Amos 2:12

Amo 2:12 But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink; and commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not.

Ver. 12. But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink] Opponit iam Propheta pessimam gratiam, saith Gualther. Here was the ill requital they made the Lord for all his benefits; they corrupted his young Nazarites (as buzzards snatch up young lapwings) and silenced his prophets, or enjoined them at least to meddle with toothless truths only, to preach placentia; pleasing things, threatening them if they did otherwise (for so the original importeth) that so they might sin without control, and go to hell without hindrance. This God heavily here complains of, as a horrible ingratitude. To render good for evil is Divine, good for good is human, evil for evil is brutish, but evil for good is devilish.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye so despised these My favors, as to tempt the Nazarite to break his vow; and forbade the prophets prophesying (Isa 30:10). So Amaziah forbade Amos (Amo 7:12-14).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 12. But ye gave the Nazarites wine] This was expressly forbidden in the laws of their institution. See Nu 6:1-3.

Prophesy not.] They would not worship God, and they would not hear the voice of his prophets.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But it now follows, Ye have to the Nazarites quaffed wine, and on the Prophets ye have laid a command, that they should not prophesy God complains here that the service which he had instituted had been violated by the people. It seems indeed a light offense, that wine had been given to the Nazarites; for the kingdom of God, we know, is not meat and drink, (1 Corinthians 8:8) though this saying of Paul was not yet made known, it was yet true in all ages. It was then lawful for the Nazarites to drink wine, provided they used moderation. To this the simple answer is that it was lawful to drink wine, for they of their own accord undertook to abstain from it. In similar manner God forbade the priests to drink wine or strong drink whenever they entered the temple. God indeed did not wish to be served with this kind of ceremony; but his intention was to show, by such a rite, that a greater temperance is required in priests than in the people in general. His purpose then to withdraw them from the common mode of living, when they entered the temple; for they were as mediators between God and his people: they ought then to have consecrated themselves in a special manner. We now see that the priests were reminded by this external symbol, that greater holiness was required in them than in the people. The same thing must be also said of the Nazarites. The Nazarites might drink wine; but during the time they consecrated themselves to God, they were not allowed to drink wine, that they might thereby acknowledge that they were in a manner separated from the common habits of men, and were come nearer to God. We now understand why it was not lawful for the Nazarites to drink wine.

But it is frivolous for the Papists to pretend this example, and to introduce it in defense of their superstitions, and of their foolish and rash vows, which they undertake without any regard to God: for God expressly sanctioned and confirmed whatever the Nazarites did under the law. Let the Papists show a proof for their monastic vows, and foolish rites, by which they now trifle with God. We also know that there is a great difference between the Nazarites and the Papal monks; for the monks vow perpetual celibacy; others vow abstinence from flesh during life; and these things are done foolishly and rashly. They indeed think that the worship of God consists in these trifles. They promise what is not in their own power; for they renounce marriage, when they know not whether they are endued with the gift of chastity. And to abstain from flesh all their life is more foolish still, because they make this to be a part of God’s service. I do, at the same time, wonder that they bring forward this example, since there are none so holy under the Papacy as to abstain from wine. As for the Carthusians and other monks of the holier sort, they seem determined to take revenge on abstinence from flesh, for they choose the sweetest and the liveliest wine; as though they intended to get a compensation for the loss and deprivation they undergo, when they pledge to God their abstinence from flesh, by reserving the best wine for themselves. These things are extremely ludicrous. Besides it is a sufficient reply if we adduce what I have already said, that the Nazarites did nothing under the law but what God in his word approved and sanctioned.

Since God then so sharply and severely reproved the Israelites for giving wine to the Nazarites, what must be expected now, when we transgress the chief commandments of God, when we corrupt his whole spiritual worship? It seemed apparently but a venial sin, so to speak, in the Nazarites to drink wine. Had they become wanton or robbed, or had they done wrong to their brethren, or committed forgery, the charge against them would have doubtless been much more atrocious. Yet the Prophet does not now abstain from bitterly complaining that they drank wine. Then, since God would have us to worship him in a spiritual manner, a much heavier charge lies against us, if we violate his spiritual worship. As, for instance, if we now pollute the sacraments, if we corrupt the purity of divine worship, if we treat his word with scorn, yea, if we transgress as to these main points of religion, much less is our excuse. Let us then remember that the Prophet here reproves the Israelites for giving wine to the Nazarites.

He then adds, that they commanded the Prophets not to prophesy. It is certain that the Prophets were not forbidden to speak, at least expressly forbidden: but when the liberty of teaching faithfully as they ought to do is taken away from God’s servants, and a command to this effect is given them, it is the same thing as to reject wholly their doctrine. The Israelites wished Prophets to be among them; and yet they could not endure their plain reproofs. But when they had polluted the worship of God, when their whole conduct became dissolute, the Prophets sharply inveighed against them: this freedom could not be endured by the Israelites; they wished to be spared and flattered. What then the Prophet now lays to their charge is that they forbade God’s servants to declare the word freely and honestly as God had commanded them. Hence he says, On the Prophets they have laid a charge, that they should not prophesy.

This evil reigns in the world at this day. It would indeed be an execrable audacity wholly to reject the Lord’s word; this is what even ungodly men dare not openly to do: but they wish at the same time some middle course to be adopted, that God might not fully exercise authority over them. They then would gladly put restraint on the Holy Spirit, so as not to allow him to speak but within certain limitations: “See, we willingly allow thee some things, but this we cannot bear: so much asperity is extremely odious.” And under the Papacy at this day the liberty of prophesying is wholly suppressed: and among us how many there are who wish to impose laws on God’s servants beyond which they are not to pass? But we see what the Prophet says here, — that the word of God is repudiated when the freedom of teaching is restrained, and men wish to be flattered, and desire their sins to be covered, and cannot bear free admonitions.

Let us also notice the word command, which the Prophet uses. צוה, tsue, means to order, to command, or to determine, in an authoritative manner. The Prophet then does not expostulate with them, because there were many who clamored, who murmured against the Prophets, as it is always the case; but he rather condemns the audacity of the chief men for daring to consult how they might silence the Prophets, and not allow them the free liberty of teaching, as we find it to be done even now. For not only in taverns and lurking-places do the ungodly clamor when their sins are severely reproved, but they also go forth publicly and complain that too much liberty is allowed the ministers of the word, and that some course ought to be adopted to make them speak more moderately. It is then this sacrilege that the Prophet now rebukes, when he says, that the ungodly commanded the Prophets, that they should not prophecy, as though they made a law, as though they wished to proclaim a decree, that the Prophets should not speak so boldly and so freely. It now follows —

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

12. But the Israelites had refused to respect either. They had tempted the Nazirites to break their vow; and had striven to silence the prophets.

Ye shall not prophesy] Cf. 1Ki_22:13-28 (Micaiah); Amo_7:13; Amo_7:16; Hos_9:8; Isa_30:10-11; Mic_2:6; Jer_11:21; Jer_20:7-10.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink,.... Contrary to their vow and calling, and in contempt of it, and to make them like themselves; they either persuaded them, or forced them to it:

and commanded the prophets, saying, prophesy not; hard and heavy things, judgments and denunciations of vengeance, only smooth things; by this authoritative language it appears that this is said of the rulers and governors of the people, as king, princes, and priests; see Amo 7:12.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink - Literally, “and,” (this, on their part, was the consequence of what God did for them) “ye caused the Nazarites to drink wine.” God appointed; Israel strove to undo His appointment. God “raised up Nazarites,” as a testimony to them; they sought to make His servants break their vow, in order to rid themselves of that testimony. Their pains to destroy it, is a strong proof of its power. The world is mad against true religion, because it feels itself condemned by it. People set themselves against religion and the religious, the Church or the priesthood, only when and because they feel their power on God’s side against them. What people despise, they do not oppose. “They kill us, they do not despise us,” were true words of a French priest, as to the “reign of reason” in the first French revolution. If the people in power had not respected the Nazarites, or felt that the people respected them, they would not have attempted to corrupt or to force them to break their vow. The word, “cause” them “to drink,” does not express whether they used constraint or seduction. Israel’s consciences supplied it. Yet since they “persecuted the prophets” and put them to death, it seems likely that Amos means that they used violence, either by forcing the wine into their mouths, as the swine-flesh was forced into the mouth of Eleazar (2 Macc. 6:18), and, in the Decian persecution an infant was made to eat of the idol oblation , or by threat of death.

And commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not - God had commanded the prophets to prophesy. Israel issued and laid upon them his commands against the commands of God. The more God reveals His Will, the directer and more determinate the opposition of those who will not yield. God’s perseverance in trying to win them irritates them; they oppose grace, and are angered at not being let alone. This large statement of Amos means much more than the prohibition of Amaziah to himself Amo 7:13. Jeroboam I was prevented only by miracle 1Ki 13:4 from seizing the prophet who denounced the altar at Bethel. Ahab, during the famine foretold by Elijah, sought him everywhere to destroy him 1Ki 18:10-12, and Jezebel, after the miracle at Carmel and the death of her prophets, swore by her gods to do so 1Ki 19:2-3. Ahab’s last act was to imprison Micaiah 1Ki 22:26-27, the son of Imlath, for prophesying his death, when adjured by himself to speak truly.

Ahaziah, his son, undeterred by the fire from heaven which destroyed two captains, each with his fifty, sent yet a 3d to take Elijah, when he prophesied that the king would not recover from his sickness 2Ki 1:9-13. Jehoram, his second son, swore by God to destroy Elisha, 2Ki 6:31, laying the evils of the siege to the prophet, as the Romans did the evils of their decaying empire to the Christian. Micah and Isaiah, a little later, speak of such opposition, in Judah, as habitual Mic 2:6; Isa 30:10-11; much more in Israel, where the opposition to God’s law was more fundamental, and where God’s prophet’s had been all but exterminated. Even Asa, in his degenerate days, imprisoned Hanani for prophesying that he would “have wars” 2Ch 16:7, 2Ch 16:10; Joash killed Zechariah son of Jehoiada 2Ch 24:20-21; Amaziah silenced the prophet who rebuked him, “Art thou made of the king’s council? forbear. Why shouldest thou be smitten?” 2Ch 25:15-16.

Jehoiakim sent even into Egypt to fetch Uriah and killed him Jer 26:20-23. Jeremiah’s life was one continuous encounter with false accusations Jer 20:10; Jer 37:13; Jer 38:4, contradictions by false prophets (Jer 23:17 ff; Jer 27:9-10, Jer 27:14-16; Jer. 28; Jer. 29), hatred Jer 15:10, mockery Jer 17:15; Jer 20:7-8; Jer 23:33, persecution Jer 17:18, imprisonment Jer 20:2; Jer 32:3; Jer 33:1; Jer 37:15-21; Jer 38:6-13, attempts to destroy him (Jer 11:18-21; Jer 18:18, Jer 18:20-23; Jer 26:8 ff; Jer 36:26). The complaint was, as here, “wherefore dost thou prophesy?” Jer 32:3. What, when our Lord gives it as the characteristic of Jerusalem , that she was “the slayer of the prophets, the stoner of those sent unto her?” They would not have slain the prophets, if they could have silenced them.

People are loath to go to extremities with God; they will make an armistice with Him; their awe of holiness makes them inwardly shrink from laying hands on it. Like the wolf in the fable, they must have a plea against it; and that plea against those who have the truth is obstinacy . If the Christians would have abstained from converting the world, they would not have been persecuted. The Chief-priests at first sought simply to silence the Apostles Act 4:18, Act 4:21; then they enforced their command with scourges Act 5:40; then persecuted them and the Christians to death Act 7:57-59; Act 8:1-4; Act 9:1-2; Act 12:1-3; Act 22:4-5. Direct contumacy to God’s known voice and silencing His messenger, is a last stage of obduracy and malice, which leaves God no further avenue to the soul or the people. His means of grace are exhausted when the soul or people not only deaden His voice within, but obstruct it without. One who, through vehemence of his passions, refuses to hear, is within the reach of the grace of God, afterward. He who stifles God’s word to others has mostly hardened his heart deliberately and maliciously in unlove to man, as well as contempt of God. Hence, God speaks, as though this brought the day of grace to a close.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But ye, for whose benefit both Nazarites and prophets were raised, you who should have heard their word, and imitated their example,

gave the Nazarites wine; importuned, urged, or it may be (as is the custom of excessive drinkers) forced them to drink wine, to violate their vow, and contemn God’s law too, Num 6:3,4.

Commanded: by this passage it appears that they were men in authority who did this; it is not probable that mean persons who had no authority would enjoin silence on the prophets, Isa 30:10; Amo 7:13; Mic 2:6. It is evident Amaziah was chief priest in Beth-el, and by virtue of his jurisdiction there silenceth the prophet.

The prophets; the true, faithful, and plain-dealing prophets, who rebuked their sins, required them to repent, and threatened judgments if they did not repent.

Saying, Prophesy not: see Isa 30:10; Amo 7:13; Mic 2:6,11;

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink. Far from profiting by their example, or acknowledging the grace of God displayed in their holy lives, ye tried to get rid of their testimony by seducing or forcing them to break their vow. Prophesy not. Israel was impatient of the continued efforts of the prophets to warn and to win; and, unmindful of the fact that the man of God had a message which he was bound to deliver (comp. Jer_20:9; 1Co_9:16) this ungrateful nation systematically tried to silence the voices which were a standing rebuke to them. Thus Amos himself was treated. (Amo_7:10, etc.) For proof of this opposition, see 1Ki_13:4 1Ki_18:10, etc.; 1Ki_19:2 1Ki_22:26, 1Ki_22:27; 2Ki_6:31; 2Ch_25:15, 2Ch_25:16; and comp. Isa_30:10, etc.; Mic_2:6; Mat_23:37.

Children that are corrupters.

ye made the dedicated drink wine; and ye commanded the prophets, saying, Ye shall not prophesy" Action and reaction have a natural connection and a normal relation to each other. In all departments of being they meet and answer, as face answers to face in a glass. The rebound is as the blow, the conviction as the argument, the response as the appeal. The mention of what God had done for Israel brings up the question How had Israel been affected by it all? Had things occurred in the normal way? Had gratitude waited on blessing in due proportion, and improvement followed privilege? This verse is the disappointing answer. Israel"s response to God"s appeal, as contained in his gracious dealings, was not the gratitude and fealty due, but unaccountable and aggravated sin. God delivered them from bondage, and they oppressed each other; he defended them against unjust violence, and they wrought injustice. He guided them in their journeys, and they led one another astray. He plied them with evangelizing agencies, and they responded by committing sacrilege and procuring blasphemy. The last is the sin charged against them here.

I THIS WAS PRIMARILY A SIN AGAINST GOD. The Nazarite and the prophet were both Divine institutions. The vow of the one and the message of the other were alike prescribed by God. (Num_6:1 Num_12:6) It was his will that they should perform their characteristic acts. In doing so they were but his instruments, accomplishing his purpose toward the nation. Accordingly, Israel"s action against them was really against him, against his servants, against his ordinance, against his authority. So with all action against God"s people as such. As we deal by them will he regard us as dealing by himself. They are all God"s prophets, understanding the mysteries of his kingdom, and "holding forth the Word of life." They are all his dedicated ones, separate from the world, and living, "not to themselves, but to him who died and rose again for them." And whether as the one thing or the other, they are his accredited representatives on earth. (Mat_10:40) Our treatment of them is virtually our treatment of him that sent them. (Mat_25:40) A kiss to them reaches the Master"s lips; a blow to them touches the apple of his eye.

II PROXIMATELY THIS WAS A SIN AGAINST MAN. It consisted in compelling the prophet and the Nazarite to disobey God. Now, disobedience is sin, even when committed under pressure. "We ought to obey God rather than men." Men have faced death rather than the guilt of disobedience to known law. And so long as there is any alternative, even death itself, there is no place for disobedience. Israel"s was the sin of compelling others to sin. This was soul murder, and therefore guilt of the darkest dye. Early persecutors sometimes compelled Christians to swallow poison, an infernal device to make them suicides as well as martyrs, and so destroy them soul and body both. So diabolically ingenious was the young persecutor, Saul of Tarsus, that he compelled believers to blaspheme; (Act_26:11) and when recalling the sin of his unconverted life he makes that fact the bitterest count in his self-accusation. Kindred to this was Israel"s sin. It was an attempt to compass not men"s death alone, but their damnation a crime to which killing the body is as nothing. And it is not so uncommon in Christian lands and Christian Churches. How many among us are tempters to drunkenness, tempters to uncleanness, tempters to falsehood, tempters to profanity! Well, every tempter is a murderer a murderer not merely in the ordinary sense, but in the Satanic sense of destroying or trying to destroy an immortal soul.

III ULTIMATELY IT WAS A SIN AGAINST THE SINNER"S OWN INTERESTS. All sin is unprofitable, but this was doubly so. The prophet brought God"s message, not for their destruction, but for their salvation. When they shut his month they cut themselves off from their only chance of being saved. "Where no vision is the people perish;" and in deliberately cutting it off, Israel sealed its own destruction. Then the Nazarite was an embodied revelation, a typical representation of a consecrated life. A heedful eye might have read a spiritual lesson out of his separation. "The life of the Nazarites was a continual protest against the self-indulgence and worldliness of the people.... It was a life above nature and thought They were an evidence what all might do and be if they used the grace of God" (Pusey). But, in the compulsory violation of his vow, the rich page was blotched and its lesson blotted out. It presents the piteous sight of a people stopping the fount of life in order that they may die of thirst. Israel would neither listen to the Divine voice nor look at the Divine life. And the sight is not confined to Israel. (2Ti_4:3) There are Churches that will not tolerate faithful preaching. There is a preaching that minces the gospel testimony against sin. It is the case of Israel over again. The people sinfully silence the preacher, and the preacher sinfully submits to be silenced. A Church asleep, and the minister rocking the cradle, is a poor interpretation of the pastoral relation.

IV ALTOGETHER IT WAS A SIN AGGRAVATED BY THE ENJOYMENT OF SPECIAL MERCIES. All that God had done was a motive to obedience and an argument against sin. But all the arrows of influence fell pointless and broken from their hearts of stone. The more Divine mercies multiplied, the more did abominable wickedness increase. Sin, under such unlikely circumstances, argues special inveteracy, and involves corresponding aggravation of guilt. (Rom_2:4) With every want supplied and every better feeling appealed to, it was sin not only without temptation, but in spite of strong deterrents, and was therefore hopeless as it was guilty. The love and goodness of God are the most potent persuasives to his service. Where these fail the case is desperate. What mercy cannot bend judgment will only break. If you sin against mercy you can sin eternally. There is no spiritual argument that can make you yield (2Pe_3:15; Rom_2:4)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye gave - Importuned them to drink wine, to violate their vow, and contemn God's law.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

And you gave the Nazirites to drink wine—lest they instruct you, for a drunken man is forbidden to instruct. And you gave the Nazirites to drink wine—Jonathan renders: And you misled your teachers with wine.

“Do not prophesy.”—Amaziah the priest of Bethel commanded Amos in this manner: (Amos 7:12) “Seer, go, flee to the land of Judah.”

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.