Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
God rebukes the nobles, who from the plunder of the poor reveled in their couches, drank wine from bowls, etc., and felt nothing over the affliction of Joseph (the people). Therefore, verse 8, He swears by His own soul that He will utterly destroy and slaughter them.
Vulgate Text: Amos 6:1-15
1. Woe to you who are wealthy in Zion, and who trust in the mountain of Samaria: you nobles, heads of the peoples, entering pompously the house of Israel! 2. Pass over to Chalane, and see, and go from there to Emath the great: and go down to Gath of the Philistines, and to all the best kingdoms of these: is their territory wider than your territory? 3. You who are set apart for the evil day: and you approach the throne of iniquity. 4. You who sleep in beds of ivory, and revel in your couches: who eat the lamb from the flock, and calves from the midst of the herd. 5. You who sing to the sound of the psaltery; like David they thought they had instruments of song. 6. Drinking wine in bowls, and anointed with the finest ointment: and they felt nothing over the affliction of Joseph. 7. Therefore now they shall migrate at the head of the captives: and the faction of the revelers shall be taken away. 8. The Lord God has sworn by His own soul, says the Lord God of hosts: I detest the pride of Jacob, and I hate his houses, and I will deliver the city with its inhabitants. 9. And if there remain ten men in one house, they also shall die. 10. And his kinsman shall take him up, and shall burn him, that he may carry the bones out of the house: and he shall say to him that is in the inner rooms of the house: Is there yet any with you? 11. And he shall answer: It is finished. And he shall say to him: Be silent, and do not remember the name of the Lord. 12. For behold the Lord will command, and He will strike the greater house with ruins, and the lesser house with breaches. 13. Can horses run upon rocks, or can one plow with buffalo, since
you have turned judgment into bitterness, and the fruit of justice into wormwood? 14. You who rejoice in nothing: who say: Have we not by our own strength taken horns for ourselves? 15. For behold I will raise up against you, O house of Israel, says the Lord God of hosts, a nation: and it shall crush you from the entrance of Emath even to the torrent of the desert.
Verse 1: 1. WOE TO YOU WHO ARE WEALTHY IN ZION! — Hence Arias thinks the Prophet here turns his discourse...
1. WOE TO YOU WHO ARE WEALTHY IN ZION! — Hence Arias thinks the Prophet here turns his discourse from Israel to Judah: for this latter was the inhabitant of Zion and Jerusalem. Hence he translates thus: Woe to the wealthy in Zion, and (that is, just as) to those trusting in the mountain of Samaria! As if to say: The same woe threatens the Zionites as I have thus far directed at the Samaritans. For the word "and," when it joins and links two similar things, is a mark of comparison, and means the same as "just as," as is evident in Proverbs, often in individual verses.
On the other hand, Theodoret, following the Septuagint, thinks the discourse here is directed to the Samaritans alone. For thus the Septuagint translates: Woe to those who despise Zion, that is, the Samaritans, who despise the temple of God in Zion, in order to exalt their own shrines in Dan and Bethel! But the middle way must be taken here, so that we join both. For the Prophet here directly and primarily continues, as he began, speaking to the Samaritans; secondarily, however, he addresses also the Zionites and Jews. For this is clearly indicated when he says: Woe to you who are wealthy in Zion, and to those trusting in the mountain of Samaria! And because in verses 6 and 8, he calls them Joseph and Jacob, names by which the Samaritans are properly designated. Finally, clearly in verse 43: "Behold," he says, "I will raise up against you, O house of Israel," etc. Properly then these things regard Israel, that is, the Samaritans; yet concomitantly the Prophet extends his threats also to the Jews, who were brothers of Israel both in crime and in blood, and therefore were likewise to be brothers in punishment and destruction, so that he might turn them from the idolatry of Israel through the calamity and slaughter impending over it. Hence the Chaldean, verse 12, has it thus: He will strike the great kingdom of Israel with a strong blow, and the lesser kingdom of Judah with a lighter plague. So St. Jerome, Remigius, Hugo, Lyranus, and Vatablus.
Note: For "wealthy" the Hebrew is hassçaanannim, that is, prosperous, rich, abundant, secure. Hence St. Justin Against Trypho translates: Woe to you who abound in delights in Zion! Pagninus: Woe to the tranquil in Zion! Vatablus: Woe to the untroubled, that is, those living in the utmost leisure! For the root sçaan seems composed from sçe en, that is, "who nothing" — namely, they fear nothing, care about nothing, do nothing. Again, those who lack nothing, but in the utmost peace and abundance of things lead a secure, tranquil, idle, and delicate life. Hence R. David translates: Woe to the rich who are at ease, who trust that no evil will befall them! Sçaanan therefore is the rich man who securely and luxuriously rests in his wealth. Others: Woe to the insolent! For from riches and delights men become insolent, like calves frolicking in pastures. The Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic seem to have had this in view, who translate: Woe to those who despise! For the insolent put on arrogance and despise others.
Or certainly they derived the Hebrew hassçaanannim from the root ain, and by contraction en, that is, not, nothing, so that the letter shin would not be radical but servile, meaning the same as ascer, that is, "who" — as if hassçaanannim were "annihilators," that is, those making nothing of others, who do not esteem and make nothing of their neighbors and brothers. For this is implied by the Greek exoudenousen, which likewise is derived from ouden, that is, no one, nothing — as if to say: Those who annul others, consider them as nothing, hold them of no account. Unless one suspects that the Septuagint, instead of the double nun, read the letter teth, whose character is like a double nun — I think that instead of hassçaanannim, they read hassçoatim, that is, despisers. For the root sçaat properly means to despise, to look down upon, to scorn, to plunder.
To this Christ alluded, Luke VI, 24, saying: "Woe to you who are rich, for you have your consolation! Woe to you who are filled, for you shall hunger!"
NOBLES. — In Hebrew nekube, that is, "pierced," meaning named, famous, celebrated — those whom we commonly say run upon the tongues and lips of men, as nobles and princes do.
HEADS OF THE PEOPLES. — The Hebrew reshit signifies beginning, first things, firstfruits, chief things, that is, leaders and heads of the nations, that is, of the peoples, namely the ten tribes of Israel — as if to say: To you, O nobles, who are the heads of Israel, my discourse is directed. So St. Jerome. Or "of the nations," that is, of the Gentiles, because among them Israel stood out, along with its nobles, as a people chosen by God and, as it were, God's firstborn. Hence Arias translates: The most notable firstfruits of the nations; the Zurich Bible: The most celebrated of the firstfruits of the nations. Second, others refer these words not to the nobles, but to the mountains of Zion and Samaria — as if to say: Woe to the wealthy dwelling on the mountains of Zion and Samaria! which mountains were named and famous from of old, namely from the beginning of the nations, as Pagninus translates, or as Vatablus has it, from the firstfruits of the nations — as if to say: These mountains were named after the most noble nations; for in Zion and Samaria there dwelt the Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, and other nations up to seven, famous for their antiquity and strength — as if to say: I, God, gave you, O Hebrews, these famous mountains, and I drove out on your behalf the former inhabitants, strong and celebrated; why then have you proudly and ungratefully abused them against Me for luxury, wantonness, and idolatry? The following words support this sense, where He compares Zion and Samaria favorably with Chalane, Emath, Gath, and other famous cities of the nations. Third, the Chaldean translates: Woe to the wealthy, etc., who give their children names after the names of the children of the nations! as if the Jews are censured here for giving their children the Gentile names of neighboring nations, such as the Egyptians, Ty-
rians, Moabites, etc., with whom they entered into trade and treaties. Let Christians note this, who prefer to give their children the names of pagans rather than of Christians. Fourth, the Syriac translates: They are set apart (designated) as heads of the nations; the Antiochene Arabic: They have fed with the heads of the peoples; the Alexandrian Arabic: They have loved the heads of the peoples — heads, that is, the chief dignities and offices. Fifth, the Septuagint in the Complutensian codex translates in a new way: I have harvested the principalities, or the princes of the nations — as if to say: I have removed the Canaanite princes from Zion and Samaria, so that I might put you, O nobles of the Hebrews, in their place. Hence in the Roman codex and in Justin Against Trypho we read: The Israelites harvested the firstfruits, or principalities, that is, the princes of the nations, and they themselves entered — supply: into their place and rank. Perhaps instead of nekube, they read nakabti, that is, I pierced, I ran through with a sword, I killed; or nakamti, that is, I avenged, I punished; for which the Septuagint translates "I harvested," because the discussion here concerns the vine-bearing mountains of Zion and Samaria, at whose vintage these wealthy princes luxuriated — as if to say: I will harvest you just as you harvested the vineyards of Samaria, and in them indulged in wine and your bellies. And you trust in the mountain of Samaria. So the Hebrew, the Syriac, and others generally. Therefore the Arabic translates poorly: Who trust in the stars of heaven.
ENTERING POMPOUSLY THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. — By "house" he means the assembly, congregation, or united people of Israel. For "pompously" the Hebrew is lachem, that is, "for themselves" or "to themselves." For they walked with such an entourage and pomp, they planted their feet with such arrogance and display, they had their servants clear the crowd with such zeal, and they alone with their retinue occupied the streets, that, with everyone else held in contempt, they seemed to themselves alone to enter and walk — just as we see today certain powerful persons, and certain matrons even of common rank, walking so pompously with such a train that they alone seem to be the procession, indeed peacocks and fops. Hence he called them "heads of the nations," because they imitated and reflected the arrogance of the Gentile princes whom they had succeeded, especially in their manner of walking. So Remigius, Rupert, and St. Jerome, who also adds: "So that the body might display the swelling of the mind, and they might seem like the litters of processions," about which Cicero prescribes thus, Offices I: "We must take care not to use excessive slowness in our walk, lest we seem like the litters of processions." More recent translators render: And the house of Israel came in to them; so Pagninus, the Zurich Bible, Vatablus. Again, the Chaldean: On whom the house of Israel relies; or, and they think that the house of Israel is joined to them; the Arabic: They entered with a part (sect) of Israel; the Syriac: They took captive for themselves the sons of Israel. But our translation, as it is clearer and simpler, so it is more genuine and vigorous. For Isaiah censures the same vice of pompous walking among the Israelite men and women, ch. III, 16: "Because," he says, "the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, making signs with their eyes, they went along clapping, walking with their feet and moving with a set pace; the Lord will make bald the crown of the daughters of Zion," etc. See what was said there. Solon used to say that "great care must be taken in one's walk." For from one's walk the mind is discerned: a hurried gait betrays a rash person, an overly slow one a lazy person, a pompous one an arrogant person. So Laertius, book I, ch. IV. Indeed the Wise Man, Sirach XIX, 27, assigns three indicators of the mind — dress, laughter, and walk: "The clothing of the body," he says, "and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of a man declare what he is." Accordingly Maximus of Tyre, oration 4, thus depicts virtue: "Beautiful," he says, "in appearance, quiet in walk, musical in speech, with eyes gentle and merciful."
1. Thus the Lord God showed me: and behold, He was forming a locust swarm at the beginning of the shooting up of the late crop; and behold, the late crop came after the king's mowing. 2. And it came to pass: when it had finished devouring the grass of the land, I said: Lord God, be merciful, I beseech You: who shall raise up Jacob, for he is small? 3. The Lord had mercy upon this: It shall not be, said the Lord. 4. Thus the Lord God showed me: and behold, the Lord God was calling for judgment by fire: and it devoured the great deep, and consumed a portion. 5. And I said: Lord God, cease, I beseech You: who shall raise up Jacob, for he is small? 6. The Lord had mercy upon this: But this also shall not be, said the Lord God. 7. Thus the Lord showed me: and behold, the Lord was standing upon a plastered wall, and in His hand was a mason's trowel. 8. And the Lord said to me: What do you see, Amos? And I said: A mason's trowel. And the Lord said: Behold, I will place a trowel in the midst of My people Israel: I will not continue to plaster over it. 9. And the high places of the idol shall be demolished, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be made desolate: and I will rise up against the house of Jeroboam with the sword. 10. And Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent to Jeroboam, king of Israel, saying: Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel: the land cannot bear all his words. 11. For thus says Amos: Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall go into captivity from its land. 12. And Amaziah said to Amos: You seer, go, flee into the land of Judah; and eat bread there, and there you shall prophesy. 13. And in Bethel do not continue to prophesy any more: for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is the house of the kingdom. 14. And Amos answered and said to Amaziah: I am not a Prophet, and I am not the son of a Prophet; but I am a herdsman, plucking sycamores. 15. And the Lord took me when I was following the flock; and the Lord said to me: Go, prophesy to My people Israel. 16. And now hear the word of the Lord: You say: You shall not prophesy against Israel, and you shall not speak against the house of the idol. 17. Therefore thus says the Lord: Your wife shall be violated in the city, and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword, and your land shall be measured with a line: and you shall die in a polluted land, and Israel shall go into captivity from its land.
perfection, because without Him there is nothing. As often, therefore, as you deviate from good, you separate yourself from the Word, because He Himself is the good: and therefore you become nothing, because you are without the Word, without whom nothing was made." And shortly after: "If therefore I was nothing when I was without You, I was as nothing, and like an idol which is nothing, which indeed has ears but does not hear; has nostrils but does not smell, has eyes but does not see." Thus Ezekiel says of sinful Tyre, chapter XXVIII: "You have been brought to nothing, and you shall not exist forever." And of her proud king, chapter XXVIII, 19: "You have been made nothing, and you shall not exist forever." And the Apostle, Galatians VI, 3: "If anyone, he says, thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself." Seventh, properly and physically sin is nothing, because it clings to and delights in creatures, and sets them up against and prefers them to the Creator: but creatures, if compared with the Creator, are shadows of things, not true things, and therefore are nothing. For God's essence and name is: "I am who I am," that is: God alone is He who alone possesses true, full, solid, eternal and immense being; but creatures from Him participate only in a shadow of this true being, because their being is so meager, diminished, brief, fleeting, unstable and perishable, that if compared with His being, they should rather be said not to be than to be. Consequently creatures, just as they do not have true being, so neither do they have true good, but only a shadow of good: for being and good are convertible; therefore as is the quality and quantity of being, such and so great is the good, which is the innermost property of being. Hence Christ says: "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone," Luke chapter XVIII, 19, that is: You think Me to be a mere man, not God; do not therefore call Me good, because true goodness, just as true being, belongs not to man, but to God alone. Hence also the philosophers teach that God is in no category; because the categories are the series of merely created things. God therefore, transcending all these, alone constitutes the one true substance and category of all things, in respect of which our categories, and all things contained in them, are only shadows, indeed nothing. What I have said of good, I say the same of truth, wisdom, power, justice, holiness and other attributes. For these in God have true being, in creatures only a shadow of being. Wherefore God in Scripture is called "alone wise," Romans chapter XVI, 27; "alone powerful," I Timothy chapter VI, 15; "alone immortal," ibid. verse 16; "alone Lord," Isaiah chapter XXXVII, 20; "alone good, alone excellent, alone just," II Maccabees chapter I, 24; "alone holy," Apocalypse chapter XV, 4; "alone glorious," I Corinthians chapter I, 17, because He alone has true, full, uncreated and immense wisdom, power, goodness, etc. The sinner therefore, because he delights in creatures, not in the Creator, hence delights in shadow, in nothing, not in true being: but because these shadows continually in the darkness of this life for man—
appear great to a blind man, just as when the sun hangs low, great and lofty shadows fall from the mountains; hence the man himself admires and pursues these shadows like Aesop's dog, who, seeing the shadow of meat in the water, attacked it (since it appeared larger than the meat in the water), and thus lost the meat and did not obtain the shadow. Come, O man, let the day of your eternal brightness dawn, and let the shadows of this origin, vanity and mortality be dispelled. Come, O Lord, drive away our darkness, illuminate our eyes, so that we may gaze upon, love and seek not the shadows of goods, riches and pleasures, which like illusions on earth dazzle the eye of our mind, but the true honors, riches and pleasures themselves, which in heaven You have hidden and prepared from eternity for those who love You, with fixed gaze. Amen.
Note: Sin in Hebrew is called 'aven', which means many things, namely falsehood, vanity, iniquity, labor, weariness, affliction, idol, nothing and nothingness. For all these it truly contains in itself, indeed sin really is all these. Again, 'aven' by contraction is 'on', that is, pain; namely sin in itself contracts and begets all pain. Furthermore, 'aven' by elision is 'en' or 'ain', that is 'not', or the negation of being and of all good. For this is what sin is, as I have already shown. 'Aven' therefore means 'not of good', that is, sin is the son, indeed also the father of pain.
Verse 2: 2. PASS OVER (Arias incorrectly translates, "you will pass over") TO CHALANNE — that is, into...
2. PASS OVER (Arias incorrectly translates, "you will pass over") TO CHALANNE — that is, into Babylonia as captives, and to Antioch, and to Gath, the city of the Philistines. For nowhere do we read that the Jews were carried off to Antioch or Gath. Now Chalanne was a famous and powerful city near Babylon, founded by Nimrod, Genesis X, 10, which afterwards, enlarged by the Parthians to drain Babylon and Seleucia, was called Ctesiphon and made the capital of the kingdom. See Pliny, book VI, ch. XXVI. The meaning is, as if to say: Pass over, O Hebrews, to Chalanne, Emath, and Gath, the greatest and most powerful cities, and you will see that they are not greater, more fertile, or better than your own territory and region, which you possess from My gift. Consider therefore how ungrateful and inhuman you are toward Me — by despising Me and worshipping idols, and heaping sins upon sins — I who gave you this land, than which none is more fruitful or more excellent. So St. Jerome, Theodoret, Lyranus, Vatablus, and others.
TO EMATH THE GREAT. — Emath, which is also called Hemath, Amath, Hammath, and in Hebrew Chamath, was a powerful city, so named, says Josephus, Antiquities I, ch. VII, from its founder Amath or Amathæus, who in Hebrew is called Chamati and was a son of Canaan, son of Ham, Genesis X, 18. Now there was a twofold Emath, says St. Jerome, Ribera, and others: one greater, which here is called "the Great" and from its founder Antiochus was called Antioch, and was the capital of Syria; the other lesser, which from Antiochus Epiphanes was called Epiphania, and Reblata, near Emesa, where Zedekiah was blinded by Nebuchadnezzar, IV Kings XXV, 6. Hence Ortelius in his Theater of the World places Epiphania between Apamea and Palmyra, toward Mesopotamia.
"Emath the Great," says St. Jerome, "which is now called Antioch. He calls it Great to distinguish it from the lesser Emath, which is called Epiphania. Hence even to this day the first stopping place for those traveling to Mesopotamia is called Emmas, a corrupted word indeed, but retaining traces of its ancient name; its region is called Reblata, in which, in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar, the sons of Zedekiah king of Judah were killed, and his eyes were put out." And in Places of the Hebrews: "Emath," he says, "a city of Damascus, which the king of Assyria besieged, etc. We have spoken of this above, that it seemed to us to be Epiphania near Emesa, which to this day is so called in the Syrian language." Note that he says "it seemed to us" — therefore he does not assert this with certainty, but hesitatingly and by conjecture. This opinion is supported by the fact that there still exists a notable city by the name of Emath, between Tripoli and Aleppo, as I learned at Rome from the Most Reverend Lord Archbishop of Damascus, a Maronite, and from others who recently toured Syria — which Emath is indeed situated in nearly the same place as the ancient Epiphania, as is clear from cosmographic maps.
Second, others on the contrary more probably hold that Scripture posits only one Emath, namely Antioch, situated beyond Lebanon at the Orontes river in the Syria of Damascus (hence it never names a lesser Emath), in which St. Peter first established his episcopal see, and where the disciples were first called Christians. This city was called "great" by Amos — who wished to show the greatness of Jerusalem and Samaria from its greatness — not in reference to another lesser one, but because it was very large, so much so that Strabo, book XVI, reports that it was a tetrapolis, that is, comprising four cities within its circuit: the first, he says, Antigonus, son of Philip, had built; the second, the multitude of inhabitants; the third, Seleucus Callinicus; the fourth, Antiochus Epiphanes, from whom the name Epiphania, as well as Antioch, was derived. From this it is clear that the same city is now called Antioch, now Epiphania, now Reblata. Hence Aquila here translates Epiphania. So too Josephus, Antiquities I, ch. VII, and a Castro here. Indeed St. Jerome in Places of the Hebrews seems to say that Rabbath the Great, that is, Antioch, is Epiphania, although he speaks concisely and confusedly. According to this view, everything that is said in Scripture about Emath should be understood of Antioch. Antioch therefore was the boundary of the Holy Land to the north; hence its length in Scripture is measured from the entrance of Emath (Antioch) to the torrent or brook of Egypt. Hence the explorers of the Holy Land sent by Moses reached that far, Numbers XIII, 22. Moreover, Thou, king of Emath, having sent gifts, sought and obtained peace from David, II Kings VIII, 9; but Solomon conquered Emath, that is, Antioch, and having expelled the Canaanites from there, restored and strongly fortified it, II Chronicles VIII, 3. Afterwards the Syrians held it; but Jeroboam, king of Israel, in the time of Amaziah king of Judah, stirred by the words of Jonah the prophet, recovered it and restored it to Israel. Then Sennacherib conquered it, IV Kings XVIII, 24. Hence frequent mention of it is made in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. Nebuchadnezzar held it and resided there while his armies besieged Jerusalem, IV Kings XXIII, 33, and ch. XXV, 21. Afterwards it was occupied by Alexander the Great, and adorned by Antiochus and made the seat of the kingdom, it was called Antioch. There Jonathan Maccabeus encamped against Demetrius, I Maccabees XII, 25. Finally the Romans, and at length the Saracens, brought it under their control, as it still lies subject to the Turks.
Against this view Andreas Masius objects — a careful investigator of the places of the Holy Land, writing on Joshua XIX, 35 — that Emath is placed by Zechariah, ch. IX, 2, and Jeremiah, ch. XLIX, 23, within the territory and boundaries of Damascus; but Antioch is placed by Ptolemy two and a half degrees, and Epiphania a degree and a half, higher than Damascus; the territory and kingdom of Damascus does not seem to have extended that far: therefore Emath does not seem to be Antioch, nor Epiphania, but some third city beyond Sephania below the source of the Jordan. For there Rebla is placed (which is said to have been in Emath, Jeremiah XXXIX, 5), Numbers XXXIV, 11, and it was near the Naphtalites, to whom Emath fell by lot, Joshua XIX, 35. Ortelius favors this opinion, who in the ancient description of Canaan places Chamath or Emath near Lebanon and Sephania, between Tyre and Caesarea Philippi: Adrichomius does the same in his Description of the Holy Land. This seems very probable; for this Emath was in the tribe of Naphtali, whose allotment does not seem to have extended as far as Antioch. Hence Marinus in his Lexicon posits an Emath of Naphtali different from the common and well-known Emath, and says the Kenites descended from it, as is clear from I Chronicles II, 55, where it says: "These are the Kenites who came from the Heat of the father," in Hebrew, from Chamath or Emath.
But Masius's argument does not fully convince; for the territory of Damascus, like that of Israel, at first extended very far indeed, namely as far as the Euphrates, as is clear from Joshua XIV, Deuteronomy XI, 24. Indeed there are those who think the borders of Damascus extended as far as Babylon, and therefore for what Amos says, V, 27: "I will cause you to migrate beyond Damascus," St. Stephen, Acts VII, when citing the words of Amos, says: "I will transfer you beyond Babylon." For Damascus was the head and mistress of all Syria. The argument of Marinus presses more strongly, namely that the allotment of Naphtali does not seem to have extended as far as Antioch. For thus it would have far surpassed the allotments of the other tribes. Again, from Stephanus's book On Cities, it is established that many cities (easily ten) were called Antiochs, and four Epiphanias, but in different provinces. Therefore likewise there seem to have been many Emaths. Finally, what most urgently presses is that in Joshua I, 4, Deuteronomy XI, 24, in place of Emath, Lebanon is placed as the boundary of the Holy Land — indeed, as the Septuagint translates, Anti-Lebanon — from which, going further on, Antioch is distant a five-day journey. Who would believe that the borders of Israel, indeed of the single tribe of Naphtali, extended beyond Lebanon by such a distance? For to this tribe Emath is assigned, Joshua XIX, 35. Therefore no chorographers of the Holy Land in their description place Antioch as its boundary, but Lebanon, and near it Emath, as is clear from the maps of Adrichomius, Ortelius, and others.
Emath therefore, which is placed as the boundary of the Holy Land to the north, was near Lebanon, and not far from Damascus; while on the opposite side to the south, the boundary of the same Holy Land is placed at the desert, namely of Arabia, through which the Hebrews passed when coming from Egypt to Canaan, and precisely at the torrent of Rhinocolura: just as to the east the boundary is placed at the Euphrates, and to the west, the Mediterranean Sea. This third opinion of the chorographers is therefore very probable. But whatever may be said about it, all agree that here in Amos, by Emath the Great is understood Antioch on the Orontes, the famous and powerful city of Syria, which was also called Epidaphnis from the suburban and neighboring spring of Daphne, famous for its laurels and beauty. This was called in Hebrew Chamath and Chamma, that is, "sun," because it shone like a sun among the cities of the East, just as it later shone in Christianity when St. Peter first established the pontifical see there.
AND TO ALL THE BEST KINGDOMS OF THESE. — The Septuagint: and to the best, namely cities, of those kingdoms — as if to say: Go and survey the best cities of Syria, and you will see that Samaria and Zion surpass them. Hence Arias, Pagninus, and Vatablus translate: Are the kingdoms of these better than your kingdoms?
Mystically, Israel represents the faithful and saints; these have broader boundaries than other nations, and the best ones: for they measure their hopes and the limits of their happiness not by the narrow bounds of time and a point of earth, as the impious and worldly do, but by the immense spaces of eternity and heaven, so that they can confidently say to the wicked: "Is your territory broader than ours?" And that of Zechariah IV, 10: "Who among you has despised the small days" of this momentary age? And that of Job XXIV, 24: "They were exalted for a little while, and shall not stand, and shall be brought low like all things, and shall be taken away." And that of Psalm XXXVI, 35: "I saw the wicked highly exalted and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon. And I passed by, and behold he was not: and I sought him, and his place was not found." But the wicked retort to the pious and holy that of Baruch III, 24: "O Israel, how great is the house of God, and how vast the place of His possession! Great is it, and has no end; exalted and immense." But let them themselves, groaning, bewail their lot, because they foolishly preferred small things to great, brief things to eternal, earthly things to heavenly, and let them say that of Wisdom V, 8: "What has pride profited us? Or what has the boasting of riches brought us? All those things have passed away like a shadow, and like a messenger running before, and like a ship," etc. How wise is the one who, with Magdalene, hears those words of Christ: "Mary has chosen the best part, which shall not be taken from her forever."
Verse 3: 3. YOU WHO ARE SET APART FOR THE EVIL DAY — namely of captivity and destruction, as if to say: By...
3. YOU WHO ARE SET APART FOR THE EVIL DAY — namely of captivity and destruction, as if to say: By God, on account of your crimes, you have been set apart like things accursed, and devoted to slaughter and destruction. Second, more forcefully, the Hebrew menaddim may be translated actively: you who separate yourselves for the evil day — as if to say: You yourselves separate and devote yourselves to destruction, while you despise the threats of the Prophets and rush headlong into crimes, for which you shall be slaughtered by God like sheep; hence the Septuagint translates: coming, or you who come to the evil day. So St. Jerome, Albert, Hugo, and others. Third, the Chaldean, Clarius, Vatablus, and the Rabbis translate: separating the evil day — that is, you who put away from yourselves and attempt to remove the day of destruction that the Prophets threaten, so that you may sin more freely, saying that they are mistaken, or are speaking of future and distant ages. Hence the Zurich Bible translates: You who put off to a distance the evil day; Pagninus: Who think the evil day is far away.
For, as Aristotle says, Rhetoric II, ch. V, "distant things are not feared; for all know that they will die, but because they do not think it is near, they therefore take no precaution."
AND YOU APPROACH THE THRONE OF INIQUITY. — The throne of iniquity, which will bring upon the Israelites the evil day, is the kingdom, tyranny, and imperial throne of the Assyrians, by which they will judge, that is, punish, seize, and chastise the Israelites, as judges and avengers sent by God to avenge the idolatry and other crimes committed against God — as if to say: By your continual crimes you summon the Assyrians and hasten your own destruction. Thus tropologically, sinners who heap sins upon sins approach the throne of Lucifer and hell. So St. Jerome, Albert, Hugo, Lyranus, and St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine IV, ch. VII, where from this passage of Amos he shows how great is the eloquence, vigor, and power of expression in Sacred Scripture.
Second, the Chaldean, the Rabbis, Pagninus, Clarius, and Vatablus already cited translate and explain it thus by way of antithesis: You separate and remove from yourselves the evil day of destruction, but the throne of violence and injustice (from which you unjustly judge, and oppress and despoil the poor) you bring near — as if to say: You wish to remove punishment from yourselves, and meanwhile you draw near to guilt, although you cannot remove the punishment unless you first remove the guilt.
Third, others explain it morally thus: You separate from yourselves the evil day, namely the day of labor, and therefore you bring upon yourselves the throne of iniquity — as if to say: You do not wish to work, you are idle and lazy, and therefore you wish to enrich yourselves from iniquity, injustice, and the plunder of the poor, so that you may revel and luxuriate at leisure on their goods, as follows:
Verse 4: 4. YOU WHO SLEEP IN BEDS OF IVORY, AND REVEL IN YOUR COUCHES.
4. YOU WHO SLEEP IN BEDS OF IVORY, AND REVEL IN YOUR COUCHES. — St. Jerome, Theodoret, Remigius, Hugo, Lyranus, and St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine IV, ch. VII, refer these to the wantonness of lust — as if to say: Woe to you, wanton and lustful ones! Hence for "revel," Vatablus and Pagninus translate: Stretching themselves out indecently on their couches; the Chaldean: Who plunge themselves into their couches. Second, and more fittingly, R. David, Arias, a Castro, and Prado on Ezekiel XXIII, 41 refer this to the luxury of dining couches and tables — that is, to the costly tapestries and coverings with which they adorned their chambers and dining rooms, and to the costly couches and beds on which, reclining softly in the manner of the nation, they reclined at table. For the nobles and judges of Israel are censured here because from the plunder of the poor they overflowed with luxury and set up splendid and sumptuous banquets. Hence it follows: "You who eat the lamb from the flock, and calves from the midst of the herd. You who sing to the sound of the psaltery, etc., drinking wine in bowls." For feasting and songs belong to the dining room and table, not to the bedchamber and sexual indulgence. Therefore the Septuagint here translates: You who overflow with delights on your couches. From the Hebrew you could translate: You who recline on couches of ivory and sprawl upon your beds — as if to say: You who adorn your beds with proud and excessive display and ornament. Again, you furnish your tables with excessive courses and delicacies, and with them you stuff your bellies, which is the sin of luxury and gluttony, as well as wantonness. Hence our Vulgate translates "you revel"; for just as well-fed calves are frisky and frolic by leaping, butting, and running about with tails raised, so too well-fattened banqueters are unruly, and like profligates they revel with indecent words and gestures. Hence the Apostle, Ephesians V, 18: "Do not," he says, "be drunk with wine, in which is luxury" — in Greek asotia, that is, wantonness such as is practiced in dances, choruses, psaltery playing, etc. Likewise in costly ointments, garlands, and baths, both those preceding the banquet and those accompanying and following it. Both meanings suit this passage, and the latter is subordinate to the former and leads to it: for from the table one goes to the bedchamber, from gluttony to lust — for the belly boiling with unmixed wine overflows into licentiousness.
Moreover, dining couches were called lecti (beds) from "gathering" (legendis) herbs and straw, from which they were formerly made, says Varro. They were also called tori from "twisted" herbs that were placed under the shoulders of those reclining, says Isidore, Etymologies II, and Servius on Aeneid V: "As he had sat down nearest on a couch of green grass." Hence "triclinium" was named from the three couches on which the ancients feasted. Moreover, that dining rooms were customarily made, furnished, and adorned with ivory, gold, and silver is shown by Esther I, 6, at the banquet of Ahasuerus: "Golden and silver couches were arranged upon a pavement of emerald and Parian stone." Pliny teaches the same, book XXXIII, ch. XI, and Varro, book VIII, and Horace, Satires II, 6, when he sings: "Where a garment dyed with red scarlet shone upon ivory couches."
YOU WHO EAT THE LAMB FROM THE FLOCK — selected from the flock, as the fattest and best of the rest. AND CALVES FROM THE MIDST OF THE HERD — chosen, fat, and fattened. In Hebrew: And a calf from the midst of the fattening place, that is, from the place of fattening where they are fattened and made plump. For larger calves this place is the pasture; hence our Vulgate, I Kings XXVIII, 24, translates "a pastured calf." For the more tender calves it is the stable, in which, being a dark and quiet place (for both quiet and darkness contribute to digestion, rumination, and the fattening of animals), they are fattened and made plump with milk, especially their mother's milk.
Verse 5: 5. YOU WHO SING TO THE SOUND OF THE PSALTERY.
5. YOU WHO SING TO THE SOUND OF THE PSALTERY. — The Septuagint: epikratountes, that is, prevailing (St. Jerome read epikrektontes, that is, striking up) to the sound of instruments; in Hebrew happoretim, that is, those who particularize at the mouth of the nablium, that is, who compose their own particular songs, and those varied according to the varied harmony of the nablium: so Pagninus and Vatablus; or, as R. David and a Castro have it, who cut the voice with various incisions, diminutions, tones, inflections, and modulations, and vary it like a warbling nightingale. He censures the excessive softness and delicacy of music at the banquets of the nobles of Israel, who used the example of David as a pretext for their music. Hence he adds:
LIKE DAVID THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD INSTRUMENTS OF SONG — that is, musical instruments, as if to say: They excuse the luxury of their banquet music by the example of David; but wrongly, for he employed music for the praises of God, and that of a grave kind; but these men abuse soft and wanton music for gluttony and wantonness. So St. Jerome. It is remarkable that the Septuagint translates: They thought of things as standing still, and not as fleeting — as if to say: They thought these delights would be lasting, when they are fleeting and evanescent. This is a golden maxim, which St. Chrysostom, pressing and amplifying it in Homily I on Genesis, says: "And though they have learned these things by experience, they considered them as standing and enduring, and not as fleeting, that is, flying away and not remaining even for a moment. For such are all things human and carnal — they have not yet rightly arrived and they have flown away: such are delights; and such is human glory and power; such are riches; such is all the prosperity of this life, having nothing firm, nothing subsisting, nothing fixed; but it rushes past more than the currents of rivers, and leaves naked and alone those who gape after them. But spiritual things are firm, immovable, admitting no change, extending to every age. How great then would be the folly of exchanging tottering things for immovable ones, temporal things for those that will last forever, perpetually enduring things for those that fly away; and those things which will procure us grievous punishment there, for those which will bring supreme happiness in the future age?"
Note: The ancient Hebrews and Gentiles at banquets employed music, both vocal and instrumental, for the recreation of the guests; and if it was moderate and decent, Sirach commends it, ch. XXXII, 5, 7, 8 — for speaking of the symposiarch or master of the banquet: "Do not," he says, "hinder music. A ruby set in gold, and (so it is, so it adorns a banquet) the comparison," that is, the harmony, "of musicians at a wine banquet. As a signet" — that is, a seal and setting — "of emerald is in a work of gold, so is the harmony" — that is, the rhythmic melody — "of musicians in pleasant and moderate wine." And ch. XL, 20: "Wine and music gladden the heart, and above both the love of wisdom. Flutes and the psaltery make a sweet melody, and above both a pleasant tongue." The same custom existed in the time of Christ; hence Luke XV, 25, the elder son "heard music and dancing," with which the father celebrated a banquet for the younger son's return. But the Prophets repeatedly censure this music, either for excess, or for intemperance, or because they sang indecent or mocking songs, or because they so occupied themselves with these things that they neglected the care of the commonwealth and of justice — indeed, they furnished and equipped them from the plunder of the poor. So Isaiah, ch. V, 11: "Woe," he says, "to you who rise early in the morning to pursue drunkenness, etc. Harp, and lyre, and tambourine, and flute, and wine at your banquets" — so that you may become drunk more pleasantly and fully. Psalm LXVIII, 13: "Those who drank wine sang songs about me," that is, they composed verses about me: I was their ditty, their laughter and their joke. Therefore the Apostle admonishes Christians concerning their agape and eucharistic banquet: "Do not," he says, "be drunk with wine, in which is wantonness, but be filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking to one another in hymns and spiritual songs," Ephesians V, 18. The same custom existed among the Gentiles. Hence Athenaeus, book XIV, On the Banquets of the Wise, teaches that it was established by law and ancestral custom that hymns to the gods should be sung at banquets, and this with a common voice, with all singing the paean, says Clement, Pedagogue II, ch. IV. Indeed, a lyre was passed among the guests, which they handed over in turn and crosswise as toasts were drunk: hence from this oblique and crosswise passing of the lyre, those songs were called skolia, that is, oblique, about which see Athenaeus, books VIII and XV.
Verse 6: 6. DRINKING WINE IN BOWLS.
6. DRINKING WINE IN BOWLS. — The Septuagint: filtered wine. For this is drunk by the wealthy from golden or glass bowls, as being excellent and clear. The Zurich Bible: Who drink wine in dishes; Vatablus: in large and great vessels — as if to say: Great drinkers, who drain huge dishes and bowls.
AND ANOINTED WITH THE FINEST OINTMENT. — The Chaldean: They anoint themselves with the excellence of precious ointments. In Hebrew it is "with the head of ointments," that is, with the chief aromatic and ointment, for example balsam, of which Juvenal says, Satire II: "Balsam breathes from their hairy necks." For from the head it flowed down to the face and neck. The ancients at banquets employed ointments both for pleasure and for health, because the brain, cold and congealed by nature, is relaxed and refreshed by their fragrant odor, warmth, and smoothness, says Plutarch from Aristotle, in his book On Isis, and Massarius in Athenaeus: "O happy one," he says, "do you not know that our senses, which are in the brain, are aroused by pleasant odors and made purer and more pleasant, as Alexis says: Good odors conciliate the greatest part of health to the brain?" Hence Psalm CIII, 15: "That he may make the face cheerful with oil." And Psalm XXII, 5: "You have prepared a table before me against those who trouble me. You have anointed my head with oil." Thus Mary Magdalene poured ointment over the head of Christ as He reclined at table, Matthew XXVI, 7. And Christ, Matthew VI, 17: "But when you fast," He says, "anoint your head and wash your face" — as if to say: To conceal and hide your fasting, use the anointing and washing customary at banquets, as if you were coming from one. Finally, Ecclesiastes IX, 8: "At all times," he says, "let your garments be white, and let oil not be lacking from your head" — as if to say: Indulge in baths and banquets, for white garments and oil are symbols of baths and drinking parties, because those coming from the baths put on white garments, which the Romans called "dinner clothes" (cœnatorias) because they reclined at the dinner table in them. Thus Philo, in his book On the Contemplative Life, reports that the Jews were accustomed to celebrate their festival banquets dressed in white. Horace reports the same of the Romans, Satires II, 2:
"He celebrates feast-days, birthdays, and other festive occasions dressed in white." For the same reasons they crowned the heads of banqueters with garlands of roses, myrtle, and other fragrant flowers and herbs, also so that the brain, fortified by these, might be less harmed by wine and might better resist drunkenness. So Ovid, Fasti V: "Their temples are circled with woven garlands, and the splendid table is hidden under scattered roses." For the rose, lavish with its fragrance, evaporates very quickly: for it emits a flow of scent, and hence the rose is called rhodon by the Greeks, as if to say "flowing scent," says Plutarch, Symposiacs III, ch. III, who also adds: "Hence it is that it also withers very quickly: for it has a natural power of cooling, while displaying something fiery in appearance. For on its surface a thin warmth blooms, driven there by the cold." This warmth is the cause of the profuse scent. Hence the pleasure-seekers say, Wisdom II, 7: "Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and ointments, and let not the flower of the season pass us by. Let us crown ourselves with roses before they wither." See Plutarch, Symposiacs III, problem 1; Athenaeus, book V; Pliny, book XXI, ch. III. Rightly does the Prophet here censure excessive indulgence in these delights: because they enervate manly spirits and drive men to deceit, plunder, and other crimes. Hence Epaminondas, the Theban general, invited by someone to dinner, when he found a marvelous array of desserts, delicacies, and ointments, immediately withdrew, saying: "I thought you were making a sacrifice, not reveling." So Brussonius, book II, ch. II. And Cicero, Against Piso, concerning Gabinius: "His hair was carefully dressed, and the fringes of his curls were dripping." And Tibullus, book III, elegy VI: "His temples long since soaked with Syrian nard." From this it appears that the Hebrews, like the Romans, went about with bare heads; otherwise it would have been unseemly to pour ointment on them. So Sanchez.
AND THEY FELT NOTHING OVER THE AFFLICTION OF JOSEPH. — The Zurich Bible: Nor does it grieve them that Joseph, that is, the kingdom of Israel, is being crushed — as if to say: They did not sympathize with the calamity and poverty of many of their fellow citizens among the ten tribes, which are here called Joseph after the father and patriarch of their kings. For these nobles of Israel, enriching themselves from the plunder of the poor, feasting and reveling, cared nothing for the distresses of the people, both private and public, and especially did not strive to avert and ward off the impending judgment of God and the destruction by the Assyrians through sound counsel, through repentance and amendment of life, through prayers, through pious and holy laws. So St. Jerome, Theodoret, Lyranus, Emmanuel, Mariana, and Vatablus. St. Augustine adds, On Christian Doctrine IV, ch. VII, that Joseph is used here for any brother and neighbor: because among brothers, he says, Joseph is famous, either in the evils he suffered or in the goods he repaid.
Morally, it is here implied that the proper and genuine daughter of pleasure is mercilessness, according to Proverbs XII, 10: "The just man regards the lives of his beasts, but the bowels of the wicked are cruel." Thus the Sodomites from their indulgences became cruel, according to Ezekiel XVI, 49: "Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom, etc., pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her and her daughters; and (whence) they did not extend their hand to the needy and poor" — because they thought that whatever they spent on them would be taken from their belly, that is, from the whirlpool of their pleasures. On the other hand, the mark and virtue of the pious and the Saints is mercy. Hence "holy man" in Hebrew is called chasid, that is, merciful; and almsgiving is customarily called "justice," that is, holiness, as in Psalm CXI, verse 9: "He has distributed, he has given to the poor; his justice (that is, his mercy, his almsgiving) endures forever and ever." See St. Chrysostom, Homily I On Lazarus.
Thus we see what Amos deplores here still happening from time to time, namely that nobles and magistrates who seek their own interests, indulge their own appetites, attend to their own advantages, and spend the treasury on banquets, passing their days in feasting, neglect the affairs of the poor and the people, hold justice for sale, sell justice for bribes, oppress the poor, and — to say it in a word — ruin the commonwealth, indeed betray it to the enemy if he wishes to buy it. Thus of old, concerning Rome overflowing with luxury, Jugurtha said, as Brussonius records, book I, ch. I: "O city for sale, and soon to perish, if it finds a buyer!" For, as Pythagoras says in Laertius, book VII, ch. I, first delights creep into cities, then satiety, then violence, and finally destruction. Hence the Wise Man, Proverbs XXXI, 4: "Give not," he says, "wine to kings, O Lemuel, give not wine to kings, for there is no secret where drunkenness reigns. Lest perhaps they drink and forget judgments, and pervert the cause of the children of the poor." And Ecclesiastes X, 16: "Woe to you, O land, whose king is a child, and whose princes eat in the morning. Blessed is the land whose king is noble, and whose princes eat at the proper time, for refreshment and not for luxury." For those given to this lose both temperance and chastity as well as their reputation, shorten their lives, and hasten their deaths.
Verse 7: 7. THEREFORE NOW THEY SHALL MIGRATE AT THE HEAD OF THE CAPTIVES — as if to say: The nobles of...
7. THEREFORE NOW THEY SHALL MIGRATE AT THE HEAD OF THE CAPTIVES — as if to say: The nobles of Israel will be captured first by the Assyrians; they themselves, like he-goats leading the flock, will lead the procession of captives going into Assyria. So St. Jerome.
AND THE FACTION OF THE REVELERS SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY. — He calls "faction" the assembly of nobles who conspired together in crime, namely in plunder, banquets, luxury, and wantonness, feasting and drinking together — as if to say: They themselves institute factions and symposia, but I, God, will dissolve and scatter them. The Septuagint translates "neighing": And the neighing, they say, shall be taken away from Ephraim. It is a metaphor from horses: for just as horses well fed and fattened on oats neigh and frolic, so too do these nobles. In Hebrew it is mirzach, which properly means a funeral banquet at the obsequies of the dead — as if to say: Your banquets are funeral ones, because you institute them from the plunder of the poor whom you emaciate and thus kill. Hence the Zurich Bible translates: Then the banquet of the luxurious shall depart; the Syriac: The joy shall be taken from their princes; the Arabic: The variety (ornament and variegated garments) shall be taken from the horsemen; Vatablus and Pagninus: Then the mourning of those who stretch themselves out shall draw near — that is, of those who used to stretch themselves upon ivory beds, as he said in verse 4. For the Hebrew sur means both to depart and to approach; for the Hebrews use the simple verb for all compound forms, since they lack them.
Note here the political lesson: to remove a faction and rebellion of a people, the nobles must be removed, for they are the heads and leaders of the faction. Tarquin the Proud knew this well, who gave no letter to a messenger of doubtful loyalty sent to his son; but leading him into the garden, he struck off the heads of the tallest poppies with his staff. When this action was reported, the son understood what his father wished — namely, that he was being ordered to cut down the heads and nobles of the Gabinians who were resisting him, that is, either to kill them or to send them into exile. So Livy reports, Decade I, book II; Valerius Maximus, book VII, ch. IV; Pliny, book XLVII, ch. IV. And the same thing was advised by Thrasybulus, tyrant of the Milesians, to Periander, tyrant of the Corinthians, who had asked him through a messenger what needed to be done to reign securely. He answered by his very action: for leading the messenger into a ripe harvest field, he struck off the tops of the tallest ears of grain with his staff. From this Periander understood that the heads of the leading men must be cut off if he wished to maintain his tyranny. So Aristotle narrates, Politics III, ch. IX, and V, ch. X, and Laertius in his Life of Periander.
"Shall you alone dwell in the midst of the earth?" See what was said there.
Verse 8: 8. THE LORD GOD HAS SWORN BY HIS OWN SOUL — by His own soul and life, saying: "As I live," that is, I swear by My life.
8. THE LORD GOD HAS SWORN BY HIS OWN SOUL — by His own soul and life, saying: "As I live," that is, I swear by My life.
I DETEST THE PRIDE OF JACOB (Israel), AND I HATE HIS HOUSES. — "Houses," namely magnificent and proud ones, which they build from usury and plunder, although their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dwelt in huts and tents, as exiles and pilgrims on earth and citizens of heaven. Hence in Hebrew it is armanoth, that is, palaces. So the Chaldean. Thus God detests the proud houses of King Jehoiakim, Jeremiah XXII, 13, saying: "Woe to him who builds his house in injustice, and his upper rooms not in judgment! Who says: I will build myself a broad house with spacious upper rooms; who opens windows for himself, and makes cedar paneling, and paints it with vermilion." Hence threatening him with punishment, verse 19: "He shall be buried," he says, "with the burial of an ass, rotted and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." And Isaiah V, 8: "Woe to you who join house to house! Shall you alone dwell in the midst of the earth?"
AND I WILL DELIVER THE CITY WITH ITS INHABITANTS. — In Hebrew: I will deliver the city and its fullness, that is, I will deliver Samaria and its inhabitants to the Assyrians. For they are called its fullness because they fill and replenish it with their number and multitude. That by "city" Samaria is meant, Theodoret proves from the fact that the discussion is about the ten tribes: for he calls them Ephraim, Jacob, and Joseph; and the head and capital of these was Samaria. So too St. Jerome, Remigius, Hugo, who however secondarily understand by "city" Jerusalem, which was the head of Jacob, that is, of the twelve, and afterwards of the two tribes. They think therefore that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, and then by Titus and the Romans, is denoted here. You will reconcile both interpretations if with Lyranus you say that by "city" here is taken synecdochically any cities of the Hebrews. Moreover, the Prophet speaks directly of Samaria and the ten tribes, and indirectly and concomitantly of Jerusalem and the Jews, as I said at the beginning of the chapter.
Verse 9: 9. AND IF THERE REMAIN TEN MEN IN ONE HOUSE, THEY ALSO SHALL DIE — as if to say: If any Israelites,...
9. AND IF THERE REMAIN TEN MEN IN ONE HOUSE, THEY ALSO SHALL DIE — as if to say: If any Israelites, hidden in some house, escape the hands of the Assyrians, or are left behind by them as poor, worthless, or sick, these too shall die in that same house of plague or famine.
Verse 10: 10. AND HIS KINSMAN SHALL TAKE HIM UP (that is, each one of them (so the Septuagint), who died...
10. AND HIS KINSMAN SHALL TAKE HIM UP (that is, each one of them (so the Septuagint), who died namely of plague and famine) — HIS KINSMAN (Pagninus and Vatablus: his uncle) — to burn the body of his nephew or relative, and bury the remaining bones. For these were the proper funeral rites that relatives performed for their deceased kin, both among the Hebrews and among the Romans.
AND SHALL BURN HIM. — In Hebrew umesarepho, that is, "and burning him": for saraph, whether written with samech or with sin (for these two letters are equivalent), means to burn. Hence the angels are called Seraphim, that is, "those who set on fire," because they burn with the love of God and set others alight. Hence the Zurich Bible translates "undertaker": for it was his task to care for the body and, according to the custom of the nation, to burn and entomb it. And the Chaldean: His kinsman shall take him from the fire for burial. Therefore the more recent Rabbis, followed by Pagninus and Vatablus, ignorantly translate "his uncle." Moreover, that the bodies of dead Israelites were burned is clear from what follows: "that he may carry out the bones" remaining from the burning of the body. From this it is clear that the Israelites, to avoid the stench, putrefaction, decay, and contagion of corpses — lest they infect the living with plague — burned them. That the Romans did the same is known to those who have visited Rome: for at Rome in the ancient tombs we see everywhere huge earthen urns in which the ashes of burned bodies were preserved. That the Greeks too cremated the bodies of the dead, Thucydides teaches, book II, and Lucian in On Mourning: "The Greek burns, the Persian buries."
Moreover, there were diverse opinions among the sages on this matter. For, as Servius says on Aeneid XI: "Heraclitus, who holds that all things consist of fire, says that bodies should be dissolved in fire; but Thales, who affirms that all things are created from moisture, says that bodies should be buried so that they may be dissolved by moisture." Again Varro, in his book On Burial: "Heraclides of Pontus," he says, "is wiser, who prescribed burning, than Democritus, who prescribed preserving in honey (as if they were going to rise again and live again): if the common people had followed him, I would be ruined, since we couldn't buy a cup of mead for a hundred denarii." Moreover Servius, on Aeneid III, teaches that the Romans used cremation of the dead: "The Romans," he says, "did the opposite, burning bodies so that the soul might immediately return to universality, that is, to its own nature." And Ovid, Tristia I, elegy IV: "This spirit, first to be thinned into empty airs, shall depart, and shall desert the bones on the warm pyre." And Silius Italicus, book X, at the funeral of Paulus, where he also assigns the cause: "Thus spoke the Libyan: and just now, from crackling flames on all sides, the soul exulting escaped into the ethereal airs." Quintilian gives another cause, Declamation X: "They said that the soul does not take its fiery vigor's momentum and perpetuity from our fire, but from where the stars fly and where the sacred heavens revolve — thence it comes; whence we derive the mind and spirit, the author of all things; and it does not perish, nor is it dissolved, nor is it affected by any fate of mortality; but whenever it has broken free from the prison of the human breast, and purified by a light fire has been relieved of mortal limbs, it seeks its abode among the stars." Christians abolished this cremation, both to better conform to God's sentence pronounced upon Adam and his posterity, Genesis III: "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return"; and to follow nature, which of its own accord dissolves dead bodies into their elements; and especially to instill in the survivors faith and hope in the resurrection. For they committed bodies to the earth as to a deposit, which God would reclaim on the day of resurrection to raise and give life. That the faithful Jews and true worshippers of God did the same is clear from Genesis L, 3 and 25; Joshua VIII, 29; III Kings XIII, 22; Tobit I, 22; Joshua XXIX, 43. I make an exception for the funerals of kings, which were publicly and ceremoniously cremated with aromatics as an honor. But the Israelites also burned the bones even of commoners, either because as idolaters they followed the rite of idolatrous nations, or because in times of common plague and pestilence they tried to suppress it and purify it with fire, lest it spread to the survivors. Therefore they burned bodies along with contagion and pestilence. After cremation they performed the ossilegium (bone-gathering): for relatives and friends collected the bones of the cremated person and deposited them with great care and ceremony in a bronze, golden, silver, or marble urn. Virgil teaches this, Aeneid VI: "And Corinaeus covered the gathered bones in a bronze vessel." Indeed, if their spouses, brothers, children, or parents had died elsewhere, they brought the bones back to the homeland. Hence Ovid, about to die in Scythia, gives this instruction about his bones, Tristia III, elegy III: "Yet see to it that my bones are brought back in a small urn: thus I shall not be an exile even in death." Tibullus describes the rite of this bone-gathering, book III, elegy II. First he teaches that the bones were gathered by friends and relatives:
and dressed in black garments, that is, wearing dark clothing. Moreover, they first washed their hands, as he says: "And first they washed their pious hands with water." Third, they poured milk and wine on the collected bones, and then fanned them in a linen cloth so that the moisture of the poured wine might be absorbed. For he adds: "And first let them sprinkle the collected bones with aged wine: then also let them prepare to pour snowy milk" (so that they might be fitted for the Milky Way, to which the Romans believed the souls of heroes were led after death, as Cicero attests in the Dream of Scipio): "After this, let them remove the moisture with linen cloths, and place them dry in a marble dwelling." Fourth, they put perfumes and aromatics upon the bones, and finally tears: "There let the wares that rich Panchaia sends, and Arabia and wealthy Assyria, be placed. And let tears mindful of me be poured in the same place. Thus would I wish my bones to be arranged." Fifth, mothers and kinswomen first gathered the bones into their bosom before placing them in the urn. Tibullus teaches this, book I, elegy III: "Stay away, dark death, I pray: no mother is here for me, to gather the burned bones into her mournful bosom." And Seneca, Consolation to Helvia, ch. XI: "Just now into the same bosom from which you had sent forth three grandchildren, you received the bones of three grandchildren." Moreover, the bones of Augustus, says Suetonius in his Life, ch. C, were gathered by the leading men of the equestrian order, wearing tunics and ungirded, and with bare feet. This last point was a mark of reverence given to Augustus: for we do not read that the bone-gatherers of others went barefoot. These things the Gentiles did for Gentiles! What then should Christians do for the bones and relics of Christians, indeed of saints and martyrs? With what honor will they regard them?
AND HE SHALL SAY (namely, the kinsman, who as undertaker or embalmer has carried out the bones of his relatives from the death house for burial — "he shall say," I say, when he has returned from the burial) TO HIM WHO IS IN THE INNER ROOMS (that is, to the inhabitant) OF THE HOUSE (of death, mourning his deceased): Is there yet any with you (any dead person, whose bones I may carry out and bury)? And he shall answer (the inhabitant of the house): It is finished — as if to say: All the dead have been carried out, no one remains except me, who mourn my bereavement and solitude. Hence the Syriac translates: And he shall say to him: There is none, because they have perished; because they did not make remembrance in the name of the Lord.
Verse 11: 11. AND HE SHALL SAY TO HIM: BE SILENT, AND DO NOT REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE LORD.
11. AND HE SHALL SAY TO HIM: BE SILENT, AND DO NOT REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE LORD. — You will ask: who says this? The inhabitant of the house, or the kinsman undertaker? And why? First, the Chaldean: The kinsman, he says, says to the inhabitant of the house lamenting his dead: Be silent, do not weep; for your deceased was justly punished by God with death, because he did not worship God and, having forgotten the name of God, did not invoke Him. For thus he translates: Remove (tears and laments), because while he enjoyed life (your deceased relative), he did not pour out prayers in the name of the Lord. Second, St. Jerome and Vatablus: They were accustomed, he says, in lamentations and distresses — for example, at funerals — to name and invoke the name of the Lord; but the Israelites were so addicted to idols that not even at a funeral did they wish to name and invoke the true God. Third, Lyranus, Sanchez, and Ribera think these are the words of the inhabitant of the house, who out of impatience says to the kinsman consoling him and urging him to invoke God's help: Do not bring up to me the name of the Lord, for He Himself is the author of these deaths and of all my misfortunes. Thus the impious rave out of impatience, when, if they were wise, they would have recourse to God in tribulation and place all their refuge in Him. Indeed even the Gentiles in affliction cursed their gods as the authors of it, as the Chinese and Japanese still do, who flog their gods. So Aeneas, on account of his dead wife, Aeneid II: "Whom did I not accuse in my madness, both gods and men?" For wisely does Seneca say, Declamation VIII: "The gods are worshipped more diligently when they are angry." So too Job, tried by God with so many scourges, wisely said, ch. XXIII, 3: "Who will grant me that I may know and find Him, and come even to His throne?" Fourth, others think it is said out of desperation — as if to say: Do not name God to me, nor urge me to invoke Him; for we are perishing, it is all over with us, and even salvation itself, if it wished, could not save us. Fifth, Ruffinus thinks it is said from omen and terror. For they were so struck by the evils inflicted by God that they did not dare even to name God, fearing that if they so much as named Him, they would receive a new calamity from Him and, as it were, a new thunderbolt. Hence the Arabic translates: Be silent, that you may not name the name of the Lord. Sixth, Arias and a Castro think these are the words of Amos, who concludes these extreme distresses with this exclamation — as if to say: The kinsman will say to the inhabitant of the house mourning the deaths of his family: Be silent, do not weep: "And do not remember" — that is, for then it will not be permitted to remember — "the name of the Lord." For then such great calamity and affliction will overwhelm all that it will neither be desirable nor permitted to name and invoke God. Thus it often happens by the just judgment of God to sinners who spend their lives in pleasures and defer repentance to death, that at death they are so oppressed by so many cares, pains, and anguishes that they forget God and their own salvation.
Almost all these interpretations are probable: however, the second, third, and fourth are the clearest. On the other hand, Pagninus translates contrarily: For we are accustomed to commemorate the name of the Lord — as if to say: The undertaker will console the inhabitant of the house by saying: Do not weep, but invoke the name of the Lord as is customary.
Verse 12: 12. FOR BEHOLD THE LORD WILL COMMAND (that is, He has ordained, arranged, decreed, and as He has...
12. FOR BEHOLD THE LORD WILL COMMAND (that is, He has ordained, arranged, decreed, and as He has decreed, so He will also execute, and) HE WILL STRIKE THE GREATER HOUSE WITH RUINS, AND THE LESSER HOUSE WITH BREACHES. — The "for" properly connects with the third meaning of Lyranus already given. But more generally it can refer to everything preceding — as if to say: Such great calamities and slaughters threaten both Zion and Samaria, which I have catalogued from verse 1 to this point, because the Lord, the just avenger of His injuries, "will strike the greater house," that is, the kingdom of the ten tribes and Samaria, "with ruins," that is, with complete destruction and perpetual captivity, so that the kingdom of Israel will utterly collapse and perish like a pot shattered by a fall, which cannot be repaired or restored. But "the lesser house," that is, the kingdom of Zion and Judah, "He will strike with breaches" — that is, He will inflict ruptures and cracks upon it, partly by killing and partly by taking captive; but He will mend and restore these breaches through Ezra and Nehemiah, when, with the consent of Cyrus, He will send the captives back from Babylon to Judea. So St. Jerome, the Chaldean, Remigius, Rupert, Hugo, Lyranus, Ribera, and others. Hence the Chaldean translates: And He will strike the great kingdom with a strong blow, and the lesser kingdom with a lighter plague.
Note: For "ruins" Pagninus and Vatablus translate "cracks" or "fissures," as if God here threatens Samaria with an earthquake by which houses both great and small will be split and develop cracks. In Hebrew it is resisin, which Marinus, Forster, and a Castro translate "drops" or "drippings," which cause cracks and fissures in a house, according to Song of Songs V, 2: "My head is full of dew, and my locks with resisin," that is, drippings, and drops of the night. The meaning is, says a Castro, as if to say: God through the Assyrians will strike and overturn all the houses of Samaria, both the larger ones with many inhabitants — killing them one by one — and the smaller ones that can less resist, crushing them all at once. But the first meaning already given, as more common, so is more true and certain. Hence the Hebrew resisin signifies not only rains and drippings, but also strong fractures and crushings: for thus the Septuagint, the Chaldean, and our Vulgate translate. For resisin with samech alludes to retsitsin with tsade, which properly signifies fractures and crushings, by the consensus of all Hebraists. Add that this does not concern the destruction of Samaria and the ten tribes alone, but also of the two, that is, of all twelve tribes. For this is what the words of verse 15 signify: "And He will crush you from the entrance of Emath to the torrent of the desert." For here the limit and boundary is set not for ten, but for twelve tribes, and therefore for the whole Promised Land, as I said on verse 2. So St. Jerome. Moreover, he adds the cause of the destruction of both nations — namely, their crimes, that they perverted and subverted justice and the nature and order of things: therefore by the law of retaliation they deserve to be themselves subverted and destroyed. He therefore says:
Verse 13: 13. CAN HORSES RUN UPON ROCKS, OR CAN ONE PLOW WITH BUFFALO? — In Hebrew it reads: Shall horses run...
13. CAN HORSES RUN UPON ROCKS, OR CAN ONE PLOW WITH BUFFALO? — In Hebrew it reads: Shall horses run upon rock? Shall one plow (shall a plowman plow) with cattle? — namely wild and untamed ones, such as buffalo, aurochs, bison; hence our Vulgate translates "with buffalo." For with other tame and domesticated cattle one can both plow and ride horses. Now buffalo in the time of Amos, especially in Judea, were wild and untamed, shaking off yoke and plow. Hence Martial, book I: "The fierce buffalo and the bison yielded to him." But now in Italy we see them tamed to the point of being beasts of burden, accepting the yoke of the cart, and serving the plow. The meaning is, as if to say: Just as it is impossible for horses to run on rocks and for untamed buffalo to plow and accept the yoke, so it is impossible for you to run in the way of the Lord's commandments, which seems to you hard and rocky, or to take upon yourselves the yoke of God's law — because you are like untamed buffalo, shaking off every yoke. Thus liberty perishes by liberty. For he who refuses to serve God, whom to serve is to reign, will serve his own lusts, his own obstinate will, and the devil — which is the most grievous slavery. Therefore Christ, rejecting the Jews who were impatient of the evangelical yoke, as if they were buffalo, chose the Gentiles as tame and domesticated cattle, and said to them: "Take My yoke upon you"; who therefore, plowing the land of unbelievers with the plowshare of evangelical teaching and life, produced fruit for the kingdom of God and gathered a great harvest of souls. So Rupert, who thinks that Amos here predicts the rejection of the Jews as buffalo, and the election of the Gentiles as tame cattle.
Second, more recent commentators commonly repeat "on rocks," and thus easily adapt these words to any cattle, in this way: Shall horses run on rock? Shall a plowman plow with cattle on rock? — as if to say: You, O Israelites, act as if someone were urging a horse to run on a cliff, or a buffalo or ox to plow — that is, you do everything in an inverted and backward order. For just as these things go against nature, so you do things repugnant to nature, reason, and God: because judgment, that is, justice — which, being consonant with nature, God, and reason, is sweet and pleasing — you have turned into the wormwood and bitterness of sin, which is dissonant with nature, God, and reason, and is bitter and accursed. So Pagninus and Vatablus. Again, "just as horses are not accustomed to run on rocks, nor farmers to plow in rocky places, since no fruit is to be hoped for from them; so from your impenitent life, no happiness whatsoever is to be hoped for," says Clarius. Hence the Syriac translates: Do horses run upon rock, or do they drag a plow or plowshare upon it?
Moreover, it is against the nature of a horse, says Palacius, "to run upon a rock, and against the nature of an ox to plow upon that same rock; likewise it is against the nature of a judge to run and plow upon injustice. For if an ox or horse should wish to run or plow upon rock, they will break their legs and tear their chests." This proverb therefore signifies three things: first, that the Israelites in their unjust and depraved life labor preposterously; second, that they undertake useless and troublesome labor and attempt an impossible thing. Thus the Poet says: "You plow the shores with cattle that will make no progress." Third, that this labor will not only be useless to them, but also harmful and destructive. This meaning is easy and plain, and very consonant with the Hebrew. A similar proverb is: "You put a greave on the forehead and a helmet on the shin."
To this belongs the exposition of Sanchez, who thinks it is an amplification from the impossible. For when we see something unexpected or very absurd happen, we say that nothing is impossible in nature anymore — as if to say: When I see that Israel has embittered the most sweet God and turned Him into gall and wormwood, which seemed impossible, I say that the nature of things is now inverted, so that henceforth horses will run on rocks and buffalo will plow, which until now I believed to be impossible. So Ovid, seeing himself betrayed by an intimate friend — which he thought was impossible — says that nothing should be judged impossible anymore. For thus he sings, Tristia I, elegy VII: "The earth shall bear stars, the sky shall be cleft by the plow, / The wave shall give flames, and fire shall give waters. / All things shall go contrary to the laws of nature, / And no part of the world shall keep its course. / All things shall now happen that I denied could happen; / And there is nothing about which we should not have belief. / I prophesy this because I have been deceived by him / Whom I thought would bring help to wretched me." And that shepherd, seeing the beautiful nymph Nisa married to the dull Mopsus, says in Virgil, Eclogue VIII: "Nisa is given to Mopsus: what may we lovers not hope for? / Now griffins shall be yoked with horses, and in the age to come / Timid deer shall come to the drinking pools with dogs."
This exposition seems elegant and plausible. Third, St. Jerome, followed by Remigius, Albert, and Hugo, thinks that Israel is compared to ruins and Judah to breaches, because a breached house can be mended, but ruins must be rebuilt and cannot be restored. The ruins of Israel are compared to horses that cannot run on rocks; the breaches of Judah are compared to buffalo, which are wild cattle and so untamed that they do not accept a yoke on their necks and because of their wildness refuse to plow — as if to say: You, O Israelites, are more stupid, harder, and worse than horses and buffalo. "For while these cannot change their nature, you have changed the nature of God, making the sweet one bitter, and turning the fruit of His justice into wormwood, which is the most bitter herb." This exposition locates the change of nature and the repugnance not in the Israelites and their behavior, but in God — namely, that the Israelites by their crimes, provoking God's nature, which is clemency itself, have as it were changed it into the severest harshness and vengeance.
Fourth, Ruffinus: It is certain, he says, that neither does the buffalo bear yokes, nor does the horse willingly walk upon rocks; but you, who rejoiced that you had thrown off yokes and broken reins, seemed to yourselves to be horses in luxury and buffalo in strength and liberty — prove by deeds what you have drawn from your hopes, that is, that you are subject to no one's authority. But since the opposite has befallen you, and you walk at the will of enemies through the roughest paths, and with broken neck endure heavy labors, you must confess that you are neither horses nor buffalo, and that you have acquired no protection or strength for your resources. The meaning of Ruffinus therefore is this: O Israelites, you will boast that you are free, like lusty and unbridled horses who run not on rocks but in open fields wherever they wish; and like untamed buffalo who throw off the yoke of the plow. But I have imposed the yoke of captivity upon your neck through the Assyrians, and I force you to walk and run over stones and crags, like slaves to Babylon. Therefore you are not unbridled horses, but bridled ones; not untamed buffalo, but tamed and haltered. But this exposition implies and supplies much that is not contained in the text. Therefore the first and second expositions are plainer and more genuine.
Fifth, the Septuagint understands all these things as referring to horses, not to buffalo. For they translate: Shall horses pursue upon rocks, shall they be silent toward females? For the Hebrew iacharos means both "to plow," as our Vulgate translates, and "to be silent," as the Septuagint translates. Again, instead of babbekarim, that is, "with cattle,"
they seem to have read hannekelim, that is, "among females, toward females": for in both cases the Hebrew letters are similar. They allude to what they translated in verse 7: "The neighing of horses shall be taken away from Ephraim," for which our Vulgate translates: "The faction of the revelers shall be taken away." The meaning of the Septuagint version is given by Theodoret: Just as horses do not remain silent toward the mares they have seen, but neigh at them, so the Assyrian enemies will rush upon you, O Israelites, with the swiftest assault and clamor, as if neighing toward their prey, and will ravage you. Tropologically, St. Jerome understands by horses the demons, who fear manly men but rage against women, that is, soft and effeminate people: "When," he says, "they see a manly spirit fortified by God's strength, they dare not approach; but when they see an effeminate mind enervated by ointments and delicacies and turned to womanish softness, they immediately go mad and cannot restrain themselves and burn with lust." Hence the Arabic translates: Who make horses run too much in weariness, so that they are silent (rest) from females.
YOU HAVE TURNED JUDGMENT INTO BITTERNESS, AND THE FRUIT OF JUSTICE INTO WORMWOOD. — Judgment and justice can be taken here, first, in the proper sense — as if to say: You pervert rights and justice in the courts, by acquitting the guilty rich for bribes and condemning the innocent poor. For this he censured in ch. IV, 1. Second, generally for what is right and just — as if to say: Instead of what is fair you do what is unfair, instead of what is just you do what is unjust and impious, instead of what is honorable you do what is dishonorable — namely, vices and crimes instead of virtue.
Moreover, the same Prophet applies this more closely to Israel — as if to say: It is not the case, O Israelites, that you should think your cities are impregnable by the enemy, just as rocks are unplowable by horses and buffalo. For since by your crimes you have changed the nature of things and turned the most sweet God into gall, He likewise will change the nature of your land and place, and will cause the hostile horses to run upon your rocks and subjugate them, and buffalo to plow upon them. This exposition seems elegant and plausible. Third, St. Jerome, followed by Remigius, Albert, and Hugo, thinks that Israel is compared to ruins and Judah to breaches, because a breached house can be mended, but ruins must be rebuilt and cannot be restored. The ruins of Israel are compared to horses that cannot run on rocks; the breaches of Judah are compared to buffalo, which are wild cattle and so untamed that they do not accept a yoke on their necks and because of their wildness refuse to plow — as if to say: You, O Israelites, are more stupid, harder, and worse than horses and buffalo. "For while these cannot change their nature, you have changed the nature of God, making the sweet one bitter, and turning the fruit of His justice into wormwood, which is the most bitter herb." This exposition locates the change of nature and the repugnance not in the Israelites and their behavior, but in God — namely, that the Israelites by their crimes, provoking God's nature, which is clemency itself, have as it were changed it into the severest harshness and vengeance.
Fourth, Ruffinus: It is certain, he says, that neither does the buffalo bear yokes, nor does the horse willingly walk upon rocks; but you, who rejoiced that you had thrown off yokes and broken reins, seemed to yourselves to be horses in luxury and buffalo in strength and liberty — prove by deeds what you have drawn from your hopes, that is, that you are subject to no one's authority. But since the opposite has befallen you, and you walk at the will of enemies through the roughest paths, and with broken neck endure heavy labors, you must confess that you are neither horses nor buffalo, and that you have acquired no protection or strength for your resources. The meaning of Ruffinus therefore is this: O Israelites, you will boast that you are free, like lusty and unbridled horses who run not on rocks but in open fields wherever they wish; and like untamed buffalo who throw off the yoke of the plow. But I have imposed the yoke of captivity upon your neck through the Assyrians, and I force you to walk and run over stones and crags, like slaves to Babylon. Therefore you are not unbridled horses, but bridled ones; not untamed buffalo, but tamed and haltered. But this exposition implies and supplies much that is not contained in the text. Therefore the first and second expositions are plainer and more genuine.
Fifth, the Septuagint understands all these things as referring to horses, not to buffalo. For they translate: Shall horses pursue upon rocks, shall they be silent toward females? For the Hebrew iacharos means both "to plow," as our Vulgate translates, and "to be silent," as the Septuagint translates. Again, instead of babbekarim, that is, "with cattle,"
Now the meaning of the Septuagint version is given thus by Theodoret: Just as horses do not remain silent toward the mares they have seen, but neigh at them, so the Assyrian enemies will rush upon you, O Israelites, with the swiftest assault and clamor, as if neighing toward their prey, and will ravage you. Tropologically, St. Jerome understands by horses the demons, who fear manly men but rage against women, that is, soft and effeminate people: "When," he says, "they see a manly spirit fortified by God's strength, they dare not approach; but when they see an effeminate mind enervated by ointments and delicacies and turned to womanish softness, they immediately go mad and cannot restrain themselves and burn with lust." Hence the Arabic translates: Who make horses run too much in weariness, so that they are silent (rest) from females.
YOU HAVE TURNED JUDGMENT INTO BITTERNESS, AND THE FRUIT OF JUSTICE INTO WORMWOOD. — Judgment and justice can be taken here, first, in the proper sense — as if to say: You pervert rights and justice in the courts, by acquitting the guilty rich for bribes and condemning the innocent poor. For He censured this in ch. IV, 1. Second, generally for what is right and just — as if to say: Instead of what is fair you do what is unfair, instead of what is just you do what is unjust and impious, instead of what is honorable you do what is dishonorable — namely, vices and crimes instead of virtue.
Verse 14: 14. YOU WHO REJOICE IN NOTHING.
14. YOU WHO REJOICE IN NOTHING. — In Hebrew: in "no word," that is, in "no thing," in nothing, in that which is not something, as Pagninus translates. But Symmachus: mataiōs, that is, in vain, without reason and cause — as if to say: You who exult in your idols, which are things of nothing, or in vain and fleeting riches and pleasures, and especially in the power of this world and your own strength and might, saying:
HAVE WE NOT BY OUR OWN STRENGTH TAKEN HORNS FOR OURSELVES? — that is, powers, courage, and strength by which we may protect the commonwealth and attack enemies. Thus the proud arrogate to themselves the powers they received from God, or rather which they do not even have. More humbly and truly the Psalmist, Psalm XLIII, 6: "In You," he says, "we will scatter our enemies with horns, and in Your name we will despise those who rise against us." It is a metaphor from bulls, whose boldness and strength are in their horns. Hence Martial, comparing a rhinoceros to a bull in his Amphitheater, says thus: "For with double horn he so lifted the heavy bear, as a bull tosses balls thrown upon him to the stars." So Horace says wine adds horns, that is, courage and strength, to the timid and the poor. For in Odes III, 21, addressing a wine jar: "You," he says, "restore hope to anxious minds, and strength, and add horns to the poor." So Plautus says: "You attack a horned beast" — that is, you provoke one who is spirited and ready to take revenge. And Moses, Deuteronomy XXXIII, 17, says of Joseph: "His horns are the horns of the rhinoceros: with them he will scatter nations to the ends of the earth." Moreover, because wealth gives courage and strength, and riches are as it were the horns of the rich, hence by "horns" some, with the Chaldean, here understand substance and riches.
Tropologically, the sinner rejoices in nothing, that is, in frivolous and fleeting things. Hence sin is called nothing: first, because it is itself a thing of nothing, that is, vain and of no worth or moment; second, because the pleasure of it quickly passes and vanishes; hence the Psalmist, Psalm LXXV, 6: "And all the men of riches found nothing in their hands"; third, because sin leads the sinner to nothing, that is, to ruin and death, both present and eternal; fourth, sin is nothing in the order of morals and virtue, which is moral good; for sin is not good, but moral evil; fifth, because sin is the privation of good; but privation is not a positive being, but a negative one, namely nothing; sixth, because sin deprives one of God, who is all things and the maker of all, without whom nothing was made. Since therefore sin and the sinner are without God, it follows that sin itself is nothing in the moral order. Hear St. Augustine in his Soliloquies, ch. III and IV: "Death is nothing: for through it we tend toward nothingness, while we do not fear to do nothing through sin. And justly indeed is this so, Lord: for we receive what our deeds deserve, while we come to nothing like water running away; for without You nothing was made, and by doing nothing, we have become nothing; because without You we are nothing, through whom all things were made, without whom nothing was made. Woe to me, wretch, so often annihilated! For You are the Word through whom all things were made, and I am without You, without whom nothing was made." And ch. V: "I have become wretched, and I have been reduced to nothing, and I did not know it; for You are the Truth, and I was not with You. My iniquities have led me to nothing: for You are the Word through whom all things were made, without whom nothing was made; and therefore without You I have become nothing, because it is nothing that leads to nothingness. Whatever things were made through the Word are very good. Why are they good? Because all things were made through the Word, and without Him nothing was made, because nothing good exists without the supreme Good; but evil is where that good is not, which indeed is nothing; because evil is nothing other than the privation of light. Evil therefore is nothing, because it was not made; but how is it evil, if it was not made? Because evil is the privation of good, through which good was made. To be without the Word, therefore, is evil; which being is not being, because without Him there is nothing. To be separated from the Word is to be without the way, without the truth, without the life; and therefore without Him there is nothing, and therefore it is evil, because one is separated from the Word through whom all things were made very good. But to be separated from the Word through whom all things were made is nothing other than to decline, and to pass from what was made into deficiency, because without Him there is nothing. As often, therefore, as you stray from the good, you separate yourself from the Word, because He Himself is the Good; and therefore you become nothing, because you are without the Word, without whom nothing was made." And shortly after: "If therefore I was nothing when I was without You, I was as it were nothing, and like an idol which is nothing, which indeed has ears but does not hear, has nostrils but does not smell, has eyes but does not see." Thus Ezekiel says of Tyre the sinner, ch. XXVIII: "You have been brought to nothing, and you shall not be forever." And of its proud king, ch. XXVIII, 19: "You have been made nothing, and you shall not be forever." And the Apostle, Galatians VI, 3: "If anyone," he says, "thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself." Seventh, properly and physically sin is nothing, because it clings to and delights in creatures, and opposes and prefers them to the Creator; but creatures, if compared with the Creator, are the shadow of things, not true realities, and therefore are nothing. For God's essence and name is: "I am who am" — as if to say: I am the only God, who alone has true, full, solid, eternal, and immense being; but creatures participate from Me only the shadow of this true being, because their being is so thin, diminished, brief, fleeting, unstable, and perishable that if compared with My being, they should rather be said not to be than to be. Consequently, creatures, just as they do not have true being, so neither do they have true good, but only a shadow of good: for being and good are convertible; therefore the quality and extent of being is the same as the quality and extent of good, which is the most intimate property of being. Hence Christ says: "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone," Luke XVIII, 19 — as if to say: You consider Me to be a mere man, not God; do not therefore call Me good, because true goodness, like true being, belongs not to man but to God alone. Hence the philosophers also teach that God is in no category; because categories are series of only created things. God therefore, transcending all these, alone constitutes the one true category of substance and of all things, in respect to which our categories and all things contained in them are only shadows, indeed nothing. What I said about the good, I say the same about truth, wisdom, power, justice, holiness, and other attributes. For these have true being in God, but in creatures only a shadow of being. Therefore God is called in Scripture "alone wise," Romans XVI, 27; "alone powerful," I Timothy VI, 15; "alone immortal," ibid. verse 16; "alone Lord," Isaiah XXXVII, 20; "alone good, alone excellent, alone just," II Maccabees I, 24; "alone holy," Revelation XV, 4; "alone glorious," I Corinthians I, 17 — because He alone has true, full, uncreated, and immense wisdom, power, goodness, etc. The sinner, therefore, because he delights in creatures, not in the Creator, delights in shadow, in nothing, not in true being. But because these shadows in the darkness of this life appear great to the blind person — just as, when the sun hangs low, great and tall shadows fall from the mountains — hence he himself admires and boasts of these shadows, like the dog in Aesop's fable, who, seeing the shadow of his meat in the water, attacked it (since it appeared larger than the meat in the water), and so lost the meat and did not obtain the shadow. Come, Lord, let the day of Your eternal brightness dawn, and let the shadows of this darkness, vanity, and mortality recede. Come, Lord, drive away our darkness, illuminate our eyes, that we may gaze with fixed attention not upon the shadows of goods, riches, and delights — which like illusions on earth dazzle the sight of our minds — but upon those true honors, riches, and delights which in heaven You have hidden from those who love You and prepared from eternity; that we may love them and strive for them. Amen.
Note: Sin in Hebrew is called aven, which signifies many things, namely falsehood, vanity, iniquity, labor, weariness, affliction, idol, nothing, and nothingness. For sin truly contains all these things within itself, indeed truly is all these things; namely, sin contracts within itself and begets all pain. Moreover, aven by contraction is on, that is, pain — or ain, that is, not, or the negation of being and of every good. This therefore is sin, as I have already shown. Aven therefore is "not" — that is, sin is the son, indeed the father, of pain.
Verse 15: 15. A NATION — namely the Assyrians, who will devastate Samaria, and the Chaldeans, who will...
15. A NATION — namely the Assyrians, who will devastate Samaria, and the Chaldeans, who will devastate Jerusalem, and thus all of Canaan; for its northern boundary is Emath, and its southern boundary is the torrent of Egypt — that is, a stream derived from the Nile, coming from the desert, which divides Judea from Egypt and flows into the sea between Rhinocolura and Pelusium. Hence elsewhere it is often called the torrent of Egypt, sometimes the torrent of the desert, sometimes the turbid river, that is, the Nile, from which it originates and flows. So St. Jerome, Remigius, Rupert, Hugo, Lyranus, and Arias. Others however, such as Theodoret, Vatablus, and a Castro, understand by "nation" only the Assyrians; for they think this deals only with the destruction of Samaria and the ten tribes, and alludes to the strength and power of Jeroboam, king of Israel, under whom Amos prophesied. For with these words he crushes his courage and strength, of which it is said in IV Kings XIV, 28: "Now the rest of the deeds of Jeroboam, and his strength with which he fought, and how he restored Damascus and Emath of Judah to Israel, are not these written," etc.? And verse 25: "He himself restored the borders of Israel from the entrance of Emath to the sea of the wilderness." Against this overconfidence and strength of Jeroboam and Israel, God opposes Himself through Amos, saying in the very same words, but turned against them: Behold, I will bring the Assyrians who will devastate Israel, from Emath to the sea of the wilderness, indeed even further to the brook of Egypt; and then they will see how weak their firmness was, how empty their strength, how vain and futile their overconfidence, when their valor passes into weakness, their glory into disgrace, their boasting into groans and lamentations. Both views are to be reconciled by saying that the Prophet primarily acts against Samaria and the ten tribes, secondarily against Jerusalem and the Jews, as I showed at the beginning of the chapter. What Emath is, I explained at verse 2.
Amos sees, first, a locust devouring the land of Israel. Second, he sends fire upon it, but by his prayers he averts both plagues. He sees, third, God setting down the trowel of His care and providence, with which He used to plaster and preserve the wall of Israel, and thence Israel rushing into ruin. Again, in verse 10, Amaziah accuses Amos before Jeroboam as a seditious man, and urges him not to prophesy in Bethel but to return to Jerusalem. To him Amos replies that he is not a Prophet but a herdsman, yet commanded by God to prophesy in Bethel. When Amaziah wishes to prevent this, Amos threatens him from God with the violation of his wife, the slaughter of his children, the plundering of his goods, exile, and captivity and destruction for all Israel.
15. A nation — the Assyrians, who would devastate Samaria, and the Chaldeans, who would devastate Jerusalem, and thus all of Canaan; for the northern boundary of this land is Hamath, the southern boundary is the torrent of Egypt, that is, a stream derived from the Nile coming from the desert, which divides Judea from Egypt, and flows into the sea between Rhinocolura and Pelusium. Hence elsewhere it is often called the torrent of Egypt, sometimes the torrent of the desert, sometimes the muddy river, that is the Nile, from which it originates and flows. So say St. Jerome, Remigius, Rupert, Hugh, Lyra and Arias. Others however, such as Theodoret, Vatablus, and a Castro, by 'nation' understand only the Assyrians; for they hold that here only the destruction of Samaria and the ten tribes is treated, and that there is an allusion to the strength and power of King Jeroboam of Israel, under whom Amos prophesied. For by these words he crushes his spirits and forces, of which it is said in IV Kings XIV, 28: "Now the rest of the deeds of Jeroboam, and his might, how he fought, and how he restored Damascus and Hamath to Judah in Israel, are not these things written, etc.?" And verse 25: "He restored the borders of Israel, from the entrance of Hamath to the sea of the desert." Against this overconfidence and strength of Jeroboam and Israel, God sets Himself through Amos, saying in the same words but reversed: Behold, I will bring the Assyrians who will devastate Israel, from Hamath to the sea of the desert, indeed even further to the river of Egypt, and then they will see how feeble was their firmness, how empty their strength, how vain and fearful their foresight, when their virtue in weakness,
glory will pass into disgrace, boasting into groans and laments. Both interpretations should be reconciled so that we say the Prophet is primarily acting against Samaria and the ten tribes, secondarily against Jerusalem and the Jews, as I showed at the beginning of the chapter. What Hamath is, I explained at verse 2.