Amos 7:13
But prophesy not again any more at Beth-el: for it is the king's chapel, and it is the king's court.
Original Language Analysis
Cross References
Historical Context
The tension between prophetic authority and royal/priestly authority runs throughout Israel's history. Samuel confronted Saul (1 Samuel 13:8-14, 15:10-23), Nathan confronted David (2 Samuel 12:1-14), Elijah confronted Ahab (1 Kings 18:17-18, 21:17-24), and Elisha confronted various kings. True prophets spoke God's word regardless of consequences; false prophets told kings what they wanted to hear (1 Kings 22:1-28; Jeremiah 28).
Bethel's status as "the king's chapel" meant its priesthood owed allegiance to royal authority. Amaziah's accusation to Jeroboam (7:10-11) and dismissal of Amos (7:12-13) demonstrate how state religion suppresses prophetic truth. The pattern repeats when institutional interests conflict with God's word—suppress the message rather than repent. Amos's confrontation with Amaziah previews Jesus's conflicts with temple authorities and the Reformers' battles with corrupt church hierarchies.
Questions for Reflection
- How do modern religious institutions sometimes prioritize institutional preservation over prophetic faithfulness to God's word?
- What's the difference between legitimate church order and illegitimate suppression of biblical truth under the guise of authority?
Analysis & Commentary
But prophesy not again any more at Beth-el: for it is the king's chapel, and it is the king's court—Amaziah forbids Amos from further prophesying at Bethel, claiming jurisdictional authority. The phrase the king's chapel (מִקְדַּש־מֶלֶךְ, miqdash-melekh) and the king's court (בֵּית מַמְלָכָה, beit mamlakhah, literally "house of the kingdom") reveal Bethel's true nature: a royal sanctuary serving political purposes, not a house of God serving covenant faithfulness.
This verse exposes the fatal error of state-controlled religion. Amaziah appeals to royal patronage and national loyalty rather than divine authority. He effectively declares: "This sanctuary belongs to the king, not to God; therefore, the king's interests trump prophetic truth." The sanctuary (miqdash) should be God's dwelling place where His word is heard, but Amaziah has made it the king's domain where royal interests determine permissible speech. The phrase "king's court" (beit mamlakhah) emphasizes Bethel's political function—it's government property, and Amos is trespassing by delivering unwelcome messages.
This represents the perennial temptation to domesticate God's word for human purposes. When religious institutions prioritize institutional preservation, political loyalty, or financial interests over prophetic faithfulness, they become "the king's chapel" rather than God's house. Jesus drove money-changers from the temple precisely because they had transformed His Father's house into a marketplace (John 2:13-17). The Reformation battle cry sola Scriptura challenged exactly this kind of institutional authority that silenced God's word. Amaziah's claim "it is the king's chapel" would be answered by the Reformers: "The church belongs to Christ alone, not to kings or popes."