Volume I Part 21 (1/2)

If severe punishment be inflicted, even upon those who have trespa.s.sed against the living G.o.d, with whom they came into contact only distantly, what will become of those to whom He manifested Himself so plainly and distinctly,--among whom He had, as it were, gained a form,--before whose eyes He had been so evidently set forth? The declaration, ”You only do I know of all the families of the earth; therefore I shall visit upon you all your iniquities” (iii. 2), forms the centre of the whole threatening announcement to Israel. And could it indeed be introduced in any better way than by pointing out, how even the lowest degree of knowledge was followed by such a visitation?

But now, that which under the Old Testament was the highest degree, becomes, under the New Testament, only a preparatory step. The revelation of G.o.d in Christ stands in the same relation to that made to Israel under the Old Testament, as the latter stands to the manifestation of His character and nature to the heathen, who came into connection with the Covenant-people. Thus the fulfilment becomes to us a new prophecy. If the rejection of G.o.d, in His inferior revelation, was followed by such awful consequences to the temporal welfare of the people of the Old Covenant, what must be the consequences of the rejection of the highest and fullest revelation of G.o.d to the temporal and spiritual welfare of the people of the New Covenant? This is a thought which is further expanded in Heb. xii. 17 ff., and it forms the essential feature of [Pg 361] the description of the judgment of the world in the New Testament. This judgment has been but too often thus misunderstood, as if it concerned the world as the world,--a misunderstanding similar to that of the section before us. The Gospel shall first be preached to every creature, and according as every one has conducted himself towards the _living_ G.o.d, so he shall be judged.--But it is not to the heathen nations only, but to Judah also that, by way of introduction, destruction is announced. The circ.u.mstance that not even the possession of so many precious privileges, as the temple and the Davidic throne, could ward off the well-merited punishment of sin, could not but powerfully affect the hearts of the ten tribes. If G.o.d's justice be so energetic, what have _they_ to expect?

If we continue the examination of _Ruckert's_ view, it will soon appear that the phrase, ”Hear this word,” in iii. 1, iv. 1, and v. 1, can alone be considered as the foundation on which it rests. But these words do not at all prove a new commencement, but only a new starting-point. This appears sufficiently from the absence of these words at the alleged fourth threatening discourse in chap. vi.; and likewise from a comparison of Hosea iv. 1 and v. 1: ”Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel,” and ”Hear this, ye priests, and hearken, ye house of Israel, and give ear, house of the king;” while nothing similar occurs in the following chapters. That such an exhortation was appropriate, even in the middle, is clearly seen from Amos iii. 13. It cannot then, _per se_, prove anything in favour of a new beginning. If it is to be regarded as such, the discourse must be proved, by other reasons, to have been completed. But no such reasons here exist. We might as reasonably a.s.sume the existence of ten threatening discourses, as of four. The circ.u.mstance that we can nowhere discover a sure commencement and a clearly defined termination, shows that we are fully justified in considering the whole first part, chap. i. to vi., as a connected discourse.

The second part, which contains the visions of the destruction, is composed, indeed, of various portions,--as might have been expected from the nature of the subject. Each new vision, with the discourse connected with it, must form a new section. Chap. vii., viii., and ix., form each a whole. From the account which is added to the first vision; and which relates [Pg 362] to the transactions between Amos and the high priest Amaziah, which were caused by the public announcement of this vision (chap. vii. 12-14), we are led to suppose that these visions were formerly delivered singly, in the form in which we now possess them. But that, even here, we have not before us pieces loosely connected with each other in a chronological arrangement, is evident from the fact, that the promises stand just at the end of the whole collection. The prophet had rather to reprove and to threaten than to comfort; but yet he cannot refrain, at least at the close, from causing the sun to break through the clouds. Without this close there would be wanting in Amos a main element of the prophetic discourse, which is wanting in no other prophet, and by which alone the other elements are placed in a proper light.

It also militates against the supposition of a mere collection, that in the last vision the prevailing regard to the kingdom of the ten tribes disappears almost entirely, and that, like the third chapter of Hosea, it relates to the whole of the Covenant-people,--in agreement with the reference to the earthquake mentioned in the inscription, which the prophet had experienced in Judah, and which brought into view, not a particular, but a general, judgment.

The symbolical clothing, however, forms the sole difference betwixt the second part and the first. As the ”real centre and essence of the book”

the second part cannot be regarded; the threatening is as clear and impressive in the first part.

That which is common to Amos with the contemporary prophets, is the absolute clearness with which he foresees that, before salvation comes, all that is glorious, not only in Israel, but in Judah also, must be given over to destruction. Judah and Israel shall be overflowed by the heathen world, the Temple at Jerusalem destroyed, the Davidic dynasty dethroned, and the inhabitants of both kingdoms carried away into captivity. But afterwards, the restoration of David's tabernacle (ix.

11), and the extension of the kingdom of G.o.d far beyond the borders of the heathen world (ver. 12), take place. The most characteristic point is the emanation of salvation from the family of David, at the time of its deepest abas.e.m.e.nt.

Footnote 1: _Bochart_ remains unrefuted by the a.s.sertions of _Hitzig_, _Baur_, and others, who make Amos the owner of a plantation of sycamores, which, according to them, made him a wealthy man. ??? can be understood only of the plucking, or gathering of the fruits of the sycamores. The ”cutting of the bark” is by no means obvious, and is too much the language of natural history. That the prophet's real vocation is designated by ????, and that ???? ????? is not, by any means, something independent of, and co-ordinate with that, appears from ver.

15, where the ???? is resumed. The fruits of the sycamores may, occasionally, not have a disagreeable taste, for him who eats them only as a dainty; but they are at all events very poor ordinary food; compare _Warnekros_ in _Eichhorn's Repert._ 11. 256.

Footnote 2: The groundlessness of such a mode of viewing things is shown by the prophecy of events such as that mentioned in i. 15: ”The people of Aram are carried away to Kir, saith the Lord;” compare the fulfilment in 2 Kings xvi. 9. They had originally come from Kir, Amos ix. 7. This circ.u.mstance furnished the natural foundation for the prophecy, and it was certainly this circ.u.mstance also which induced the conqueror to adopt his measures. But the supernatural character of the definite prophecy remains, nevertheless, unshaken.

Footnote 3: _Caspari_ in his commentary on Micah, S. 69, is wrong in remarking: ”Joel beholds the instruments of punitive justice upon Israel, as numberless hosts only; Amos, already, as a single nation.”

In Amos vi. 14 the ??? as little means a single nation, as it does in the fundamental pa.s.sage, Deut. xxviii. 49 ff., beyond the definiteness of which Amos does not go.

Footnote 4: Scarcely any doubt can, however, be entertained that we have here before us a _consequence_ of the war mentioned in 2 Kings iii., viz., the vengeance which the Moabites took for what they suffered on that occasion.

[Pg 363]

CHAPTER IX.

The chapter opens with a vision. The temple, shaken by the Angel of the Lord in its very foundations, falls down, and buries Judah and Israel under its ruins. Without a figure,--the breach of the Covenant by the Covenant-people brings destruction upon them. The prophet endeavours to strengthen the impression of this threatening upon their mind, by breaking down the supports of false security by which they sought to evade it. There is no deliverance, no escape, vers. 2-4, for the Almighty G.o.d is the enemy and pursuer, vers. 5, 6. There is no mercy on account of the Covenant, for Israel is no more the Covenant-people.

They shall not, however, be altogether destroyed; but the destruction of the sinful ma.s.s shall be accompanied by the preservation of a small number of the G.o.dly, vers. 7-10. This great sifting is followed, however, by the restoration; the tabernacle of David which is fallen, the kingdom of G.o.d among Israel, connected with the family of David, shall be raised up again, ver. 11; rendered glorious by its extension over the heathen, ver. 12; and blessed with the abundance of the divine gifts, vers. 12-15.

Ver. 1. ”_I saw the Lord standing over the altar; and He said, Smite the chapiter, and make the thresholds tremble, and break them upon the heads of all; and I will kill their remnant by the sword: he that fleeth away of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered._”

The princ.i.p.al question which here arises is:--Who is here addressed,--to whom is the commission of destruction given by the Lord?

As, in accordance with the dramatic character of the prophetical discourse, the person is not more definitely marked out, we can think of Him only who, throughout, executes G.o.d's judgments upon the enemies of His kingdom. But He is the same to whom the preservation and protection of the true members of His kingdom are committed, viz., the Angel of the Lord. It was He, who, as ??????, the destroying Angel, smote the first-born of Egypt, Exod. xii. 2, 3, compared with 12, 13.

It was from Him that the destruction of the [Pg 364] a.s.syrians proceeded, 2 Kings xix. 34, 35; Is. x.x.xvii. 35, 36. After the numbering of Israel, when the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, it was He who inflicted the punishment, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, 15, 16. As He encampeth round about them who fear the Lord, so He is, in regard to the unG.o.dly, like the wind which carries away the chaff, Ps. x.x.xiv. 8, x.x.xv. 5, 6.--In opposition to the objection raised by _Baur_,--”That, with the exception of the pa.s.sage in Is. vi., nowhere, in the books composed before the Chaldee period, do angels appear to act as mediators in the execution of the divine commands,”--it is sufficient to refer to Joel iv. (iii.) 9-11, and, as regards _the_ Angel of the Lord, to Hosea xii. 5 (4). But we have, in addition, a special reason for thinking here of the Angel of the Lord. This is afforded to us by the ninth chapter of Ezekiel, which must be considered, throughout, as a further expansion of the verse under consideration, and as the oldest and most trustworthy commentary upon it. In that chapter, there appear (at the command of the Lord who is about to avenge the apostasy of His people) the servants of His justice--six in number--and in the midst of them, ”a man clothed with linen;”--the former, with instruments of destruction; the latter, with writing materials. They step (the scene is in the temple) by the side of the brazen altar. Thither there comes to them out of the holy of holies, to the threshold of the temple, the glory of the Lord, and gives to Him who is clothed with linen the commission to preserve the faithful, while the others receive a commission to destroy the unG.o.dly, without mercy. But now, Who is the man clothed in linen? None other than the Angel of the Lord. This appears from Daniel x. 5, xii. 6, 7, where Michael = the Angel of the Lord (compare _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 135 ff.) is designated in the same way,--a remarkable coincidence in these two contemporary prophets, to which we omitted to direct attention in our work on Daniel. It is _further_ evident from the subject itself. The dress is that of the earthly high priest (_Theodoret_ remarks: ”The dress of the seventh is that of the high priest, for he was not one of the destroyers, but the redeemer of those who were worthy of salvation”); compare Lev. xvi. 4, 23. It is especially from the former of these pa.s.sages that the plural ???? is to be accounted for.

According to it, the various parts [Pg 365] of the high priest's dress are of linen. But the heavenly Mediator, High Priest, and Intercessor, is the Angel of the Lord; compare, _e.g._, Zech. i. 12, where He makes intercession for the Covenant-people, and the Lord answers Him with good and comfortable words. Concerning the earthly high priest as a type of Christ, and hence a type of the Angel of the Lord, compare the remarks on Zech. iii. But we must not imagine that He who is clothed with linen is commissioned solely for the work of delivering the G.o.dly, and hence stands contrasted with the six ministers of justice. On the contrary, these are rather to be considered as being subordinate to Him, as carrying out the work of destruction only by His command and authority. From Him, punishment no less than salvation proceeds.

This is sufficiently evident for general reasons. The punishment and deliverance have both the same root, the same aim, viz., the advancement of the kingdom of G.o.d. We cannot by any means think of evil angels in the case of the six; such could be a.s.sumed only in opposition to the whole doctrine of Scripture on the point, which is always consistent in ascribing the punishment of the wicked to the good angels, and the temptation of the G.o.dly, with the permission of G.o.d, to the evil angels. In proof of this, we have only to think of Job's trial, of Christ's temptation, and of the angel of Satan by whom Paul was buffeted. This subject has already been very well treated by _Ode_, who, in his work _De Angelis_, p. 741 ff., says: ”G.o.d sends good angels to punish wicked men, and He employs evil angels to chasten the G.o.dly.”[1] But if this be established, it is then established at the same time, that the judgment here belongs to the Angel of the Lord. For to Him, as the Prince of the heavenly host, all inferior angels are subordinate, so that everything [Pg 366] which they do belongs to Him.--To these general reasons, we may, however, add special reasons which are altogether decisive. That He who is clothed with linen is closely connected with the six, is indicated by the number seven. He also appears at the side of the altar, and comes in the midst of the others, who follow after Him, ver. 2. But of conclusive significance are the words in chap. x. 2 and 7: ”And the Lord spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels under the cherubim, and fill Thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city. And He went in, in my sight.

And a cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubim, unto the fire that was between the cherubim, and took, and put it into the hands of Him who was clothed with linen. And He took it and went out.”

The _fire_ here is not the symbolical designation of wrath, but natural fire; for it is the setting on fire and burning of the city which is here to be prefigured. The wheels denote the natural powers,--in the first instance, the wind, chap. x. 13, but the fire also; while the cherubim denote the living creation. The Angel of the Lord is here expressly designated as He who executeth the judgments of divine justice.

The importance of the preceding investigation extends beyond the mere clearing up of the pa.s.sage under consideration. We have here obtained the Old Testament foundation for the New Testament doctrine, that all judgment has been committed to the Son, while the harmony of the two Testaments is exhibited in a remarkable instance. Compare with the already cited Old Testament declarations, such pa.s.sages as Matt. xiii.

41: ?p?ste?e? ? ???? t?? ?????p?? t??? ???????? a?t??, ?a? s???????s??

?? t?? as??e?a? a?t?? p??ta t? s???da?a, ?a? t??? p?????ta? t??

????a?? and xxv. 31: ?ta? d? ???? ? ???? t?? ?????p?? ?? t? d???

a?t??, ?a? p??te? ?? ???e??? et' a?t??, t?te ?a??se? ?p? ?????? d????

a?t??. In order to be convinced of the ident.i.ty of the Angel of the Lord and Christ (compare above, p. 107 sqq. and _Commentary on Rev._ i.

p. 466), we may further direct attention to the fact that the Angel of the Lord, who meets us throughout the whole of the Old Testament, suddenly disappears in the New Testament, and that to Christ all is ascribed which was in the Old Testament attributed to the Angel of the Lord.

[Pg 367]