6 who drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the best oils; but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Amos now reproaches the chiefs of both kingdoms for drinking wine in bowls, that is, in vessels either elegantly formed or precious. Some think "silver" to be understood "in vessels of silver:" but there is no need of regarding any thing as understood in the Prophet's words. The meaning is, that those men were sufficiently convicted of brutish stupidity, inasmuch as they did not forsake their indulgences, when God manifested his terrible vengeance. Since God then did thus what tended to humble them, their madness and blindness were conspicuous enough; for they indulged themselves, they drank wine according to their usual custom, when they ought to have betaken themselves, as we have said, to fasting, lamentation, and mourning, to sackcloth and ashes. They drank wine in bowls, and further, they anointed themselves with the chief ointments Christ, we know, was anointed at least twice, (Luke 7:38 Matthew 26:7) and this practice was not blamed in David, nor in king Hezekiah, nor in others. Since then anointing was not in itself sinful, we see that the Prophet must have something particular in view. He meant to show, that when God manifested tokens of his wrath, nothing then remained for those who were conscious of having done evil, but humbly to abstain, like guilty persons, from all indulgences, that they might, by fasting and mourning, excite the mercy of God: as the Israelites had not done this, the Prophet expostulated with them. There is no need of seeking, any other interpretation of this place. For he immediately subjoins, that they grieved not for the bruising of Joseph These words are to be read in connection with the former, and ought to be applied to the whole discourse. The Prophet then does not specifically blame the Jews and Israelites because they drank wine in bowls, because they anointed themselves with the best and most precious ointment, because they reposed on ivory beds, because they extended themselves on their couches, because they ate the best meat; but because they securely indulged in such delights, and grieved not for the distress of their brethren, for God had miserably afflicted the whole kingdom before their eyes. How much had four tribes already suffered? and how much the whole land and those who lived in the country? Ought God to have spared any longer these chiefs? It is indeed certain, that those who were still free from these calamities were especially culpable. Since then they did not consider the wrath of God, which was evident enough before their eyes, it was a proof of stupidity wholly insane, and showed them who still indulged themselves to have been utterly besides themselves. We now then understand the full meaning of the Prophet; and hence he says, They shall emigrate at the head of the emigrants, that is, "when there shall be an emigration, they shall be the first in order of time. I have hitherto indulgently spared you; but as I see that you have abused my forbearance, ye shall certainly be the forerunners of others; for ye shall go first into captivity. And my rigor shall begin with you, because I see that I have hitherto lost all my labor in attempting, kindly and paternally to call you to repentance. Ye shall now then migrate at the head of the emigrants And come shall the mourning of those who extend themselves, srvchym, saruchim [1]; that is, "Ye indeed lie down, (as he had said before,) ye extend yourselves on your couches; but mourning shall come to you. Ye think that you can escape punishment, when ye repose quietly on your beds; but though your chambers be closed, though ye move not a finger, yet mourning shall come to you." We now see the connection between the words, mourning and resting in idleness and indulgence. The word srch, sarech, means indeed properly to recumb; and hence some render the passage, "Mourning shall rest on you:" but the more received meaning is, Mourning shall come on you while recumbing. Though then they stretched out themselves on their beds, that they might pleasantly and softly recumb and rest themselves, yet mourning would come to them, that is, would enter into their chambers.
1 - The words are vsr mrzh srvchym, usar merezach saruchim, -- an instance of striking alliteration. But Calvin's rendering, though amounting in its general import to the same thing, is certainly not the correct one. sr never means to come, but the reverse, to depart. To decline, to turn aside or away, or to depart, is its common signification. Then mrzh is properly shouting, either for grief or for joy; here evidently for the latter; and it may be rendered here mirth; so the clause may be thus translated -- And depart shall the mirth of the recumbents, or, of those who stretch themselves. Dr. Henderson's version is the following: -- And the shouting company of those that recline shall depart. The translation of Symmachus is, "Taken away shall be the company of the voluptuous, hetaireia trupheton" The idea of "banquet" for the word here used, is what the Rabbins have given to it. -- Ed.
That drink wine in bowls - (Literally, as the English margin, "drink in bowls," literally, "sprinkling vessels, of wine"). The word is elsewhere used only of the "bowls," out of which the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled. Probably Amos was referring to the first offering of the Princes in the wilderness, with whom he had already tacitly contrasted these Princes . They had shown zeal for God in offering the massive bowls for the service of the tabernacle: the like zeal had these princes for the service of their own "god Philippians 3:19, their belly." It may be too, (since misbelief and sensuality are necessarily irreverent) that they used for their revels vessels which had at one time been employed in sprinkling the blood of their idol-sacrifices. There was no additional desecration in it. The gold and silver vessels of the temple were consecrated by being offered to God, by His hallowing of the temple through His presence, by being used in the typical sacrifices. The gold and silver, creatures of God, were desecrated by being employed in idol-worship, of which indeed sensuality was a part. Their employment in this luxury was only a continuance of their desecration, which it did but illustrate. It is nothing incredible, since among Christians, the fonts of the Church have been turned into horsetroughs by sects who disbelieved in Baptism. The vessels were, probably, large, since those offered for the tabernacle weighed 70 shekels. Private luxury vied with the fictitious sanctuary, which aped the sanctuary of God. Perhaps Amos would express the capacity of these vessels by saying, "that drink in bowls of wine." Like swine in the trough, they immersed themselves in their drink , "swimming in mutual swill."
All this they did, he expresses, habitually. He speaks of these their acts in a form expressing an ever-renewed present, "the putters off, the liers on couches of ivory, the out-stretched, the eating, the drinking," men whose lives were spent in nothing else; the voluptuaries, sensualists, "good-fellows" of Israel.
Anoint themselves with the chief ointments - Anointing the body was a sort of necessary 2-Chronicles 28:15 in the hot climate of the East, for bodily health. "Not" to anoint the body was the exception, as in mourning 2-Samuel 14:2. But necessaries become a vehicle for luxury. For health, olive-oil sufficed Deuteronomy 28:40. For the service of God, a rich ointment was appointed, to which odorous substances, myrrh, cinnamon, the odoriferous reed, and cassia Exodus 30:23-25. gave a scent emblematic of the fragrance of holiness. In order to separate what was sacred from ordinary uses, God forbade, on pain of death, to imitate this ointment, or "pour it on the flesh of man" Exodus 30:32-33. Luxury vied with religion, and took to itself either the same, or ointment more costly. "They anointed themselves with the chief" (kind) "of ointments;" those which held the first, highest rank among them. Nothing better or so good was left for what they thought to be the service of God, as, in times a little past, anything was thought good enough for a Church, nothing too good for a dwelling-house. Gorgeous adornments of man's house were thought splendor and good taste and fit employment of wealth; slight adornment of the house of God was thought superstition.
But - (And) they are not grieved - (Literally, "grieve not themselves,") admit no grief, shut out all grief, "for the affliction" (literally, "breach") of "Joseph." The name of the patriarch, Ephraim's father, recalled his suffering from his brethren . His brethren cast him into a "pit without water" Genesis 37:24, probalby an empty leaking well, (much as was that into which Jeremiah Jeremiah 38:6 was cast,) damp, fetid, and full of loathsome creatures. They "saw the anguish of his soul when he besought them, and would not hear" Genesis 42:21. But what did they? "They sat down to eat bread" Genesis 37:25. So did these rich men deal with all their brethren, all Ephraim. They suffered not in, or with, any sufferings, present or future, of individuals or the whole. "Cast off thought," "cast off care," is the motto of sensualists and of the worldly; "seize joyous the present hour, and leave the future," said the pagan . This was the effect of their luxury and life of sense.
The prophet recounts, they stretched themselves listlessly, ate choice food, sang glees, drank deep, anointed themselves with the very best ointment, "and grieved" not themselves for any sufferings of their own flesh and blood. It followed, of necessity, from the rest. Luxury shuts out suffering, because any vivid knowledge of or dwelling upon sufferings must needs disturb its ease. Selfish wealth persuades itself that there is no suffering, lest it should be forced to think of it; it "will" think distress either too little, so that it can relieve itself, or so great that it cannot be relieved; or it will philosophise upon distress and misery, as though it were best relieved by its own luxuries. Any how it will not know or hear of its details, it will not admit grief. Lap.: "Mercilessness is the own daughter of pleasure." "This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom; pride, fullness of bread, and careless ease had she and her daughters; and the hand of the poor and needy she strengthened not" Ezekiel 16:49. "Seest thou," says Chrysostom , "how he blames a delicate life? For in these words he accuses not covetousness, but prodigality only. And thou eatest to excess, Christ not even for need; thou various cakes, He not so much as dry bread; thou drinkest choice wine, but on Him thou hast not bestowed so much as a cup of cold water in His thirst. Thou art on a soft, embroidered bed; He is perishing with the cold. Be then the banquets clear from covetousness, yet they are accursed because, while thou doest all beyond thy need, to Him thou givest not even His need; and that, living in luxury on what is His!"
And yet what was this luxury, which the prophet so condemns? What, in us, were simplicity. What scarce anyone thought of diminishing, while two million, close by, were wasting away by famine's horrors; chairs or sofas inlaid, fat lamb or veal; wine; perfumes; light music. The most delicate ingredient of those perfumes, cinnamon, enters into our food. "Looking at our times," says a writer at the close of the 16th century , "I marvel at the spareness of the ancients, and think that it would be well with us, if any above the poor were content with what were, of old, delicacies to kings and nobles. Happy were these times, if they could imitate even what the prophets blame in nobles. In the Gospel, "the King" who "made a marriage feast for His Son said, I have prepared My dinner, My oxen and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready; come unto the marriage" Matthew 22:2, Matthew 22:4.
When a "fatted calf" was killed for a feast, it was thought the best cheer, as when Abraham entertained Angels, or in that feast of the Father who, when He had received back His son, said, "bring hither the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and be merry: for this My son was dead and is alive again" Luke 15:23-24. So then the prophet accuses the nobles of luxury, because they ate fat oxen and lambs. For the table of Solomon, the wealthiest of monarchs, there were brought "fat oxen, and oxen, out of the pastures, sheep, besides hart and roebuck and fallow deer and fatted fowls" 1-Kings 4:23. "Now" whatever is produced in sea or earth or sky, people think to be born to satisfy their appetites. Who could recount the manifold forms of food and condiments, which all-inventing gluttony has devised? Books had to be written; no memory sufficed. In this ocean, wealthiest patrimonies have discharged themselves and disappeared.
Among the Romans, Fabius, for devouring his patrimony, was called Gurges (whirlpool). Were this the practice now, he would have many great people surnamed from him, who, poor through gluttony, prey on the patrimonies of the poor, retain the property of the rich against their wills, and live on what is another's. It were little to consume whole patrimonies in luxury, were it not that the virtues and nerves of the mind were also consumed and vices of all sorts crept in. Shame to copy the luxury of pagan, and despise their care for maintaining temperance. We need not old examples. Such was the frugality of our Spaniards, 70 years ago, before they adopted foreign manners, that the rich had but mutton, roast and boiled, at their tables, nobles alone had poultry. Well were it then, if, in matter of food, we did only, what the prophet in his time blamed." Spain has sunk under its luxury to a third-rate power. What can await England? What can await it, when the prophet's blame were praise, and Dives is the pattern and ideal of the charity of most of us, and luxury, vanity, and selfindulgence are held to be the best way of ministering to the poor? Marvelous "imitation of Christ!" Once, to "forsake all" was to "follow" Christ. Now, to possess all, heap up all, to expend nothing save on self, and to "shew mercy on the poor" by allowing them to minister to our luxuries, is, according to the new philosophy of wealth, to be the counterfeit of Christian charity.
That drink wine in bowls - Perhaps the costliness of the drinking vessels, more than the quantity drank, is that which is here reprehended by the prophet. Drinking vessels of the most costly materials, and of the most exquisite workmanship, are still in use; and as to precious ointments and perfumes among the Jews, we have a proof that the contents of one small box was worth three hundred denarii, at least seven pounds ten shillings sterling. See the case in the Gospel, John 12:5 (note), and the note there.
That drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments: but they are not (f) grieved for the affliction of Joseph.
(f) They did not pity their brethren, of which many were now slain and carried away captive.
That drink wine in bowls,.... Not in small cups or glasses, but in large bowls, that they might drink freely, even to drunkenness; hence we read of the drunkards of Ephraim, or the ten tribes, Isaiah 28:1; or "drink in bowls of wine"; which is much to the: same sense. The Targum is,
"that drink wine in silver phials;''
and anoint themselves with the, chief ointments; which Jarchi says was balsam, and the best is that which grew about Jericho; this they did not for moderate refreshment, but for pleasure, and to indulge themselves in luxury:
but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph; or the "breach" of him (z); that was made upon him by some enemy or another: either what had been already made; Kimchi thinks it respects the carrying captive of some before the reign of Jeroboam; or it may regard the distress Pul king of Assyria gave to Israel, in the times of Menahem; or the carrying captive the inhabitants of several places by Tiglathpileser, king of Assyria, in the times of Pekah, 2-Kings 15:19; or else, as Jarchi thinks, this refers to some breach and affliction to come, which these men were unconcerned about; even what they heard from the mouth of the prophets should come to them; that the kingdom of the house of Israel should case, and be utterly took away, Hosea 1:4; which was fulfilled by Shalmaneser, who carried Israel captive into the cities of the Medes, 2-Kings 17:6; but the prophecy of this did not trouble them, or make them sick at heart, as the word (a) signifies, nor any present affliction that might attend them; they did not weep with them that weep, were men of hard hearts, that had no sympathy with their brethren and fellow creatures. It is thought that here is some allusion to the attitude of Joseph's brethren to him, when in the pit, and sold by them into Egypt; or to the chief butler's forgetfulness of him, when advanced, and amidst his cups.
(z) "super contritione", Pagninus, Montanus; "propter confractienem Josephi", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; "ob fractionem Josephi", Cocceius. (a) "neque afficiuntur argritudine", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius.
drink . . . in bowls--in the large vessels or basins in which wine was mixed; not satisfied with the smaller cups from which it was ordinarily drunk, after having been poured from the large mixer.
chief ointments--that is, the most costly: not for health or cleanliness, but wanton luxury.
not grieved for the affliction of Joseph--literally, "the breach," that is, the national wound or calamity (Psalm 60:2; Ezekiel 34:4) of the house of Joseph (Amos 5:6); resembling in this the heartlessness of their forefathers, the sons of Jacob, towards Joseph, "eating bread" while their brother lay in the pit, and then selling him to Ishmaelites.
In bowls - Not in little vessels, but probably bowls: they drank these filled as full as they could hold too, and in design to drink each other down. And anoint - In those hot countries this anointing was much used. Not grieved - Nothing affected with the calamities of their country.
*More commentary available at chapter level.