Amos 5 reaffirms what we’ve seen in the previous Old Testament passages. God hates injustice. But injustice must be defined on the Bible’s terms, not ours. Injustice implies a corrupted judicial system, an arbitrary legal code, and outright cruelty to the poor.
Too many liberals and socialists have fallen into the typical trap of taking God's truth, distorting it, and then adding to it according to their own desires while still calling it from God. Wrong.
Here's the rest of DeYoung's post.
The fifth chapter of Amos contains some of the most striking and most famous justice language in the Bible. The Lord rebukes his people for turning “justice into wormwood” (7), for hating the one who speaks the truth (10), for trampling on the poor (11; cf. 4:1), for turning aside the needy in the gate (12). Because of their sin, the Lord despises Israel’s feasts and assemblies (21) and threatens to visit the land with darkness and not light (18-20). The only hope for God’s people is that they “seek good, and not evil,” that they establish justice in the gate (14-15). Or, to quote the concluding exhortation made famous by Martin Luther King Jr., Israel must “let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
Clearly, God cares about justice and the poor. Conversely, his wrath burns against those who commit injustice and trample the poor. So what are the specific sins condemned by Amos?
1. Kicking the poor when they are down instead of giving them a hand up. It seems the wealthy were selling the poor into slavery even when the poor owed as little as a pair of sandals (2:6-7). This is cruelty instead of mercy.
2. Doing “justice” for the highest bidder. In ancient Israel the leading men of the town would gather at the city gate to decide the cases that came to them. Instead of making fair judgment based on the truth, the men of Amos’ day accepted bribes and paid no attention to the righteous plea of the poor (5:10, 12).
3. Arbitrary, excessive taxation on the poor to benefit the rich (5:11).
4. A smug assurance on the part of the rich who live in the lap of luxury on the backs of the poor. The wealthy in Amos’ day, like some in ours, were proud of their wealth. They reveled in it (4:1; 6:4-7). They felt secure in it (6:1). To make matters worse, their getting richer had been made possible by the poor getting poorer. They had cheated, perverted justice, and, according to one commentator, made their money by “outrageous seizure” and illegal “land grabbing” (cf. Isa. 5:8).
9 comments:
What's the intention of this? That if we define injustice tightly enough we can claim that we're not in breach? These posts feel like tricky legalism to me - designed to make it easier not to feel like we need to change our approach to the poor.
Geoff - the intention is to continue to reinforce that a godly man loves justice and mercy.
I see many by-passing God and moving to a works based mindset (just like the Pharisees - aka Evangelicals - they rightly confront) that looks like social action. This is not right.
I also see many trying to enact God's justice through forced government as opposed to lives changed by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So actually, I was attempting to guard against legalism.
alright...social action in the form of civil disobedience and demonstration is not the answer to corporate/governmental "land grabbing" and further economic oppression of the poor and some live a transformed life and affect many, many people within their sphere of influence but the injustice remains....so what action does "THE CHURCH" in America (which cant really be called a church because it doesnt work together) do about injustice in your assessment Rick?
OK - I'm stirred up enough to have another go here - because I do like the four points that are the "specific sins" and I'd like to have a crack at applying them to today's world.
1. "Kicking the poor when they are down instead of giving them a hand up. It seems the wealthy were selling the poor into slavery even when the poor owed as little as a pair of sandals (2:6-7). This is cruelty instead of mercy." - We do this when we choose to buy goods that are manufactured in factories with abhorrent working conditions and essentially no workers rights. When we allow this to happen, through the purchasing decisions we make - we are committing the same sin.
2. "Doing “justice” for the highest bidder. In ancient Israel the leading men of the town would gather at the city gate to decide the cases that came to them. Instead of making fair judgment based on the truth, the men of Amos’ day accepted bribes and paid no attention to the righteous plea of the poor (5:10, 12)." Think this isn't happening? You think that you can't buy a much better deal when a case goes to trial if you've got the cash? Think that a muslim person gets the same reaction in the courtroom as a white person?
3. "Arbitrary, excessive taxation on the poor to benefit the rich (5:11)." - On re-reading this passage I'd actually extend this definition to include repaying debts: and the systems in our great capitalist countries rip off the poor with either having home-ownership completely out of the question (reinforcing a cycle of poverty) or imposing ridiculous interest rates on debts that institutions know people can't repay.
4. "A smug assurance on the part of the rich who live in the lap of luxury on the backs of the poor. The wealthy in Amos’ day, like some in ours, were proud of their wealth. They reveled in it (4:1; 6:4-7). They felt secure in it (6:1). To make matters worse, their getting richer had been made possible by the poor getting poorer. They had cheated, perverted justice, and, according to one commentator, made their money by “outrageous seizure” and illegal “land grabbing” (cf. Isa. 5:8)." Now there are some incredible parallels here - I don't know if you've ever seen "The Story of Stuff", but that's a pretty compelling indication of the ways that most of our multi-nationals are externalising the costs and riding off the back of the poorer nations. Stories of Coca-cola buying the water supplies in towns in India to make their soft-drinks at the expense of the locals is a fairly strong parallel.
But I don't participate in these things, I hear you say. And you're right - you're not directly involved in any of these specific sins (at least I'm pretty sure you're not) - but we've got to remember that God is speaking to an entire people. You've got to assume that most of the individuals in the society weren't involved in any of these sins either - but it's the whole nation that is spoken to and ultimately punished when we let these things stay as they are.
But even after all this - I think the exercise of narrowing down justice into the lowest common denominator is a poor hermeneutic.
My second comment started before your reply came - so I wasn't "stirred up" by your response, but I do want to reply to something you said.
"I also see many trying to enact God's justice through forced government as opposed to lives changed by the power of the Holy Spirit."
Which of the four "specific sins" listed do you think would not have a "government" role? The fact of the matter is that where there is government, they are invariably involved with the business of justice - for good and for bad. Where is the biblical precedent for this notion that we should do justice, but that government can't be involved? Because it seems that lots of the time God sent the prophets to speak with the Kings about doing justice, or stopping injustice.
Martin (or do I call you Yoke?) - I have tension in this regard. I think in four categories, the individual, the church as an organization, organizations, and the government. I don't think we can fully separate these but I don't think we can take what is for the individual and apply directly for example to the government.
My attempt here and in other posts is to re-center us on what is clear and where our individual hearts need to be. Without that, I'm confident that our organizational and governmental efforts will be sinful and ultimately fail. With it however there is hope and for us, any attempt to be obedient, will end good - at least at the level that matters most.
So having said that, the Church should do at least what was instructed/modeled in the Bible. I think that includes but is not limited to, caring for those in need within the church (Acts 6 kind of stuff), proclaiming and demonstrating the Kingdom (power stuff - not collecting clothes for poor mothers), preach the Gospel and make disciples, etc...
Above and beyond that, I don't know. I know that I participate and contribute to the "beyond that" but I do it because it makes sense and I feel led as opposed to mandated.
The key is I'm thinking not to stop someone from pursuing what they are passionate about, I'm more thinking to confront that their passion is a universal truth for all, confront that in pursuing our passions we tend to get distracted from who we are in Christ, confront self-righteousness, etc...
I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the Church should respond to injustice X.
Geoff - if you would rebuild my blog for me this would be easier ... but ...
"Which of the four "specific sins" listed do you think would not have a "government" role?"
- I think the government should not allow people to be sold into slavery.
- I think the government should not allow bribery and should enforce the laws of the land.
- I think the government should not impose excessive taxes on the poor to benefit the rich.
- I think the government should guard against illegal seizures and not enact laws that make such legal.
And I never said we cannot "speak to our kings."
But of course that's not really what you are asking is it? The point is that it is very, very complicated. And too many want to flippantly promote social actions - ranging from wars to healthcare to the environment and what I see is passionate people misappropriating God's truth and many of them losing sight of their faith.
Geoff - I liked most of what you said but I'll react to one that got under my skin, "Think that a muslim person gets the same reaction in the courtroom as a white person?" On a personal note, I'm so tired of the race/religion/etc card. While it's sadly too often true, it's overplayed and my perception is that many who play it are prejudiced.
I'm not saying you fit that, I'm just reflecting my internal gut response when I read/hear that.
Geoff - to your larger comment - very complicated and not simple for the government to step in. Everything you wrote I tend to agree with but it reinforced my thinking of this is about individuals and perhaps organizations limited to raising awareness. Above and beyond that, we get into a mess. That doesn't mean I disagree but it means the solutions are difficult, the real problems muddled, actions often create unintended consequences, etc... and back to my original intent, too often the motive of being Spirit filled is left far behind.
I can use your first point as an example:
"Abhorrent" - as defined by who? Does that mean unhealthy? unsafe? Is it related to wages or job difficulty or ???
What if I the outsider find it abhorrent but you the worker don't mind (or know better)?
What are we talking in response from the government? Regulations? What if that increases costs such that the business goes out of business or employs fewer people or ??? Taxes? Same series of questions ... Tariffs? Oh oh ... what about in other countries and now we are tangled up by a factor of 100x.
Employment policies - don't hire women? don't hire black? don't hire the handicapped (or hire but don't provide "proper" facilities? don't hire muslims? don't hire felons? don't hire gays? Surely you are not thinking there is alignment on these?
One could argue that much of this is what leads to war, etc... So I'm not against what you are saying. I'm saying let's get clear on what Christian living really is and recognize when we've "crossed over".
A recent example for me is the US healthcare. Does something need to be done? I think so. Was what was done required by Scripture as so many tried to lay hold of? No.
So winding all the way back to the beginning, your initial reaction was "These posts feel like tricky legalism" and that's exactly what I'm trying to fight against. Let's have a conscience. Let's get informed rather than complacent in ignorance. But let's be real careful as we make conclusions and take action.
Post a Comment