:2; Isa 34:4; Isa 40:26; Isa 45:12), as forming a ‘host.’ Accordingly it is supposed by some (as Kautzsch, art. Zebaoth, in Herzog’s Realencyclopdie; G. A. Smith, pp. 57 f.: cf. Schultz, O.T. Theol. I. 139 141) that the expression originally denoted Jehovah as a warrior, the leader of Israel’s forces (cf. Exo 14:14; Exo 15:3; Num 21:14 [the “Book of Jehovah’s Wars”], 1Sa 17:45 ; 1Sa 18:17; 1Sa 25:28; Psa 24:8; Psa 60:10); but (as it occurs in many passages where an exclusively martial sense would be inappropriate) that it was afterwards gradually enlarged so as to denote Him also as the God who had other “hosts” at His command, and could employ, for instance, the armies of heaven (cf. Jdg 5:20; 2Ki 6:17) on His people’s behalf: according to others (as Smend, Alttest. Religionsgeschichte, pp. 185 188) it had this wider sense from the beginning. Ewald ( History of Israel, iii. 62; Lehre der Bibel von Gott, II. i. 339 f.; comp. Oehler, O.T. Theol. 195 198) made the clever and original suggestion that the expression may have first arisen on occasion of some victory under the Judges, when it seemed as if Jehovah descended with His celestial hosts to the help of the armies of Israel (cf. Jdg 5:13): “born” thus “in the shout of victory,” it fixed itself in the memory of the people, and larger ideas gradually attached themselves to it, until in the prophets it became “the loftiest and most majestic title” of Israel’s God. Thus, whatever uncertainty may rest upon the origin of the expression, all agree that as used by the prophets it is Jehovah’s most significant and sublimest title: it designates Him, namely, as One who has at His disposal untold ‘hosts’ of spiritual and material agencies, and is Lord of the forces of nature, in a word, as the Omnipotent (comp. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 323). It is accordingly in the LXX. often (2 Sam. and Minor Prophets (usually), Jer. (frequently): elsewhere is generally used [220] ) very appropriately represented by [221] ‘Lord Omnipotent’ (more exactly ‘Lord all-sovereign ’: Westcott, Historic Faith, p. 215). The prophets often employ the title with much effectiveness and force; and it is necessary to bear in mind the ideas suggested by it, if their use of it is to be properly understood (comp., for instance, its use in Amo 3:13, Amo 4:13, Amo 5:14; Amo 5:27, Amo 6:8; Amo 6:14).
[220] In the Psalms, and occasionally in other books, (i.e. of forces, hosts: see Numbers 2, 10 in the LXX. passim).
[221] Comp. in the N.T. 2Co 6:18, and nine times in the Revelation, viz. Rev 1:8, Rev 4:8, Rev 11:17, Rev 15:3, Rev 16:7; Rev 16:14, Rev 19:6; Rev 19:15, Rev 21:22 ( ; comp. in Amos . The rend. “Almighty” in Rev. connects the word wrongly with Shaddai [see p. 81], for which stands only in Job, and never there with preceding).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
3 5. Examples of sights, or sounds, from which the action of some proper or sufficient cause may, in each case, be inferred.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
3 8. Such a severe rebuke might provoke contradiction among the prophet’s hearers: he therefore proceeds to indicate the authority upon which it rests, arguing by means of a series of illustrations drawn from the facts of common life, that every event or occurrence in nature implies the operation of some cause adequate to produce it: if, therefore, he has spoken such a word, it is because there has been a sufficient cause impelling him to do so. The questions, it is obvious, require in each case a negative answer.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Sacred parables or enigmas must have many meanings. They are cast on the mind, to quicken it and rouse it by their very mystery. They are taken from objects which in different lights, represent different things, and so suggest them. This series of brief parables have, all of them, this in common, that each thing spoken of is alternately cause and effect, and where the one is found, there must be the other. From the effect you can certainly infer the cause, without which it could not be, and from the cause you may be sure of the effect. Then, further, all the images are of terror and peril to the objects spoken of. The prophet impresses upon their minds both aspects of these things; evil will not befall, unless it has been prepared; signs of evil will not shew themselves, unless the evil be at hand. The bird will not fall without the snare; if the snare rises and so shews itself, the bird is as good as taken. As surely then (the prophet would say) as the roaring of the lion, the rising of the snare, the alarm of the trumpet, betokens imminent peril, so surely does the warning Voice of God. The lion hath roared; who will not fear? Again, as surely as these are the effects of their causes, so surely is all infliction sent by Him who alone has power over all things, and is the cause of all. Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? Again, as these tokens are given before the evil comes, and the God of nature and of grace has made it a law in nature, that what is fearful should give signs of coming evil, so has He made it a law of His own dealing, not to inflict evil, without having fore-announced it.
Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He reveleth His secret unto His servants the prophets. As nothing else is by chance, nor happens without cause, much less the acts of God. The lion or young lion when they roar, the bird when it falls to the ground, the snare when it rises, the trumpets sound, all have their cause and ground: shall not then much more the acts and works of God? Shall evil happen in the city, and have no ground in the Cause of all causes, God in His righteous judgments? As there is fear, whenever there are tokens and causes of fear, so fear ye now and watch, lest the fear overtake you and it be too late. The first words then,
Can (will) two walk together, except they be agreed? – are at once a general rule for all which follows, and have different bearings according to those its several aspects. And, before all these, it is an appeal at once to the conscience which feels itself parted from its God; so neither will God be with thee, unless thou art agreed and of one mind with God. Think not to have God with thee, unless thou art with God; as He saith, I will not go up in the midst of thee, for thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee in the way Exo 33:3; and, if ye walk contrary unto Me, then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins Lev 26:23, Lev 26:4. And on the other hand, They shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy Rev 3:4. Lap.: God cannot be agreed with the sinner who justifies himself. Rup.: God who rebuketh, and Israel who is rebuked, are two. God saith, We are not agreed, in that Israel, when rebuked, heareth not Me, God, rebuking. Herein we are not agreed, that I rebuke, Israel justifieth himself. Lo, for so many years since Jeroboam made the golden calves, have I sent prophets, and none agreeth, for no one king departed from the sin of Jeroboam. So then I came Myself, God made man, rebuking and reproving: but ye are they which justify yourselves before men Luk 16:15, and, being sick, ye say to the Physician, we need Thee not. Augustine in Psa 75:1-10 Lap.: So long as thou confessest not thy sins, thou art in a manner litigating with God. For what displeaseth Him, thou praisest. Be at one with God. Let what displeaseth Him, displease thee. Thy past evil life displeaseth Him. If it please thee, thou art disjoined from Him; if it displease thee, by confessing thy sins, thou art joined to Him. So He awakens and prepares the soul for the following words of awe.
In connection with what follows, the words are also the prophets defense of his Mission. Israel said to the prophets, prophesy not (see the notes on Amo 2:12), or, The Lord our God hath not sent thee Jer 43:2, because, while it disobeyed God, the prophets must speak concernig it not good, but evil. Amos prepares the way for his answer; ye yourselves admit, that two will not walk together, unless they be agreed. The seen and the unseen, the words of the prophets and the dealings of God, would not meet together, unless the prophets were of one mind with God, unless God had admitted them into His counsels, and were agreed with them, so that their words should precede His deeds, His deeds confirm His words by them.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Amo 3:3
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
Agreement with God
Order is the first law of heavens empire. In the material world God has secured it by absolute power. In the world of mind His authority has enjoined it. And in the next state of human existence His omnipotent justice will enforce it. In the present world God has simply enjoined order; and if we obey not the great laws of moral harmony, we make our own happiness impossible. If two are not agreed, they cannot walk together. The enjoyments of friendship demand a harmony of sentiment; the classifications of political parties, and all efficient party movements, whether good or bad, demand it. What efficiency can there be in that commercial house whose partners are agreed about no one of the great principles of trade? The text is part of a solemn reproof addressed to the Israelites. They thought that because they had been taken into covenant with God, and had been careful in observing the ceremonials of the Jewish ritual, God walked with them, approved of them, and blessed them. But the prophet here presents this great principle: You must agree with Me, and then I will walk with you; the union between us must be a moral union. Man, as unconverted, has no moral union with God. Between God and these His creatures there is no common taste, there are no common principles, no common ends nor plans. Observe God and man in the exercise of love in its two branches, complacency and benevolence. God loves all excellence. Humility, faith, penitence, the spirit of prayer,–these are the features of character of greatest price in God s sight. But it is not so with the world. The selection of our companions, and the ground of that selection, if we would examine it closely, would perfectly expose to us our character as it is in the eyes of God. If we choose the pious, we have, so far, an evidence of our reconciliation to God. In the exercise of their benevolence men do not choose as God chooses. It is often said that no man can love his enemies. Then no man can dwell with God, no man can wear Gods moral image. We may test the condition of our affections by another object–the law of God. If its requirements please us not, if its threatenings seem too severe, then with us God is not agreed. Another object tests the heart; the Son of God manifested in human nature. Does your heart exalt Him? If your heart, in all these points, has no sympathy with God, how can He delight in you? Communion of soul, to be intimate and delightful, must be intelligent and cordial on those points which both parties deem of the highest moment. If you have no such fellowship with God here, what will you do in heaven? (E. N. Kirk, A. M.)
The conditions of intercourse and union with God
The terms on which man can have converse with God, intercourse with His love, and experience of His mercy, are unchangeably the same in every age of the world. Without coincidence in sentiment, judgment, and disposition, there can be no cordial union or harmony between the Creator and the creature. He that is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.
1. In order that God and man should walk together in all the endearments of the Christian covenant, there must be a harmony of judgment concerning the Scripture plan of salvation. Man must acquiesce in what God has so solemnly declared and imposed.
2. There must be a correspondence of sentiment upon the rule by which redeemed creatures are to be governed, and the duties they must fulfil towards God and towards man. The moral law is still authoritative as a rule of life.
3. Man and God cannot walk together, unless the mind of both have reference to the same end. That which the Most High contemplated, when He redeemed you on the Cross of His Son, was the advancing of His own honour, and the salvation of your souls. What then is your aim? (R. P. Buddicom, M. A.)
A pair of friends
They do not need to be agreed about everything. The two whom the prophet would fain see walking together are God and Israel. Two may walk together, but they have to be agreed thus far, at any rate, that both shall wish to be together, and both be going the same road.
I. that blessed companionship that may cheer a life. Walking with God means ordering the daily life under the continual sense that we are ever in the great Taskmasters eye. Walking after God means conforming the will and active efforts to the rule that He has laid down. High above these conceptions of a devout life is the idea of walking with God. For to walk before Him may have in it some tremor, and may be undertaken in the spirit of a slave. And walking after Him may be a painful effort to keep His distant figure in sight. But to walk with Him implies a constant quiet sense of the Divine presence, which forbids that we should ever feel lonely. As the companions pace along side by side, words may be spoken by either, or blessed silence may be eloquent of perfect trust and rest. Such a life of friendship with God is possible for every one of us. If we are so walking, it is no piece of fanaticism to say that there will be mutual communications. The two may walk together. That is the end of all religion. All culminates in this true, constant fellowship between men and God. Get side by side with God. Fellowship with Him is the climax of all religion. It is also the secret of all blessedness, the only thing that will make a life absolutely sovereign over sorrow, and fixedly imperturbed by all tempests, and invulnerable to all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Hold fast by God, and you have an amulet against every evil, and a shield against every foe, and a mighty power that will calm and satisfy your whole being.
II. The sadly incomplete reality, in much Christian experience, which contrasts with this possibility. Perhaps few so-called Christians habitually feel, as they might do, the depth and blessedness of this communion. And only a very small percentage of us have anything like the continuity of companionship which the text suggests as possible. There may be, and therefore there should be, running unbroken through a Christian life, one long bright line of communion with God, and happy inspiration from the sense of His presence with us. Is it a line in my life, or is there but a dot here and a dot there, and long breaks between?
III. An explanation of the failure to realise this continual presence. The explanation is that the two are not agreed. That is why they are not walking together. The consciousness of Gods presence with us is a very delicate thing. At bottom, there is only one thing that separates a soul from God, and that is sin of some sort. Remember that very little divergence will, if the two paths are prolonged far enough, part their other ends by a world. There may be scarcely any conscious ness of parting company at the beginning. Take care of little divergencies that are habitual. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
–This points to an essential condition of union between the Lord Jesus Christ, and those who really are His. Fellowship with the Lord is obviously the highest privilege of the creature. In every age this has been regarded as the highest favour that could possibly be given to man. All the most distinguished worthies of ancient Scripture history have this, above everything else, as their distinguishing glory and their privilege–to live in the society of the invisible God. And it is the privilege of every true Christian to receive the Lord Jesus Christ into his heart, and to live in constant fellowship, through Him, with the unseen God. They that live most in the society of the everlasting God must, more or less, be partakers of His own Divine attributes. And what joy belongs to such a life as this! Before we can really know Him there must be a substantial agreement between ourselves and Him. There are only too many Christians who are living out of fellowship with God. And it is only too possible to fail from fellowship with Him. Then the highest privilege in our life is gone. We must have permitted some cause of disagreement to arise between ourselves and Him. The relationship in which we stand is of such a character that the superior Being must be supreme. Gods way being the way of absolute perfection, any attempt on our part to assert our own desire, as in opposition to the Divine will, must be an offence against our own nature and our own interest, just as surely as it is an offence against His Divine pleasure. There must be a complete and continual yielding up, a concession of our natural inclinations to His Divine will, if we are to rise to that which He desires we should attain to, and possess the blessedness which we may, even here, experience. This is our life-work–to bring our human wills into conformity with Him; to watch every little cause of disagreement, and to eliminate it as fast as it makes its appearance. Our blessed Lord is our example in this respect. Our Lord had a human will, though it was not a Sinful will. Contemplate Adam unfallen, and put beside him the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will find that they both have the same tastes and proclivities, naturally, because they are both specimens of genuine humanity. What was our Lords course of conduct, starting from this point? He lays it down as the first law of His human life, that He has come into the world, not to do His own will, but the will of Him who had sent Him. Having accepted this as the great taw of His conduct, lower considerations, considerations connected with pleasure and pain, take a completely subordinate position. There was the complete devotion of the human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Divine will. The result was that God and He were walking together in holy union. No doubt at times our Lord felt strangely solitary. But there was one thing that stayed Him in the midst of all His trials, and cheered Him in the midst of all His sorrows,–He that hath sent Me is with Me. The life of Jesus was a constant rendering up of pleasure to God. It was lived out, not as under an iron law, but with a feeling of filial delight in doing what pleased the Father; and the result of this was an unbroken harmony between the two wills, and the continuous presence within His own nature of the Father, for whom, and by whom He lived. The will of man, yielding to the will of God, became the will of God. That will always be the effect of the surrender of our will to Him. The more our human will is yielded over to Him, the more complete does the fellowship of our nature with His become, and the two are able so closely to walk together that they become united in an indissoluble union. It is our highest privilege, and our deepest and truest wisdom, to follow the example of our blessed Lord and Master in the maintenance of the continuous attitude of agreement towards God, who claims the lordship of our nature. Agree with Him in little things. Anything like a life of fellowship with God is altogether impossible until the first act of agreement has taken place. There are many who are always trying to rise into a life of fellowship with God without taking the primary step towards it. If you have not come into fellowship with God, you are disagreed with respect to your nature. There is a property quarrel between you. He lays His hand upon that nature of yours, and says, It is Mine. God is a Sovereign, He has laid down certain laws. Where is the man or woman who has kept them? Moreover, God and the unrenewed sinner are in a state of disagreement with respect to the position which the sinner has to take. It is one of helplessness. Let me come closer. The disagreement is a personal one. There is something that has slipped in between thee and thy God. And the disagreement has arisen with thee, rebellious sinner. (W. Hay Aitken, M. A.)
The condition essential to a walk with God
Unless there be congeniality of character, there may be outward alliance, but there cannot be that intimate communion which the alliance itself is supposed to imply. And a sameness of tendency or pursuit appears evidently to form an immediate link between parties who would otherwise have had little in common. Men of science seem attracted towards each other, though they may be strangers by birth and even by country. Our text, though it may with great justice be applied to human associations, furnishing a rule which ought to guide us in forming them, was originally intended, and originally delivered, to refer to intercourse between man and God. The Israelites flattered themselves that they should still enjoy the favour of God, that the relation which made Him specially their guardian might still be maintained, while they lived in wickedness. Not so, says God, the thing is impossible; two cannot walk together, except they be agree.
I. What is it for man to walk with God? Two walking together denotes their having the same object, or pursuing the same end. In scriptural phrase it not only marks a man out as pious, but as eminently pious. A man who habitually walked with God would be one who had a constant sense of the Divine presence, and a thorough fixing of the affections on things above.
1. A man who walks with God must have a constant sense of the Divine presence. He lives in the full consciousness that the eye of his Maker is ever upon him, so that he cannot take a single unobserved step, or do the least thing which escapes Divine notice.
2. The expression indicates a thorough fixing of the affections on things above. It is the description of a man who, whilst yet in the flesh, may be said to have both his head and his heart in heaven. To walk with God implies a state of concord and co-operation: a state in fact, on mans part, of what we commonly under stand by religion, the human will having become harmonious with the Divine, and the creature proposing the same object as the Creator.
II. The absolute necessity of agreement between man and God in order to their walking together. The agreement is clearly given as indispensable to the walking together. Some process of reconciliation is necessary ere there can be friendly intercourse between a human being and the Divine. And how may God and man walk together when they are agreed? Whatever the moral change which may pass upon man, it is certain that he remains to the last a being of corrupt passions and unholy tendencies. We must take heed not to narrow or circumscribe the results of Christs work of redemption. The process of agree ment, as undertaken and completed by Christ, had respect to continuance as well as to commencement. It was not a process for merely bringing God and man into friendship; it was a process for keeping them in friendship. But the walking together could not last if it were not that the Mediator ever lives as an Intercessor: it could not last, if it were not that the work of the Son procured for us the influences of the Spirit. Another point of view is that to question whether two can walk together except they be agreed, is really to assert an impossibility. Two cannot walk together unless they are agreed. Consider this impossibility with reference to a future state. And we have no right to think that this agreement between God and man is ever affected, unless at least commenced on this side the grave. Time is for beginnings, eternity is for completions. (Henry Melvill, B. D.)
The law and the conscience–their quarrel made up
There must be a reason why questions are put in the Bible and not answered there. It is intended that each learner should sit down, and, by the analogy of faith applied to his own experience, work out an answer for himself. The question in the text arises out of a particular ease in the experience of Israel; but it is expressed in a general form, and contains a rule of universal application. We apply to Gods law and mans conscience.
I. The disagreement.
1. The fact that there is alienation. Gods law is His manifested, will for the government of His creatures. It is holy, just, and good; it is perfect as its Author. Observe the steadfastness of Gods laws as applied to material things. His moral law, ruling spirits, is as inexorable as His physical law, ruling matter. It has no softness for indulged sins. It never changes and never repents. The law never saved a sinner; if it did, it would no longer be a law. The law, by its very nature, can have no partialities and no compunctions. It never saves those who transgress, and never weeps for those who perish. The conscience in man is that part of his wonderful frame that comes into closest contact with Gods law–the part of the man that lies next to the fiery law, and feels its burning. When first the conscience is informed and awakened it discovers itself guilty and the law angry. There is not peace between the two, and, by the constitution of both, they are neighbours. There is need of peace in so close a union, and there is not peace. The conscience is pierced by the law, the sharp arrow of the Lord, and the convicted feels himself a lost, a dead man. Where there is mutual hatred distance may diminish its intensity; but where the antagonists are forced into contact, the nearness exasperates the hate.
2. The consequence of this disagreement between the two is, they cannot walk together. Emnity tends to produce distance. The law, indeed, remains what it was, and where it was; but the offending and fearing conscience seeks, and in one sense obtains, a separation. The conscience cannot bear the burning contact of a condemning law, and forcibly pushes it away. But distance is disobedience. To walk with the law is to live righteously; not to live with the law, is to live in sin. There are certain special features of the disagreement in this case that aggravate the breach and increase its effects,
(1) The party who has injured another hates that other most heartily, and cannot afford to forgive. The injurer must foment the quarrel; it is his only source of relief. The wrong-doer is miserable when he whom he has injured is near.
(2) There is not only the memory of a past grudge, but also the purpose of a future injury.
II. The reconciliation.
1. The nature of the reconciliation, and the means of attaining it. The agreement between the law and the conscience is a part of the great reconciliation between God and man, which is effected in and by Jesus Christ. He is our peace. Peace of conscience follows in the train of justification. Peace is accomplished not by persuading the law to take less, but by giving it all that it demands. The law s demands are satisfied by the Lord Jesus Christ, the substitute of sinners. He has already accomplished the work. My conscience begins to love Gods law when Gods law ceases to condemn me; and Gods law ceases to condemn me when I am in Christ Jesus.
2. The effect of the agreement is obedience to the law–that is, the whole Word of God. The Word still condemns the sins that linger in you; but this does not renew the quarrel. You are on the side of the law, and against your own besetting sins. Practical application to sinners and to saints. (W. Arnot.)
We must be in harmony with God
When the battle was fought between the Monitor and the Cumberland, you remember that the Cumberland was sunk in water so shallow that her topgallants remained above the waves. A friend of mine, who was in Governor Andrews cabinet, had a friend in the hold of the Cumberland as she went down. He was the surgeon, and was so absorbed in his attention to the wounded that he didnt escape from the hold of the vessel, and came near death by the rushing in of the howling brine. But, being a bold man, he kept in view the light which streamed through the hatchways, and, aiding himself by the rigging, at last, almost dead, reached the surface, and was taken into a boat and saved. Now, the insidious and almost unseen expectation that works in human nature is, that when we go down in the sea of death and eternity we shall in some way escape out of ourselves, and swim away from our own personalities, and thus leave the Cumberland at the bottom of the sea. The trouble with that theory is, that we are the Cumberland, and the Cumberland cannot swim away from the Cumberland, can it? You will not get away from yourself and the laws that are implied in the structure of that nature. How can you walk with yourself unless you are agreed with yourself–that is, with the plan of your soul? And I hold a mans soul is made to be conscious and be in harmony with God, just as assuredly as the hand is made to shut toward the front and not toward the back. You will not get away from that plan of your individualities. You drop your body, but that is not you. How do I know but there are many empty sleeves of soldiers of the Union here? They may have left all their limbs at Gettysburg, and have been trundled here to-night, yet we should have said they are here. Thoreau said he had no interest in cemeteries, because he had no friends there. The body is not you. Your dropping the body is not the dropping of your personality. You are going as a personality into the unseen holy with your consciousness, your reason, your whole mental nature, social and moral. Your intellectual perceptions, perhaps all that is moral in you, may be quickened in activity when the flesh is dropped. That seems more probable than the reverse; and now, How can two walk together unless they be agreed? The plan of your nature is not likely to be changed to-morrow, or the day after; unless you come into harmony with it always, the dissonance of your nature with itself will be its own great and lasting punishment. The Cumberland cannot swim out of the Cumberland. (Joseph Cook.)
Matrimonial harmony or discord
Our subject is the mutual duties of husbands and wives. As individuals we are fragments. God makes the race in parts, and then He gradually puts us together. What I lack you make up; what you lack I make up. I have no more right to blame a man for being different from me than a driving wheel has a right to blame the iron shaft that holds it to the centre. John Wesley balances Calvins Institutes. The difficulty is that we are not satisfied with the work that God has given us to do. For more compactness, and that we may be more useful, we are gathered in still smaller circles in the home group. And there you have the same varieties again. If the husband be all impulse, the wife must be all prudence. If one sister be sanguine in her temperament, the other must be lymphatic. Mary and Martha are necessities. The institution of marriage has been defamed in our day. Attempt bus been made to turn marriage into a mere commercial enterprise.
1. My first counsel to you who are setting up homes for yourselves is,–Have Jesus in your new home; let Him who was a guest at Bethany be in your household. Let the Divine blessing drop upon your every hope and expectation.
2. Exercise to the very last possibility of your nature the law of forbearance. Never be ashamed to apologise when you have done wrong in domestic affairs.
3. Do not carry the fire of your temper too near the gunpowder.
4. Make your chief pleasure circle round your home.
5. Cultivate sympathy of occupation.
6. Let love preside in your home. (T. De Witt Talmage, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 3. Can two walk together] While ye loved and served me, I dwelt in you and walked among you. Now ye are become alienated from me, your nature and mine are totally opposite. I am holy, ye are unholy. We are no longer agreed, and can no longer walk together. I can no longer hold communion with you. I must cast you out. The similes in this and the three following verses are all chosen to express the same thing, viz., that no calamities or judgments can fall upon any people but by the express will of God, on account of their iniquities; and that whatever his prophets have foretold, they have done it by direct revelation from their Maker; and that God has the highest and most cogent reason for inflicting the threatened calamities. This correctness of the prophets’ predictions shows that they and I are in communion.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Here the prophet threatens this people that God would begin his visitations and their punishments in his forsaking them, and doth by this interrogatory endeavour to convince them that they could not with any reason expect better from him; it could not be they should long have Gods presence with them, or that he should walk among them and bless them, while they walk so contrary to him; they could not in reason hope that there should be any friendly commerce where was so little agreement and friendship; a retaliation they must expect from the Lord; he will forsake them who have forsaken him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3-6. Here follow severalquestions of a parable-like kind, to awaken conviction in the people.
Can two walk together, exceptthey be agreed?Can God’s prophets be so unanimous inprophesying against you, if God’s Spirit were not joined with them,or if their prophecies were false? The Israelites were “atease,” not believing that God was with the prophets in theirdenunciations of coming ruin to the nation (Amo 6:1;Amo 6:3; compare 1Ki 22:18;1Ki 22:24; 1Ki 22:27;Jer 43:2). This accords withAmo 3:7; Amo 3:8.So “I will be with thy mouth” (Exo 4:12;Jer 1:8; Mat 10:20).If the prophets and God were not agreed, the former could not predictthe future as they do. In Am 2:12He had said, the Israelites forbade the prophets prophesying;therefore, in Amo 3:3; Amo 3:8,He asserts the agreement between the prophets and God who spake bythem against Israel [ROSENMULLER].Rather, “I once walked with you” (Le26:12) as a Father and Husband (Isa 54:5;Jer 3:14); but now your way andMine are utterly diverse; there can therefore be no fellowshipbetween us such as there was (Am3:2); I will walk with you only to “punish you”; as a”lion” walks with his “prey” (Am3:4), as a bird-catcher with a bird [TARNOVIUS].The prophets, and all servants of God, can have no fellowship withthe ungodly (Psa 119:63; 2Co 6:16;2Co 6:17; Eph 5:11;Jas 4:4).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Can two walk together except they be agreed?] Unless they meet together, and appoint time and place, when and where they shall set out, what road they will take, and whither they will go; without such consultation and agreement, it cannot be thought they should walk together; and not amicably, unless united in friendship, and are of the same affection to each other, and of the same sentiments one with another; or it is much if they do not fall out by the way. The design of these words is to show, that without friendship there is no fellowship, and without concord no communion; as this is the case between man and man, so between God and man; and that Israel could not expect that God should walk with them, and show himself friendly to them, and continue his favours with them, when they walked contrary to him; when they were so disagreeable to him in their sentiments of religion, in their worship, and the rites of it, and in the whole of their conduct and behaviour. And to a spiritual walk with God, and communion with him, agreement is requisite. God and man were originally chief friends, but sin set them at variance; a reconciliation became necessary to their walking together again; which was set on foot, not by man, who had no inclination to it, nor knew how to go about it if he had, and much less able to effect it; but by the Lord, the offended party: it began in his thoughts, which were thoughts of peace; it was set on foot by him in the council of peace, and concluded in the covenant of peace; and his Son was sent to bring it about; and through his obedience, sufferings, and death, through his sacrifice and satisfaction, the agreement is made on the part of God, his justice is satisfied; but still it is necessary man should be agreed too; this is brought out by the Spirit of God, who shows the sinner the enmity of his mind, the sin and danger of it, slays this enmity, and puts in new principles of light, life, and love; when the soul is reconciled to God’s way of salvation, and loves the Lord, and delights in him; and both being thus agreed, the one by the satisfaction of Christ, and the other by the Spirit of Christ, see Ro 5:10; they walk comfortably together: the saint walks with God, not only as in his sight and presence, but by faith, and in his fear, in the ways and ordinances of the Lord; and particularly is frequent in prayer and meditation, in which much of his walk with God lies: and God walks with him; he grants his gracious presence; manifests his love and favour to him; talks with him by the way; discloses the secrets of his heart; and indulges him with nearness and communion with him; but all is founded on mutual agreement. And so it must be between men and men, that walk in a religious way; regenerate and unregenerate persons cannot walk together, there being no concord, 2Co 6:14; nor can all sorts of professors; they must agree in the way Christ, and in the fundamental principles of religion; and in worship, and the manner of it; and in all the ordinances of the Gospel, and the manner of administering them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But this truth met with contradiction in the nation itself. The proud self-secure sinners would not hear such prophesying as this (compare Amo 2:4; Amo 7:10.). Amos therefore endeavours, before making any further announcement of the judgment of God, to establish his right and duty to prophesy, by a chain-like series of similes drawn from life. V. 3. “Do two walk together without having agreed? Amo 3:4. Does the lion roar in the forest, and he has no prey? does the young lion utter his cry out of his den, without having taken anything? Amo 3:5. Does the bird fall into the trap on the ground, when there is no snare for him? does the trap rise up from the earth without making a capture? Amo 3:6. Or is the trumpet blown in the city, and the people are not alarmed? or does misfortune happen in the city, and Jehovah has not done it? Amo 3:7. For the Lord Jehovah does nothing at all, without having revealed His secret to His servants the prophets. Amo 3:8. The lion has roared; who does not fear? the Lord Jehovah hath spoken; who must not prophesy?” The contents of these verses are not to be reduced to the general thought, that a prophet could no more speak without a divine impulse than any other effect could take place without a cause. There was certainly no need for a long series of examples, such as we have in Amo 3:3-6, to substantiate or illustrate the thought, which a reflecting hearer would hardly have disputed, that there was a connection between cause and effect. The examples are evidently selected with the view of showing that the utterances of the prophet originate with God. This is obvious enough in Amo 3:7, Amo 3:8. The first clause, “Do two men walk together, without having agreed as to their meeting?” ( noAd , to betake one’s self to a place, to meet together at an appointed place or an appointed time; compare Job 2:11; Jos 11:5; Neh 6:2; not merely to agree together), contains something more than the trivial truth, that two persons do not take a walk together without a previous arrangement. The two who walk together are Jehovah and the prophet (Cyril); not Jehovah and the nation, to which the judgment is predicted (Cocceius, Marck, and others). Amos went as prophet to Samaria or Bethel, because the Lord had sent him thither to preach judgment to the sinful kingdom. But God would not threaten judgment if He had not a nation ripe for judgment before Him. The lion which roars when it has the prey before it is Jehovah (cf. Amo 1:2; Hos 11:10, etc.). is not to be interpreted according to the second clause, as signifying “without having got possession of its prey” (Hitzig), for the lion is accustomed to roar when it has the prey before it and there is no possibility of its escape, and before it actually seizes it (cf. Isa 5:29).
(Note: The most terrible feature in the roaring of a lion is that with this clarigatio , or, if you prefer it, with this classicum , it declares war. And after the roar there immediately follows both slaughter and laceration. For, as a rule, it only roars with that sharp roar when it has the prey in sight, upon which it immediately springs (Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 25ff., ed. Ros.).)
On the contrary, the perfect lakjad in the second clause is to be interpreted according to the first clause, not as relating to the roar of satisfaction with which the lion devours the prey in its den (Baur), but as a perfect used to describe a thing which was as certain as if it had already occurred. A lion has made a capture not merely when it has actually seized the prey and torn it in pieces, but when the prey has approached so near that it cannot possibly escape. K e phr is the young lion which already goes in pursuit of prey, and is to be distinguished from the young of the lion, gur ( catulus leonis ), which cannot yet go in search of prey (cf. Eze 19:2-3). The two similes have the same meaning. The second strengthens the first by the assertion that God not only has before Him the nation that is ripe for judgment, but that He has it in His power.
The similes in Amo 3:5 do not affirm the same as those in Amo 3:4, but contain the new thought, that Israel has deserved the destruction which threatens it. Pach , a snare, and moqesh , a trap, are frequently used synonymously; but here they are distinguished, pach denoting a bird-net, and moqesh a springe, a snare which holds the bird fast. The earlier translators have taken moqesh in the sense of yoqesh , and understand it as referring to the bird-catcher; and Baur proposes to alter the text accordingly. But there is no necessity for this; and it is evidently unsuitable, since it is not requisite for a bird-catcher to be at hand, in order that the bird should be taken in a snare. The suffix lah refers to tsippor , and the thought is this: in order to catch a bird in the net, a springe (gin) must be laid for it. So far as the fact itself is concerned, moqesh is “evidently that which is necessarily followed by falling into the net; and in this instance it is sinfulness” (Hitzig); so that the meaning of the figure would be this: “Can destruction possibly overtake you, unless your sin draws you into it?” (cf. Jer 2:35). In the second clause pach is the subject, and is used for the ascent or springing up of the net. Hitzig has given the meaning of the words correctly: “As the net does not spring up without catching the bird, that has sent it up by flying upon it, can ye imagine that when the destruction passes by, ye will not be seized by it, but will escape without injury?” (cf. Isa 28:15). Jehovah, however, causes the evil to be foretold. As the trumpet, when blown in the city, frightens the people out of their self-security, so will the voice of the prophet, who proclaims the coming evil, excite a salutary alarm in the nation (cf. Eze 33:1-5). For the calamity which is bursting upon the city comes from Jehovah, is sent by Him as a punishment. This thought is explained in Amo 3:7, Amo 3:8, and with this explanation the whole series of figurative sentences is made perfectly clear. The approaching evil, which comes from the Lord, is predicted by the prophet, because Jehovah does not carry out His purpose without having ( , for when, except when he has, as in Gen 32:27) first of all revealed it to the prophets, that they may warn the people to repent and to reform. Sod receives a more precise definition from the first clause of the verse, or a limitation to the purposes which God is about to fulfil upon His people. And since (this is the connection of Amo 3:8) the judgment with which the Lord is drawing near fills every one with fear, and Jehovah has spoken, i.e., has made known His counsel to the prophets, they cannot but prophesy.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
The Prophet here accumulates similitudes which may, however, be reduced to five particulars. He first shows that he uttered no empty words, but had God’s authority for what he said; and he appeals to him as his witness and approver: this is one thing. Then he shows that God designedly announces the punishment he would inflict on transgressors, that they might in time repent, and that he does not cry out for no reason, as unreflecting men grow angry for nothing, but that he is driven to anger by just causes, and therefore terrifies them by his Prophets. He teaches, thirdly, that nothing happens by chance, that the Israelites might thereby be made to consider more attentively the judgments of God. In the fourth place, he declares that men are extremely stupid, when they are not moved by the threats which they hear proceed from God. He intimates, in the fifth place, that the execution of them was ready to take place, and that when God has denounced anything, his threatenings are not vain, such as those by which children are terrified.
These, then, are the five points, which we shall hereafter notice in their due order. He at the same time confirms what he said at the beginning of the chapter, — that God did not suddenly take vengeance on the Israelites, but called them to repentance, provided they were healable. He had indeed spoken before more distinctly, ‘For three transgressions, and for four, I will not be propitious to them:’ but now he demands attention from the people of Israel, “Hear this ye children of Israel, Will two men walk together, except they agree among themselves?” By these words he teaches, that though God might have immediately and unexpectedly brought punishment on them, he yet spared them and suspended his judgment, until they repented, provided they were not wholly irreclaimable. Amos now then confirms the truth, that God would not punish the Israelites, as he might justly, but would first try whether there was any hope of repentance.
Let us now come to the first similitude; he asks Will two walk together without agreeing? Some forcibly misapply the Prophet’s words, as though the meaning was, that God was constrained to depart from that people, because he saw that they were going astray so perversely after their lusts. The sense, according to these, would be, “Do you wish me to walk with you?” that is “Do you wish that my blessing should dwell among you, that I should show to you, as usual, my paternal love, and bountifully support you? Why then do ye not walk with me, or, why should there not be a mutual consent? Why do ye not respond to me? for I am ready to walk with you.” But this exposition, as ye see, is too strained. There are other two, which are these, — either that the Prophet intimates here that so many of God’s servants did not, as it were with one mouth, threaten the Israelites in vain, — or, that the consent of which he speaks was that of God with his Prophets. This last exposition being rather obscure, requires to be more clearly explained. Some, then, take the sense of this verse to be the following, — “I am not alone in denouncing punishment on you; for God has before warned you by other Prophets; many of them still live; and ye see how well we agree together: we have not conspired after the manner of men, and it has not happened by any agreements that Isaiah and Micah denounce on you what ye hear from my mouth. It is then a hidden accordance, which proceeds from the Holy Spirit.” This sense is not unsuitable.
But there is a third equally befitting, to which I have briefly referred, and that is, that the Prophet here affirms that he speaks by God’s command, as when two agree together, when they follow the same road; as when one meets with a chance companion, he asks him where he goes, and when he answers that he is going to a certain place, he says I am going on the same road with you. Then Amos by this similitude very fitly sets forth the accordance between God and his Prophets; for they did not rashly obtrude themselves so as to announce anything according to their own will, but waited for the call of God, and were fully persuaded that they did not by any chance go astray, but kept the road which the Lord had pointed out. This could not itself have been a sufficiently satisfactory proof of his call; but the Prophet had already entered on his course of teaching; and though nearly the whole people clamored against him, he yet had given no obscure proofs of his call. He does not then here mention the whole evidence, as though he intended to show that he was from the beginning the Prophet of God; but he only confirms, by way of reproof, what his teaching had before sufficiently attested. Hence he asks, Will two walk together except they agree among themselves? as though he said, “Ye are mistaken in judging of me, as though I were alone, and in making no account of God: ye think me to be a shepherd, and this is true; but it ought to be added, that I am sent by God and endued with the gift of prophecy. Since then I speak by God’s Spirit, I do not walk alone; for God goes before, and I am his companion. Know then that whatever I bring forward proceeds not from me, but God is the author of what I teach.”
This seems to be the genuine meaning of the Prophet: by this similitude he affirms that he faithfully discharged his office, for he had not separated himself from God, but was his companion: as when two agree together to travel the same road; so also he shows that he and God were agreed. If, however, the former interpretation be more approved, I will not dispute the point; that is, that the Prophet here confirms his own doctrine by alleging that he was not alone, but had other colleagues; for it was no common confirmation, when it appeared evident that the other Prophets added their testimony to what he taught. As, however, he does not apply this similitude in this way, I know not whether such was his design: I have therefore brought forward what seems to me to be a simpler view.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
SOME SAFEGUARDS OF THE MARRIED ESTATE
Amo 3:3
DR. Talmage says, A church within a church, a republic within a republic, a world within a world, is spelled with four letters h-o-m-e. If things go right there, they go right everywhere. If they go wrong there, they go wrong everywhere. The doorsill of the dwelling house is the foundation of church and state. A man never gets any higher than his own garret, or any lower than his own cellar. In other words, domestic life overarches and undergirds all other life. And, if Talmage spake the truth, and I believe he did, it is worth our while to give consideration for the next thirty minutes to this subject,Some Safeguards of the Wedded Estate; for only in proportion as those safeguards are understood and utilized can there be a true husband, a noble wife, and a house worthy the title of home.
It is reported that in the ancient time when men worshiped Juno, the Goddess of Wedlock, they brought sacrifices to this Goddess in connection with every wedding. From the beasts or birds offered on that altar the gall was always removed and cast behind the altar, to signify that in the future relations of the young couple there was to be nothing of bitterness, but instead sweetness and love should characterize their married life.
The pagans of that past time had the right idea of the marriage relation, and if their high thought is to be translated into the practice of the present-day Christians, those who are about to enter the wedded estate need to agree upon its greater safeguards, and at all hazards conserve them every one even to the end of life.
In the time allotted for this discussion, I will make mention of but three such safeguards, hoping that if there are others that ought to be set before you, your own thought upon the subject will supply the lack.
IN WEDDING, CONSULT BOTH HEART AND HEAD
In the previous discourse I have touched upon this matter. I return to it now because I believe it worthy of the greatest emphasis.
Some lovers consult their heads and ignore their hearts. This is especially true of all such as regard marriage a matter of merchandise, and propose never to enter into that relation until they can command either exalted honors or exceeding riches in exchange. At this point women are weaker than men, for while there are a few of the stronger sex who search for money fortune in their fiancee, the lively interest of ambitious mothers and aspiring daughters has resulted in bringing many of the fairer sex to so regard this holy institution.
Dr. Parkhurst says, The man of wealth, and we do not know what else, practically says to the poor, but handsome girl, You give to me your beauty and I will give you a share of my money. We have most of us read Dombey and Son. She consents to be labeled Personal Property, and he balances the account with Hard cash, architectural luxuries, and bric-a-brac; and he further adds. There is another style of matrimonial dicker that is coming in vogue among our ambitious American women of the moneyed-classes. There are a good many rich girls in America who have never kept their genealogical record, or if they have, take no particular interest in consulting it, and find more amusement in contemplating their own or their fathers assets; then per-contra, on the other side of the sea there are a good many languid male scions of nobility, whose original royal blood has been diluted down to the vanishing point of attenuation, but who find in that feeble dilute more satisfaction than they do in their still more attenuated bank account. Limp nobility, anxious for his exchequer, meets oppulent commonality concerned for her pedigree, and propose not to marry one another, but to wed their respective commodities,his blood and her dollars, and go before the priest and decorate the occasion with orange blossoms and stringed instruments in order to throw over the whole the glamour of regularity.
We perfectly appreciate that the most of our young women auditors or readers will never have a proposal from an English lord and possibly not one from a French count, but the principle is the same when you marry a worthless man because his father happens to have a fortune, or proffer your hand to a numskull because his parents move in good social circles. You may reason yourself into such a marriage relation, but when your head took you there, your heart refused to go.
Then again, there are some who consult their hearts and lose their heads. A man whose office it is to join people in wedlock has little question as to the truth of this statement. Sometimes these people are in very tender years, and have not very well-developed heads to lose. Sometimes they are old enough to know better, but have become fascinated and bedizened. Some years since I was called upon by a boy who was eighteen years old and a member of my church, and asked to speak the words that would seal his fate forever with that of a handsome woman of thirty-three, and a divorced woman at that. They were both my personal friends, but I did not believe that judgment had been consulted in this arrangement and I declined to marry them. Within recent months I have, on two separate occasions, spoken words that united girls of a tender age to men old enough to be their fathers, if not their grandfathers, and men who had no fortune whatever, except it were misfortune, to bestow upon their brides. I finished each ceremony sick at heart, because I could see nothing but disappointment and sorrow in store for these, possibly affectionate, but certainly feeble-minded girls.
Three weeks after the marriage of the first couple they were practically separated; I am not familiar with the present state of the second, but confidently expect to hear at some time of a kindred result. It is little wonder that divorce in America is increasing more rapidly than the populationreckoned proportionately.
A few years since, Prof. Schurmann, of Cornell University, addressing himself to the growing of divorce evil, said, I, for one, know of no remedy except to set ourselves against growing selfishness, growing intolerance, growing impatience, and a growing immorality, which threaten to undermine us. But there is a remedy in common sense, and if only people would put to proper employment the little with which God has possessed most folks there would be less misery in this relation.
At a certain crossing of the Reading and Philadelphia Railroads, there is a sign which says, Stop! Look! Listen! It is full of suggestion for the matrimonially inclined. Stop! long enough to consider some of the essentials of a happy marriage. Look! long enough to be sure that what you have seem to see is genuine. Listen! until you have heard all that is to be said about him, or about her, and know whether he is worthy, whether she is noble!
The wise wed only after finding head and heart agree. There are elements that enter into character that are so admirable that ones mind must admire them, and so beautiful that ones affections naturally go out to them. When you find these, you do well to fall in love. And when such traits characterize both parties to the marriage contract, sixty summers may be spent together and still the love of the old couple is as fresh and warm as it was on the marriage day. I am not speaking a mere imagination for within a week I have looked upon such a man and such a woman.
It is related that Sir Walter Farquhar called upon Mr. Pitt in an excited state of mind and reported to the Premier his disappointment that his daughter had formed an attachment for a young gentleman who was qualified by neither rank nor fortune to be his son-in-law. Pitt asked, Is the young man you mention of a respectable family? He is, replied Sir Walter. Is he respectable in himself? He is. Has he the manners and education of a gentleman? He has. Has he an estimable character? Yes. Why, then, my dear Sir Walter, hesitate no longer. Your daughter is doing well.
And so is every young woman who marries such a man. In him, the head and heart may be agreed, and with him the walk of life will be upward and onward.
A HOME VERSUS A HOTEL IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD
When I say this, I do not mean to speak disparagingly of the hotel, as an institution of our modern civilization.
While the ancients got on without such houses, they are a commercial necessity, a social and domestic convenience, for the age in which we live. So long as our present methods of rapid travel are in vogue; so long as the spirit of commerce makes men migratory; so long as hundreds of the unmarried and the childless need a place for sleeping and eating, and some social life, the hotel will remain and ought. There are few institutions that modern civilization could so poorly afford to part with as a good boarding-house and a high class hotel.
But for married people, the home is a better place. It meets one of the demands of a mans best nature. When, as I go my rounds in pastoral work, I come upon young people who are paying for a house by the most rigid economy, and I hear them say, with radiant faces, One day we hope to cancel every debt against it and call this our home, I am proud of them, and feel that their ambition is a holy one. I know that the husband in that house at least is not spending his evenings in the smoking-room of some hotel, nor visiting frequently the liquor attachment, which is the one greatest stain upon that institution. I know that that wife is not wholly absorbed with the question of dress, with the thought of some new conquest; and that all her plans do not run to the preparation for the opera, theater, the ballroom and the big reception.
A home is often a harbor into which young people go that they may escape the storms of social dissipation that sweep over many a public house with the force of the Atlantic Ocean when driven by a September equinox, sending many a wife astray from virtue and sinking many a husband in the quicksands of sin.
I like to think of the story told by Wendell Phillips, that first orator and statesman of his time. It illustrates what home and wife meant to that noble man. He had been lecturing in a town near to Boston. His address finished, he started for the train, only to find that it had gone, and there were to be no more until morning. His friends tried to discourage his return home. They said, You will be obliged to take a carriage and twelve miles in this raw, sleety November night is a dreadful undertaking. But, replied Wendell, at the other end of the journey I shall find Anne Phillips and home.
The home is the only place for parents and children. Carlos Martin said, Every thoughtful observer of life knows that the fireside is the earliest and most influential of schools. The nursery is the childs university. When the nature is uninscribed and plastic, the home writes the first and most lasting impression. ** **. Happy the boy or girl whose hearts throb with the memory of a happy home.
Beyond doubt that, which we call home has more weight in the word when it centralizes itself in a house one ownsa haven small or great where the babies are rocked in the cradle; the half grown boy and girl do their romping; while in the same house the same children grown to be young men and women make merry with their friends, and out of which they marry.
It is a fact, as Dr. Parkhurst said, that most of the poor, and very many of the well-to-do children of the present time, are growing up to receive little lasting impression from the home. They never live long enough in one place to give chance for a time exposure, and the blessed memories that the country-bred boy has of the house in which he lived, the stable and the farm; the family that filled the first, and the live stock that fed in the second, has no counterpart in his experience. And, truly, the loss to human life is larger than any man can measure. There is an inspiration in the very memory of the old-fashioned home, that turns the prose-writer into a poet. Witness these lines from the pen of my friend and brother Louis M. Waterman, whose mission is to preach, and tell me if that memory has not made him a poet:
I have looked on marble mansions
Crowned with turrets and with domes;
I have reveled in the beauty
Of earths rare, palatial homes;
But not one of these seem shining
With a glory that shall last,
Like that dear old home of childhood,
My fair palace of the past.
Never once guessed I its glory
While as yet I lingered there,
For on every side were houses
That to me seemed far more fair;
But long years of tears and trials
Have a halo oer it cast,
Till I see now, O how plainly,
Tis a palace of the past!
In that home I dwelt in grandeur
That a king can never know,
For my mouth was filled with laughter
And my heart had not a woe!
And in arms of love enfolded
I was dowered with riches vast,
For affections were the treasures
Of that palace of the past.
What a retinue of servants
Waited on my bidding there:
Clad each one in lovingkindness
Either robe than princes wear!
How those hands would haste to help me,
And those feet would follow fast
To supply each childish craving
In my palace of the past.
And those faces that bent oer me
In that happy home once mine,
Lo, they gleam like stars at midnight,
And forever shall they shine!
Time has touched all those that linger,
And oer some deaths veil is cast,
But to me they are immortal
In my palace of the past.
And one face above all others
Must with peerless luster glow
Yea, a sweeter nobler vision
On this earth I neer shall know!
Bound that face like circling jewels
All bright memories are massed,
For my Mother was the Princess
Of my palace of the past!
O thou haunt of happy childhood,
Shrined for aye within my heart,
More art thou than recollection
Thou a holy prophet art:
For when God unveils that mansion
Where all hope shall be surpassed,
Lo, on Heavnly heights, transfigured,
See: my palace of the past!
FOR YOUR HAPPINESS TRUST TO HOLY LIVING
There is no walking together unless two be agreed at this point, namely, that happiness comes from holy living. When I employ the word holy, I dont mean so much saintly as I mean righteous.
Honesty is one element of holy living. Young people are much tempted in these days to dishonesty in the very beginnings of their married life. If, as is the lot with most, they are at once poor and proud, the temptation is greatly increased. They are likely to move into a house requiring higher rent than they should pay, and to wear clothes whose cloth is superior to their exchequer. Unpaid bills, loss of credit, charge and counter-charge of extravagance, hot discussion and eventual divorce are sometimes the result.
Plutarch tells us that Helen was covetous and Paris was luxurious. On the other side Ulysses was prudent and Penelope chaste. Happy, therefore, was the match between the latter, but the nuptials of the former brought an Illiad of miseries as well upon the Greeks as upon the Barbarians.
Ruskin tells us that the word wife in its derivation means weaver, and he says, You must either be house-wives or house-moths. Remember that. In the deep sense you must either weave mens fortunes and embroider them, or feed upon and bring them to decay. And the husband, or wife, whose habits make honesty in the payment of debts impossible percipitates upon the home an avalanche of unhappiness.
But to compass in one sentence the whole subject of holy living, including every element that enters into it, let me say this, agree to have Christ in the house.
His presence brings the great benediction, His counsels the greatest wisdom, His power the greatest victories, while His love is happiness and Heaven.
Julius Caesar is said to have calmed the fears of a boatman who was rowing him in a storm by saying, So long as Caesar is with you in the boat, no harm can happen. It was a piece of egotism on that emperors part to so speak; but it is the very truth with reference to the Son of God who is able in the midst of any storm that may sweep ones life to say, Peace, be still, and to have His words followed by a great calm. And that husband and wife, that father and mother who give Christ His rightful place in the home, will find that Christ will prepare for them and theirs a Home in Heaven.
Louis Albert Banks, was riding over the mountains of Oregon one day when a stranger came out of a cottage and asked if he was a minister, saying, There is a woman dying within. Banks entered the humble home and found a family of children and grandchildren about the bed of an old woman. She was more than 90 years of age. For twenty years she had been blind and now she was passing over. As the minister knelt beside her, she related how seventy-five years before, in the old country, she had sought Christ and found pardon for her sins. Since that time, she had wandered over much of the world and buried many of her loved ones and her friends, but God had always been with her. And then as the tears rolled from the sightless eyes over her wrinkled cheeks, her old face glowed with a tender light as she whispered, I will soon be over, and I will see Jesus, and I will hold all of my loved ones in my arms again. She had given Christ place in her home on earth, and she knew perfectly that Christ would give her place in His Home on high, and make that Home the more Heavenly by bringing back to her arms her long-lost, yet Christ-saved, loved ones.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.]
Amo. 3:3. Two] The prophet and the Spirit of God. Israel did not believe that God threatened such denunciations by the prophets (ch. Amo. 6:1-3; Amo. 1:7-8). Amos spoke because God commanded him.
Amo. 3:4. Lion] roars when the prey is before it, before it actually seizes it, and there is no possibility of escape. After the roar there immediately follows both slaughter and laceration. For as a rule it only roars with that sharp roar when it has the prey in sight, upon which it immediately springs. A young lion] which goes in pursuit of prey, and is distinguished from the one that lies silent until the old one brings prey near; then the scent rouses him.
Amo. 3:5. Bird] God not only has the nation ripe for judgment in his power, but the judgment is deserved. As birds are not taken without the net of the fowler, and he does not take it up until he has secured his prey, so God not only threatens, but is prepared to execute.
Amo. 3:6. Trumpet] blown in the city alarms every one; the coming evil should rouse from self-security (Eze. 33:1-5).
Amo. 3:7. Lord] This explains all the similes. God is the author of these calamities. Prophets] being servants of God, must obey him in setting forth judgments upon Israel (Jer. 20:9; Eze. 9:11).
Amo. 3:8.] As when the lion roars all men fear, so when God speaks I must prophesy (Act. 4:20; Act. 5:29).
DIVINE INTENTIONS AND EXECUTIONS.Amo. 3:3-8
In a few similes drawn from daily life, the prophet answers objections which break the force of his threatenings and establishes his right to prophesy. The words might be taken to describe the nature of the punishment mentioned in Amo. 3:1; Amo. 2:1. It is from God and not any secondary source.
2. It is deserved.
3. It is prepared.
4. It will certainly be executed.
5. There is no possibility of escape. As the net does not spring up without catching the bird, that has sent it up by flying upon it, can ye imagine that when the destruction passes by, ye will not be seized by it, but will escape without injury [Hitzig]? We shall take the words as a solemn warning to rouse careless sinners, and show that word and deed are one with God. He will execute what he threatens.
I. Threatening is identified with execution. Threats are not simply to frighten men. Punishment will not come, unless it has been prepared.
1. Punishment is intended. You have no need to presume on Gods favours and Gods presence with you. You do not agree and walk with God. You forget his law, and dishonour his name. There is a reason for the severity. If you walk contrary to God, he will not walk with you. If we grieve the Holy Spirit and offend God, they will depart from us.
2. Punishment will be executed. God will not warn of calamity unless there be fit objects of his indignation. His threats are not empty sounds. He has said and will do, spoken and will perform. The lion only roars when he is about to spring on his prey, and God only threatens when he is about to punish. He can neither lie nor change; he is faithful and true.
II. Execution must be traced to God himself. The word and the providence of God declare this.
1. Gods servant declares the truth. God has revealed his secrets to the prophet, and he utters the purpose of God and not his own. What right had he to speak? some would say, and the reply is: he was the servant of God, specially called and qualified. He shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God. His strength consisted in knowing that he was doing his Masters will, and speaking his Masters word. The Lord hath spoken, who can but prophesy?
2. Gods providence entrapped the nation. Calamities which befall nations and kingdoms do not happen by chance. Gods hand must be seen in them. If a bird is caught in the snare, the snare was designed for it. So when a people are involved in judgments, God has prepared the peril and misery for them. And as no fowler takes up the net without securing the prey, neither will God withdraw his judgments until he has accomplished his purpose. Men may resist this truth, but it is seen every day. Misfortunes as punishments are not casual, but come from God. They have a real author, a definite cause, and a special aim. God sends them in righteous retribution, determines beforehand who shall suffer, and who escape. He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know (Psa. 94:7; Psa. 94:9; Mic. 6:9)?
III. Warning is given before the execution of threatening. In the last image the prophet seeks to rouse them to a sense of danger before it be too late. Repentance may break the snare, and men may be delivered in mercy.
1. The alarm is given. Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? They heed the sound which warns of approaching danger, tremble in fear, and seek to escape. Or when the punishment has actually come, they ascribe it to the right source, and humble themselves before God. Shall there be evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it?
2. The danger is made known. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? &c. God speaks through his servants, who reveal his hatred to sin, and his justice in punishing it. He has always warned of the danger before it actually comes. Thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. The living ministry and the written scripture are a perpetual warning to men of a judgment to come. Be not found unprepared. We may repent now, but if we obstinately continue in sin God will be just in the punishment of it. I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words nor to my law, but rejected it.
WALKING IN AGREEMENT WITH GOD.Amo. 3:3
Taking these words generally we learn
I. Agreement with God is necessary to walking with God. Can two walk together except they be agreed? God and the sinner are not in agreement. They are at variance in heart and life. There is nothing common between them. They are opposite, as two travellers walking in different directions. Those who justify self and disobey God, must recognize their guilt, and avail themselves of the blood of Jesus. They must agree with God
1. In disposition.
2. In character.
3. In conduct. There is a basis for friendship in Christ, and men may live at peace with God. Be ye reconciled to God.
II. Agreement with God will show itself in walking with God. Friendship naturally develops itself in unity of mind and pursuit, in acts of gratitude and love. David and Jonathan were real friends, and walked together. Abraham was the friend of God because he obeyed God and had perfect confidence in him. If we are agreed with God, we shall seek to please and obey him. Our life will be like that of Enoch, a constent, habitual, daily walk with God. Walking together is a common act of human fellowship, indicating evenness and similarity of gait, interchange of thought and opinion, and anxious desire to keep step. Walking implies action and progress. Our life should be devoted to God, and our deeds performed through and for God. If we are Gods people, his will will be the rule and his glory the end of our life in all things. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever things I command you.
III. Disagreement with God will interrupt walking with God. Can two walk together except they be agreed? When companions disagree they never walk together. Sin is disagreement with God, separates from him, and puts us in opposition to his will and word. It is a breach of the agreement, and a step in a crooked direction; For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Outward profession, without love and conformity to God, will prevent us walking with God. Insincerity of any kind will grieve the Holy Spirit and offend God. God will never walk with us unless we walk with him. God is ready to walk with us, But if ye walk contrary unto me (margin, at adventures with me, or another reading, at hap-hazard with me, in jerking, spasmodic fashion), then will I also walk contrary unto you (Leviticus 26).
My business now is with my God to walk,
And guided by his holy eye to go;
Sweet fellowship with him to cultivate,
And his unclouded countenance to know [J. F. Elwin].
PREPARATION FOR REVIVAL.Amo. 3:3
The believer is agreed with God concerning the Divine law; that it is holy, and just, and goodthat a breach of the law should be visited with penalty; agreed with God in the atonement for sin which God has provided in Christ; and at one with God in his love of holiness. This agreement gives us power to walk with God. As a Church our hearts are set upon a revival of religion in our midst. We need as the first and most essential thing that God should walk with us. If we desire his presence we must perfectly agree with him both in the design of the work and the method of it.
I. Let us avow our desire that in our present efforts we may walk with God, otherwise our strivings after revival will be wearisome, and always end in disappointment. If we are not favoured by Gods presence in our attempts at revival, prayer will be greatly dishonoured and the Church left in a worse condition than it was before. Consider the blessings which flow from Gods presence upon the ministry, the Church, and the congregation, and let this confirm your desire.
II. If we would have the presence of God, it is necessary that we should be agreed with him. We must be agreed with him as to the end of our Christian existence; as to real desirableness and necessity of the conversion of souls; as to the means to be used in revival, and as to our utter helplessness in this work. If any good should be done all the glory must be given to him.
III. Let us put away all those things which offend our God. Before God appeared at Sinai Israel had to cleanse themselves for three days. So here. Is there pride in me? Am I slothful? Am I guilty of worldliness? Am I covetous? Am I of an angry spirit? Is there any lust in me? If so God will not walk with me. If the Masters spirit is in you, and you long to see brighter and better days, lift up your heads with confidence in him who will walk with us if we be agreed with him [Spurgeon].
HOMILETIC HINTS AND OUTLINES
Amo. 3:3-7. In these verses are Five Parables all showing Gods moral government in the affairs of the world and of his Church; and that nothing in the history of either happens by chance, but is ordered by him, using the natural elements and the greatest nations of the world as instruments for the punishment of sins committed after deliberate warning, and for the manifestation of his power and glory [Wordsworth].
Amo. 3:3. Walking with God.
1. As individuals we must be reconciled with him.
2. As churches, co-operate with him.
3. As a nation, promote his glory.
Amo. 3:6. The voice of God in the city. No chance, fate, nor second cause has sent the evil. It must all be traced to God. His voice must be heard
1. In the consciences of its people. They have a presentiment of danger at the sound of the trumpet, hasten together and devise means of escape. However stupid and blind in sin, God has a witness within men, that sin brings sorrow, and is the cause of their misery. Hence the appeal, Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?
2. In judgments upon its sins. Drunkenness, debauchery, neglect of Gods house, and contempt of his word. Evil is of two sorts, evil of sin and evil of punishment. There is no other; for evil of nature, or evil of fortune, are evils, by Gods providence, punishing the evil of sin. Evil which is sin the Lord hath not done; evil which is punishment for sin the Lord bringeth. The providence of God governing and controlling all things, man doth ill which he wills, so as to suffer ills which he wills not [Pusey].
Amo. 3:7. In this verse a high honour is vindicated to the prophetical office. The holy men of God were, by inspiration, entrusted with a knowledge of the Divine purposes, in so far as it was necessary for them to divulge them to the world [A. Elzas].
Gods secrets with his servants.
1. In the spiritual insight into his word. Our darkness does not comprehend the light. God imparts understanding, the threatenings become more solemn, and the promises more precious.
2. In the revelation of his will to man. God has spoken to men through patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. He speaks to us by the ministry now, and does nothing without disclosing it to his servants. This has ever been the law of the Divine procedure. Nothing is coming upon men which has not been revealed. The grand outlines of the plan of Divine providence, and the events of history, to this day and to the end of the world, were made known to the prophets of Israel and Judah, and a very large proportion of them, many ages before they took place; so that a general history of mankind, as to the most important facts, might be composed from their writings [Scott in loco].
Amo. 3:8. Who can but. The intensity of feeling expressed in these words indicates
1. An inward struggle. Shall I keep back or proclaim the unwelcome truth? Shall I alienate some, harden others, and render myself unpopular (Jer. 20:9; Eze. 33:7)? Here under depressing influence. To such inquiries the answer is, The Lord God hath spoken.
2. The declaration of a necessity. Every true servant must utter the word given to him. Moses, though slow of tongue; Isaiah, of polluted lips; and Jeremiah, though a child, were not excused. The apostles were influenced by this spirit (Act. 4:20); and Paul exclaimed, Necessity is laid upon me, yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel.
3. The assertion of a law. God calls and commands his prophets, their own spirits prompt them: hence they cannot hesitate or refuse; they must speak, whether men will hear or forbear. Who can but prophesy?
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 3
Amo. 3:3. When God walks with a nation that nation prospers, but if that nation falls to words with God, quarrels with him about his will and law, and rushes perversely into sinful courses;nay, if there be some in it who have no God at all, who do their best to extirpate his very name from the earth which he himself has made, then we cannot expect that God should continue to walk with such offenders. Consider whether there has not been enough in England, and especially in this great city, to make God angry with us? Has there not been grievous disagreement between the dwellers in this city and God [Spurgeon]?
Amo. 3:3-6. The first question was taken from travellers, the second from wild beasts, the third from fowlers; the fourth question implies that inasmuch as God had a purpose in sending tribulation, he will not remove it until that design is answered; and the fifth, that an awakening should be the result [Ibid.].
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(3) Two.Who are the two here represented? Some commentators say, two prophets; Rosenmller, God and the prophet. But Grotius, Lowth, Henderson, and Pusey refer it, with more reason, to God and Israel, the expression denoting, not merely Gods knowledge of a man, but mans response to God. His practical obedience, his communion of heart and will, are described as walking with or before God. (Gen. 5:22; Gen. 6:9; Gen. 17:1; Psa. 56:13; Psa. 116:9.) Will, then, God walk with man, guiding, shielding, strengthening him, if man is not in harmony with Him? This is the first of a series of parabolic apothegms, all of which require a negative answer. (Lev. 26:23-24.) Each states an event, closely and indissolubly related to another in the bond of cause and effect. All these symbolic utterances point on to the climax in Amo. 3:7-8.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3-8. The prophet’s authority. Amos anticipated the startling effect of his message. Many would consider him a madman, and pay no attention to his words, unless he could convince them that they were indeed a message from Jehovah. This he attempts to do in Amo 3:3-8. By a series of illustrations he points out that every effect presupposes a cause (3-6); on this principle his prophesying presupposes that he is sent by Jehovah, who desires to make known beforehand his purpose (7, 8). The illustrations are taken from everyday life, and their very simplicity would make them impressive. It is gratuitous to call the philosophy underlying some of the illustrations unsound, or to bring forward exceptions which would invalidate the prophet’s argument. Neither the prophet nor his hearers were acquainted with the Christian philosophy of the twentieth century; they held the philosophic conceptions implied in the illustrations, and they were concerned with general rules rather than with exceptions; therefore to them the arguments would be convincing.
In spite of all that has been said to the contrary, this interpretation of Amo 3:3-8, which is accepted by most commentators, seems the most natural; the interpretation revived and defended at length by Harper, which considers 3-8 an announcement of the dissolution of the covenant relation between Jehovah and Israel and of the impending doom, is less probable.
Can [“shall”] two walk together, except they be [“have”] agreed? A symbolical or allegorical interpretation, “unless they are of the same mind or opinion,” is out of place. Hence it is useless to speculate whether the “two” are Jehovah and the prophet, or Jehovah and Israel, or Jehovah and Assyria, etc. Amos uses a simple illustration, which is to be understood literally. They be agreed is literally, they have pointed out to each other, that is, they have come to an agreement. The force of the question is, “Do any two men walk together unless they have previously agreed to meet and travel together?” Everyone familiar with conditions in Palestine would see the point. The roads are not always safe. Therefore a man does not travel alone if he can avoid it; but rather than join himself to a stranger or chance acquaintance, who might prove to be a robber, he remains by himself. Consequently, if two men are seen traveling together, the inevitable conclusion is that they have met by previous agreement. G.A. Smith says, “For there (in the wilds of Palestine) men meet and take the same road as seldom as ships at sea.”
Lion young lion See on Hos 5:14.
Roar The Hebrew has several words to describe the lion’s roar. The word used here denotes the roar of the lion as he springs upon the prey (Amo 1:2; Isa 5:29 a; Psa 104:21).
Forest Or, jungle. The roar is an unfailing indication that the lion has found a prey.
Cry out Literally, give forth his voice; not, as before, the roar with which the lion springs upon his prey, but the “growl of satisfaction” uttered as he devours the prey. When this sound is heard the hearer knows that the prey has been taken.
In a snare upon the earth LXX, omits “in a snare,” and may be correct. If a bird falls pon the ground it proves that a gin or snare has been set for him. If “in a snare” is retained, “gin” would better be rendered “bait”; the whole clause, “and there is no bait to it,” which is a more literal rendering of the Hebrew. The word does at times designate the instrument with which birds are caught, but in general it means anything that allures to destruction (Exo 23:33; Deu 7:16).
Shall one take up a snare from the earth Better, R.V., “shall a snare spring up from the ground.” By snare is meant a kind of clap net; its workings as described here would point to a trap similar to those used by the ancient Egyptians, which consisted of network spread over two flaps moving on a common axis, to which was attached a spring. The bait was placed upon this spring; when the bait was touched the two sides flew up from the ground and the net enveloped the bird. The springing up of the sides was evidence that something had touched the spring and was now entrapped.
Trumpet Or, horn (see on Hos 5:8). The sounding of the horn was the danger signal; everyone knew when he heard it that danger was near, and was terrified.
Evil Not moral evil, but calamity or misfortune, such as famine or pestilence.
Jehovah hath not done it? The modern Christian may hesitate to say that Jehovah is directly responsible for every calamity and disaster. The ancient Hebrew knew no such hesitation, for he disregarded entirely what we are accustomed to call secondary causes, and ascribed every event, good or bad, the cause of which he could not perceive with his senses, to the direct activity of Jehovah (Amo 4:4 ff.; Isa 6:9-10 ; 2Sa 24:1 ff.).
To a pious Hebrew of ordinary intellect the illustrations adduced would be conclusive. The prophet now proceeds to apply the illustrations to the point in hand (8). He prepares the way by a statement of what he considers the general method of divine procedure (7). Jehovah, before undertaking anything, reveals his purpose to the prophet.
The Lord Jehovah See on Amo 1:8.
His secret His purpose.
His servants The prophets are so called because their duty was to carry out the divine commission (1Ki 18:36; 2Ki 9:7). Some may be inclined to consider this statement an exaggeration, yet the fact remains that every great crisis in Israel was accompanied by the appearance of one prophet or more (see on Amo 2:11). Now follows the application. The message of the prophet may seem strange; it is indeed startling, but there is a reason for it.
The lion hath roared A figure of Jehovah approaching for judgment (Hos 13:7); he is ready to spring upon his prey; already his terrible roar may be heard (Amo 1:2); it is time to tremble. Hath spoken To reveal his secret (compare Amo 3:7); the prophet is bound to proclaim it.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Amo 3:3-8. Can two walk, &c. The similies in these verses have the same meaning, and they all tend to shew that calamities happen according to the appointing, permissive, or suffering will of God; and that prophets prophesy not, without the Lord’s speaking to them. Instead of, Shall one take up a snare, &c. Amo 3:5. Houbigant reads, Is a snare taken from the ground, unless something be caught in it? Upon the seventh verse we may observe, that there was no great revolution in the affairs either of the kingdoms of Judah and Jerusalem, or in those of the neighbouring nations, which the prophets of God did not foretel, that the Jews might constantly be remembered of their God, either as a rewarder or a punisher. See Houbigant, and Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 1186
REQUISITES FOR FRIENDSHIP WITH GOD
Amo 3:3. Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
IT is not always safe to judge of God, and the things which relate to Him, by the things which take place in our intercourse with men: for the distance between God and man is such as precludes all parallel between them. Yet, in a way of illustration, it is often of great advantage to consider what occurs in common life; because, from observations of that kind, we are enabled to attain a correct judgment with more facility than we could by any laboured process of rational investigation. Hence this mode of illustration is frequently adopted by the inspired writers. In the passage before us, the Prophet Amos had delivered this message from God to all the children of Israel: You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities [Note: ver. 1, 2.]. Then the prophet, anticipating an objection to this, proceeds to obviate it [Note: The text, and following context, to ver. 8, are the prophets own words, and not a continuation of his message. The not attending to this has perplexed many, and thrown an obscurity over what is very plain.]. He supposes an objector to say, Your alarm is groundless: for it never can be, that God should so act towards those whom he has chosen for his peculiar people. To this he replies, There is good reason for you to be alarmed: for I appeal to you, Can there be any real friendship between persons (whether they be of the same family or not), if in their general views and habits there be no agreement? You may call yourselves the Lords people, if you will; but, if you walk contrary to him, he will walk contrary to you [Note: Lev 26:23-24.]: and this he has both authorized and commanded me to declare. There is, therefore, abundant reason for you to fear and tremble. You well know, that if a lion roar, or a young lion cry, there is a reason for it. If a bird fall in a snare, or a snare be taken up by the owner, it is not without a reason: and if the trumpet be blown in the city to sound an alarm, there is a reason for it. So then is there reason for you to fear and tremble: for God, who reveals his secrets to his prophets, has revealed to me his determination to punish you: and, as sure as effects, whether amongst the rational or irrational creation, result from causes, and may be traced to them; so surely shall your punishment follow from the indignation which you have excited in the bosom of your God: The lion hath roared: who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken: who can but prophesy?
The prophets appeal is indeed very convincing: for as a congeniality of mind is necessary to the existence of friendship among men, so is a conformity of mind to Gods revealed will necessary to the maintenance of friendship with him;
I.
In this world
Without a correspondence of taste and sentiment, there can be no friendship amongst men
[We may occasionally associate with persons, however widely they may differ from us: they may even be numbered amongst our most intimate acquaintance. But we cannot take them to our bosoms as endeared friends. In order to such communion as that, there must be some resemblance in our general habits, both of sentiment and pursuit; something whereon we can meet, as on common ground; something sufficiently important to us both, to form a bond of union betwixt us. Our favourite employment, whatever it be, will operate as an attraction to others similarly employed: but from persons who have no taste for these occupations we shall feel, comparatively, but little attraction. Those who are immersed in the study of arts and sciences will not very much affect the society of those who have no taste but for trifling amusements; nor will the votaries of pleasure desire an habitual intercourse with them. Still less will those in whom there is a great moral disparity affect the society of each other; the honourable with the base; the pious with the ungodly and profane. Each will form his connexions rather amongst those who are of a kindred spirit with himself, and walk most intimately with those who love to be found in his paths.]
Nor can friendship with God exist, where there is no conformity to his image
[Enoch and Noah walked with God: and Abraham was called the friend of God. But in them there was a love to his revealed will, and a desire to be conformed to it. The most difficult commands from God did not excite rebellion or murmuring in their hearts. They loved holiness; and were therefore prepared to move in sweet accord with him. But, had their minds been averse to his holy ways, they would rather have fled from him, like Cain, than have walked habitually as in his presence, and sought all their happiness in him. God has informed us how hateful sin is in his sight; and what is that way in which alone he will receive returning sinners; and what is that heavenly conversation which he expects from all who come to him by Christ. But, suppose a person to think lightly of sin, and to doubt whether it have really subjected him to Gods everlasting displeasure: suppose him to disapprove of salvation by faith alone, and to prefer establishing, either in whole or in part, a righteousness by the law: suppose him, further, to complain, of Gods requirements as too strict, and to plead for indulgences which he forbids; can we suppose that God will come to him, and find pleasure in him; or that he can really delight himself in God? The point is clear: the diversity of their mind and will forms an insurmountable barrier to their union, and must of necessity produce an alienation of heart from each other; as God has said by the prophet, My soul lothed them; and their soul abhorred me [Note: Zec 11:8.]. To the same effect he speaks also by the Apostle Paul: What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols [Note: 2Co 6:14-16.]?
Here, then, the point is clear. The services of God and Mammon are incompatible with each other [Note: Mat 6:24.]. Whichever we most affect in our minds, his servants we are [Note: Rom 6:16.]: and friendship with either precludes a possibility of union with the other.]
Nor is a resemblance to God less necessary for an enjoyment of him,
II.
In the world to come
There cannot, even in heaven, be any union between God and an ungodly man
[There is no repentance in the grave. What a man, in his decided character, is at the time of his death, that he will remain to all eternity: As the tree falls, so it will lie [Note: Ecc 11:3.]: He that is unjust, will be unjust still; and he that is filthy, will be filthy still [Note: Rev 22:11.]. Suppose a man to have had no love for holiness here, but rather to have felt an alienation of mind from holy men and holy exercises; how can he, all at once, feel delight in a holy God, and in the employment of the heavenly hosts? How can he, who has never for one single hour been filled with love and gratitude in this world for all the wonders of redeeming love, how can he, I say, join in the songs of the redeemed to all eternity? If there were nothing more than a consciousness of his own state to affect him, he would be glad to recede from a place where there was not a being like-minded with himself, or an occupation suited to his taste. He had a dislike to the exercises of devotion here; and he would dislike them there: he fled from Gods presence here; and he would flee from it there. Like our first parents after their fall, they would endeavour to hide themselves from him, instead of going forth to meet him; and Paradise itself would be to them a place of torment.]
The manner in which the prophet declares this truth greatly augments its weight
[He does not utter it in a way of simple affirmation; but he makes it the subject-matter of an appeal: How can two walk together, except they be agreed? He constitutes every man a judge in his own cause. We need not any of us be told, that to the existence of real friendship there must be a similarity of taste: those who are perfectly opposed to each other in the things that are most agreeable to themselves, can no more become united with each other, in the bonds of endeared friendship, than light and darkness can coalesce. Observation and experience prove this beyond a doubt; nor can any one be so ignorant as not to know it.]
Well then, may this teach us,
1.
The necessity of true conversion
[The carnal mind, says the Apostle, that is, the mind of every man by nature, is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be [Note: Rom 8:7.]. A new heart, therefore, must be given us, and a new spirit must be put within us [Note: Eze 36:26.]. We must become altogether new creatures; old things passing away, and all things being made new [Note: 2Co 5:17.]. This, as our Lord tells us, is so necessary, that except it take place we can never enter into the kingdom, no, nor ever see it [Note: Joh 3:3; Joh 3:5.]. To speak of this as necessarily attendant on baptism, is contrary to fact; for there are thousands who are baptized, as there were thousands circumcised amongst the Jews, who have never experienced this change. But this change must be wrought in us, if ever we would behold the face of God in peace. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit [Note: Joh 3:6.]. The former being altogether carnal, is incapable of enjoying a spiritual kingdom: it is the latter which alone can fit us for the exercises and enjoyments of the heavenly world. You well know, that if a man had no taste for music, he could not, for any length of time, feel pleasure in the melodies which, to a lover of music, afford the highest gratification. So neither can we, without a taste for the employments of heaven, or, in other words, without a meetness for heaven, ever hope to participate in the blessedness of the just.]
2.
The importance of separation from the world
[The world wonder at the saints, for standing aloof from them; and often impute it to pride: as though the Lords people said to them, Stand off; I am holier than thou [Note: Isa 65:5.]. But the godly, in associating with the world, do not meet on equal terms. All the sacrifice must be on their part. The world will propose to them to join in every vanity: but if, in return, they were asked to join in reading the word of God and prayer, for the sake of spiritual edification and comfort, they would regard the proposal almost as a symptom of insanity. And, if you were to wait till such a proposal were made, or even approved, by them, you would wait till the sun had ceased to run its course. It is not for nought that the Apostle says, Come out from among them, and be ye separate [Note: 2Co 6:17.]. There is abundant occasion for it: for friendship with them is constructively nothing less than enmity itself against God [Note: Jam 4:4.]. We must not be conformed to this world, but be transformed in the renewing of our minds, if ever we would prove, to the satisfaction of our God, what is his good and acceptable and perfect will [Note: Rom 12:2.].]
3.
The happiness of real piety
[Where the soul is really in accordance with the revealed will of God, there will God delight to dwell, as in a temple [Note: 2Co 6:16.]. To such persons he will manifest himself as he does not unto the world [Note: Joh 14:22.]; He will come unto them, and make his abode with them [Note: Joh 14:23.]; and they shall walk in the light of his countenance [Note: Psa 89:15.]. O! who shall adequately declare the blessedness of friendship with God? And if in this world the saints have such great advantage, what shall they have in the eternal world? Who shall declare their felicity, when they shall stand in his immediate presence, and behold the full brightness of his glory in the person of his dear Son? If it be so sweet now to have the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost [Note: Rom 5:5.], what shall it be to behold the Saviour face to face [Note: 1Co 13:12. 1Jn 3:2.]? If a taste of the waters of life, though taken from polluted cisterns, be so sweet, what shall it be to drink of them at the fountain-head? Let those who walk with God in this world know, that they shall, ere long, walk with him in white, where distance and parting shall be no more [Note: Rev 3:4; Rev 3:12.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
The Lord is going on in his expostulations. He first shews, that by Israel’s revolt that sweet communion between the Lord and his people was interrupted. Ca n two walk together except they be agreed? While therefore Israel thus rebelled, how could the Lord walk with Israel? And when the Lord called to them in a loud voice of judgments, as the roaring of a lion, if Israel turned a deaf ear to the voice, and became hardened instead of humbled by the correction; if Israel ascribed to second causes what evidently came from the first, here were still stronger evidences of a deplorably wicked mind. The Lord next appeals to common sense and reason. Is there evil in the city and the Lord hath not done it? The sword, the pestilence, and the famine; the strife of tongues, and the malice of enemies; these may, and these will be the apparent cause; but everyone that thinks at all must know that these are but instruments; the hand and direction is the Lord’s. Never should we have known that the malice of Egypt against poor Israel was of the Lord’s doing. had not his blessed scripture said so; but as the scripture hath said so, we have not only authority to mark it down as an undeniable truth, but from such an insight into the Lord’s government, to form the same conclusions upon numberless occasions in life. See Psa 105:25 . When the Lord corrects his people in this manner, with the sword or tongue of his and their foes, it is all in mercy to them, and destruction in due season to their enemies. What a beautiful and godly sentiment did David express on this occasion concerning Shimei’s cursing: let him alone, (said he,) and let him curse, for the Lord hath bidden him 2Sa 16:11-12 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
Ver. 3. Can two walk together, except they be agreed ] God permits his people to walk together with him in a humble familiarity; but then they must take care that familiarity breeds not contempt; and that they conceit not that he will connive at their iniquities, or that their holy services will bear them out in any known sin. He is just and jealous of his glory, wherein he should be no small loser, if he did wink at any besides involuntary failings and unavoidable infirmities; for which there is a pardon of course, if sued out. If I shall walk with you, saith God, as a father, friend, husband, you must agree with me, consent and conform to me, idem velle, et idem nolle, will and nill the same that I do; or else I shall walk with you no otherwise than as a severe judge or cruel enemy, Lev 26:24 , as a lion with the prey that he hath taken, as the fowler with the bird he hath caught, or the hunter with the wild beast he hath gotten into his snare.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Amos
A PAIR OF FRIENDS
Amo 3:3
They do not need to be agreed about everything. They must, however, wish to keep each others company, and they must be going by the same road to the same place. The application of the parable is very plain, though there are differences of opinion as to the bearing of the whole context which need not concern us now. The ‘two,’ whom the Prophet would fain see walking together, are God and Israel, and his question suggests not only the companionship and communion with God which are the highest form of religion and the aim of all forms and ceremonies of worship, but also the inexorable condition on which alone that height of communion can be secured and sustained. Two may walk together, though the one be God in heaven and the other be I on earth. But they have to be agreed thus far, at any rate, that both shall wish to be together, and both be going the same road.
I. So I ask you to look, first, at that possible blessed companionship which may cheer a life.
But, dear brother, far above us as such experience seems to sound, such a life is a possibility for every one of us. We may be able to say, as truly as our Lord said it, ‘I am not alone, for the Father is with me.’ It is possible that the dreariest solitude of a soul, such as is not realised when the body is removed from men, but is felt most in the crowded city where there is none that loves or fathoms and sympathises, may be turned into blessed fellowship with Him. Yes, but that solitude will not be so turned unless it is first painfully felt. As Daniel said, ‘I was left alone, and I saw the great vision.’ We need to feel in our deepest hearts that loneliness on earth before we walk with God.
If we are so walking, it is no piece of fanaticism to say that there will be mutual communications. Do you not believe that God knows His way into the spirits that He has endowed with conscious life? Do you not believe that He speaks now to people as truly as He did to prophets and Apostles of old? as truly; though the results of His speech to us of to-day be not of the same authority for others as the words that He spoke to a Paul or a John. The belief in God’s communications as for ever sounding in the depths of the Christian spirit does not at all obliterate the distinction between the kind of inspiration which produced the New Testament and that which is realised by all believing and obedient souls. High above all our experience of hearing the words of God in our hearts stands that of those holy men of old who heard God’s message whispered in their ears, that they might proclaim it on the housetops to all the world through all generations. But though they and we are on a different level, and God spoke to them for a different purpose, He speaks in our spirits, if we will comply with the conditions, as truly as He did in theirs. As really as it was ever true that the Lord spoke to Abraham, or Isaiah, or Paul, it is true that He now speaks to the man who walks with Him. Frank speech on both sides beguiles many a weary mile, when lovers or friends foot it side by side; and this pair of friends of whom our text speaks have mutual intercourse. God speaks with His servant now, as of old, ‘as a man speaketh with his friend’; and we on our parts, if we are truly walking with Him, shall feel it natural to speak frankly to God. As two friends on the road will interchange remarks about trifles, and if they love each other, the remarks about the trifles will be weighted with love, so we can tell our smallest affairs to God; and if we have Him for our Pilgrim-Companion, we do not need to lock up any troubles or concerns of any sort, big or little, in our hearts, but may speak them all to our Friend who goes with us.
The two may walk together. That is the end of all religion. What are creeds for? What are services and sacraments for? What is theology for? What is Christ’s redeeming act for? All culminate in this true, constant fellowship between men and God. And unless, in some measure, that result is arrived at in our cases, our religion, let it be as orthodox as you like, our faith in the redemption of Jesus Christ, let it be as real as you will, our attendances on services and sacraments, let them be as punctilious and regular as may be, are all ‘sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.’ Get side by side with God; that is the purpose of all these, and fellowship with Him is the climax of all religion.
It is also the secret of all blessedness, the only thing that will make a life absolutely sovereign over sorrow, and fixedly unperturbed by all tempests, and invulnerable to all ‘the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.’ Hold fast by God, and you have an amulet against every evil, and a shield against every foe, and a mighty power that will calm and satisfy your whole being. Nothing else, nothing else will do so. As Augustine said, ‘O God! Thou hast made us for Thyself, and in Thyself only are we at rest.’ If the Shepherd is with us we will fear no evil.
II. Now, a word, in the next place, as to the sadly incomplete reality, in much Christian experience, which contrasts with this possibility.
III. And now, lastly, a word about the simple explanation of the failure to realise this continual presence.
I make all allowance for the ups and downs and changing moods which necessarily affect us in this present life, and I make all allowance, too, for the pressure of imperative duties and distracting cares which interfere with our communion, though, if we were as strong as we might be, they would not wile us away from, but drive us to, our Father in heaven. But when all such allowances have been made, I come back to my text as the explanation of interrupted communion. The two are not agreed; and that is why they are not walking together. The consciousness of God’s presence with us is a very delicate thing. It is like a very sensitive thermometer, which will drop when an iceberg is a league off over the sea, and scarcely visible. We do not wish His company, or we are not in harmony with His thoughts, or we are not going His road, and therefore, of course, we part. At bottom there is only one thing that separates a soul from God, and that is sin-sin of some sort, like tiny grains of dust that get between two polished plates in an engine that ought to move smoothly and closely against each other. The obstruction may be invisible, and yet be powerful enough to cause friction, which hinders the working of the engine and throws everything out of gear. A light cloud that we cannot see may come between us and a star, and we shall only know it is there, because the star is not visibly there. Similarly, many a Christian, quite unconsciously, has something or other in his habits, or in his conduct, or in his affections, which would reveal itself to him, if he would look, as being wrong, because it blots out God.
Let us remember that very little divergence will, if the two paths are prolonged far enough, part their other ends by a world. Our way may go off from the ways of the Lord at a very acute angle. There may be scarcely any consciousness of parting company at the beginning. Let the man travel on upon it far enough, and the two will be so far apart that he cannot see God or hear Him speak. Take care of the little divergences which are habitual, for their accumulated results will be complete separation. There must be absolute surrender if there is to be uninterrupted fellowship.
Such, then, is the direction in which we are to look for the reasons for our low and broken experiences of communion with God. Oh, dear friends! when we do as we sometimes do, wake with a start, like a child that all at once starts from sleep and finds that its mother is gone-when we wake with a start to feel that we are alone, then do not let us be afraid to go straight back. Only be sure that we leave behind us the sin that parted us.
You remember how Peter signalised himself on the lake, on the occasion of the second miraculous draught of fishes, when he floundered through the water and clasped Christ’s feet. He did not say then, ‘Depart from Me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!’ He had said that before on a similar occasion, when he felt his sin less, but now he knew that the best place for the denier was with his head on Christ’s bosom. So, if we have parted from our Friend, there should be no time lost ere we go back. May it be true of us that we walk with God, so that at last the great promise may be fulfilled about us, ‘that we shall walk with Him in white,’ being by His love accounted ‘worthy,’ and so ‘follow’ and keep company with, ‘the Lamb whithersoever He goeth!’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
Can two . . . ? Figure of speech Erotesis (in negative affirmation). App-6. This is the first of five parables. The answer to each is self-evident,
be agreed = have met together by appointment [of time and (place].
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Gen 5:22, Gen 6:9, Gen 17:1, 2Co 6:14-16
Reciprocal: Lev 11:44 – ye shall Lev 19:2 – Ye shall Deu 32:19 – And when Amo 5:14 – and so 1Pe 1:16 – General 1Jo 1:7 – we have
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
A PAIR OF FRIENDS
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
Amo 3:3
There is instruction in the very way in which this text is introduced.
God was remonstrating with His people, and this was the line of His argument: You only, God says to them, you only have I known of all the families of the earth: thereforebecause you are My people, because I know youtherefore I will punish you for your iniquities.
I. The object of the grace of God is always unionunion of every kind.It makes one Christ in two hearts; and that makes two hearts one; it makes two hearts like Christ; and the resemblance leads them to draw together. They walk together because they are agreed.
If, then, you look at man as a social being, you may conceive him in three relations. There is his relation to his fellow-man; there is his relation to angels; there is his relation to God.
With these three different beings, man has to walk. And, in each case, God lays down one rule, that, before there can be harmony in action, there must be agreement in principle. Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
It is not necessary to make union that there should be perfect similarity. God, Who has given her different tints to nature, and to flowers their various hues,Who has cast the minds of men in so many moulds, and their temperaments in such different order,seems to be a God Who takes glory out of the variation of lesser things, as much as He is a God taking glory out of the variation of the greater. We daily see around us the union of things in which there is the greatest contrast.
And, in the Church itself, God has, no doubt, endowed His people with various giftsin order that there may come out of greater diversity a perfect harmony.
To take the metaphor of a walk. They must be agreed as to where they are going, and by what path they are travelling. They need not always exactly place step with step. But the end must be the same end; and the means must be generally the same.
II. I proceed, then, to apply this principle to those three relationships, in which we regard man, as a social beingwith his fellow-man, with angels, and with God.
I suppose the case of a person who feels doubtful whether he is a child of God. I suppose him a man who always prefers religious society. I suppose that the subjects, that are talked of there, please him best. Their views he finds most congenial; and, on the whole, he is the happiest man when he is mingling with them.
Now I would bid that man take the text as a touchstone of his state.
You love to be with Christiansyou love themnot for any worldly advantage, not for any natural good and lovable qualities they may havebut you love to be with them because they love God. You like to hear them talk about sacred things. You feel your sympathies drawn out when you are in their company.
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
As you love Christs image, you may safely believe that you love Christ! and if you love Christ, Christ loves youfor we never love Him, excepting because He first loved us.
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
It is so natural a thing, that it is almost a very law of our being, that we should be seeking a friend. Have you one? Is that friend religious? Are you sure of it? If not, as regards intimacies of friendship, give that friend up. Do it kindly. Do not do it until you have endeavoured to influence his soul for God; but if you have failed, give it up. Declare the reason, and the principle upon which you are acting. Do it immediately. Remember, it is a message from God to you to-nightCan two walk together, except they be agreed?
There is a sense in which a wicked man walks with God. It is the sense in which that man walked, who was haled to the judge, and the judge delivered him to the officer, and the officer cast him into prison, till he should pay the uttermost farthing: who, if once he got into prison, should never come out. Therefore, agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him.
The first thing, then, is to be reconciled to God. Now this is a work which no man can do. No man can deliver his brother. It cost more to redeem their soulsso that he leaves that alone.
And now, peace being established, the walkthe wonderful walkthe walk that never endsmay begin.
But mind, we must seek the same end by the same path.
What is Gods end? Always, and invariably, His own glory. And what is the path which leads to it? Only oneholiness. The path of holiness, to the glory of God.
Are you agreed with God in this? Are you willing entirely to relinquish your own gloryto put it utterly asideand to seek nothing but the glory of Godand to walk in whatever path God may appoint that leads up to that glory. The path of the Crossthe path of humiliationthe path that lies above all partyup and up to the glory of Godis that the desire of your mind?
Happy! thrice happy! You do walk with God. You may lean on Omnipotence. You are borne on the arms of love. You are shielded in the covenant.
Rev. Jas. Vaughan.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
3
Amo 3:3. Two men might unexpectedly come together while each is out walking and that would not require any previous understanding, but they would not continue their walk together without it. Together is from yachad, which Strong defines, Properly a unit, i. e. (adverbially) unitedly.” This means not only that the two might, happen to walk in the same general direction, but that they were doing so as a unit of action. The statement (in question form) is that the men will not do so except they be agreed. That word is the key to the whole passage. It is from yaap and Strongs definition is, A primitive root; to fix upon (by agreement or appointment); by implication lo meet (at a stated time), to summon (to trial), to direct (in a certain quarter or position), to engage (for marriage).” Moffatt renders the word have planned It. I have gone into much detail here because of the fundamental importance of the subject being considered. The principle is clearly set forth that in matters of right and wrong it is not enough that the parties be all striving for the same place,” and that they be a united in their activities. Not only so, but that unity must have been agreed upon by tbe parties proposing to walk together. Since the actual case at hand
is that of “walking with God, it is a foregone conclusion that He is the one to do all the planning, and that man is expected and should be glad to agree to the plan.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Amo 3:3. Can two walk together Comfortably as friends; except they be agreed Except they be in peace with each other? So neither can I conduct myself toward you as a friend or benefactor, nor can you have my presence with you, while you walk so contrary to me, and act in such perfect opposition to my nature and laws.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
3:3 Can two walk together, except they be {b} agreed?
(b) By this the Prophet signifies that he speaks not of himself, but as God guides and moves him, which is called the agreement between God and his Prophets.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Israel’s inevitable judgment by Yahweh 3:3-8
Amos asked seven rhetorical questions in Amo 3:3-6 to help the Israelites appreciate the inevitability of their judgment. In each one the prophet pointed out that a certain cause inevitably produces a certain effect. The five questions in Amo 3:3-5 expect a negative answer, and the two in Amo 3:6 expect a positive one. Amo 3:7-8 draw the conclusion.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Two people do not travel together unless they first agree to do so. By implication, God and Israel could not travel together toward God’s intended destination for the nation unless the Israelites agreed to do so on His terms (cf. Amo 3:2).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
, Amo 3:3-8, Amo 7:14-15
THE MAN AND THE PROPHET
THE Book of Amos opens one of the greatest stages in the religious development of mankind. Its originality is due to a few simple ideas, which it propels into religion with an almost unrelieved abruptness. But, like all ideas which ever broke upon the world, these also have flesh and blood behind them. Like every other Reformation this one in Israel began with the conscience and the protest of an individual. Our review of the book has made this plain. We have found in it, not only a personal adventure of a heroic kind, but a progressive series of visions, with some other proofs of a development both of facts and ideas. In short, behind the book there beats a life, and our first duty is to attempt to trace its spiritual history. The attempt is worth the greatest care. “Amos,” says a very critical writer, “is one of the most wonderful appearances in the history of the human spirit.”
1. THE MAN AND HIS DISCIPLINE
Amo 1:1, Amo 3:3-8, Amo 7:14-15
When charged at the crisis of his career with being but a hireling-prophet, Amos disclaimed the official name and took his stand upon his work as a man: “No prophet I, nor prophets son; but a herdsman and a dresser of sycamores. Jehovah took me from behind the flock.” We shall enhance our appreciation of this manhood, and of the new order of prophecy which it asserted, if we look for a little at the soil on which it was so bravely nourished.
Six miles south from Bethlehem, as Bethlehem is six from Jerusalem, there rises on the edge of the Judaean plateau, towards the desert, a commanding hill, the ruins on which are still known by the name of Tekoa.
In the time of Amos Tekoa was a place without sanctity and almost without tradition. The name suggests that the site may at first have been that of a camp. Its fortification by Rehoboam, and the mission of its wise woman to David, are its only previous appearances in history. Nor had nature been less grudging to it than fame. The men of Tekoa looked out upon a desolate and haggard world. South, west, and north the view is barred by a range of limestone hills, on one of which directly north the grey towers of Jerusalem are hardly to be discerned from the grey mountain lines. Eastward the prospect is still more desolate, but it-is open; the land slopes away for nearly eighteen miles to a depth of four thousand feet. Of this long descent the first step, lying immediately below the hill of Tekoa, is a shelf of stony moorland with the ruins of vineyards. It is the lowest ledge of the settled life of Judaea. The eastern edge drops suddenly by broken rocks to-slopes spotted with bushes of “retem,” the broom of the desert, and with patches of poor wheat. From the foot of the slopes the land rolls away in a maze of low hills and shallow dales that flush green in spring, but for the rest of the year are brown with withered grass and, scrub. This is the “Wilderness” or “Pasture-land of Tekoa,” {2Ch 20:20} across which by night the wild beasts howl, and by day the blackened sites of deserted camps, with the loose cairns that mark the nomads graves, reveal a human life almost as vagabond and nameless as that of the beasts. Beyond the rolling land is Jeshimon, or Devastation-a chaos of hills, none of whose ragged crests are tossed as high as the shelf of Tekoa, while their flanks shudder down some further thousands of feet, by crumbling precipices and corries choked with debris, to the coast of the Dead Sea. The northern half of this is visible, bright blue against the red wall of Moab, and. the level top of the wall, broken only by the valley of the Arnon, constitutes the horizon. Except for the blue water-which shines in its gap between the torn hills like a bit of sky through rifted clouds-it is a very dreary world. Yet the sun breaks over it, perhaps all the more gloriously; mists, rising from the sea simmering in its great vat, drape the nakedness of the desert noon; and through the dry desert night the planets ride with a majesty they cannot assume in our more troubled atmospheres. It is also a very empty and a very silent world, yet every stir of life upon it excites, therefore, the greater vigilance, and mans faculties, relieved from the rush and confusion of events, form the instinct of marking, and reflecting upon, every single phenomenon. And it is a very savage world. Across it all the towers of Jerusalem give the only signal of the spirit, the one token that man has a history.
Upon this unmitigated wilderness, where life is reduced to poverty and danger; where nature starves the imagination, but excites the faculties. of perception and curiosity; with the mountain tops and the sunrise in his face, but above all with Jerusalem so near, -Amos did the work which made him a man, heard the voice of God calling him to be a prophet, and gathered those symbols and figures in which his prophets message still reaches us with so fresh and so austere an air.
Amos was “among the shepherds of Tekoa.” The word for “shepherd” is unusual, and means the herdsman of a peculiar breed of desert sheep, still under the same name prized in Arabia for the excellence of their wool. And he was “a dresser of sycamores.” The tree, which is not our sycamore, is very easily grown in sandy soil with a little water. It reaches a great height and mass of foliage. The fruit is like a small fig, with a sweet but watery taste, and is eaten only by the poor. Born not of the fresh twigs, but of the trunk and older branches, the sluggish lumps are provoked to ripen by pinching or bruising, which seems to be the literal meaning of the term that Amos uses of himself-“a pincher of sycamores.” The sycamore does not grow at so high a level as Tekoa; and this fact, taken along with the limitation of the ministry of Amos to the Northern Kingdom, has been held to prove that he was originally an Ephraimite, a sycamore-dresser, who had migrated and settled down, as the peculiar phrase of the title says, “among the shepherds of Tekoa.” We shall presently see, however, that his familiarity with life in Northern Israel may easily have been won in other ways than through citizenship in that kingdom; while the very general nature of the definition, “among the shepherds of Tekoa,” does not oblige us to place either him or his sycamores so high as the village itself. The most easterly township of Judea, Tekoa commanded the w, hole of the wilderness beyond, to which indeed it gave its name, “the wilderness of Tekoa.” The shepherds of Tekoa were therefore, in all probability, scattered across the whole region down to the oases on the coast of the Dead Sea, which have generally been owned by one or other of the settled communities in the hill-country above, and may at that time have belonged to Tekoa, just as in Crusading times they belonged to the monks of Hebron, or are today cultivated by the Rushaideh Arabs, who pitch their camps not far from Tekoa itself. As you will still find everywhere on the borders of the Syrian desert shepherds nourishing a few fruit-trees round the chief well of their pasture, in order to vary their milk diet, so in some low oasis in the wilderness of Judea Amos cultivated the poorest, but the most easily grown of fruits, the sycamore. All this pushes Amos and his dwarf sheep deeper into the desert, and emphasizes what has been said above, and still remains to be illustrated, of the deserts influence on his discipline as a men and on his speech as a prophet. We ought to remember that in the same desert another prophet was bred, who was also the pioneer of a new dispensation, and whose ministry, both in its strength and its limitations, is much recalled by the ministry of Amos. John the son of Zacharias “grew and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel.” {Luk 1:80} Here, too, our Lord was “with the wild beasts.” {Mar 1:18} How much Amos had been with them may be seen from many of his metaphors. “The lion roareth, who shall not fear? As when the shepherd rescueth from the mouth of the lion two shinbones or a bit of an ear It shall be as when one is fleeing from a lion and a bear cometh upon him; and he entereth a house, and leaneth his hand on the wall, and a serpent biteth him.”
As a wool-grower, however, Amos must have had his yearly journeys among the markets of the land; and to such were probably due his opportunities of familiarity with Northern Israel, the originals of his vivid pictures of her town-life, her commerce, and the worship at her great sanctuaries. One hour westward from Tekoa would bring him to the highroad between Hebron and the North, with its troops of pilgrims passing to Beersheba. {Amo 5:5; Amo 8:14} It was but half-an-hour more to the watershed and an open view of the Philistine plain. Bethlehem was only six, Jerusalem twelve, miles from Tekoa. Ten miles farther, across the border of Israel, lay Bethel with its temple, seven miles farther Gilgal, and twenty miles farther still Samaria the capital, in all but two days journey from Tekoa. These had markets as well as shrines; their annual festivals would be also great fairs. It is certain that Amos visited them; it is even possible that he went to Damascus, in which the Israelites had at the time their own quarters for trading. By road and market he would meet with men of other lands. Phoenician peddlers, or Canaanites as they were called, came up to buy the homespun for which the housewives of Israel were famed {Pro 31:24}-hard-faced men who were also willing to purchase slaves, and haunted even the battle-fields of their neighbors for this sinister purpose. Men of Moab, at the time subject to Israel; Aramean hostages; Philistines who held the export trade to Egypt, -these Amos must have met and may have talked with; their dialects scarcely differed from his own. It is no distant, desert echo of life which we hear in his pages, but the thick and noisy rumor of caravan and market-place: how the plague was marching up from Egypt; {Amo 6:10} ugly stories of the Phoenician slave-trade; {Amo 1:9} rumors of the advance of the awful Power, which men were hardly yet accustomed to name, but which had already twice broken from the North upon Damascus. Or it was the progress of some national mourning-how lamentation sprang up in the capital, rolled along the highways, and was re-echoed from the husbandmen and vinedressers on the hillsides. {Amo 5:16} Or, at closer quarters, we see and hear the bustle of the great festivals and fairs-the “solemn assemblies,” the reeking holocausts, the “noise of songs and viols”: {Amo 5:21 ff.} the brutish religious zeal kindling into drunkenness and lust on the very steps of the altar, {Amo 2:7-8} “the embezzlement of pledges by the priests, the covetous restlessness of the traders, their false measures, their entanglement of the poor in debt {Amo 8:4 ff.} the careless luxury of the rich, their “banquets, buckets of wine, ivory couches,” pretentious, preposterous music. {Amo 6:1; Amo 6:4-7} These things are described as by an eyewitness. Amos was not a citizen of the Northern Kingdom, to which he almost exclusively refers; but it was because he went up and down in it, using those eyes which the desert air had sharpened, that he so thoroughly learned the wickedness of its people, the corruption of Israels life in every rank and class of society. But the convictions which he applied to this life Amos learned at home. They came to him over the desert, and without further material signal than was flashed to Tekoa from the towers of Jerusalem. This is placed beyond doubt by the figures in which he describes his call from Jehovah. Contrast his story, so far as he reveals it, with that of another. Some twenty years later, Isaiah of Jerusalem saw the Lord in the Temple, high and lifted up, and all the inaugural vision of this greatest of the prophets was conceived in the figures of the Temple-the altar, the smoke, the burning coals. But to his predecessor “among the shepherds of Tekoa,” although revelation also starts from Jerusalem, it reaches him, not in the sacraments of her sanctuary, but across the bare pastures, and as it were in the roar of a lion. “Jehovah from Zion roareth, and uttereth His voice from Jerusalem.” {Amo 1:2} We read of no formal process of consecration for this first of the prophets. Through his clear desert air the word of God breaks upon him without medium or sacrament. And the native vigilance of the man is startled, is convinced by it, beyond all argument or question. “The lion hath roared, who shall not fear? Jehovah hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” These words are taken from a passage in which Amos illustrates prophecy from other instances of his shepherd life. We have seen what a school of vigilance the desert is. Upon the bare surface all that stirs is ominous. Every shadow, every noise-the shepherd must know what is behind and be warned. Such a vigilance Amos would have Israel apply to his own message, and to the events of their history. Both of these he compares to certain facts of desert life, behind which his shepherdly instincts have taught him to feel an ominous cause. “Do two men walk together except they have trysted?”-except they have made an appointment. Hardly in the desert; for there men meet and take the same road by chance as seldom as ships at sea. “Doth a lion roar in the jungle and have no prey, or a young lion let out his voice in his den except he be taking something?” The hunting lion is silent till his quarry be in sight; when the lonely shepherd hears the roar across the desert he knows the lion leaps upon his prey, and he shudders as Israel ought to do when they hear Gods voice by the prophet, for this also is never loosened but for some grim fact, some leap of doom. Or “doth a little bird fall on the snare earthwards and there be no noose upon her?” The reading may be doubtful, but the meaning is obvious: no one ever saw a bird pulled roughly down to earth when it tried to fly away without knowing there was the loop of a snare about her. Or “does the snare itself rise up from the ground, except indeed it be capturing something?”-except there be in the trap or net something to flutter, struggle, and so lift it up. Traps do not move without life in them. Or “is the alarm trumpet “blown in a city”-for instance, in high Tekoa up there, when some Arab raid sweeps from the desert on to the fields-“and do the people not tremble?” Or “shall calamity happen in a city and Jehovah not have done it? Yea, the Lord Jehovah doeth nothing but He has revealed His purpose to His servants the prophets.” My voice of warning and these events of evil in your midst have the same cause-Jehovah-behind them. “The lion hath roared, who shall not fear? Jehovah hath spoken, who can but prophesy?”
We cannot miss the personal note which rings through this triumph in the reality of things unseen. Not only does it proclaim a man of sincerity and conviction: it is resonant with the discipline by which that conviction was won-were won, too, the freedom from illusion and the power of looking at facts in the face, which Amos alone of his contemporaries possessed.
St. Bernard has described the first stage of the Vision of God as the Vision Distributive, in which the eager mind distributes her attention upon common things and common duties in themselves. It was in this elementary school that the earliest of the new prophets passed his apprenticeship and received his gifts. Others excel Amos in the powers of the imagination and the intellect. But by the incorrupt habits of his shepherds life, by daily wakefulness to its alarms and daily faithfulness to its opportunities, he was trained in that simple power of appreciating facts and causes, which, applied to the great phenomena of the spirit and of history, forms his distinction among his peers. In this we find perhaps the reason why he records of himself no solemn hour of cleansing and initiation. “Jehovah took me from following the flock, and Jehovah said unto me, Go, prophesy unto My people Israel.” Amos was of them of whom it is written, “Blessed are those servants whom the Lord when He cometh shall find watching.” Through all his hard life this shepherd had kept his mind open and his conscience quick, so that when the word of God came to him he knew it, as fast as he knew the roar of the lion across the moor. Certainly there is no habit which, so much as this of watching facts with a single eye and a responsible mind, is indispensable alike in the humblest duties and in the highest speculations of life. When Amos gives those naive illustrations of how real the voice of God is to him, we receive them as the tokens of a man, honest and awake. Little wonder that he refuges to be reckoned among the professional prophets of his day who found their inspiration in excitement and trance. Upon him the impulses of the Deity come in no artificial and morbid ecstasy, removed as far as possible from real life. They come upon him, as it were, in the open air. They appeal to the senses of his healthy and expert manhood. They convince him of their reality with the same force as do the most startling events of his lonely shepherd watches. “The lion hath roared, who shall not fear? Jehovah hath spoken, who can but prophesy?”
The influence of the same discipline is still visible when Amos passes from the facts of his own consciousness to the facts of his peoples life. His day in Israel sweltered with optimism. The glare of wealth, the fulsome love of country, the rank incense of a religion that was without morality-these thickened all the air, and neither the people nor their rulers had any vision. But Amos carried with him his clear desert atmosphere and his desert eyes. He saw the raw facts: the poverty, the cruel negligence of the rich, the injustice of the rulers, the immorality of the priests. The meaning of these things he questioned with as much persistence as he questioned every suspicious sound or sight upon those pastures of Tekoa. He had no illusions: he knew a mirage when he saw one. Neither the military pride of the people, fostered by recent successes over Syria, nor the dogmas of their religion, which asserted Jehovahs swift triumph upon the heathen, could prevent him from knowing that the immorality of Israel meant Israels political downfall. He was one of those recruits from common life, by whom religion and the state have at all times been reformed. Springing from the laity and very often from among the working classes, their freedom from dogmas and routine, as well as from the compromising interests of wealth, rank, and party, renders them experts in life to a degree that almost no professional priest, statesman, or journalist, however honest or sympathetic, can hope to rival. Into politics they bring facts, but into religion they bring vision.
It is of the utmost significance that this reformer, this founder of the highest order of prophecy in Israel, should not only thus begin with facts, but to the very end be occupied with almost nothing else than the vision and record of them. In Amos there is but one prospect of the Ideal. It does not break till the close of his book, and then in such contrast to the plain and final indictments, which constitute nearly all the rest of his prophesying, that many have not unnaturally denied to him the verses which contain it. Throughout the other chapters we have but the exposure of present facts, material and moral, nor the sight of any future more distant than tomorrow and the immediate consequences of todays deeds. Let us mark this. The new prophecy which Amos started in Israel reached Divine heights of hope, unfolded infinite powers of moral and political regeneration-dared to blot out all the past, dared to believe all things possible in the future. But it started from the truth about the moral situation of the present. Its first prophet not only denied every popular dogma and ideal, but-appears not to have substituted for them any others. He spent his gifts of vision on the discovery and appreciation of facts. Now this is necessary, not only in great reformations of religion, but at almost every stage in her development. We are constantly disposed to abuse even the most just and necessary of religious ideals as substitutes for experience or as escapes from duty, and to boast about the future before we have understood or mastered the present. Hence the need of realists like Amos. Though they are destitute of dogma, of comfort, of hope, of the ideal, let us not doubt that they also stand in the succession of the prophets of the Lord.
Nay, this is a stage of prophecy on which may be fulfilled the prayer of Moses: “Would to God that all the Lords people were prophets!” To see the truth and tell it, to be accurate and brave about the moral facts of our day-to this extent the Vision and the Voice are possible for every one of us. Never for us may the doors of heaven open, as they did for him who stood on the threshold of the earthly temple, and he saw the Lord enthroned, while the Seraphim of the Presence sang the glory. Never for us may the skies fill with that tempest of life which Ezekiel beheld from Shinar, and above it the sapphire throne, and on the throne the likeness of a man, the likeness of the glory of the Lord. Yet let us remember that to see facts as they are and to tell the truth about them-this also is prophecy. We may inhabit a sphere which does not prompt the imagination, but is as destitute of the historic and traditional as was the wilderness of Tekoa. All the more may our unglamoured eyes be true to the facts about us. Every common day leads forth her duties as shining as every night leads forth her stars. The deeds and the fortunes of men are in our sight, and spell, to all who will honestly read the very Word of the Lord. If only we be loyal, then by him who made the rude sounds and sights of the desert his sacraments, and whose vigilance of things seen and temporal became the vision of things unseen and eternal, we also shall see God, and be sure of His ways with men.
Before we pass from the desert discipline of the prophet we must notice one of its effects, which, while it greatly enhanced the clearness of his vision, undoubtedly disabled Amos for the highest prophetic rank. He who lives in the desert lives without patriotism-detached and aloof. He may see the throng of men more clearly than those who move among it. He cannot possibly so much feel for them. Unlike Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Amos was not a citizen of the kingdom against which he prophesied, and indeed no proper citizen of any kingdom, but a nomad herdsman, hovering on the desert borders of Judaea. He saw Israel from the outside. His message to her is achieved with scarcely one sob in his voice. For the sake of the poor and the oppressed among the people he is indignant. But with the erring, staggering nation as a whole he has no real sympathy. His pity for her is exhausted in one elegy and two brief intercessions; hardly more than once does he even call her to repentance.
His sense of justice, in fact, had almost never to contend with his love. This made Amos the better witness, but the worse prophet. He did not rise so high as his great successors, because he did not so feel himself one with the people whom he was forced to condemn, because he did not bear their fate as his own nor travail for their new birth. “Ihm fehlt die Liebe.” Love is the element lacking in his prophecy; and therefore the words are true of him which were uttered of his great follower across this same wilderness of Judea, that mighty as were his voice and his message to prepare the way of the Lord, yet “the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.”
2. THE WORD AND ITS ORIGINS
Amo 1:2, Amo 3:3-8 and PASSIM
We have seen the preparation of the Man for the Word. We are now to ask, Whence came the Word to the Man?-the Word that made him a prophet. What were its sources and sanctions outside himself? These involve other questions. How much of his message did Amos inherit from the previous religion of his people? And how much did he teach for the first time in Israel? And again, how much of this new element did he owe to the great events of his day? And how much demands some other source of inspiration?
To all these inquiries, outlines of the answers ought by this time to have become visible. We have seen that the contents of the Book of Amos consist almost entirely of two kinds: facts, actual or imminent, in the history of his people; and certain moral principles of the most elementary order. Amos appeals to no dogma nor form of law, nor to any religious or national institution. Still more remarkably, he does not rely upon miracle nor any so-called “supernatural sign.” To employ the terms of Mazzinis famous formula, Amos draws his materials solely from “conscience and history.” Within himself he hears certain moral principles speak in the voice of God, and certain events of his day he recognizes as the judicial acts of God. The principles condemn the living generation of Israel as morally corrupt; the events threaten the people with political extinction. From this agreement between inward conviction and outward event Amos draws his full confidence as a prophet, and enforces on the people his message of doom as Gods own word.
The passage in which Amos most explicitly illustrates this harmony between event and conviction is one whose metaphors we have already quoted in proof of the deserts influence upon the prophets life. When Amos asks, “Can two walk together except they have made an appointment?” his figure is drawn, as we have seen, from the wilderness in which two men will hardly meet except they have arranged to do so; but the truth he would illustrate by the figure is that two sets of phenomena which coincide must have sprung from a common purpose. Their conjunction forbids mere chance. What kind of phenomena he means, he lets us see in his next instance: “Doth a lion roar in the jungle and have no prey? Doth a young lion let forth his voice from his den except he be catching something?” That is, those ominous sounds never happen without some fell and terrible deed happening along with them. Amos thus plainly hints that the two phenomena on whose coincidence he insists are an utterance on one side, and on the other side a deed fraught with destruction. The reading of the next metaphor about the bird and the snare is uncertain; at most what it means is that you never see signs of distress or a vain struggle to escape without there being, though out of sight, some real cause for them. But from so general a principle he returns in his fourth metaphor to the special coincidence between utterance and deed. “Is the alarum-trumpet blown in a city and do the people not tremble?” Of course they do; they know such sound is never made without the approach of calamity. But who is the author of every calamity? God Himself: “Shall there be evil in a city and Jehovah not have done it?” Very well then; we have seen that common life has many instances in which, when an ominous sound is heard, it is because it is closely linked with a fatal deed. These happen together, not by mere chance, but because the one is the expression, the warning, or the explanation of the other. And we also know that fatal deeds which happen to any community in Israel are from Jehovah. He is behind them. But they, too, are accompanied by a warning voice from the same source as themselves. This is the voice which the prophet hears in his heart-the moral conviction which he feels as the Word of God. “The Lord Jehovah doeth nothing but He hath revealed His counsel to His servants the prophets.” Mark the grammar: the revelation comes first to the prophets heart; then he sees and recognizes the event, and is confident to give his message about it. So Amos, repeating his metaphor, sums up his argument. “The Lion hath roared, who shall not fear?”-certain that there is more than sound to happen. “The Lord Jehovah hath spoken, who can but prophesy?”-certain that what Jehovah has spoken to him inwardly is likewise no mere sound, but that deeds of judgment are about to happen, as the ominous voice requires they should.
The prophet then is made sure of his message by the agreement between the inward convictions of his soul and the outward events of the day. When these walk together, it proves that they have come of a common purpose. He who causes the events-it is Jehovah Himself, “for shall there be evil in a city and Jehovah not have done it?”-must be author also of the inner voice or conviction which agrees with them. “Who” then “can but prophesy?” Observe again that no support is here derived from miracle; nor is any claim made for the prophet on the ground of his ability to foretell the event. It is the agreement of the idea with the fact, their evident common origin in the purpose of Jehovah, which makes a man sure that he has in him the Word of God. Both are necessary, and together are enough. Are we then to leave the origin of the Word in this coincidence of fact and thought-as it were an electric flash produced by the contact of conviction with event?
Hardly; there are questions behind this coincidence. For instance, as to how the two react on each other-the event provoking the conviction, the conviction interpreting the event? The argument of Amos seems to imply that the ethical principles are experienced by the prophet prior to the events which justify them. Is this so, or was the shock of the events required to awaken the principles? And if the principles were prior, whence did Amos derive them? These are some questions that will lead us to the very origins of revelation.
The greatest of the events with which Amos and his contemporaries dealt was the Assyrian invasion. In a previous chapter we have tried to estimate the intellectual effects of Assyria on prophecy. Assyria widened the horizon of Israel, put the world to Hebrew eyes into a new perspective, vastly increased the possibilities of history, and set to religion a novel order of problems. We can trace the effects upon Israels conceptions of God, of man, and even of nature. Now it might be plausibly argued that the new prophecy in Israel was first stirred and quickened by all this mental shock and strain, and that even the loftier ethics of the prophets were thus due to the advance of Assyria. For, as the most vigilant watchmen of their day, the prophets observed the rise of that empire, and felt its fatality for Israel. Turning then to inquire the Divine reasons for such a destruction, they found these in Israels sinfulness, to the full extent of which their hearts were at last awakened. According to such a theory the prophets were politicians first and moralists afterwards: alarmists to begin with, and preachers of repentance only second. Or-to recur to the language employed above-the prophets experience of the historical event preceded their conviction of the moral principle which agreed with it.
In support of such a theory it is pointed out that after all the most original element in the prophecy of the eighth century was the announcement of Israels fall and exile. The Righteousness of Jehovah had often previously been enforced in Israel, but never had any voice drawn from it this awful conclusion that the nation must perish. The first in Israel to dare this was Amos, and surely what enabled him to do so was the imminence of Assyria upon his people. Again, such a theory might plausibly point to the opening verse of the Book of Amos, with its unprefaced, unexplained pronouncement of doom upon Israel:-
“The Lord roareth from Zion, And giveth voice from Jerusalem; And the pastures of the shepherds mourn, And the summit of Carmel is withered!”
Here, it might be averred, is the earliest prophets earliest utterance. Is it not audibly the voice of a man in a panic-such a panic as, ever on the eve of historic convulsions, seizes the more sensitive minds of a doomed people? The distant Assyrian thunder has reached Amos, on his pastures, unprepared-unable to articulate its exact meaning, and with only faith enough to hear in it the voice of his God. He needs reflection to unfold its contents; and the process of this reflection we find through the rest of his book. There he details for us, with increasing clear-mess, both the ethical reasons and the political results of that Assyrian terror, by which he was at first so wildly shocked into prophecy.
But the panic-born are always the stillborn; and it is simply impossible that prophecy, in all her ethical and religious vigor, can have been the daughter of so fatal a birth. If we look again at the evidence which is quoted from Amos in favor of such a theory, we shall see how fully it is contradicted by other features of his book.
To begin with, we are not certain that the terror of the opening verse of Amos is the Assyrian terror. Even if it were, the opening of a book does not necessarily represent the writers earliest feelings. The rest of the chapters contain visions and oracles which obviously date from a time when Amos was not yet startled by Assyria, but believed that the punishment which Israel required might be accomplished through a series of physical calamities-locusts, drought, and pestilence. Nay, it was not even these earlier judgments, preceding the Assyrian, which stirred the word of God in the prophet. He introduces them with a “now” and a “therefore.” That is to say, he treats them only as the consequence of certain facts, the conclusion of certain premises. These facts and premises are moral-they are exclusively moral. They are the sins of Israels life, regarded without illusion and without pity. They are certain simple convictions, which fill the prophets heart, about the impossibility of the survival of any state which is so perverse and so corrupt.
This origin of prophecy in moral facts and moral intuitions, which are in their beginning independent of political events, may be illustrated by several other points. For instance, the sins which Amos marked in Israel were such as required no “red dawn of judgment” to expose their flagrance and fatality. The abuse of justice, the cruelty of the rich, the shameless immorality of the priests, are not sins which we feel only in the cool of the day, when God Himself draws near to judgment. They are such things as make men shiver in the sunshine. And so the Book of Amos, and not less that of Hosea, tremble with the feeling that Israels social corruption is great enough of itself, without the aid of natural convulsions, to shake the very basis of national life. “Shall not the land tremble for this,” Amos says after reciting some sins, “and every one that dwelleth therein?” {Amo 8:8} Not drought nor pestilence nor invasion is needed for Israels doom, but the elemental force of ruin which lies in the peoples own wickedness. This is enough to create gloom long before the political skies be overcast-or, as Amos himself puts it, this is enough
“To cause the sun to go down at noon, And to darken the earth in the clear day.” {Amo 8:9}
And once more-in spite of Assyria the ruin may be averted, if only the people will repent: “Seek good and not evil, and, Jehovah of hosts will be with you, as you say.” {Amo 5:14} Assyria, however threatening, becomes irrelevant to Israels future from the moment that Israel repents.
Such beliefs, then, are obviously not the results of experience, nor of a keen observation of history. They are the primal convictions of the heart, which are deeper than all experience, and themselves contain the sources of historical foresight. With Amos it was not the outward event which inspired the inward conviction, but the conviction which anticipated and interpreted the event, though when the event came there can be no doubt that it confirmed, deepened, and articulated the conviction.
But when we have thus tracked the stream of prophecy as far back as these elementary convictions we have not reached the fountain-head. Whence did Amos derive his simple and absolute ethics? Were they original to him? Were they new in Israel? Such questions start an argument which touches the very origins of revelation.
It is obvious that Amos not only takes for granted the laws of righteousness which he enforces: he takes for granted also the peoples conscience of them. New, indeed, is the doom which sinful Israel deserves, and original to himself is the proclamation of it; but Amos appeals to the moral principles which justify the doom, as if they were not new, and as if Israel ought always to have known them. This attitude of the prophet to his principles has, in our time, suffered a curious judgment. It has been called an anachronism. So absolute a morality, some say, had never before been taught in Israel; nor had righteousness been so exclusively emphasized as the purpose of Jehovah. Amos and the other prophets of his century were the virtual “creators of ethical monotheism”: it could only be by a prophetic license or prophetic fiction that he appealed to his peoples conscience of the standards he promulgated, or condemned his generation to death for not having lived up to them.
Let us see how far this criticism is supported by the facts.
To no sane observer can the religious history of Israel appear as anything but a course of gradual development. Even in the moral standards, in respect to which it is confessedly often most difficult to prove growth, the signs of the nations progress are very manifest. Practices come to be forbidden in Israel and tempers to be mitigated, which in earlier ages were sanctioned to their extreme by the explicit decrees of religion. In the nations attitude to the outer world sympathies arise, along with ideals of spiritual service, where previously only war and extermination had been enforced in the name of the Deity. Now in such an evolution it is equally indubitable that the longest and most rapid stage was the prophecy of the eighth century. The prophets of that time condemn acts which had been inspired by their immediate predecessors; they abjure, as impeding morality, a ceremonial which the spiritual leaders of earlier generations had felt to be indispensable to religion; and they unfold ideals of the nations moral destiny, of which older writings give us only the faintest hints. Yet, while the fact of a religious evolution in Israel is thus certain, we must not fall into the vulgar error which interprets evolution as if it were mere addition, nor forget that even in the most creative periods of religion nothing is brought forth which has not already been promised, and, at some earlier stage, placed, so to speak, within reach of the human mind. After all it is the mind which grows; the moral ideals which become visible to its more matured vision are so Divine that, when they present themselves, the mind cannot but think they were always real and always imperative. If we remember these commonplaces we shall do justice both to Amos and to his critics.
In the first place it is clear that most of the morality which Amos enforced is of that fundamental order which can never have been recognized as the discovery or invention of any prophet. Whatever be their origin, the conscience of justice, the duty of kindness to the poor, the horror of wanton cruelty towards ones enemies, which form the chief principles of Amos, are discernible in man as far back as history allows us to search for them. Should a generation have lost them, they can be brought back to it, never with the thrill of a new lesson; but only with the shame of an old and an abused memory. To neither man nor people can the righteousness which Amos preached appear as a discovery, but always as a recollection and a remorse. And this is most emphatically true of the people of Moses and of Samuel, of Nathan, of Elijah, and of the Book of the Covenant. Ethical elements had been characteristic of Israels religion from the very first. They were not due to a body of written law, but rather to the character of Israels God, appreciated by the nation in all the great crises of their history. Jehovah had won for Israel freedom and unity. He had been a spirit of justice to their lawgivers and magistrates. {Isa 28:1-29} He had raised up a succession of consecrated personalities, {Amo 2:1-16} who by life and word had purified the ideals of the whole people. The results had appeared in the creation of a strong national conscience, which avenged with horror, as “folly in Israel,” the wanton crimes of any person or section of the commonwealth; in the gradual formation of a legal code, founded indeed in the common custom of the Semites, but greatly more moral than that; and even in the attainment of certain profoundly ethical beliefs about God and His relations, beyond Israel, to all mankind. Now, let us understand once for all, that in the ethics of Amos there is nothing which is not rooted in one or other of these achievements of the previous religion of his people. To this religion Amos felt himself attached in the closest possible way. The word of God comes to him across the desert, as we have seen, yet not out of the air. From the first he hears it rise from that one monument of his peoples past which we have found visible on his physical horizon-“from Zion, from Jerusalem,” {Amo 1:2} from the city of David, from the Ark, whose ministers were Moses and Samuel, from the repository of the main tradition of Israels religion. Amos felt himself in the sacred succession; and his feeling is confirmed by the contents of his book. The details of that civic justice which he demands from his generation are found in the Book of the Covenant-the only one of Israels great codes which appears by this time to have been in existence; or in those popular proverbs which almost as certainly were found in early Israel.
Nor does Amos go elsewhere for the religious sanctions of his ethics. It is by the ancient mercies of God towards Israel that he shames and convicts his generation-by the deeds of grace which made them a nation, by the organs of doctrine and reproof which have inspired them, unfailing from age to age. “I destroyed the Amorite before them Yea, I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and I led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorites. And I raised up of your sons for prophets, and of your young men for Nazarites. Was it not even thus, O ye children of Israel? saith Jehovah.” We cannot even say that the belief which Amos expresses in Jehovah as the supreme Providence of the world was a new thing in Israel, for a belief as universal inspires those portions of the Book of Genesis which, like the Book of the Covenant, were already extant.
We see, therefore, what right Amos had to present his ethical truths to Israel, as if they were not new, but had been within reach of his people from of old.
We could not, however, commit a greater mistake than to confine the inspiration of our prophet to the past, and interpret his doctrines as mere inferences from the earlier religious ideas of Israel-inferences forced by his own passionate logic, or more naturally ripened for him by the progress of events. A recent writer has thus summarized the work of the prophets of the eighth century: “In fact they laid hold upon that bias towards the ethical which dwelt in Jahwism from Moses onwards, and they allowed it alone to have value as corresponding to the true religion of Jehovah.” But this is too abstract to be an adequate statement of the prophets own consciousness. What overcame Amos was a Personal Influence-the Impression of a Character; and it was this not only as it was revealed in the past of his people. The God who stands behind Amos is indeed the ancient Deity of Israel, and the facts which prove Him God are those which made the nation-the Exodus, the guidance through the wilderness, the overthrow of the Amorites, the gift of the land. “Was it not even thus, O ye children of Israel?” But what beats and burns through the pages of Amos is not the memory of those wonderful works, so much as a fresh vision and understanding of the Living God who worked them. Amos has himself met with Jehovah on the conditions of his own time-on the moral situation provided by the living generation of Israel. By an intercourse conducted, not through the distant signals of the past, but here and now, through the events of the prophets own day, Amos has received an original and overpowering conviction of his peoples God as absolute righteousness. What prophecy had hitherto felt in part, and applied to one or other of the departments of Israels life, Amos is the first to feel in its fullness, and to every extreme of its consequences upon the worship, the conduct, and the fortunes of the nation. To him Jehovah not only commands this and that righteous law but Jehovah and righteousness are absolutely identical. “Seek Jehovah and ye shall live seek good and ye shall live.” {Amo 5:6; Amo 5:14} The absoluteness with which Amos conceived this principle, the courage with which he applied it, carry him along those two great lines upon which we most clearly trace his originality as a prophet. In the strength of this principle he does what is really new in Israel: he discards the two elements which had hitherto existed alongside the ethical, and had fettered and warped it.
Up till now the ethical spirit of the religion of Jehovah had to struggle with two beliefs which we can trace back to the Semitic origins of the religion-the belief, namely, that, as the national God, Jehovah would always defend their political interests, irrespective of morality; and the belief that a ceremonial of rites and sacrifices was indispensable to religion. These principles were mutual: as the deity was bound to succor the people, so were the people bound to supply the deity with gifts, and the more of these they brought the more they made sure of his favors. Such views were not absolutely devoid of moral benefit. In the formative period of the nation they had contributed both discipline and hope. But of late they had between them engrossed mens hearts, and crushed out of religion both conscience and common-sense. By the first of them, the belief in Jehovahs predestined protection of Israel, the peoples eyes were so holden they could not see how threatening were the times; by the other, the confidence in ceremonial, conscience was dulled, and that immorality permitted which they mingled so shamelessly with their religious zeal. Now the conscience of Amos did not merely protest against the predominance of the two, but was so exclusive, so spiritual, that it boldly banished both from religion. Amos denied that Jehovah was bound to save His people; he affirmed that ritual and sacrifice were no part of the service He demands from men. This is the measure of originality in our prophet. The two religious principles which were inherent in the very fiber of Semitic religion, and which till now had gone unchallenged in Israel, Amos cast forth from religion in the name of a pure and absolute righteousness. On the one hand, Jehovahs peculiar connection with Israel meant no more than jealousy for their holiness: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.” {Amo 3:2} And, on the other hand, all their ceremonial was abhorrent to Him: “I hate, I despise your festivals. Though ye offer Me burnt offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; I will not hear the music of thy viols. But let justice run down as waters, and righteousness as a perennial stream.” {Amo 5:21 ff.}
It has just been said that emphasis upon morality as the sum of religion, to the exclusion of sacrifice, is the most original element in the prophecies of Amos He himself, however, does not regard this as proclaimed for the first time in Israel, and the precedent he quotes is so illustrative of the sources of his inspiration that we do well to look at it for a little. In the verse next to the one last quoted he reports these words of God: “Did ye offer unto Me sacrifices and gifts in the wilderness, for forty years, O house of Israel?” An extraordinary challenge! From the present blind routine of sacrifice Jehovah appeals to the beginning of His relations with the nation: did they then perform such services to Him? Of course, a negative answer is expected. No other agrees with the main contention of the passage. In the wilderness Israel had not offered sacrifices and gifts to Jehovah. Jeremiah quotes a still more explicit word of Jehovah: “I spake not unto your fathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My people.” {Jer 7:22 f.}
To these Divine statements we shall not be able to do justice if we hold by the traditional view that the Levitical legislation was proclaimed in the wilderness. Discount that legislation, and the statements become clear. It is true, of course, that Israel must have had a ritual of some kind from the first; and that both in the wilderness and in Canaan their spiritual leaders must have performed sacrifices as if these were acceptable to Jehovah. But even so the Divine words which Amos and Jeremiah quote are historically correct; for while the ethical contents of the religion of Jehovah were its original and essential contents-“I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice”-the ritual was but a modification of the ritual common to all Semites; and ever since the occupation of the land, it had, through the infection of the Canaanite rites on the high places, grown more and more Pagan, both in its functions and in the ideas which these were supposed to express. Amos was right. Sacrifice had never been the Divine, the revealed element in the religion of Jehovah. Nevertheless, before Amos no prophet in Israel appears to have said so. And what enabled this man in the eighth century to offer testimony, so novel but so true, about the far-away beginnings of his peoples religion in the fourteenth, was plainly neither tradition nor historical research, but an overwhelming conviction of the spiritual and moral character of God-of Him who had been Israels God both then and now, and whose righteousness had been, just as much then as now, exalted above all purely national interests and all susceptibility to ritual. When we thus see the prophets knowledge of the Living God enabling him, not only to proclaim an ideal of religion more spiritual than Israel had yet dreamed, but to perceive that such an ideal had been the essence of the religion of Jehovah from the first, we understand how thoroughly Amos was mastered by that knowledge. If we need any further proof of his “possession” by the character of God, we find it in those phrases in which his own consciousness disappears, and we have no longer the heralds report of the Lords words, but the very accents of the Lord Himself, fraught with personal feeling of the most intense quality. “I” Jehovah “hate, I despise your feast days Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; I will not hear the music of thy viols {Amo 5:21-23} I abhor the arrogance of Jacob, and hate his palaces {Amo 6:8} The eyes of the Lord Jehovah are upon the sinful kingdom {Amo 9:8} Jehovah sweareth, I will never forget any of their works.” {Amo 8:7} Such sentences reveal a Deity who is not only manifest Character, but is urgent and importunate Feeling. We have traced the prophets word to its ultimate source. It springs from the righteousness, the vigilance, the urgency of the Eternal. The intellect, imagination, and heart of Amos-the convictions he has inherited from his peoples past, his conscience of their evil life today, his impressions of current and coming history-are all enforced and illuminated, all made impetuous and radiant, by the Spirit, that is to say the Purpose and the Energy, of the Living God. Therefore, as he says in the title of his book, or as someone says for him, Amos saw his words. They stood out objective to himself. And they were not mere sound. They glowed and burned with God.
When we realize this, we feel how inadequate it is to express prophecy in the terms of evolution. No doubt, as we have seen, the ethics and religion of Amos represent a large and measurable advance upon those of earlier Israel. And yet with Amos we do not seem so much to have arrived at a new stage in a Process, as to have penetrated to the Idea which has been behind the Process from the beginning. The change and growth of Israels religion are realities-their fruits can be seen, defined, catalogued-but a greater reality is the unseen purpose which impels them. They have been expressed only now. He has been unchanging from old and forever-from the first absolute righteousness in Himself, and absolute righteousness in His demands from men.