The Pulpit Commentary — Amos — Section 34

It all? Had things ocourred In the normal way? Had gratitude waited on blessing in due proportion, and improvement followed privilege? Thie verse is the disappoint- ing anewer. Israel's response to God's appeal, BR contained in bis 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 WAB PBIMABILY A BIN 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 (Numb. vi. 1; xii. 6). It was bis will that they should perform their characteristic acts. In doing so they were but his instruments, accomplishing bis 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 arc all God's prophets, understanding the mysteries o! 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 (Matt. x. 40). Our treatment of them is virtually onr treat- ment of him .that sent them (Matt. xxv. 40). A kiss to them reaches the Master's lips; a blow to them touches the apple of his eye. II. PROXIMATELY Tms WAS A BIN AGAINST MAN. It consisted in compelling the prophet and the Nazarite to disobey God. Now, disobedience is sin, even when com• mitted 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 blasp;.aeme (Acts xxvi. 11); and when recalling the siu 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 I 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 bis mouth they cut tLem- selves 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 Naze.rite waa 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 Naze.rites was a continual protest against the self-indulgence and worldliness of the people.•.. It was a life above nature and thought.... Tbey 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 sip;ht is not confined to Israel (2 Tim. iv. 3). There are Churches tha.t will not tolerate faithful preaching. There is a preaching that minces the gospel testimony against sin. It is the case of Isra.el over again. The people sinfully silence the prea.cher, and the preacher sinfully submits to be silenced. A Church asleep, a.nd the minister rocking the cradle, is a poor interpretation of the pastoral rela.tion. IV. ALTOGETHER IT WAS A BIN AGGRAVATED BY THE ENJOYMENT OF SPE0UL AMOS. I> 34 TBB BOOK OF AMOS. [ OH, D, 1-16.