Amo 6:1 | KD | STEP | The prophet utters the second woe over the careless heads of the nation, who were content with the existing state of things, who believed in no divine judgment, and who revelled in their riches ( ). To these he announces destruction and the general overthrow of the kingdom ( ), because they act perversely, and trust in their own power ( ). Amo 6:1. “Woe to the secure upon Zion, and to the careless upon the mountain of Samaria, to the chief men of the first of the nations, to whom the house of Israel comes! Amo 6:2. Go over to Calneh, and see; and proceed thence to Hamath, the great one: and go down to Gath of the Philistines: are they indeed better than these kingdoms? or is their territory greater than your territory? Amo 6:3. Ye who keep the day of calamity far off, and bring the seat of violence near.” This woe applies to the great men in Zion and Samaria, that is to say, to the chiefs of the whole of the covenant nation, because they were all sunk in the same godless security; though special allusion is made to the corrupt leaders of the kingdom of the ten tribes, whose debauchery is still further depicted in what follows. These great men are designated in the words נקבי ראשׁית הגּוים, as the heads of the chosen people, who are known by name. As ראשׁית הג is taken from Num 24:20, so נקבי is taken from Num 1:17, where the heads of the tribes who were chosen as princes of the congregation to preside over the numbering of the people are described as men אשׁר נקּבוּ בּשׁמות, who were defined with names, i.e., distinguished by names, that is to say, well-known men; and it is used here in the same sense. Observe, however, with reference to ראשׁית הגּוים, that in Num 24:20 we have not הגּוים, but simply ראשׁית גּוים. Amalek is so called there, as being the first heathen nation which rose up in hostility to Israel. On the other hand, ר הגוים is the firstling of the nations, i.e., the first or most exalted of all nations. Israel is so called, because Jehovah had chosen it out of all the nations of the earth to be the people of His possession ( ; cf. ). In order to define with still greater precision the position of these princes in the congregation, Amos adds, “to whom the house of Israel cometh,” namely, to have its affairs regulated by them as its rulers. These epithets were intended to remind the princes of the people of both kingdoms, “that they were the descendants of those tribe-princes who had once been honoured to conduct the affairs of the chosen family, along with Moses and Aaron, and whose light shone forth from that better age as brilliant examples of what a truly theocratical character was” (Hengstenberg, Dissertations , i. p. 148). To give still greater prominence to the exalted calling of these princes, Amos shows in that Israel can justly be called the firstling of the nations, since it is not inferior either in prosperity or greatness to any of the powerful and prosperous heathen states. Amos names three great and flourishing capitals, because he is speaking to the great men of the capitals of the two kingdoms of Israel, and the condition of the whole kingdom is reflected in the circumstances of the capital. Calneh (= Calno , ) is the later Ctesiphon in the land of Shinar, or Babylonia, situated upon the Tigris opposite to Seleucia (see at ); hence the expression עברוּ, because men were obliged to cross over the river (Euphrates) in order to get there. Hamath : the capital of the Syrian kingdom of that name, situated upon the Orontes (see at and Num 34:8). There was not another Hamath, as Hitzig supposes. The circumstance that Amos mentions Calneh first, whereas it was much farther to the east, so that Hamath was nearer to Palestine than Calneh was, may be explained very simply, from the fact that the enumeration commences with the most distant place and passes from the north-east to the south-west, which was in the immediate neighbourhood of Israel. Gath : one of the five capitals of Philistia, and in David’s time the capital of all Philistia (see at ; ). The view still defended by Baur - namely, that Amos mentions here three cities that had either lost their former grandeur, or had fallen altogether, for the purpose of showing the self-secure princes of Israel that the same fate awaited Zion and Samaria - is groundless and erroneous; for although Calneh is spoken of in as a city that had been conquered by the Assyrians, it cannot be proved that this was the case as early as the time of Amos, but is a simple inference drawn from a false interpretation of the verse before us. Nor did Jeroboam II conquer the city of Hamath on the Orontes, and incorporate its territory with his own kingdom (see at 2Ki 14:25). And although the Philistian city Gath was conquered by Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:60, we cannot infer from , or from the fact of Gath not being mentioned in , that this occurred before the time of Amos (see at ). On the other hand, the fact that it is placed by the side of Hamath in the passage before us, is rather a proof that the conquest did not take place till afterwards.

‏ Amos 6:1

The prophet utters the second woe over the careless heads of the nation, who were content with the existing state of things, who believed in no divine judgment, and who revelled in their riches (Amo 6:1-6). To these he announces destruction and the general overthrow of the kingdom (Amo 6:7-11), because they act perversely, and trust in their own power (Amo 6:12-14). Amo 6:1. “Woe to the secure upon Zion, and to the careless upon the mountain of Samaria, to the chief men of the first of the nations, to whom the house of Israel comes! Amo 6:2. Go over to Calneh, and see; and proceed thence to Hamath, the great one: and go down to Gath of the Philistines: are they indeed better than these kingdoms? or is their territory greater than your territory? Amo 6:3. Ye who keep the day of calamity far off, and bring the seat of violence near.” This woe applies to the great men in Zion and Samaria, that is to say, to the chiefs of the whole of the covenant nation, because they were all sunk in the same godless security; though special allusion is made to the corrupt leaders of the kingdom of the ten tribes, whose debauchery is still further depicted in what follows. These great men are designated in the words נקבי ראשׁית הגּוים, as the heads of the chosen people, who are known by name. As ראשׁית הג is taken from Num 24:20, so נקבי is taken from Num 1:17, where the heads of the tribes who were chosen as princes of the congregation to preside over the numbering of the people are described as men אשׁר נקּבוּ בּשׁמות, who were defined with names, i.e., distinguished by names, that is to say, well-known men; and it is used here in the same sense. Observe, however, with reference to ראשׁית הגּוים, that in Num 24:20 we have not הגּוים, but simply ראשׁית גּוים. Amalek is so called there, as being the first heathen nation which rose up in hostility to Israel. On the other hand, ר הגוים is the firstling of the nations, i.e., the first or most exalted of all nations. Israel is so called, because Jehovah had chosen it out of all the nations of the earth to be the people of His possession (Exo 19:5; cf. 2Sa 7:23). In order to define with still greater precision the position of these princes in the congregation, Amos adds, “to whom the house of Israel cometh,” namely, to have its affairs regulated by them as its rulers. These epithets were intended to remind the princes of the people of both kingdoms, “that they were the descendants of those tribe-princes who had once been honoured to conduct the affairs of the chosen family, along with Moses and Aaron, and whose light shone forth from that better age as brilliant examples of what a truly theocratical character was” (Hengstenberg, Dissertations, i. p. 148). To give still greater prominence to the exalted calling of these princes, Amos shows in Amo 6:2 that Israel can justly be called the firstling of the nations, since it is not inferior either in prosperity or greatness to any of the powerful and prosperous heathen states. Amos names three great and flourishing capitals, because he is speaking to the great men of the capitals of the two kingdoms of Israel, and the condition of the whole kingdom is reflected in the circumstances of the capital. Calneh (= Calno, Isa 10:9) is the later Ctesiphon in the land of Shinar, or Babylonia, situated upon the Tigris opposite to Seleucia (see at Gen 10:10); hence the expression עברוּ, because men were obliged to cross over the river (Euphrates) in order to get there. Hamath: the capital of the Syrian kingdom of that name, situated upon the Orontes (see at Gen 10:18 and Num 34:8). There was not another Hamath, as Hitzig supposes. The circumstance that Amos mentions Calneh first, whereas it was much farther to the east, so that Hamath was nearer to Palestine than Calneh was, may be explained very simply, from the fact that the enumeration commences with the most distant place and passes from the north-east to the south-west, which was in the immediate neighbourhood of Israel. Gath: one of the five capitals of Philistia, and in David’s time the capital of all Philistia (see at Jos 13:3; 2Sa 8:1). The view still defended by Baur - namely, that Amos mentions here three cities that had either lost their former grandeur, or had fallen altogether, for the purpose of showing the self-secure princes of Israel that the same fate awaited Zion and Samaria - is groundless and erroneous; for although Calneh is spoken of in Isa 10:9 as a city that had been conquered by the Assyrians, it cannot be proved that this was the case as early as the time of Amos, but is a simple inference drawn from a false interpretation of the verse before us. Nor did Jeroboam II conquer the city of Hamath on the Orontes, and incorporate its territory with his own kingdom (see at 2Ki 14:25). And although the Philistian city Gath was conquered by Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:60, we cannot infer from 2Ch 26:6, or from the fact of Gath not being mentioned in Amo 1:6-8, that this occurred before the time of Amos (see at Amo 1:8). On the other hand, the fact that it is placed by the side of Hamath in the passage before us, is rather a proof that the conquest did not take place till afterwards.