MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

28. A Healthy Transition (Deuteronomy 31:1-13)

Related Media

Life of Moses (28)

September 16, 2018

In his book, Crisis: the Last Years of the Carter Presidency (cited in Newsweek [10/4/82]), Hamilton Jordan, who was President Carter’s Chief of Staff, tells about the jarring transition from being at the center of historic world events one day and being out of office the next day. The day before Carter left office, he and his team were working feverishly to free the American hostages in Iran. The next day, Carter and his staff flew to Plains, Georgia, as Ronald Reagan became the next President.

It was raining in Plains as President Carter and Jordan got off the helicopter. After Carter announced the breaking news that the hostages had been freed, the crowd cheered and a country music band burst into song. But it was over in a moment. Carter and his men adjourned to a barn behind the peanut warehouse where the staff had assembled a woodworking shop for the President. Jordan was struck with how strange it was that the man who the day before had been orchestrating the rescue of American hostages and leading our great nation was now poring over drills, saws, and screwdrivers in an old barn in rural Georgia.

Jordan decided to stay that night with his mother in Albany, Georgia, about 40 miles away. But he hadn’t made arrangements to get there. It had been years since he had to think about such matters. Soaking wet, carrying his briefcase and a suitcase, he wandered around for an hour trying to find someone who could give him a ride home. Finally, he went to the pay phone at Billy Carter’s old service station and tried to call a taxi, but they were all busy taking VIP’s to the airport. He finally found a Georgia State patrolman he knew who agreed to drive him to his mother’s house. He wrote, “It really is over, I thought as I loaded my luggage into his trunk, climbed into his front seat and headed home.”

Transitions aren’t easy. The bigger the transition, the more difficult it is. Going from being the Chief of Staff for the President of the United States, to being an unemployed man from a small town in Georgia, must have been traumatic!

As you probably know, we’re facing a major transition here at Flagstaff Christian Fellowship. Pastor Stan Johnson, who served on staff here for about 30 years, retired on April 1st. And I’m retiring soon after serving here as senior pastor since May, 1992. The church has called Dave Berry as the next senior pastor. He will begin in the next few months, after getting his family relocated here. My prayer is that the transition will go well and that all of you will warmly welcome Pastor Dave and his family and be as supportive of him as you have been of me.

You may wonder, “Does the Bible have anything to guide us through a healthy transition?” I believe that Moses’ handing his leadership baton to Joshua provides some wisdom for us. (Although I’m not implying that I’m like Moses or Dave is like Joshua!) Deuteronomy 31:1-13 teaches us that …

For a healthy transition, God’s people need to trust Him in the battle and follow new godly leaders who keep His Word central.

These are almost the final recorded words of this great man of God, and thus we should weigh them carefully. Four principles:

1. For a healthy transition, trust in God and His presence, not in human leaders who will pass off the scene.

Moses spoke to all Israel (Deut. 31:2-3),

“I am a hundred and twenty years old today; I am no longer able to come and go, and the Lord has said to me, ‘You shall not cross this Jordan.’ It is the Lord your God who will cross ahead of you; He will destroy these nations before you, and you shall dispossess them. Joshua is the one who will cross ahead of you, just as the Lord has spoken.”

Moses’ life was marked by three very different 40-year periods. For his first 40 years, Moses lived in Pharaoh’s palace as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He would have enjoyed all the comforts of life, with servants waiting to do his every wish. Acts 7:22 states, “Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power in words and deeds.”

But then Moses killed the Egyptian taskmaster who was beating an Israelite man. He had to flee to the remote desert area of Midian, where he married a shepherd’s daughter and tended his father-in-law’s sheep for the next 40 years. Then God met him at the burning bush and called him to return to Egypt to deliver the Israelites from bondage. That began the final 40 years of Moses’ life, leading these mostly stiff-necked people through the wilderness to the edge of the Promised Land. But because he did not treat God as holy when he disobediently struck the rock, God told Moses that he could not lead the people into the land of Canaan.

As Moses realizes that his time on earth is short, he reminds Israel of the crucial fact that the Lord is with them and will go with them as they face the people of Canaan, whom they must dispossess of the land. Note how he repeats this essential truth to drive it home: Verse 3: “It is the Lord your God who will cross ahead of you.” Verse 6: “The Lord your God is the one who goes with you.” Verse 8: “The Lord is the one who goes ahead of you.” And in verse 23, the Lord says to Joshua, “I will be with you.” Then after Moses’ death, the Lord says to Joshua (Josh. 1:5), “Just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.” He repeats (Josh. 1:9), “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous! Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”

This emphasis on God’s presence with His people takes us back to Exodus 33, where after the incident with the golden calf, the Lord told Moses that He would send His angel with Israel, but He Himself would not go up with them or He would destroy them because of their stiff necks. But Moses prayed, in effect, “Lord, if you don’t go with us, we aren’t going anywhere. It would be better to die in the wilderness with You than to go into the Promised Land without You!” The Lord relented and promised (Exod. 33:14, “My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest.”

In the New Testament, Jesus’ final words to His disciples before He ascended into heaven were (Matt. 28:20), “And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Writing to a suffering church, the author of Hebrews (13:5) cites Deuteronomy 31:6, “Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, ‘I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.’”

It is vital at all times, but especially in a time of change, to know that God is present with you. He is the one great unchanging constant in life! Don’t do anything that would put a distance between you and God. After David had sinned with Bathsheba, in Psalm 51:11 he pleads, “Do not cast me away from Your presence and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” I’ve heard Bible teachers say that we shouldn’t pray David’s prayer that the Lord would not take His Holy Spirit from us, since the Spirit permanently dwells in every believer. Technically, that’s true, but practically, sin will rob you from experiencing the Spirit’s presence and blessing.

Also, Moses repeats the theme of God’s faithfulness to His promises. He had promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants (Deut. 31:7). Now Moses reminds them (Deut. 31:6), “He will not fail you or forsake you.” He repeats (v. 8), “He will not fail you or forsake you.” At the end of Joshua’s life, echoing Moses’ words here, he reminded Israel (Josh. 23:14), “Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed.”

So as a church facing a time of transition, God’s word to us is, trust in Him and His faithfulness, not in any human leader, since leaders will pass off the scene. And, don’t do anything that would rob you of knowing God’s presence. It is vital that the Lord goes with us through a time of change.

2. For a healthy transition, realize that there will be battles to fight, but with God’s strength, we can overcome.

In verse 3, Moses reminds the people of what they knew very well, that there were frightening enemies that they would have to conquer to take the Promised Land. But he assures them, “It is the Lord your God who will cross ahead of you; He will destroy these nations before you.” He reminds them (v. 4), “The Lord will do to them just as He did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, and to their land, when He destroyed them.” Those powerful kings lived on the east side of the Jordan River, and God had already given Israel victory over them and given them their land. Then regarding the future enemies in Canaan, Moses repeats (v. 5), “The Lord will deliver them up before you.” So he was reminding Israel that there would be battles against these powerful enemies, but no enemy could stand against the Lord’s presence and His strength through His people. The Lord easily could have sent a plague on the Canaanites so that they all dropped dead and Israel just moved into their cities. But He didn’t do that. The Lord would deliver these enemies to Israel, but they had to fight in dependence on the Lord’s strength.

The Christian life is often depicted as a fight. We’re called to put on the full armor of God so that we may be able to stand firm in the battle against the unseen forces of darkness (Eph. 6:10-18). Paul exhorted Timothy (1 Tim. 6:12), “Fight the good fight of faith!” Our enemies are the world, the flesh, and the devil. At the end of Paul’s life, when he could have listed all the people he had led to Christ and all the churches that he had planted, instead, he told Timothy (2 Tim. 4:7), “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.” Jude 3 appeals to us to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

When I first began as a pastor over 41 years ago, I thought that most of the battles I would face would come from outside the church. It’s true that the subtle forces of worldliness constantly creep into the church. During my years of ministry, our godless culture has normalized no-fault divorce, pervasive pornography, profanity, homosexuality, and most recently, transgenderism.

But many of the battles have come from those inside the evangelical camp. In the late 1970’s, the inerrancy of Scripture was a major battle. The call to arms came through Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible [Zondervan], which exposed some of Fuller Seminary’s faculty who taught that the Bible contains errors.

In the 1980’s, John MacArthur wrote several books against those who teach that saving faith does not include submission to His lordship. At the same time, the so-called “prosperity gospel” was spreading all over the world. These false teachers claim that it is God’s will to heal all of your diseases and make you financially prosperous, if you claim it by faith (and send a nice donation to their ministries!). Also, the “New Apostolic Reformation” claims that we still have apostles and new prophetic revelation from God (MacArthur, Strange Fire Thomas Nelson], pp. 86, 89-103).

In the 1990’s, many evangelicals became enamored with the ancient rituals of the church and were drawn back to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches. Several evangelical leaders produced and signed a document, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” which affirmed that we should come together on the many areas where we agree and set aside our differences. Of course, that meant setting aside the central Reformation truth that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ, apart from works!

In the late 90’s and early part of this century, the “new perspective on Paul” asserted that the Reformers were mistaken to understand justification as God imputing forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness to us by faith. Rather, this false teaching claims that justification didn’t pertain to the doctrine of salvation, but rather to being a part of the covenant community (Phil Johnson, chapter 4 in Fool’s Gold [Crossway], ed. by John MacArthur).

Now, controversy over “social justice” is threatening to confuse the gospel by making racial reconciliation, ministry to the poor, and economic equality the mission of the church. While the church should help the poor and denounce racism, our main mission must be the gospel (see Kevin DeYoung & Greg Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church? [Crossway]). Otherwise, we’re trying to fix problems that stem from sin with external solutions that cannot transform human hearts.

So my point is, there have been battles over my four decades of ministry and those battles will continue because the enemy is alive and active. But I’m confident that Pastor Dave is knowledgeable about these battles and will stay abreast of those that erupt in the future. He is committed, as I have been, to the truth that an elder must (Titus 1:9) hold “fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” Relying on God’s strength, we can stand firm in the battles ahead.

3. For a healthy transition, older leaders need to pass the baton to courageous younger leaders who will carry on the fight of faith.

Moses recognized (Deut. 31:2) that at this point he was not able to lead Israel in the conquest of Canaan, both because of his age and because the Lord had told him that he would not be the one to do it. Every leader should be able to “do the math” and see that he won’t be around forever. Paul knew that his “outer man [was] decaying” (2 Cor. 4:16) and that the time of his departure had come (2 Tim. 4:6). Peter recognized that “the laying aside of [his] earthly dwelling [was] imminent” (2 Pet. 1:14). And so older leaders should be ready to pass the baton to courageous younger leaders who will carry on God’s work.

Moses did not hand-pick Joshua. Rather, Moses asked God to appoint a leader to follow him, and God told him that Joshua was that man (Num. 27:15-23). Joshua had served Moses from his youth (Num. 11:28). He had a shepherd’s heart (Num. 27:17). Joshua had the great privilege and responsibility of leading God’s people into their long-promised inheritance.

But Joshua was very different in gifts and style than Moses was. That’s true of every leader of God’s people. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. The church should not rally around one man or another, as if he were the only one capable of leading. The Corinthians were doing that with Paul, Apollos, Peter, and some sanctimoniously claiming that they didn’t follow any leader except Christ (1 Cor. 1:12). But Paul asked rhetorically (1 Cor. 3:5-7),

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

But, while different leaders will have different strengths and gifts, all leaders need courage to fight the good fight of faith. Moses charged Joshua (Deut. 31:7a), “Be strong and courageous ….” When he formally commissioned Joshua (Deut. 31:23), he repeated, “Be strong and courageous ….” When Joshua began his leadership, God challenged him four times to be strong and courageous (Josh. 1:6, 7, 9, 18). To lead God’s people, which includes confronting error and sin, godly leaders need to fear God and desire to please Him more than anyone else.

Thus, for a healthy transition, trust in the Lord and His presence, not in human leaders. Realize that there will be battles to fight, but with God’s strength, we can overcome. Older leaders must pass the baton to courageous younger leaders who will carry on the fight of faith. Finally,

4. For a healthy transition, God’s leaders and people need to keep His Word central and pass it on to their children.

In verses 9-13, we learn that Moses wrote down “this law,” referring at least to Deuteronomy, but probably to the entire Pentateuch, and told the priests to read it to all Israel, including women, children, and aliens, every seven years when they gathered for the Feast of Booths. The objective was (Deut. 31:12b-13), “so that they may hear and learn and fear the Lord your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law. Their children, who have not known, will hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as you live on the land which you are about to cross the Jordan to possess.” Commentators point out that the priests were charged with teaching God’s law not just every seven years (as stipulated here), but at all times (Mal. 2:7; Neh. 8:8).

The application for us is that God’s Word must be central to everything we believe, teach, and do as God’s people. We are privileged to have the written Word of God so widely available in our language! Most of you own more Bibles and Bible study helps than the majority of pastors around the world. But, we are charged with the important responsibility of teaching God’s truth, especially the gospel, to our children. But, to do this, you must have genuine faith in Christ as your Savior and then learn God’s Word, so that you fear and obey Him. Kids learn more from your life than from your lectures. You can’t impart to your kids what you yourself do not practice, not just on Sundays, but throughout the week.

Note also the repeated emphasis here on fearing the Lord (Deut. 31:12, 13). Proverbs 9:10 states, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” The fear of God is a biblical truth that is often lacking in modern evangelical churches. The fear of God stems from knowing that He is the Holy One. While He is our loving Father who invites us to draw near in fellowship with Him, we should always do so “with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28b-29). As long as we keep God’s Word central we will fear the Lord and pass that reverence on to our children.

Conclusion

The change of transitions can be difficult. Stanley Arnold (source unknown) wrote, “The essence of human life is change, but for too many of us, change does not excite, it disturbs. If success is what we seek, we must make change a partner in our pursuit.”

God knew that after Moses and Joshua, Israel would abandon the Lord for idols, causing Him to forsake them (Deut. 31:16-18). The threat of apostasy is always present. The Bible predicts and warns us about widespread apostasy in the end times (2 Thess. 3:3-12; 2 Tim. 3:1-5). But it’s not inevitable that we follow false teachers or defect from the faith. We can have a healthy transition if we will trust in the Lord and His presence, not in human leaders who will pass off the scene. Be ready to fight together in God’s strength against the many schemes of the devil. When your leaders courageously stand for the truth and against error, stand with them. And, keep God’s Word central, live it, and pass it down to your children.

Application Questions

  1. What major transitions are you facing personally? Do these excite you or cause anxiety? Discuss with a good friend.
  2. Why are many pastors afraid to confront false teaching? What happens to a church when a pastor does not expose false teaching?
  3. What are some current issues where leaders must be courageous?
  4. Which biblical truths are worth fighting about? Which are matters to debate, but not divide over? What determines the difference?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2018, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership

Pidgin English Bible

 
Download the Gospel of John in Pidgin English here.
 
Sample text:
 
GOSPEL WEY JON RITE
JON CHAPTA 1
How God Word Com Mit Us
1 From wen taim bigin na im di word dey, and di word dey wit God, and God kpa kpa Imsef na im bi di word. 2 Di word dey wit God from wen taim bigin. 3 Na im make everitin and if no bi sey na in make dem, dem for nor dey for dis world. 4 Na im bi life and dat life na im bi di lite wey pipol get. 5 Di lite dey shine for darkness but darkness no gri wit Am.

Q. How Do I Honor A Close Relative Who Is A Fool?

Answer:

First, let us agree that it is possible for anyone, including a close relative, to be a fool (Proverbs 10:1; 15:5, 20; 17:25; 19:13). Indeed, all of us are guilty of foolishness at times. It is possible for a king to act foolishly (1 Samuel 13:13; 26:21; 2 Samuel 24:10). No doubt this is why Solomon prayed for wisdom (2 Chronicles 1:7-12).

That said, it is also possible for one to wrongly judge another person to be foolish, which can have serious consequences (2 Samuel 6:20; Matthew 5:22).

To my knowledge 1 Samuel 25 is the best biblical example of the way wisdom deals with foolishness on the part of a close relative, or of one who deserves honor, such as a king (Romans 13:7; 1 Thessalonians 4:4; Romans 12:10; 1 Peter 2:17).

We should note that there are actually two men who are acting foolishly in this text in 1 Samuel 25 – Nabal, the fool (1 Samuel 25:17, 25) and David. David was hot-headed and about to act foolishly by setting out to kill all the men of Nabal’s household. Abigail is a godly woman, who dealt wisely with regard to her husband, and with regard to her king.

Had Abigail failed to act contrary to her husband’s intentions Nabal would have been put to death, along with all the males in his household. Instead, Abigail subordinated her personal interests by putting herself in harm’s way, and offering to suffer David’s wrath toward Nabal (1 Samuel 25:23-24). Her actions covered for her husband’s folly and as a result spared his life and the lives of others.

David, too, was inclined to act foolishly by dealing harshly with not only Nabal, but also with his entire male household (who obviously did not share Nabal’s folly – see 1 Samuel 25:14-17). Unlike Nabal, Abigail embraced the fact that God had appointed David to be Israel’s king (see 1 Samuel 25:1-11, 30-31). She reasoned with David that such folly as killing Nabal’s household would cast a shadow over David’s reign as Israel’s king. Unlike Nabal, David listened to reason.

The point is that Abigail honored her husband by putting herself in harm’s way to spare her husband’s life. She honored David by appealing him to act in a wise and kingly way, for this was who he was destined to be.

I think the take-away here is that we may honor others in different ways, depending upon their character. Is this not consistent with what we read in Proverbs?

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
lest you yourself also be like him.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own estimation (Proverbs 26:4-5, NET).

Think of it this way. Abigail did not answer Nabal, the fool, according to his folly. To try to reason with him would have been futile, and indeed, counter-productive. She did not let his folly keep her from sparing his life, and the lives of the men in her household.

But in the case of David, she did answer him according to his folly – in a way that exposed the folly of his intended actions, and she reasoned with him in a way that led to a dramatic change of course for him.

So, in the final analysis, wisdom is necessary in order to determine which course of action to take when “honoring” a person who is acting foolishly. (And God has promised to give us wisdom – James 1:5.) In the end, one must discern how to respond to someone acting foolishly by discerning their character, and acting accordingly. David was about to act foolishly, but he was no fool, and thus he responded to reason. Nabal was a fool, and would not have responded to reason, and so Abigail acted wisely by putting herself at risk, and doing what would save Nabal’s life, as well as the lives of his male servants.

I hope this helps,
Bob Deffinbaugh

Related Topics: Christian Life, Relationships

Live Humbly Before God

Related Media

A strong reason for pursuing genuine humility is found in Bible verses that prove that God sustains the humble (e.g., Ps. 147:6). In this study we shall examine primarily scriptural texts from the Psalms that teach that the Lord is he who sustains the humble person. David writes:

To the faithful you show yourself faithful,
to the blameless you show yourself blameless,

To the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd.

You save the humble
but bring low those whose eyes are haughty. (Ps. 18:25-27)1

What was true in David’s case is no less true for today’s believers. As Futato observes. “What is true of the Lord in his relationship with David … is true of his relationship with all … All who are humble will find the Lord to be a shield as they look to him for protection.”2 Elsewhere David remarks,

Good and upright is the LORD;
therefore, he instructs sinners in his ways.

He guides the humble in what is right
and teaches them his way. (Ps. 25:8-9)

Indeed, the Lord is a faithful and loving God who desires people to be those who return that loving faithfulness to the Lord (cf. v. 10). Believers, then, should live humbly before their God and fellow man, and resist self- exaltation. Thus, Jesus said, “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 14:11; cf. 18:14). As I. Howard Marshall points out, this verse means that, “Anybody who tries to exalt himself – blatantly or cunningly – will be humbled.”3

In Psalm 45, a psalm directed to the king, the psalmist encourages him in his rule to ride victoriously in all “humility and righteousness” (Ps. 45:4). As VanGemeren remarks his kingdom mirrors, “the kingdom of God in fidelity and righteousness.”4 The author of Proverbs points out, “Humility comes before honor.” (Pr. 15:33; cf. 18:12). This is no less true for kings or any person in an authoritative role. A person may so exalt himself/herself, but it will only lead to dishonor, whereas a person clothed in true humility may well experience special honor. As recorded in a praise psalm, the Lord delights in those who walk humbly before him and “takes delight in his people; he crowns the humble with salvation.” (Ps. 149:4)

The author of Proverbs reminds us, “He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble.” (Pr. 3:34). So also the Apostle Peter says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Humble yourself, therefore, under God’s mighty hand that he may lift you up in due time.” (I Peter 5:5b-6)

May we follow carefully true humility. As the prophet Micah expresses it:

He has showed you, O man what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

May this be true of all believers.

As the hymn writer says:

Give me a faithful heart, likeness to Thee.
That each departing day henceforth may see,
Some work of love of work begun, some deed of kindness done,
Some wand’er sought and won, Something for Thee. 5


1 All scripture references are from the NIV.

2 Mark D. Futato, “The Book of Psalms” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort (Carol Stream, Il., Tyndale House, 2009), 7:87.

3 I. Howard Marshall, “Commentary on Luke” in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 582-583.

4 Williem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, revised edition, eds. Tremper Longman III and David. E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 5:398.

5 Silvanus D. Phelps, “Something for Thee”. 

Related Topics: Devotionals

3. New Testament Repentance: Lexical Considerations

I. Introduction

There he was again. I'd seen him on telecasts of baseball and football games. Now here he was on a PGA golf tournament telecast somehow repeatedly getting on camera with his rainbow Afro wig and his evangelistic T-shirt.

What did he mean with his one word message, REPENT? What did he hope that some of the millions of TV viewers would do?

What does the term repent mean according to the NT? Does it refer to turning from one's sins? If so, are all sins or only major sins in view? Or, does it mean a willingness to forsake one's sins--or even something else again?

Sincere Christians are sharply divided on this question. However, surprisingly very little has been written about NT repentance. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on this subject partly because it is a crucial and rather overlooked issue.

The NT Words in Question

There are two NT Greek words which are translated repentance in modern English translations: metanoia (and its verbal counterpart metanoeo) and metamelomai. The former term is so translated fifty-eight times in the NT; the latter only six times. The much wider use of metanoia has led me to give it greater attention in this article.

The Pre-Christian Meaning of Metanoia

In Classical Greek metanoia meant changing one's mind about someone or something. For example, Thucydides used the term when writing about the response of the Athenian council to a revolt. The council decided that all of the men of the city of Mytilene were to be put to death--not merely those who participated in the revolt. However, on "the next day a change of heart came over them."62 The Athenian council changed its mind. It decided that only those who participated in the rebellion should be put to death.

Another example is found in Xenophon's use of our term. He wrote:

We were inclined to conclude that for man, as he is constituted, it is easier to rule over any and all other creatures than to rule over men. But when we reflected that there was one Cyrus, the Persian, who reduced to obedience a vast number of men and cities and nations, we were then compelled to change our opinions and decide that to rule men might be a task neither impossible nor even difficult, if one should only go about it in an intelligent manner.63

During the pre- and early Christian period of Koine Greek (ca. 300 BC-100 AD) metanoia continued to carry the sense of a change of mind about someone or something. For example, Polybius (ca. 208-126 B.C.) used metanoia to refer to the Dardani, a people who had decided to attack Macedonia while Philip was away with his army. However, Philip caught wind of it and returned quickly. Even though the Dardani were close to Macedonia, when they heard that Philip was coming, they changed their minds. They broke off the attack before it even began.64

Similarly, Plutarch, who lived and wrote in the late first and early second century A.D., wrote:

Cypselus, the father of Periander . . . when he was a new-born babe, smiled at the men who had been sent to make away with him, and they turned away. And when again they changed their minds, they sought for him and found him not, for he had been put away in a chest by his mother.65

Notice that in all of the cases cited the individual or people in view had thought one thing or made one decision and then, based on further evidence or input, changed their minds.

Thompson suggests that two other nuances emerge during this period: change of purpose and regret.66 However, the evidence does nor substantiate her claim. On both counts she is guilty of "illegitimate totality transfer," that is, the unwarranted transfer of the meaning of a phrase containing a given word to that word when it stands alone. She fails to show any examples where either metanoia or its verbal counterpart was used absolutely in the senses which she suggests. Rather, it is other words in the context which indicate that the change of mind in question concerned sinful practices or was accompanied by grief or sorrow.

Metanoia and metanoeo occur twenty times in the canonical books of the Greek OT (Septuagint) and seven times in the apocryphal books. They retain the meaning of a change of mind about someone or something in the LXX.67 The following examples are representative.

When the Lord decided to take the kingdom from King Saul He instructed Samuel to say, "He will not turn nor change His mind, for He is not as a man that He should change His mind" (I Sam [1 Kingdoms in the Septuagint] 15:29; translation mine).

Likewise, Prov 20:25 speaks of how foolish it is for a man to rashly promise to give something to the Lord, because after such a hasty vow the man may come to change his mind.

Similarly, the Ninevites believed in the Lord and turned from their sinful ways in the hopes that the Lord might change His mind and not destroy t hem and their city (Jonah 3:9-10). From a human perspective God did indeed change His mind and withhold the judgment He had planned.68

Behm disagrees. He argues that metanoeo in the Greek OT "approximates" shub of the Hebrew OT.69 However, I believe he fails to prove his point. The term shub was used 1,056 times in the Hebrew text. None of those occurrences is translated by metanoeo in the Greek OT. Not one. This is inexplicable if the translators of the LXX felt that metanoeo was a good translation of shub. Rather, the translators routinely used strepho and its various compound forms to translate shub.

In the OT pseudepigrapha metanoia and metanoeo nearly always occur in contexts dealing with the need to abandon sinful practices in order to escape God's judgment. Behm concludes from this that metanoia had thus come to refer to turning from sins. He too, however, is guilty of illegitimate totality transfer. Metanoia did not come, by itself, to refer to a turning from one's sins. Rather, words in the context inform the reader that the change of mind in view would include a resolution to cease the sinful practices mentioned.

In summary, the pre-Christian meaning of metanoia was a change of mind about someone or something. When the context specifically mentions sinful practices about which one was changing his or her mind, the translation "repentance" is acceptable.

The History of NT Translations of Metanoia

    The Old Latin

The Latin Fathers translated metanoia as paenitentia, which came to mean "penance" or "acts of penance." They felt that in order to obtain eternal salvation men had to perform righteous acts of penance as prescribed by one's confessor priest.

    The Latin Vulgate

Jerome established this Old Latin translation as authoritative when he retained paenitentia as the translation of metanoia. The system of penance became an established pathway whereby one hoped to obtain grace.

    Early English Versions

John Wycliffe, "the Morning Star of the Reformation," pioneered the first complete English Bible in the late 1300's. Unfortunately his work was not based on the original Greek and Hebrew, but was a very literal translation of the Vulgate. Hence we should not be surprised that he translated the Latin agite paenitentiam as "do penance." This was adopted in 1609-1610 in the Roman Catholic Douay Version.

William Tyndale produced the first printed English NT in 1526. He used repent and repentance for me anoia and metanoeo, a great improvement over "do penance," but still misleading in many contexts.

Later English versions, including the Authorized or King James Version of 1611, were deeply indebted to Tyndale's phraseology, including his repent and repentance.

Repentance as a translation seems to keep the idea that one must turn from his sinful deeds to obtain God's favor. However, it eliminates the notion that, in addition, one must confess his sins to a priest and do prescribed good works before he can obtain (or regain) grace.

    Modern Translations

Modern translators also generally translate metanoia as repentance. While this is an improvement over the Latin translation "penance," it is in most cases, as we shall now see, a poor reflection of its meaning in the NT.

II. Meaning of Metanoia in the NT

Basic Sense: Change of Mind

The pre-Christian meaning of metanoia as a change of mind is its basic NT sense as well. This can readily be seen in Heb 12:17 which reads: "For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit a blessing, he [Esau] was rejected, for he found no place for metanoia, though he sought it diligently with tears." What was it that Esau could not find? It was not a turning from sinful behavior. It was not penance. What he could not find was a way to change his father's mind. The matter was settled. No matter how much he pleaded, he couldn't change Isaac's mind.

All NT uses include the sense of a change of mind present. However, if the context clearly indicates what one is changing his mind about, it could be that a more polished English translation can be found. For instance, if one is to change his mind about his sinful deeds, the term repentance conveys that thought nicely.

There are four specialized types of uses of metanoia in the NT. We will now consider these.

A Synonym for Eternal Salvation

In a few passages metanoia is used via metonymy as a synonym for eternal salvation. These cases involve a metonymy of cause for the effect. The cause is a change of mind about Christ and His Gospel. The effect is eternal salvation. Thus when we read in 2 Pet 3:9, "The Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish but that all should come to metanoia," the idea is the same as 1 Tim 2:4, "[God] desires all men to be saved."

Luke 5:32 illustrates this same usage: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to metanoia." That is, Jesus is affirming that He didn't come to call those who think that they are righteous, but those who know themselves to be sinners, to salvation. Metanoia is used as a synonym for eternal salvation.

A Change of Mind Regarding Sinful Behavior =Repentance

On some occasions metanoia is used in contexts where the change of mind in view is clearly indicated as having to do with one's sinful practices. For example, in Luke 17:3-4 Jesus taught the disciples that they were to forgive all who sinned against them if they came and indicated that they had changed their minds regarding their sin. In this case and others like it "repentance" would be a good translation choice. We are to forgive anyone who sins against us and then repents.

It is important to note, as shall be brought out further in future articles, that eternal salvation is never conditioned upon changing one's mind about (i.e., repenting concerning) his sinful practices.

A Change of Mind Regarding Self and Christ

Many NT passages use metanoia in contexts where what one is to change his mind about is himself and Christ. For example, in Acts 2:38, after having indicted his Jewish audience for crucifying their Messiah and in response to their question "What shall we do?" Peter called them to change their minds about Jesus Christ. They had rejected Him. Now they could accept Him. They were to believe that He is the Messiah, the Christ, the Savior of the world. Such a mindset includes a recognition that one is a sinner in need of the Savior. Self-righteousness is clearly antithetical to faith (cf. Luke 18:9-14).

In this use metanoia occurs as a virtual synonym for pistis (faith).

A Change of Mind Regarding Idols and God

In one passage the object of metanoia is stated as idols and God (Acts 17:29-31). Paul told the Athenian philosophers that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and that He would be coming back to earth as Judge. He told his listeners that in order to escape eternal condemnation they had to change their minds about their idols and about God and the Man whom He had sent and would send again. They had to transfer their faith from their idols to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Summary

Metanoia is used in the NT in a number of different ways, all of which have the idea of a change of mind at the root. In a few contexts it is used via metonymy as a synonym for eternal salvation. When it is used in contexts dealing with temporal salvation from life's difficulties, a change of mind about one's sinful ways (i.e., repentance) is given as the condition. However, when used in contexts dealing with eternal salvation from hell, a change of mind about oneself and Christ (or, in one passage, regarding idols and God) is given as the condition. In such contexts metanoia is used as a synonym for faith.

III. Meaning of Metamelomai

The basic meaning of metamelomai is "to feel regret." In 2 Cor 7:9 Paul indicates that he no longer regretted sending them a letter which made them sorry, though at first he did regret sending it.

Regret usually carries with it the idea of a change of mind. In Matt 21 :29 Jesus told the Parable of the Two Sons. Both were told to go work in the vineyard. One said he would not, but later changed his mind (or regretted his decision) and went. The other said that he would go, but did not.

After betraying Christ, Judas regretted what he had done, gave back his blood money, and hanged himself (Matt 27:3). Judas "repented" in this sense; or more precisely, he "was remorseful" (NKJV). Yet he did not come to faith in Christ. He never changed his mind about Christ being His Savior. He rejected Him to his death.

While it is commonly translated in that way, there are no uses of metamelomai in the NT where "repentance" is a good translation. It always refers to regret, remorse, or to a change of mind. It never refers to turning from one's sins.

IV. Meaning of Strepho Compounds

While they are never translated as "repentance," the compounds of strepho in some contexts carry the idea of turning from sins. The basic sense of these compounds is turning from or to someone or something. These compounds are the true corresponding terms to the OT word shub.

"Turning to the Lord" is used in the NT, as it was in the OT, as an expression for faith and conversion.70 When Paul reported in Acts 15:3 that Gentiles were turning to the Lord, he was simply saying that Gentiles were coming to faith in Christ, were being saved.

Nowhere in the NT are these verbs used to indicate that one must turn from his sins to obtain eternal salvation.

V. Conclusion

I'm still not sure what the man at the athletic events meant by his one-word message on his T-shirt. The word repent has a well-defined meaning in English. However, not all who use it mean the normal dictionary definition. Some mean merely a recognition of one's sinfulness. Others mean a change of thinking about Jesus Christ. Still others mean turning from one's sins, a willingness to do so, or a sense of remorse over one's sins.

I wish we could retranslate the NT. It would make teaching and preaching passages using metanoia simpler. It would eliminate the confusion many have when they read their Bibles and see the word repent. However, this is not likely to happen. It seems that "repentance" as a translation for metanoia (and metamelomai) will probably be with us for a long time.

In most cases when the English word repent occurs in the NT it is translating metanoia. Metanoia is not the equivalent of the OT term shub. It certainly does not mean "penance. n Nor does it normally mean "repentance." Rather, in the NT it retains its pre-Christian meaning of a change of mind. The English reader thus generally needs to read "change of mind "--not turn from sins--when he sees the word " repent" in the NT. The context must be consulted to determine the object of a person's change of mind.

The only times repent is actually a good English translation is when the object of metanoia is sinful deeds. A change of mind about sinful behavior is equivalent to repentance.

Nearly a century ago, in The Great Meaning of Metanoia, Treadwell Walden decried the Latin and English translations of metanoia as being "extraordinary mistranslations."71 I would agree.72

Used by permission:
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Volume 2, No. 2 -- Autumn 1989


62 Thucydides, Thurydides 3. 36. 4. Compare 3. 37. 1. Author's translation, emphasis supplied.

63 Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1. 1. 3. Translation by Walter Miller, Loeb Classical Library, emphasis supplied.

64 Polyblus The Histories 4. 66. 7.

65 Plutarch, Moralia 163 F. Translated by Frank Babbitt, Loeb Classical Library, emphasis supplied.

66 Effie Freeman Thompson, 'METANOEO' and 'ME TAMELEI' in Greek Literature Until 100 A.D., Including a Discussion of Their Hebrew Equivalents (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), p. 14.

67 Cf. 1 Sam 15:29; Prov 14:15; Prov 20:25 (19); Prov 24:32; Isa 46:8; Jer 4:28; 8:6; 18:8; Joel 2:13, 14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9, 10; 4:2; Zech 8:14.

68 In a number of OT passages God is said to have changed His mind, relented, or repented of calamities which He had planned to send. The Hebrew word used is naham. In each of these cases God did not actually change His mind, relent, or repent. God is omniscient and thus nothing which happens ever takes Him by surprise. The so-called "repentance of God" is actually a figure of speech known as an anthropomorphism. At times the Scriptures speak to us as though God were a man. For example, we read of His strong arm (Exod 6:6; Ps 77: 15; Jer 21:5), His hand John 10:28-29), end the like, as figures of His might and ability to deliver us from difficulty and protect us. So, too, from a human perspective it appears at times that God has changed His mind. In reality, He knew all along what the final outcome would be. The change of mind is apparent, not actual. For further discussion of this subject see H. Van Parunak, 'The Repentance of God in the Old Testament," unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975, and "A Semantic Survey of NHM," Biblica 56 (1975): 512-32.

69 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. "metanoeo, metanoia, " by J. Behm, 4 (1967): 989-90.

70 E.g., Matt 13:15; Mark 4:12; Luke 1:16; John 12:40; Acts 9:35; 1 5:3; 28:27; 1 Pet 2:25.

71 Walden, The Great Meaning of Metanoia (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1896), p.24.

72 Upcoming articles in this series will deal with "Repentance in the Gospels and Acts," "Repentance in the Epistles and Revelation," and "Suggestions on the Practical Preaching of Repentance."

Related Topics: Confession, Grammar, Soteriology (Salvation)

8. Profession and Possession (Acts 4:32—5:11)

32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, 35 and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.

36 And Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), 37 and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 And the young men arose and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. 7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well. 10 And she fell immediately at his feet, and breathed her last; and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

12 And at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. 13 But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. 14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number; 15 to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets, and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. 16 And also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits; and they were all being healed.48

Introduction

A young man was once told by my friend Fred that he had a problem—he did not know the difference between “sin” and “crime.” “There are,” Fred explained, “a number of crimes that are not sins, and a number of sins that are not crimes.” An illustration of Fred’s point can be found in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, recorded at the beginning of Acts chapter 5. This couple had committed no crime, but they had committed a sin. They had not stolen money, nor extorted it, nor embezzled it. They had simply kept a part of that which was theirs. They must have kept back only a small portion of it, but in so doing, they had lied. And for this, they died.

Is lying a capital offense? In our society, most lying is hardly seen to be a sin, let alone viewed as a crime. Why then did God take this sin so seriously? If the punishment for this sin was unusual, the sin surely was not nor is it rare today. Deception has become an accepted way of life. Why was lying a capital offense? That, my friend, is the “tension of our text.”49 As we study our passage, let us seek to understand why lying is such a serious sin to God.

The Structure of our Text

Our passage is located between two status reports. Verses 32-37 describe the progress of the gospel, through the preaching of the apostles and the lifestyle of the church. The gift of Barnabas (4:36-37) is provided as an example of the gracious spirit which prevailed in the church as a whole. It serves other purposes too, which we shall point out later. Verses 12 through 16 of chapter 5 provide us with yet another status report, describing the condition of the church, the power of God manifested through the apostles, and the response of men to this. And in the middle of these two status reports is the account of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, struck down in divine judgment for their sin of lying (5:1-11).

The Approach of this Lesson

Our approach in this lesson will be to seek to understand the events which are described in the light of the context. We will therefore consider the giving of possessions in general, then in the case of Barnabas, and finally in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. We will then seek to find the answers to the following questions:

(1) To what extent is the practice of the church in selling its possessions a pattern for the church today?

(2) Why was God so severe in dealing with Ananias and Sapphira?

(3) What was wrong with what this couple did?

(4) How does one lie to the Holy Spirit?

(5) What is the relationship between “lying to the Holy Spirit” (5:3) and “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (5:9)?

(6) What is the relationship between the purposes of one’s own heart and the spiritual influences of both Satan and the Holy Spirit?50

(7) What are the lessons in this passage for us?

Background

In obedience to the command of the Lord, the disciples waited for the promised Spirit, who would empower their witness of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They selected the twelfth apostle—to replace Judas (Acts 1). Then the Spirit fell upon them, and they spoke in foreign tongues. This led to the first public proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit, the coming day of judgment, and the salvation which God offered to those who repented and put their faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 2). On their way to the temple, Peter and John encountered a lame man who asked for alms but received healing from his life-long malady of lameness. Once again, the gospel was preached (Acts 3), but this time Peter and John were interrupted by the temple guard who were sent to arrest them. This led to a trial before the Sanhedrin, with warnings not to continue preaching in the name of Jesus, and threats of future punishment. To this the two apostles calmly responded that they must continue to tell of what they had seen and heard. On returning to their own and giving a report of all that had happened, the assembly rejoiced at suffering for the sake of the Savior, confident of the fact that men could not prevent God’s purposes from coming to pass. In response to their prayers for boldness, the presence of God was manifested by the shaking of the building where they were and a subsequent filling of the whole group by the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:1-31).

Bold With their Possessions
(4:32-37)

32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them.51 33 And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, 35 and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.

36 And Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), 37 and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

The church had prayed for a boldness in their profession of the gospel, and God graciously granted their request. But the boldness of the church in its profession was also practiced with regard to its possessions.52 The church had been given the grace to live dangerously (not foolishly). The saints knew all too well that to boldly profess Jesus as the Christ, Israel’s Messiah, risen from the dead, was to incur the wrath and the strong opposition of the Jewish leaders. When they prayed for boldness, they prayed knowing that boldness would lead to painful consequences. But this did not stop them.

It was this same spirit of boldness which permeated not only the profession of the church but its practice with regard to earthly possessions. From a purely human point of view, to sell their possessions to meet the needs of others was folly, certain future economic disaster. Surely one must be financially prepared for the future. With one heart and soul, the saints continued to give of their resources to meet the needs of others.

This was really a continuation of that first described by Luke in Acts chapter 2:

And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart (Acts 2:44-46).

There were a couple of differences, however. We are no longer told that all the saints were together. It may still have been the case, but the church had grown considerably, and this might no longer have been possible. In the former days, the saints sold their goods as needs arose and personally met them. But now, with a much larger church and more needs, they sold their possessions and brought the money to the apostles, leaving it to them to administer the funds. Giving had, in one sense, become more institutionalized, out of necessity. In one sense, this was more of a test. It is much easier to be motivated to give to one’s neighbor, whose needs are immediately evident to us, than it is to give to those we do not even know. There had to have been a high level of confidence in the apostles for the money to have been laid at their feet.

One may very well wonder what it was that prompted such generosity. The more I read these passages, the more I am convinced that the saints were not demonstrating generosity as much as they were practicing unity. If a member of my family has a serious need, I do not think long about meeting that need, if I can, and I do not think of myself as being generous for doing so. As Jesus put it,

“Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or, if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?” (Luke 11:11-12).

The response of this man to the request made of him is not the response of a generous man; it is the response of a father. Being a part of the family is what makes the difference. The early church looked upon themselves as a family, and they lived like a family. Thus, if one member of the “family” had more than enough possessions and other member had less than enough, it was natural to share these possessions within the family. “Private property” is viewed differently within the family than without.

As Luke makes clear, ownership of property still remained, but the claim to ownership was relinquished. That is, one owned his possessions, but he gave up that ownership the moment it became evident another member of the family required them. It was a simple matter of sharing what you had with those who did not.

My wife and I saw a great deal of this while I was a student in seminary. Very often, it was not those who had the most who shared with those who lacked, but it was those who had just a little more than the one who lacked who shared. How many times I can remember one family sacrificially sharing what little they had with someone who had even less. And what a joy that was to both families. This is what I see taking place in the early church. It was a real community of believers.

There were other factors involved in the spirit of sharing which I find underlying the actions of these early Christians. There was, for example, the words and teaching of our Lord. The early church was, in its sharing, simply taking Jesus literally. For example, Jesus taught,

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Luke 12:32-34).

The actions of these saints were completely consistent with the words of the Lord. They were taking Jesus simply at His word.

Furthermore, one should remember that Jesus and the apostles taught that Jerusalem would be destroyed, in that generation:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!” (Matthew 23:37-39).

And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He answered and said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matthew 24:1-2).

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people, and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 13:20-24).

In no way do I wish to minimize the boldness of the early church regarding the sale of its possessions and its giving to the needy, but I do wish to point out that the early church should have been aware of the coming judgment of God on that city. We should not treasure that which will not last. They knew that their possessions would not last beyond their own generation (cf. Matthew 23:36).53

There is at least one more explanation for the conduct of the early church regarding possessions and the poor. The church acted unanimously, as a community, in the way it ministered to the poor among them,54 and it did so, I believe, because “abundant grace was upon them all” (Acts 4:33). I understand “grace” to be a very broad term, but here, as elsewhere (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:6-7,8,14,19), it can refer to grace as manifested in giving to meet the needs of others. Grace is always that abundance poured out on those who are in need, whether it be material or spiritual in form (cf. Hebrews 4:16).

The mention of Barnabas55 and his donation serves several purposes in the Book of Acts. First, in the immediate context, it serves as an illustration of the kind of benevolence Luke has described in general terms. Barnabas is a concrete illustration of a general statement. Further, this reference to Barnabas is a backdrop, against which the sinful actions of Ananias and Sapphira will be depicted in the next verses of chapter 5. And finally, the mention of Barnabas serves as an introduction of this remarkable man of God, whose ministry of encouragement to Paul and many others will be described later on in the book.56 It is no wonder that this man who gave generously of his own means would be chosen to carry a generous gift from the saints in Antioch to the needy saints in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 11:27-30).

There is a great deal of discussion (and debate) concerning the practice of the church in giving its possessions to help the poor. Frankly, much of the discussion is an effort to avoid any need for us to follow the example of this church in this matter. It would seem to me that we should strive to retain the simplest, most literal, straightforward interpretation of the text of Scripture as possible, here, and elsewhere. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the practice of the early church here was not a uniform practice of the church so far as the New Testament accounts are concerned. There was to some degree a unique situation here, with the destruction of Jerusalem at hand, in the lifetime of these saints. And it should be pointed out that in the providence of God, letting go of their possessions was a source of great blessing to the saints in Jerusalem. Not only did it free them of the material “pull” of their possessions, which would have hindered them from leaving the city (cf. Acts 8:1ff.), but it saved them from the torture of the Romans, who quickly recognized the affluent when they sacked the city and who tortured them until they told where their possessions were hidden.

Let us recall that the practice of the church here was not binding upon Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:4). They were not required to sell their property or to give any particular portion of it. This was a matter of personal freedom and guidance. Thus, I would take it that we are not bound to do what the members of the first church did either. But I must also say that, in principle, we have precisely the same obligations and opportunities. Jesus’ teaching to sell one’s possessions and to give to charity are just as applicable to us as they were to the early church. And when we have a brother or sister in need, and we have the resources to meet that need, we are obliged to do so.57

The Sin of Ananias and Sapphira
(5:1-11)

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 And the young men arose and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. 7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well. 10 And she fell immediately at his feet, and breathed her last; and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

We are not specifically informed that Ananias and Sapphira, his wife, were true Christians, but the weight of the inferences (in my judgment) is that they were. This man and his wife had conceived of a plan, a plan which seemed to offer the most benefits. They agreed to sell a piece of land which they owned. They decided that they would give most of the proceeds of that sale to the apostles, to meet the needs of the poor. They also determined to keep back a small amount for themselves. The worst part was that they also agreed that they would lie about the amount which they gave to the apostles, so that their gift would be thought of as being the entire amount they were paid for their property. In other words, they wanted to appear to be giving all the money they received, but they were keeping part of it and pulling it all off by lying about it. It was, in short, a conspiracy of deception.

Sapphira was not with her husband when he presented the money to the apostles, but Luke lets us know from the beginning that she was fully aware of what Ananias was doing and was a party to it (5:2). He presented the portion as though it were the whole. We do not know whether his deception was only by inference (he wanted the apostles and others to draw the conclusion the money he brought was the whole amount of the sale of the land) or whether he made an outright statement. I am inclined to think that he directly lied.

It would not have been difficult for Ananias’s deception to have become public knowledge. The purchase price of the property could easily have been known to others and thus to the apostles. The amount that Ananias presented could also have been a matter of public record. Also, Peter could have discerned that the amount given did not seem to be enough for the property which was sold. In spite of these normal means of discerning the deception of Ananias and Sapphira, one has the impression that Peter’s knowledge was supernaturally revealed to him. In addition, it seems apparent that the Spirit of God moved him to openly rebuke Ananias.

Peter’s indictment of Ananias is most informative. With respect to Ananias, Peter’s words give a clear indication of what this man was guilty, and likewise what was not sin. Peter rebukes the man for his lying, not for keeping back a portion of the money he gained from the sale of his property. Peter’s words to Ananias not only show him to be free to use his property as he chooses, but they also clarify the freedom which all of the saints had in the matter of their possessions.

In the first place, Peter affirmed the right of private property. The practice of the church was not communism, for each individual owned his possessions. Ananias (and all of the other saints, by inference) had complete freedom to use his property any way he chose. He could have kept it, or sold it, without sin. And even when he sold it, he was just as free in the use of the proceeds obtained from the sale. He could have kept it all or any part of it. His sin was not in the amount of money he gave or in the fact that he kept some of it back. His sin was that he lied, so that it would appear that he gave all of the money when he did not.

Peter’s words must have caught Ananias by surprise. He did not ask Ananias if he had lied or if he had kept back some of the price of the land. He did not ask Ananias why, from a human point of view, he was motivated to act as he had.58 Peter quickly took this matter to its spiritual roots and to its spiritual fruits. The ultimate source of this deception was Satan. That must have been news to Ananias, who thought this was entirely his idea (with the collaboration of Sapphira, of course). But it was Satan whom Peter said had “filled his heart” (verse 3). And the fruit of the matter went far beyond what this man had thought. He had not simply lied to Peter (and to whoever else was present at the time); he had lied to the Holy Spirit. What must have seemed to Ananias and his wife as a trivial offense, a “little white lie,” was revealed to be a matter of great proportions. A simple plan between a man and his wife, carried out in the church, had now involved Satan and the Spirit of God.

Peter did not pronounce the death sentence on Ananias as he did with his wife. He simply exposed the man’s sin for what it was. I do not know that Peter expected Ananias to drop dead, but he did. It was apparent to Peter and to the rest that God had smitten this man, which led him to conclude that his wife would die in the same way, if she were guilty of the same offense. Great fear came upon all who beheld what happened. Here was a “sign and wonder,” performed at the hands of an apostle, which was of a very different kind.

The body of Ananias was quickly removed and buried, without his wife’s knowledge. When she arrived some three hours later, it may have been to look for her husband. But for whatever reason she came, it provided Peter with the opportunity to determine the woman’s role, if any, in this scheme. He asked (according to the record) only one question—did she sell the land for the price which her husband had indicated?59 When she verified the amount as that which her husband had claimed, Peter quickly pronounced sentence on her. He guilt was quickly summarized. First, she and her husband conspired together. She was as guilty as he was in this matter. She was guilty for taking part (or at least consenting) in this deception. Their conspiracy was one that was against the Holy Spirit, of “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (verse 9). Just as her husband had died for his sin, so she would die for her role in this.60 Fear was the result, in the church and without (verse 11).61

Conclusion

What then are we to make of this text? Let us return to those questions which were stated at the beginning of this lesson which have not yet been answered62 and seek to answer them now.

(1) Why was God so severe in dealing with Ananias and Sapphira?

(2) What was wrong with what this couple did?

(3) How does one lie to the Holy Spirit?

(4) What is the relationship between “lying to the Holy Spirit” (5:3) and “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (5:9)?

(5) What is the relationship between the purposes of one’s own heart and the spiritual influences of both Satan and the Holy Spirit?63

(6) What are the lessons in this passage for us?

Let us consider the first two questions together. God dealt severely with the sin of Ananias and Sapphira because of its seriousness. The sin which was so serious to God was the sin of lying. Now here is a very fascinating thing. God’s values are much different than ours. We can discern the severity of an offense (in the mind of those who impose the penalty for it) by the severity of the punishment. Since God pronounced and performed the death penalty on lying, it must be a most serious offense. And since God did not care about the amount Ananias and his wife gave or kept back (this was a matter of liberty to him, as Peter pointed out), material things were not nearly as important.

How different with men than with God. Men, with the exception of some cases, do not even consider lying a crime and hardly a sin. We speak (or at least think) of deception as a way of life; we call deception a “little white lie.” We almost expect dishonesty. When we don’t want to talk to someone on the phone, we don’t tell them the truth; we may have our secretary tell them we “are not in.” Now when it comes to money and material things, then we start taking these sins seriously, in fact we call them crimes. And the more money or possessions are involved, the more severe the crime and its punishment.

But why is lying such a serious offense to God? Why was this deception, which seems to have hurt no one, so drastically disciplined by God? I think the answer is quite evident: the church is founded upon truth, and it grows by means of truth. The unity of the church is also dependent upon truth. Deception is an attack on the truth, and it is also one of the primary means of attack employed by Satan, the liar and deceiver. To tolerate even a small deception is to open the door to an attack on the truth which would be devastating. Notice just a few of the references to truth64 which we find in the New Testament:

The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him (John 7:18).

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you (John 14:16-17).

“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me (John 15:26).

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come (John 16:13).

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17).

Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30).

If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

He is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain (1 Timothy 6:14-15).

Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart (1 Peter 1:22).

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood (1 John 4:6).

I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth (3 John 1:4).

Almost 80 times in the gospels65 the Lord is quoted as saying, “I tell you the truth.” If there was anything which characterized Him it was “truth.” Thus, He is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). He is also said to be “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of truth” (John 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6). Satan, on the other hand, is a “liar” and the “father of lies” (John 8:44), as well as a “deceiver” (2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:9-10). The first temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan involved Satan’s denial of the truth which God had revealed to them. The church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” in the world (1 Timothy 3:15). The saints are built up in their faith as each one “speaks the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:16), and “lays aside falsehood” (4:25). Is it any wonder then that truth is so important and that lying is considered such a serious offense?

Let us move on to our next two questions. How does one “lie to the Holy Spirit,” and in what way does this relate to “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test”? We first must see that “lying to the Holy Spirit” began with lying to men. When Peter said, “You have not lied to men, but to God” (Acts 5:4), he was saying, in effect, “You have not merely lied to men, but you have ultimately lied to God.”66 From Acts 5:3, we know that their lying to God was to God, the Spirit. I believe that the people lied to the Holy Spirit by lying to the apostles (and to the church as well), because the Spirit of God indwells the church. The church of God and the Spirit of God are intertwined, in the sense that the Spirit dwells in the church (Ephesians 2:22).

If lying to those who are fellow members of the body of Christ is lying to the Holy Spirit, then this seems to be related to “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (Acts 5:9). How does one put God to the test then, and how does this relate to lying to one another and to the Holy Spirit?

The Old Testament defines the meaning of “putting God to the test.” The key Old Testament texts are Exodus 15:25; 16:4; 17:2 and Deuteronomy 6:16. Key New Testament texts are those in the Gospels, which depict the temptation of Jesus by Satan (Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12). Significantly, all of these passages deal with times of hunger and/or thirst, including the temptation of our Lord. The nation Israel was delivered from slavery in Egypt by God and led into the wilderness. Only days after crossing the Red Sea, they came to the waters of Marah, where they could not drink because the water there was bitter. Here, the people grumbled, and God put His people to the test to see if they would trust and obey Him. Their task was to obey God, and His promise was that He would take care of their needs.

In Exodus 16 they came to another point of need, and the people began to complain, because they did not believe that they would eat as they had in Egypt. Again, God put them to the test to see if they would obey His commands. In this chapter, it is clearly indicated that Israel’s grumblings against Moses and Aaron were really grumbling against God (16:8). In chapter 17, they came to a place which would be named Massah and Meribah (17:7), where the people quarreled with Moses and thus put God to the test (17:2). They accused Moses of leading them into a place where they would die. They demanded water and seemed to threaten Moses’ life if he did not produce what they demanded.

It is to this incident that God later referred when Israel was about to enter into the promised land:

“You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him, and swear by His name. You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth. You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. You should diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and His testimonies and His statutes which He has commanded you. And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may be well with you and that you may go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore to give your fathers, by driving out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has spoken” (Deuteronomy 6:13-19).

When our Lord was tempted by Satan, He had been in the wilderness, without food for 40 days (Matthew 4:2; Luke 4:1-2). Satan sought to induce Jesus to act independently, indeed, disobediently, seeking to produce what He wanted His own way, rather than obeying the Father and waiting for Him to produce what He had promised, in His own way and in His time. Specifically, Satan suggested that Jesus leap from the pinnacle of the temple, based upon God’s promise of protection. Jesus refused, based on the fact that this would be to “put God to the test” and thus would be disobedience to God.

Taking all these factors into consideration, it seems to me that men are inclined to put God to the test in the area of God’s provisions—specifically food. God has promised to provide, and He has called upon men to obey His commands and to wait upon Him to provide in His time. Men put God to the test when they doubt His provision and when they act independently, when they act disobediently, seeking to provide for themselves in their own way.

I can see this backdrop as fitting into the situation of Ananias and Sapphira quite directly. Others were selling their possessions and giving all they made from them to the apostles to meet the needs of poor brethren. I assume that people were selling their extra possessions and property, not their own dwellings. The property they were selling was their security, their “nest egg,” that which assured them that there would be provisions for the future. Ananias and Sapphira may well have said to themselves, “If we sell all that we have, we will have nothing to fall back on.” Keeping back a little of the money they obtained from the sale of their property would give them a little security, they must have reasoned. And, so long as they were honest in their dealings, it would have been their right to do so. But in order to carry this off, and to look as “spiritual” as the others, they had to lie, saying they were giving their all when they weren’t. They were, in the process of providing for themselves, not trusting in God, and they were not obeying His commandments, for they were lying. No wonder this could be called “putting the Spirit of God to the test.”

Now to another question which we have posed earlier: “What is the relationship between what we conceive in our hearts, and that which either the Holy Spirit or Satan fills our hearts to purpose and perform?” Peter asked Ananias why Satan had filled his heart to conceive of this sin (5:3). He then asked Ananias why he conceived this deed in his own heart (5:4). There must be a relationship between that which we conceive in our own hearts and that which either God’s Spirit or Satan prompts us to do.

I think we see here that there is a very close link between what we decide (supposedly on our own) and what we are encouraged or prompted to decide. I believe that when we act “in the flesh,” prompted by self-interest and human wisdom and values, we are really doing Satan’s bidding. We are doing “our will,” in one sense, but we are also doing Satan’s bidding. Satan prompted Adam and Eve to act independently of God, theoretically “on their own” and “in their own interests,” but in reality they were doing his bidding. When men act in the flesh, they serve Satan.

You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led (1 Corinthians 12:2).

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among then we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians 2:1-3).

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:5-8).67

Whether or not we like to admit it, we cannot do anything that is truly independent of some kind of spiritual guidance. When we act “naturally,” according to the flesh, we serve Satan, who utilizes the world and the flesh to influence our behavior. When we act supernaturally, in the Spirit, we are guided and prompted by God’s Spirit, to do His will. Thus, what man decides to do in his own heart is also that which either the Spirit or Satan has prompted as well. While the rest of the church was following the prompting of God’s Spirit, Ananias and Sapphira were following the promptings of Satan, and this led to death as the text indicates.

Lessons to Learn

There are a great many lessons to be learned from our text. Let me conclude by mentioning a few which may provide fuel for further study, meditation, and prayer.

(1) Serious sins often have subtle beginnings. It would be easy to come away from our text with the impression that Ananias and Sapphira sat down one day at the dinner table and said to each other, in effect, “Let’s come up with a plan to sell some property, give some of the money to the needy, keep some of it for ourselves, and lie about it.” This is not what the text tells us or even implies. Neither is it true to life nor to the subtle ways in which Satan works.

Let me suggest a very fictional scenario, but one which is at least believable, which also demonstrates the way in which we find ourselves deep in sin before we even know it. Suppose that Ananias and Sapphira had determined to sell a piece of property, like the rest of the church, and for good reasons. And, let’s suppose, they decided to have the property appraised and learned that a fair asking price was $40,000. Ananias, feeling certain that he can get the asking price of $40,000, mentions to some of his fellow-saints that he is soon to sell a piece of his property and give $40,000 to the apostles. As it turns out, two supermarket chains want to build a store on the same property. The price is bid up, and finally Ananias sells his property for $50,000. Now comes the decision as to what to do with the extra $10,000. Do they give this, too? Or do they consider this windfall a gift from the Lord? Or do they simply decide to hold this money back, saving it for a “rainy day”? Doing so, as Peter pointed out, would have been no problem. The decision is now made to keep the extra money for themselves. But when he gave the money to Peter, Peter asked him pointedly (remember, this is fiction, not fact—although it is clear from the text that Peter knew the exact amount for which Ananias claimed to have sold the property) whether he sold the property for $40,000. Now Ananias had to make a decision. Did he tell Peter what he actually sold the property for and that he and his wife decided to keep the extra money back? If he did this, he would not appear to be as spiritual as others, like Barnabas, who gave all of the money. Or he could lie and make Peter think that he had given all. After all, who would ever know?

Do you see how easy it is for us to start out with pure motives and good deeds, only to have Satan step in, appeal to our fleshly desires, and end up with us committing a very serious sin? Satan is not known as the “deceiver” for nothing. Here is where he does his finest work. And it looks as though he really did a number on Ananias and Sapphira. This is not to minimize their guilt but only to show how subtle the process can be which brings us to a point of blatant disobedience to God’s Word. I am convinced that many terrible sins started out as “good works,” but ended up as sin through Satan’s subtlety and our flesh. Nowhere does our text teach that this sin started out as a genuine act of benevolence, but it could have.

(2) Counterfeit spirituality works best alongside the genuine. Even at this high point in the life of the ancient church, when so many were acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and with the promptings of the Spirit, counterfeit spirituality emerged, within the church. Satan often seeks to introduce that which is his work, that which is counterfeit, in the midst of an outpouring of divine grace and power. Thus, whenever a revival breaks out, deviations and distortions appear as well.

(3) Grace is never to be a pretext for sin. This period in the life of the church was characterized by “abundant grace” (4:33). Even so, sin raised its ugly head. This is the way Satan works. But if our text teaches us anything, it is that while God’s grace abounds, God always takes sin seriously. Grace is God’s remedy for sin, not the pretext for sin. Grace was given to put away sin, not to promote it. We should never think that by holding fast to the “grace of God” that there is any diminishing of God’s hatred for sin or of the need for divine discipline. God took the sin of Ananias very seriously. So must we, who have experienced God’s grace, live in it. As Paul said it, we who have died to sin should no longer live in it (cf. Romans 5:20–6:14).

(4) Christian ministry should be performed with simplicity. We are clearly taught in Scripture that giving should be done with “simplicity,” that is, with singleness of purpose and motive:

… he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality {“simplicity,” margin, NASB} … (Romans 12:8).

There is a danger of giving with mixed motives. The motive we have for giving should be a simple one: love for one another. When we add into this a motive of self-gain or self-interest, our giving is corrupted. I believe further study of the Scriptures would bear this out. I further believe that much of the giving of the saints is motivated by some kind of self-serving benefit. For example, how many requests for funds do you hear that also include a “free offer” or some “gift of appreciation” in return? I believe we do people a great disservice when we seek to motivate them to give by offering something in return. I further believe this same principle of “simplicity” applies to all service.

(5) Sin thrives in the soil of deception and error, but godliness only grows in the soil of the truth. Wherever you find sin, you will find error and deception. Wherever you find salvation and sanctification, you will find the truth. There is no place in Christianity for deception.

(6) The manifestation of sin may be more important than its motivation. Situational ethics seems to say that it doesn’t matter so much what we do as why we do it. Immorality (by biblical standards) may be the “right” thing to do, we are told, if it is done out of love. Our text seems to say that whatever our motive might be (little time is spent on the motivation of Ananias and Sapphira) if the act is a violation of God’s Word, then the act is sin. Peter’s emphasis is that Ananias and Sapphira lied, not only to men, but to God. Regardless of why they lied, they lied, and that was a sin worthy of death. From a Christian point of view, one may do “the right thing” for the wrong motive and thereby sin, but one can never do the wrong thing for the right motive and do that which is pleasing to God.

(7) A desire to appear spiritual is often at the root of the sin of deception. It would seem to me that Ananias and Sapphira would never have gotten into the trouble they did unless they wanted to appear, to others, as though they were spiritual. This is a preoccupation with external appearances and man’s approval, not God’s. It was for this that our Lord condemned the Pharisees (Luke 16:14-15). How many times have we acted deceptively because we wanted others to think we were more spiritual than we really were?

Key References to Truth

Listed below are some of the key references to truth in the Bible:

PSA 15:2; PSA 25:5; PSA 26:3; PSA 31:5; PSA 40:10-11; PSA 43:3; PSA 45:4; PSA 51:6; PSA 86:11; PSA 96:13; PSA 119:30; PSA 119:43; PSA 145:18; ISA 45:19; ISA 65:16; JER 5:3; JER 7:28; JER 9:5; JER 26:15; DAN 8:12; DAN 9:13; DAN 10:21; ZEC 8:3; ZEC 8:16; ZEC 8:19; JOH 1:14; JOH 1:17; JOH 3:21; JOH 4:23-24; JOH 5:24; JOH 5:33; JOH 6:47; JOH 6:53; JOH 7:18; JOH 8:32; JOH 8:40; JOH 8:44; JOH 14:6; JOH 14:17; JOH 15:26; JOH 16:13; JOH 17:17; JOH 18:37; JOH 19:35; ACT 20:30; ACT 28:25; ROM 1:18; ROM 1:25; ROM 2:2; ROM 2:8; ROM 9:1; ROM 15:8; 1 CO 5:8; 1CO 13:6; 2CO 4:2; 2CO 11:10; 2CO 12:6; 2CO 13:8; GAL 2:5; GAL 2:14; GAL 4:16; GAL 5:7; EPH 1:13; EPH 4:15; EPH 4:21; EPH 5:9; EPH 6:14; COL 1:5-6; 2TH 2:10; 2TH 2:12-13; 1TI 2:4; 1TI 2:7; 1TI 3:15; 1TI 4:3; 1TI 6:5; 2TI 2:15; 2TI 2:18; 2TI 2:25; 2TI 3:7-8; 2TI 4:4 ; TIT 1:1; TIT 1:14; HEB 10:26; JAM 1:18; JAM 3:14; JAM 5:19; 1PE 1:22; 2PE 1:12; 2PE 2:2; 1JO 1:6; 1JO 1:8; 1JO 2:4; 1JO 2:8; 1JO 2:20-21; 1JO 3:18-19; 1JO 4:6; 1JO 5:6; 2JO 1:1-4; 3JO 1:1; 3JO 1:3-4; 3JO 1:8; 3JO 1:12


48 This last section, verses 12-16, will be dealt with in greater detail in our next lesson. I include it here because it describes the “fear” that this incident (and perhaps others) brought upon the church and upon those outside as well.

49 There are two more tensions, as I understand this text. The first is this: How did Ananias and Sapphira lie to the Holy Spirit, and how did their actions put Him to the test? More generally stated, how and when does lying to men constitute lying to the Holy Spirit? The second tension is: How can Peter say that Satan filled the heart of Ananias, and yet, at the same time speak of Ananias as conceiving this sin in his own heart? Simply put, how can the purposes of a man’s heart be both his own and those of Satan? These, I believe, are worthwhile questions to ponder, although the answers may not be easy ones.

50 This question arises from the fact that Peter attributes the source of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira both to what they have conceived in their own hearts (5:4) and to the work of Satan in their hearts (5:3). In addition, one would think that had they acted in a godly way, the Spirit would have filled their hearts. Thus, the issue of the relationship of one’s own heart to the influences of the Spirit of God and Satan.

51 Here is a good place to point out a very crucial difference between communism and Christianity. Communism would say, “What’s yours is mine.” Christianity says, quite differently, “What’s mine is yours.”

52 As I have studied the boldness of the church in its profession, as well as in its use of its possessions, I have discovered that one’s profession, persecution, and the use of one’s possessions are often found in close proximity. Cf. Luke 12:1-12, and verses 13ff.; Hebrews 10:32-39; James 2; 1 John 3:13-24.

53 The same principle, of course, applies to us. While we do not know for certain that the return of the Lord will come in our generation, we do know that when He comes, material possessions will be destroyed. This should greatly impact the way in which we live and the value which we attach to things (cf. 2 Peter 3:8-12).

54 I think it can be demonstrated that the poor who were being cared for were primarily poor believers. The church cared for its own. This was taught as a priority (cf. Galatians 6:10). If we grant the fact that there were many poor and needy in the church (cf. also Acts 6:1), then we must admit that even when the church was at its spiritual high-water mark, there were those who were not prosperous. The “gospel of the good life” or the “prosperity gospel,” the teaching that if men are spiritual, they will materially prosper, simply does not stand up under scrutiny nor does it conform to biblical revelation.

55 It is interesting that Barnabas is described as a Levite. The Levites had no portion or inheritance in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 12:12).

56 Luke seems to have a habit of introducing men early with some brief comment and then to pick these characters up later on in his writing. Thus, he introduced Paul first in Acts 8:1-3, only to wait until chapter 9 to describe his conversion, and then wait until chapter 13 to give him prominence.

57 My understanding of the practice of the church, as described in Act 2 and 4 is that people sold those possessions which were above and beyond their immediate needs. As the person who has two coats is obliged to give one to a brother who has none, so a person with a home in the city and a summer place on the lake may be obliged to give up one residence if a brother in need has nowhere to live. I do not think that Luke is telling us that a person who owned only one house (assuming it was not excessively large or luxurious) sold that house, to help others, only to make himself homeless. The goal was not to create additional poverty but to minister to the poor.

58 I find Peter’s avoidance of the motivation of this man and his wife most interesting. It seems in our own day that motivation has become an obsession. We want to pursue why people act as they do. We seem almost to excuse some actions on the basis of motivation. This is precisely the basis of situational ethics. An act is right or wrong, based on its motivation, the situationalist will say. But Peter differs with this. Regardless of the motives of Ananias and his wife, they consciously purposed to lie. They knowingly sinned. It was a pre-meditated sin. While Peter could surely have been supernaturally informed as to their motivation, it is never mentioned. Perhaps we should learn from this.

59 This indicates, to my satisfaction, that Ananias said much more than Luke recorded. He must have told Peter that the amount he was contributing was the purchase price of his land. Peter then used this figure to get a direct statement from Sapphira.

60 There is a lesson here, by inference, on submission, one which flows from the previous chapter. The Sanhedrin had great authority in Israel, but when this body commanded the apostles to cease preaching in the name of Jesus, they had to reject this order as being one that was outside of this body’s realm of authority. They (as Peter will soon say in chapter 5) had to obey God rather than men. This woman was to be in submission to her husband’s authority, but that authority ended when it came to lying. Her guilt was not minimized because she was a wife, in submission to her husband. So was equally guilty with her husband, because she acted in accord with him, when she should have refused to do so. Peter’s dealings with this woman show that submission to authority ends when such submission would lead to sinning against God. Thus, her guilt and her fate is precisely the same as her husband’s.

61 This is a repetition of what Luke has already written in 5:5. One can safely conclude that the first “fear” was reinforced and underscored by the “second.” One can also conclude that one of God’s purposes in this instance of divine discipline was His intent to produce such fear, as a healthy ingredient in the life of the church.

62 The first question: “To what extent is the practice of the church in selling its possessions a pattern for the church today?” has already been answered on page 7.

63 This question arises from the fact that Peter attributes the source of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira both to what they have conceived in their own hearts (5:4) and to the work of Satan in their hearts (5:3). In addition, one would think that had they acted in a godly way, the Spirit would have filled their hearts. Thus, the issue of the relationship of one’s own heart to the influences of the Spirit of God and Satan.

64 At the end of this lesson there is a more extensive list of verses that emphasize the importance of truth to our faith. I encourage you to look these up and study them in more detail.

65 A number of these instances would be parallel passages and thus the same statement may be found in two or three Gospels.

66 A similar situation can be found in Exodus 16:6-8 and 17:1-7. Israel’s grumblings against Moses and Aaron are exposed as grumbling against God.

67 This text may not precisely substantiate my point, and the thrust of this passage is to show Christians that they are not in the flesh any longer, but in the Spirit (8:9). It is possible, however, to revert back to the impulses and guidance of the flesh. It is not necessary, but it is possible.

Related Topics: Finance

Question and Answer with Bob Deffinbaugh

Over the years Bob Deffinbaugh has answered many email questions about the Bible and life that Bible.org users have sent to us or to him directly after having read some of his studies. Some of them may prove to be quite helpful beyond the original questioner, thus this series will be added to from time to time for the edification of the church. Any articles in this particular series are authored by Bob Deffinbaugh and thus reflect his specific viewpoints and understanding of Scripture.

Related Topics: Christian Life

29. Remember This Song! (Deuteronomy 31:16-22; 32:1-47)

Related Media

Life of Moses (29)

September 23, 2018

When you come near the end of years of ministry, you think about the question, “What has the Lord done through me that is of eternal value?” Moses must have been thinking about that when he wrote the majestic Psalm 90. In the final verse (Ps. 90:17) he prays, “Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us; and confirm for us the work of our hands; yes, confirm the work of our hands.” I pray that often!

As Moses came near the end of his life, the Lord told him that in the future, Israel would break their covenant with the Lord and play the harlot with the false gods of the Canaanites (Deut. 31:16). As a result, in judgment the Lord would bring many evils upon them. So the Lord directed Moses to write a song as a witness against unfaithful Israel (Deut. 31:19-21). They were to teach this song to their children as a warning about what happens when you forsake the Lord and follow false gods. So Moses wrote this second song (Exodus 15 is his first song) and taught it to Israel.

God wanted Israel to remember and sing Deuteronomy 32 down through their generations, but it may have been a song that Israel wished they could forget. You’ve had songs that get into your head and you can’t get them out until they just about drive you crazy! We don’t know the tune of Moses’ song, but God wanted it to stay in the Israelites’ heads forever. Someday we’ll hear this song, because in Revelation 15, John saw the saints in heaven singing the song of Moses, praising God for His greatness, righteousness, truth, and holiness. It teaches us:

To avoid turning away from the Lord, we should remember and sing songs that tell us who God is and who we are so that we appreciate what He has done for us in Christ.

It would take many sermons to work through this song in detail, but there are three general lessons:

1. God wants us to remember and sing spiritual songs to warn us of the dangers of turning away from Him.

When God told Moses that in the future, Israel would break God’s covenant and play the harlot with foreign gods, Moses must have felt as if his life’s work was going down in flames! He had put up with hardship, grumbling, criticism, and rebellion from these people for the past 40 years, but his hope no doubt was that once they got into the Promised Land, they would finally become the kingdom of priests and holy nation that God had proclaimed them to be (Exod. 19:5-6). But now he hears this grievous word that after his death, Israel would forsake the Lord and turn to other gods. So God gave Moses this song to teach Israel who He is and to warn them of the consequences if they turned away from Him.

Although God prophesied that Israel would turn to idolatry, it was not inevitable that everyone would do so, if they heeded God’s warning. We need to understand that whatever God foreknows, He foreordains. In other words, God doesn’t just sit in heaven and look down on earth to see in advance what direction the parade will go. Rather, He determines the parade route. He “works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11; Job 42:2). And so God not only foresaw Israel’s future apostasy, which He announces here (Deut. 31:16); He also foreordained it, yet in such a way that He was not responsible for their sin. While we can’t understand how God can foreordain evil and yet not be responsible for it, the Bible often teaches that very thing (e.g. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).

When God tells us in His Word what the future holds, it is not so that we can draw up nifty prophecy charts. It’s so that we will heed His warning and not fall into the sins that will happen in the future. And, it’s so that we will not be surprised or discouraged when we see these things taking place. For example, the Bible tells us that in the future, there will be a time of great apostasy, when many professing believers will fall away (Matt. 24:10-12). Many will be deceived by the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:3-12). But knowing that this will happen does not mean that it’s inevitable that we will be part of that future apostasy. Rather, we can be on guard not to fall into spiritual deception. And, we’ll be ready to endure persecution and hardship for the sake of the gospel.

In the introduction (Deut. 32:1-2), Moses calls upon heaven and earth to let his teaching be as refreshing rain on the earth. But the bulk of the song describes terrible judgment, not refreshing showers! How can this be? Warnings and descriptions of future judgment are a means of blessing if we heed the warning. It’s as if I warned, “Don’t go near the edge of the Grand Canyon. Many have fallen in the past and there will be many who fall and die in the future.” That predictive warning does not make it inevitable that you will fall over in the future. If you take the warning to heart, you will be blessed to avoid becoming a victim of my prediction.

That’s the intent of this song. One way to heed the warning of future apostasy is to sing spiritually edifying songs as we gather each week.

2. The songs we remember and sing should tell us who God is and who we are.

John Calvin opens The Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. by John T. McNeill [Westminster Press], 1:1:1) with this provocative statement: “Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” McNeill notes (p. 36, note 3), “These decisive words set the limits of Calvin’s theology and condition every subsequent statement.” So in one short sentence, Calvin sums up everything he’s going to say for the next 1,500 pages! True and sound wisdom consists of knowing God and knowing ourselves as revealed in Scripture.

A. The songs we remember and sing should tell us who God is.

Moses begins (Deut. 32:3), “For I proclaim the name of the Lord.” The Lord’s name refers to all that He is, the sum of His attributes. His name is His person as revealed in His Word. I can’t work through this song verse by verse, but here are seven truths that highlight who God is:

1) God is Yahweh, our great covenant God, the Rock.

“The Lord” (Deut. 32:3) translates Yahweh, God’s covenant name that He revealed to Moses at the burning bush, where He told Moses to tell the Israelites, “I AM has sent me to you” (Exod. 3:14-16). It was by His name Yahweh that the Lord promised to deliver Israel from bondage in Egypt (Exod. 6:2-8). The Lord Jesus claimed to be “I AM” when He told the Jews who challenged Him (John 8:58), “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” He is the mediator of the new covenant, which is better than the old (Heb. 7:22; 8:6).

Also, Moses proclaims (Deut. 32:3), “Ascribe greatness to our God!” God alone is truly great! Even the greatest and most powerful human leaders are not great in comparison with God. Nebuchadnezzar thought that he was great as the ruler and builder of Babylon, but God humbled him and made him act like a beast in the field and eat grass until he recognized (Dan. 4:25), “that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes.”

God is also “The Rock” (Deut. 32:4). This points to His stability and unchangeableness. He is a place of refuge and security for His people. We can build our lives on Him as our sure foundation (Matt. 7:24-27). He is not moved by storms. He can be counted on in every situation.

Note, also verse 31: “Indeed their rock is not like our Rock.” “Their rock” refers to the false gods of the Canaanites. It points to idols that people trust in. Some trust in money, thinking that it will bring them stability and security in life. But billions of dollars will be worthless when you die and stand before God (Luke 12:15-21). Others trust in pleasure, but sensual pleasures quickly fade as we grow old and die. Others trust in relationships with a spouse, family, or friends. Such relationships are a gift from God. But death can quickly rob us of our cherished relationships. Whatever rock you put your trust in is not like our Rock, the living and true God. He alone ultimately satisfies, both for time and eternity (Ps. 16:11).

2) God is perfect, just in all His ways, faithful, and righteous.

Deut. 32:4: “His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He.” God’s ways are how He deals with people. Here it especially applies to God’s dealings with Israel in the wilderness. They grumbled and did not submit to His ways, even though He abundantly provided for them. They often accused God of cruelty and unfaithfulness by bringing them into the wilderness to kill them. Thus God says of Israel in the wilderness (Ps. 95:10), “For forty years I loathed that generation, and said they are a people who err in their heart, and they do not know My ways.” He is perfect, just, faithful, and righteous.

3) God is our Father who bought us, made us, and established us.

Deut. 32:6b: “Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you.” A few times the Old Testament states that God is Israel’s Father (Isa. 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10). It mentions more frequently that Israel was God’s son (Earl Kalland, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan], ed. by Frank Gaebelien, 3:201). God was Israel’s Father because He brought them as a nation into existence. Jesus often taught that we are to approach God as our loving Father (Matt. 6:9, 26, 32; etc.).

The fact that God bought Israel refers to His redeeming them out of slavery in Egypt. He has the right of ownership and they owe Him total submission and allegiance. Even so, we are not our own; we’ve been bought with a price. Therefore we are to glorify God in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

4) God is the Most High, sovereign over the nations, who chose His people as His portion and inheritance.

Deut. 32:8, “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.” Paul was probably referring to this verse when he told the Athenians (Acts 17:26), “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.” Both verses go back to Genesis 10, which records the divisions of the nations after the flood.

The last phrase of verse 8, “according to the number of the sons of Israel,” is unclear, but as one commentator explains (Kalland, ibid. 3:203), “the most probable meaning is that the boundaries of the nations were determined with the intent that Israel would have Canaan because her numbers could be supported in that area. This was done because Israel was central in the Lord’s affection and sovereign planning.”

The Bible teaches that the Lord is our portion and inheritance (Ps. 16:5; Eph. 1:11), but also that we are His portion and inheritance (1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 8:51)! Psalm 149:4 declares, “For the Lord takes pleasure in His people.” It should constantly amaze us that the sovereign over the nations chose us as His portion and inheritance!

5) God is the loving, faithful God who cares for, guides, and sustains His people.

Verses 10-14 chronicle how God found Israel in a howling desert wasteland, cared for him, and guarded him as the pupil of His eye. Like an eagle carefully hovering over its young, God tenderly cared for Israel. Looking ahead to Israel’s inheritance in Canaan, Moses says that the Lord guided him, fed him with the produce of the field, gave him honey and oil from the rock, and provided abundant flocks, food, and wine. Even so, Jesus proclaimed (John 6:35), “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” He said (John 10:10b), “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” God sustains and cares for us (1 Pet. 5:7).

6) God is the fearful, righteous Judge of those who reject Him.

This is a major theme in this song (see verses 19-27, 31-35, 40-43). His judgment is certain for all who reject Him. This applies both to those who claim to be His people, but live in disobedience to Him, and also to nations that worship false gods. Note two features of this point:

First, in verses 26-27, speaking in human terms, God says that He would have cut disobedient Israel to pieces and removed the memory of them from earth, except that He feared that Israel’s enemies would boast that they had triumphed, rather than acknowledge that God had done it. The point is, God is jealous for His glory among the nations. It’s the same point that we’ve seen when God told Moses that He would wipe out Israel and make a new nation out of Moses’ descendants. But Moses countered, “Lord, if You do that, the nations will say that You weren’t able to keep Your promises to these people!” (See Exod. 32:9-14; Num. 14:11-21). But God will be glorified when He judges sinners.

Second, the Lord tells Israel that when they turn away from Him, He will use the idolatrous nations to punish Israel and then He will judge those nations because of how they treated Israel (Deut. 32:35-36)! It’s similar to Habakkuk, where the Lord tells the prophet that He is raising up the wicked Chaldeans to judge Israel, but then He will judge the Chaldeans. “Vengeance is Mine” (v. 35) is cited twice in the New Testament, once to prohibit us from taking our own vengeance (Rom. 12:19); and the other time (Heb. 10:30) to warn us that God will judge those who trample Jesus under foot and regard His blood of the covenant as unclean. Jonathan Edwards used “in due time their foot will slip” (v. 35) as the text for his famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

7) God is the only God, who kills and gives life, who wounds and heals, from whom none can escape.

God sums up the bottom line of who He is (Deut. 32:39):

‘See now that I, I am He,
And there is no god besides Me;
It is I who put to death and give life.
I have wounded and it is I who heal,
And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

Since that is who God is, we should worship Him alone and sing songs that exalt Him for his greatness and majesty.

B. The songs we remember and sing should remind us who we are.

As Calvin said, true and sound wisdom, consists both of knowing God and knowing ourselves. He meant, knowing ourselves as God’s Word reveals. We can’t trust our own judgment, because as Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?”

This song jars us by portraying God’s greatness, goodness, and faithfulness, but then hitting us with Israel’s sin. After telling us (v. 4) that God is the Rock, whose work is perfect, whose ways are just, that He is faithful, righteous, and upright, verse 5 declares,

“They have acted corruptly toward Him,
They are not His children, because of their defect;
But are a perverse and crooked generation.

Jesus used that last line to verbalize His exasperation over the unbelief He encountered (Matt. 17:17).

Then after telling how God tenderly cared for Israel (Deut. 32:7-14), verse 15 jars us: “But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked.” Jeshurun means, “upright one,” and here refers sarcastically to Israel. After God’s tender care, they should have been upright; instead, they kicked the gracious Shepherd who provided abundantly for them. Moses goes on (vv. 15b-18) to describe the depths of their defection from the Lord:

Then he forsook God who made him,
And scorned the Rock of his salvation.
“They made Him jealous with strange gods;
With abominations they provoked Him to anger.
“They sacrificed to demons who were not God,
To gods whom they have not known,
New gods who came lately,
Whom your fathers did not dread.
“You neglected the Rock who begot you,
And forgot the God who gave you birth.

This terrible indictment is not describing true believers in the Lord (“They are not His children,” v. 5). God is condemning the Israelites who had seen God’s grace and love, but had rejected Him to follow false gods.

When God saves us, He gives us a new nature that loves Him and seeks to know Him more deeply. And yet, as Paul lamented (Rom. 7:18), “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” My understanding is that he was referring to his life after he was saved. I do not agree with those who claim that believers have only a new nature, but not the old. Whether you call it the old nature or the flesh, I can sing, “Prone to wander, Lord I feel it. Prone to leave the God I love.” The closer we draw to the “unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6:16) of God’s presence, the more we become aware of the remaining corruption that dwells within us. And so all the more we need to judge our sin, guard our hearts, and walk in moment-by-moment dependence on the Lord. Finally,

3. When we see who God is and who we are, it leads to heartfelt worship because of what He has done for us in Christ.

At the end of his song (v. 46), Moses tells Israel to take all these words of warning to their heart. As Jonathan Edwards argued (The Works of Jonathan Edwards [Banner of Truth], A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, 1:236), “True religion, in great part, consists in holy affections.” In other words, when we truly know God, it affects our hearts, which includes our will and understanding. Moses adds (v. 47) that to obey God’s warning through this song was not just an idle singing of a song, but it was their life.

The only way that such a strong warning that confronts our many sins can be life for us is if God provides a way to forgive our sins. Moses alludes to this at the end of the song (v. 43) when he says that the Lord “will atone for His land and His people.” In the Old Testament atonement was through animal sacrifices. For us, Jesus is God’s perfect and final sacrifice. He is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). If you trust in Him, your sins are atoned for and you receive eternal life.

The catalyst for heartfelt worship is when you see God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible and you see yourself as justly deserving His wrath. But then you see the surpassing riches of His grace in sending His own Son to die for your sins (Eph. 2:4-7).

Conclusion

In 1715, Louis XIV of France died. He called himself, “Louis the Great.” His court was the most magnificent in all of Europe. He even planned his funeral to be spectacular. To dramatize his greatness, his body was put in a golden coffin. He had given orders that the cathedral be dimly lit, with only a special candle set above the coffin. Thousands waited in hushed silence. Then Bishop Massilon began to speak. Slowly reaching down, he snuffed out the candle, saying, “Only God is great!” (Source unknown)

May our singing help us to remember: Only God is great! We’re not great. But we have a great Savior! Cling to Him! Worship Him alone!

Application questions

  1. Many argue that believers can lose their salvation if they turn away from the Lord. How would you refute this?
  2. Some Christians believe that if God decreed evil, then He is responsible for it. But what is the unbiblical conclusion if He did not decree evil? What verses show that He did decree it?
  3. Why is it spiritually important to affirm that believers still have an old sin nature (or, “the flesh”)? What danger is there if we deny it?
  4. When (if ever) should you try to help a sinning Christian who now doubts his salvation gain assurance of salvation?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2018, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

Related Topics: Christian Life

3. Amos

I. Introduction

The Old Testament prophets were adept at luring hostile audiences into listening to their judgment speeches. In 1 Kings 20:35-43 a prophet tricked Ahab into pronouncing his own guilt and punishment. And Nathan tricked David into declaring his own guilt by the artful use of a parable (2 Sam. 12).

Amos 1-2 contains a great example of this entrapment technique, and recognizing what Amos is doing here really helps us to understand what is being said and what is the theme of the book.

Overview of Book:

  • Seven speeches pronouncing Judgment.
  • Five messages describing the reasons for the judgment and just how bad they were.
  • Five visions to show how bad the judgment will be.
  • Promise of restoration in the future.

I also want to spend some time showing you some of the literary devices that the prophets used. Most of what they did is lost on the modern reader, but they were skilled writers and understanding some of these literary devices really opens up the book.

So, with this in mind, let's study the book of Amos.

A. Author and Date (1:1)

Amos was a sheepherder from the southern kingdom of Judah. Amos 7:15 shows us that he received a direct call from God to go prophesy to the northern kingdom of Israel. So Amos goes to Bethel, which was functioning as the capitol of Israel. The king, Jeroboam II, lived there. Bethel had special significance in Israel's history. In Genesis 28: we see that this is where Jacob had his dream about the angels descending on the ladder and his wrestling with God. But now it had become the center for idol worship in the Northern Kingdom. Jeroboam set up golden calves in Bethel and Dan for the Israelites to worship, because he didn't want the people worshipping God in Jerusalem and reuniting the kingdom.

It says this happened in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam. So we know this to be somewhere between 790-753 BC. Israel was at the height of its power politically, but was very corrupt spiritually and morally.

We know that Israel was defeated by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., so this is just before that time and Amos is warning Israel so they will turn from their wicked ways before it is too late. And that brings us to the theme of the book.

B. The Theme (1:2)

One thing we need to notice is the phrase, “The Lord roars from Zion.” God has been Israel's shepherd. The Israelites are familiar with the 23rd Psalm, etc. Like a shepherd, God is supposed to take care of them. But Amos, a sheepherder himself, uses what would have been a very vivid word picture to that society. God is now like a Lion to Israel. The lion was probably the most feared animal of that time. It could attack and devour a flock of sheep while the shepherd watched helplessly.

So this imagery sets the stage and lets the people know that God is angry. Why is He angry? That is the theme of the book. And I don't want to tell you just yet.

So, with these things in mind, we see Amos is preaching in the Northern Kingdom to the Israelites, and he begins by giving a series of speeches against Israel's surrounding enemies.

II. The Roar of Judgment
(1:3-2:16)

I can just imagine him shouting and pronouncing judgment on these surrounding nations, and his audience would be listening with delight as he listed the evil things their enemies had done and what God was going to do to them. After all, there were a number of prophecies, like the one in Jeremiah 30:7f, that had Israel anticipating a day when God would deliver them from their enemies. When we studied Obadiah and Joel, you may remember they talked about the day of the Lord when the nations would be judged.

Let's look at the speeches in Amos. Typically, people read these speeches and try to draw application from each one. They try to analyze each nation's sin, etc. But that is perhaps, not the best way to understand what Amos is doing here.

It seems that Amos is using these speeches to build to a climax. He starts with foreigners, then denounces Israel's neighbors and then the seventh speech is against Judah. You all know that the number seven is significant in the Bible and it was to the Jew. They would have thought this was the culmination of the sermon and they certainly would have been pleased that Judah was going to get what was coming to her.

But Amos uses another literary device to build the listener's interest and make him hang around till the end. Let's look at what Amos does:

The Three/Four Formula

One of the first things you notice is this saying, “for three transgressions of ________ and for four . . . .” What does that mean?

It is especially confusing when he doesn't list three or four things after he says that. We might label this device as an x/x+1 formula. This x/x+1 formula is found throughout the Bible and usually follows a set pattern.

  • It is occasionally used to emphasize completeness as in Job 40:5 which says, “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add no more.”
  • It is sometimes used to mean “a few” - one or two of something. e.g. There were a couple of people at the meeting.
  • It is sometimes used to mean abundance - “7 even 8” is used more often to refer to that. Micah 5:5 says,

When the Assyrian invades our land,
When he tramples on our citadels,
Then we will raise against him
Seven shepherds and eight leaders of men.

This means there will be plenty of shepherds (leaders). This is also seen in Ancient Near Eastern secular literature (from Ugarit). (E.g. Baal has 7 yea 8 bolts of lightning.)

  • Sometimes it is more literal. The second number is what is being emphasized and the phrase “3 even 4” is mostly used for poetic parallelism. But it usually precedes a list of some sort. In Ps 62:11-12 we see the one/two formula. In Proverbs 30:15-16, 18-19, 21-23, 29-31 we have the three/four formula and in Job 5:19-22 and Proverbs 6:16-19 we have a six/seven grouping. Proverbs 6: 16-19 is fairly well known....

In all these sections the author gives a list corresponding to the larger number of the formula. The significance of all this is that the typical Jew would have been expecting Amos to list four transgressions for each of these nations mentioned. Does he do that? No. Why?

Amos is going to adapt this common 3-4 # formula to set up the audience and emphasize his message. Let's look at the speeches:

A. Judgment Against the Nations (1:3-2:5)

1. Damascus

1:3-5 - “Because they threshed Gilead with implements of sharp iron.”

Damascus was the capitol of the Arameans or Syrians off to the North. Hazael and Ben-hadad were previous kings of Aram. This probably refers to the constant battles between Gilead and the Arameans. The word “threshing” is probably figurative for harsh and thorough conquest with the idea of Aram's armies raking across Gilead slicing and crushing it as though it were grain on the threshing floor. This could even refer to actual methods of torture where a device like a sledge with iron prongs or knives was used on prisoners, or as Ryrie says in his footnote--the huge sledges were literally dragged over the enemies to crush them.

But notice, even though it is a gruesome thing, there is only one transgression listed. Not four as the audience would have expected.

Damascus fell to the Assyrians in 732 BC.

2. Gaza

1:6-8 - Philistines in the West. The cities mentioned, Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron were major cities in Philistia.

Their sin - “Because they deported an entire population to deliver it up to Edom.”

Although it might look like two crimes listed, the overall concept is that of one thing--large scale slave trade. The Philistines were famous for capturing whole villages and selling them into slavery to Edom and from there they were sold to other parts of the world. Joel 3:4-8 talks further about their slave trade, and also mentions that Tyre participated with them. Tyre is the next city mentioned.

3. Tyre

1:9-10 - This refers to the Phoenicians. Their crime against humanity was also slave trade with Edom. Strictly speaking we might see two transgressions here, but it seems that it is really one sin because the covenant of brotherhood was broken by the slave trade.

So, we have three nations condemned but only one sin listed for each. The 3/4 formula would have made the audience anticipate the fourth nation to be mentioned as the climax of the story.

4. Edomites

1:11-12 - When Amos mentioned Edom fourth, I'm sure many thought this was the conclusion because the 3/4 formula might be mirrored in the speech as a whole with Amos denouncing three nations and then concluding with a special denunciation on the fourth. And I'm sure they were pleased. Ryrie mentions in his footnote on 1:7 that Edom was Israel's bitterest enemy. That is truly a sad thing because the Edomites were the descendants of Esau - Jacob's brother. Remember Jacob's other name was Israel.

“Because he pursued his brother with the sword” certainly refers to this relationship between Israel and Edom.

With all the emphasis on three and four transgressions, these four separate statements might make it seem like this is the culmination of the speech. But these four statements really all describe one basic sin and that is the intense hostility for Israel.

So Amos continues,

5. Ammon

1:13-15 - This is certainly a gross sin. Ancient armies would sometimes do this to terrorize the enemy. And certainly committing this atrocity against defenseless women and children showed how immoral they had become. But again, I think there is just one conceptual sin listed. It says they ripped open the pregnant women in order to expand their borders. So it is their cruel imperialistic expansion that is in view.

6. Moabites

2:1-3 - Ammon and Moab were the children of the daughters of Lot. More relatives. The sin listed is burning the bones of the king of Edom. It seems that in ancient times, much importance was placed on a dead man's body being peacefully placed in the family burial site, so he could be, “gathered to his fathers.” (BKCOT) If you remember they hauled Joseph's bones out of Egypt to bury them in the promised land.

So their sin was that of desecrating graves.

7. Judah

2:4-5 - Now he is getting closer to home. And he makes a couple of statements against them. but again, I think these statements are really just an elaboration on one sin

  • The sin is rejecting the law of the lord
  • The means is by not keeping the decrees, and
  • The reason is because they followed false gods instead of the one true God.

And as Judah is the seventh nation mentioned, the audience would be certain this was the point of the message. Actually, the sin listed is perhaps the worst so far and is appropriate for the seventh pronouncement.

Notice the progression. He starts off with foreign nations and gets closer to home as he lists relatives.

Notice the numbers. First we notice Amos doesn't follow the usual convention of listing four ins after he uses the 3/4 formula. And second, it appears at first that he is going to focus his attention on Edom and then he continues. Then it looks like he is culminating with Judah which is listed 7th. Seven is a significant number and represents fullness, etc. The number eight is also significant in that it follows seven and gives the idea of abundance or “therefore...”

So there is something wrong with the way Amos has told his story. He didn't follow the rules. That is part of understanding and appreciating the literature of the Bible. When someone doesn’t follow the rules it is usually done on purpose to make you take notice. The audience would have noticed this and been expecting something more. In other words, he has set up his audience. He has told them of those that will be destroyed and seemingly ends with Judah.

But - surprise - he continues and adds an 8th item to the list -- Israel. Israel is the target of the speech and the judgment. So we really shouldn't isolate each speech and the sin and judgment of each nation and turn them into principles. These are more than likely just building to #8.

The point is: Israel is worse than all the other nations.

B. Judgment Against Israel (2:6-16)

Now he gets personal. He gives it to them. 2:6-16 is the 8th oracle. Here he lists 8 or 10 sins (depending on how you count them) which could possibly be divided into 4 categories. So, Israel appears worse than the rest.

As you read verses 6-8 you notice some parallel structure: e.g.: They sell the righteous for money and (they sell) the needy for a pair of sandals.

Parallel structure was just the Hebrew way of saying everything. They like to repeat themselves. So, in this case, although it might look like separate sins, it is really a poetic way of describing one sin. Since we divided the sins of the other nations conceptually, we will do that here to be consistent.

I'm going to give you the four conceptual categories:

(1) Oppressing the innocent and the poor (2:6b-7a)

In verse 6 we see the justice system was corrupt. The law said it was OK to sell a debtor to pay the debt, but they were abusing it. The word righteous may mean the one who is right in a lawsuit. So the rich and the powerful may have been able to bribe judges to decide in their favor in a false lawsuit and that allowed them to sell the “righteous” (the one who was innocent but declared guilty) into slavery to pay the fine.

“Selling the needy for a pair of sandals” shows that the people were being sold into slavery for small debts or pledges. The law commanded the Israelites to give to the needy without demanding repayment (Deut. 15:7f), but I guess “business was business” for most Israelites.

Verses 9-11 recounts God’s provision for Israel. This reminds me of the unforgiving servant who refused to forgive his fellow slave a small debt, when he had just been forgiven a huge amount. I think God is heightening Israel's guilt by setting their rebellion against the backdrop of his own gracious acts toward them. It was He who conquered Canaan for Israel. At Jericho, Ai, etc. and later with Gideon and Samson. They took his forgiveness and salvation and provision but did not pass it on to others.

(2) Engaging in pagan religious practices (2:7b)

Verse 7 - is probably a reference to the fact that the Israelite men were going to pagan temples and participating with the temple prostitutes.

(3) Abusing the system of pledges and fines (2:8)

Verses 8 may also be referring to a different scenario - First, they weren't supposed to keep a cloak taken as a pledge overnight (Ex 22:26-27). It was assumed that only the very needy would borrow anything and so lenders were not to charge interest and profit from another person's misfortune, nor were they to keep coats that were given as collateral overnight. The poor persons would need it to stay warm. The poor person probably was required to give his coat as collateral so he couldn't go from place to place borrowing from every merchant. If a guy came in without a coat, that meant he had already borrowed for the day and he wouldn't be able to borrow anything else. He needed his coat back so he could stay warm that night and have something to use as collateral the next day. So these merchants were keeping the coats and, to make matters worse, we see the second sin - they used them to sleep on at night as they “worshipped” at pagan altars.

(4) Showing lack of respect for God's special servants (2:12)

Verse 12 shows the corruption and rejection of the religious system and the rejection of religious leaders. The Nazarites had taken a vow not to drink any alcohol, but the Israelites were coercing them to break their vows. They had no commitment to God and had no respect for those who did.

Does anything stand out to you at first glance?

I think two things stand out:

First, Amos finally lists four sins. This is the point of his 3/4 formula. He didn't list four sins for the other nations because Israel is the target of the coming judgment.

Second, These sins don't look nearly as bad as those of the other nations. So what is the point? Why does God consider Israel to be worse than all the other nations?

I think this points us to the theme of the book.

THEME: God requires more from those to whom He has given more. Luke 12:48

God had given the Jews the law. They knew better. That was God's complaint against Judah in verse 4 -- that Judah rejected the Law. And it is God's complaint against Israel, but he elaborates because Israel is the target audience and he really wants to drive the point home.

Summary

Amos wants you, the listener, to ask the question, “Why are these lists so short?” Then he gets to Israel who has many more sins listed than every other nation. Israel is really guilty - more guilty than all the rest.

What do all these sins of Israel have in common? Love of money and things had replaced love for people. Money had become their god. Does this have any practical application for America and for us?

The sins of Israel don't look as bad as those of the other nations. After all, the other nations were going to war, murdering people and ripping open pregnant women. But Israel's sins are worse because they knew better. Theirs was the sin of hypocrisy.

Application

One obvious problem in Israel was the sin of materialism. We certainly face this problem in our society. We can see how the Israelites compromised God's laws and principles to achieve success (which they defined as wealth). We need to be careful that we do not fall into the same trap. The Israelites did something else. Their theology said that the wealthy person was a righteous person. We see that over and over again in the parables in the NT. This further passified their conscience as they told themselves that their prosperity was God’s sign of approval.

We see how the Israelites abused people in need. I don't know if we overtly abuse people, but how concerned are we for the poor? What are we doing for them? Are we ignoring them or ministering to them? I think in our society we expect Uncle Sam to take care of them. We criticize big government, but we depend on government to do what we ought to be doing.

I said the Israelites’ theology said prosperity was a sign of spirituality. Is our theology such that we assume they are poor because they are ungodly?

The main point of this section is this: We look at society and think other people are bad...abortion, homosexuality, murder, etc. but we do things that are, in God's eyes, worse, because we know better. God expects more out of His people. This doesn't mean we ignore the other sins. They are terrible, but don't gloss over what we think are little sins, or what we have rationalized away as not even being a sin.

Remember: To him who has been given much is much required.

III. The Reasons for Judgment
(Amos 3-6)

A. The First Message (3:)

1. The Unique Relationship (3:1-2)

When you get to 3:2 you see that Israel is chosen and you would normally think that means special treatment. That is what the Jews thought at that time. There was a aberrant doctrine of eternal security floating around Israel. They thought they were immune from judgment, because they were the chosen people living in the chosen city. They thought it didn't matter what they did. They took their relationship with God for granted. I think 6:8 may be a reference to this attitude.

But to God, being chosen, means having responsibility. Israel forgot the stipulations of the covenant made in Deut. They were only secure as long as they followed God. That was part of the OT law.

How does this relate to us since we are not under the covenant blessings and curses?

The father/child relationship is probably the most helpful for understanding this. I treat my children differently than other children. I wrestle with them, play games, take them out to eat breakfast, buy them things, etc., but I also spank them when they disobey. If I’m watching several kids at my house, I don’t spank other people’s kids when they disobey. It would probably be fair to say that I expect more from my kids than the other kids. I know I’ve told my kids not to do carrier landings on the coffee table (explain). If they do it, they will get a spanking. ...

In the same way, we are children of God. We can't remove the relationship no matter how much we sin. What we can change is whether or not he needs to discipline us or whether He can continue with His planned blessings for us. When Israel was bad, they were still God's chosen people, they just didn't get to enjoy His blessings. Instead, God had to discipline them. And He disciplined them for transgressions that didn’t seem as bad to us as the other nations. But they knew better.

We have a tendency to want to earn God's blessings and we think we deserve God's blessings. (That is one of the main lessons from Hosea) but there is a fine line here that we need to understand. We do not earn God's blessings by being good. We just free God up to graciously bless us.

2. The Inevitable Judgment (3:3-8)

In 3:3-8 Amos uses seven rhetorical questions to show that the judgment of God is inevitable. There is a progression here:

  • 3:3 No element of force or disaster
  • 3:4 One animal overpowering another
  • 3:5 Man overpowering animals
  • 3:6 Man overpowering other men
  • 3:6b God overpowers man. Climax
  • 3:7-8 God always reveals Himself and His plan to mankind. He tells us what He wants us to do, but with that information comes responsibility to do it. If we fail to do it, judgment will follow.

EXAMPLE: The theme of this whole book and especially this section causes me to go back to the parenting/discipline process for an analogy. When Mandy does something wrong, but I have never before told her not to do that, I usually tell her what she is doing is wrong and not to do it again. But I don't discipline her then. However, if I've told her not to do something and she does it anyway, the discipline is sure to follow. Because she knew better. And the Israelites knew better!

3. Unparalleled Oppression (3:9-10)

3:9 Ashdod (Philistines) and Egypt were former oppressors of Israel. But things were so bad in Israel now that Amos is sarcastically calling them to witness the internal oppression going on now. It is like saying, “You thought you oppressed them? You don't even know how to oppress compared to them. Watch them oppress themselves.”

4. The Coming Catastrophe (3:11-15)

Because of the oppression God was going to send an enemy in to destroy them. And in case some of the listeners thought God would save them again this time, Amos compares God's saving them to a shepherd snatching a leg bone or ear from a lion's mouth. Only a few people would be spared.

The reference to the lion in 3:12 goes back to the first verse of Amos. Remember he said, “The LORD roars from Zion and thunders from Jerusalem...” This is just another literary device Amos uses which shows his skill as a writer.

So, the point of the first message is that Israel was chosen and because of their rebellion and internal oppression, judgment was certain.

B. The Second Message (4:)

1. Economic Exploitation

4:1 This is certainly a colorful and sarcastic section. Women are normally sensitive and compassionate, but note the contrast here. The women are compared with the fat cows living on the lush pastures of Bashan. The idea here is that these spoiled women demanded luxury from their “masters” (not the typical word for husband--more sarcasm and reversal of roles) and the only way their husbands could meet their demands was by oppressing the poor.

How does this apply to us? Are we guilty of this? Are we so materialistic and so demanding that our spouse has to work overtime to make enough money to satisfy our demands? Do we have to cheat other people in our business in order to make the most money we can?

4:2 The cattle imagery is continued by the meat hook imagery. See Ryrie's note.

So, economic exploitation was one problem, now, he describes another.

2. Religious Hypocrisy

4:4 continues the sarcasm. Bethel and Gilgal were important sites in Israel's salvation history. (Gen 28:10-22; Josh 4-5) Normally the priest would call people to come worship, but here we see Amos calling the people to come to Bethel and Gilgal to sin. The sacrifices and tithes that they were bringing to God had become a sham. They did everything to impress other people (vs 5), not to worship God. They were actually going to church to sin. Not to mention the fact that they weren’t going to Jerusalem to worship, which was the only authorized worship center for Yahweh.

4:5 Notice it says “proclaim freewill offerings and make them known.” I think this shows that they were bragging about their spirituality, their giving, etc. They were doing things to be seen.

We might ask ourselves if we are guilty of this.

4:6-11 shows God's response to their hypocrisy and His repeated attempts to bring them back to Him. The phrase, “Yet you have not returned to me” is repeated five times.

Amos 4:6 says “yet you have not returned to me,” declares the Lord. The punishments mentioned in the next few verses are an allusion to the promised curses of Deuteronomy 28.

  • Famine is mentioned in Amos 4:6 and in Deuteronomy 28:17-18.
  • Drought in Amos 4:7-8 and Deut 28:23-24.
  • Locusts in Amos 4:9 and Deut 28:38.
  • Plague in Amos 4:19 and Deut 28:60.

I think this shows God's patience - that He tried so many times, and it shows His mercy because we see that He started out with less severe measures and then increased the severity. (Famine, drought, crop failure, disease and war.)

C. The Third Message (5:1-17)

Chiastic structure

Chapter 5 is divided into two sections using a favorite literary device called a Chiasm. Explain: Draw X and show abcba...

Sometimes a Chiasm was just used as an outline and sometimes it really points us to the key idea of main point of the section. So not only is it fun to look for these, but it usually helps us understand the main idea of the author.

If we outline these two messages, it points to the overall truth that: the nation would be judged by its mighty Sovereign God, but individuals could yet repent and live.

C. The Third Message (5:1-17)

1. Description of certain judgment (5:1-3)

2. Call for individual repentance (5:4-6)

3. Accusation of legal injustice (5:7)

4. Portrayal of a sovereign God (5:8-9)

5. Accusation of legal injustice (5:10-13)

6. Call for individual repentance (5:14-15)

7. Description of certain judgment (5:16-17)

D. The Fourth Message (5:18-27)

1. Description of certain judgment (5:18-20)

2. Accusation of religious hypocrisy (5:21-22)

3. Call for individual repentance (5:23-24)

4. Accusation of religious hypocrisy (5:25-26)

5. Description of certain judgment (5:27)

Remember Isa 6: When Isaiah saw the glory of God on his throne, it caused him to repent and make himself available to serve God.

That is the point of the third and fourth messages. The Chiastic structure points us to that. The sovereignty of God in message three should cause the repentance in message four.

There are a few things I'd like to point out about these messages.

In 5:1 Amos summons the people to hear his lament over Israel.

Israel's demise was so certain that Amos lamented her fall as though it had already happened. This should have been as shocking to the Israelites as it would to one of us to read our own obituary in the newspaper.

5:2 Virgin Israel - a picture of being in the prime of life and experiencing a premature death. Israel could have and should have had a long prosperous life. Actually, God's plan was for an eternal kingdom for them.

5:10 They hate the one who points out their wickedness. Doesn't that sound like America. One example that comes to mind is the abortion issue. The Pro-life people are abused and beaten and thrown in jail when they try to protest (point out or reprove) those having and performing abortions. People don't want to be told that they are sinning. Darkness hates the light.

5:17 Just as God passed through Egypt (in judgment), He was going to pass through Israel. Ex 12:12

5:18-20 Pictures a man fleeing from one thing after another with no escape to be found.

5:23 Shows that their worship and singing was just noise in God’s ears because their worship was merely external.

5:24 shows that God desires justice. How you treat your fellow man is what is important to God and that is what shows that you love God. Over and over again we see the theme repeated that we are to love God and show it by our love for our neighbor.

This reminds me of the parable of the Good Smaritan. In the story, the priest and levite are on their way from Jerusalem. If they were on their way to Jerusalem, they might have been able to use the excuse that they didn’t want to become defiled and not be able to worship God. But they had already “worshipped God” (which supposedly showed that they loved God) but they refused to help the injured man (they did not love their neighbor) and that demonstrated that they really did not love God. Their worship was also merely external.

E. The Fifth Message (6:)

1. Their Boastful Complacency

6:2 This message addresses the problem in Israel in which everyone felt they were better because they were the chosen people.

2. Their Luxurious Indulgence

I think this section speaks for itself:

4 You lie on beds inlaid with ivory and lounge on your couches.
You dine on choice lambs and fattened calves.
5 You strum away on your harps like David
and improvise on musical instruments.
6 You drink wine by the bowlful and use the finest lotions,
but you do not grieve over the ruin of Joseph.
7 Therefore you will be among the first to go into exile;
your feasting and lounging will end.

3. The Complete Devastation

6:8 We've already mentioned the aberrant doctrine of eternal security going around in that day. They thought they were invincible - partly because they were God's people, and because of their own strength. The rest of this chapter shows how wrong they were.

6:12 “you have turned justice into poison.” The judicial system which was designed to preserve the nations health, had become a lethal poison within its body. This sounds exactly like America with all the lawsuits that are going on and the lack of punishment for crimes.

6:13 says rb*d* aOl= <yj!m@C=h^ or (h^C=m@j'< l=l)a d`b*r) which is translated in the NIV as “you who rejoice in the conquest of Lo Debar.” Lo Debar was a city on the East side of the Jordan which they had conquered. rbd (d*b*r) can mean either “word” or “thing” and with the negative (loa) could mean “no thing.” Therefore, Amos could be making a play on words (Lo Debar vs Lo Dabar) saying that they rejoice in nothing.

6:14 Reference to Assyria.

Hamath was a city in the north. The Brook of Arabah marked the southern border of Israel during Jeroboam II's reign. Mentioning these two cities shows how complete will be the destruction.

IV. The Results of Judgment - Five Visions

 

The Three Billy Goats Gruff

Once on a time there were three billy goats who were to go up to the hillside to make themselves fat, and the name of all three was “Gruff.”

On the way up was a bridge over a river they had to cross, and under the bridge lived a great ugly troll with eyes as big as saucers and a nose as long as a poker.

So first of all came the youngest Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge. “Trip, trap, trip, trap!” went the bridge.
“Who's that tripping over my bridge?” roared the troll.
“Oh, it is only I, the tiniest Billy Goat Gruff, and I'm going up to the hillside to make myself fat.” said the billy goat with such a small voice.
“Now, I'm coming to gobble you up!” said the troll.
“Oh, no! pray don't take me. I'm too litte, that I am.” said the billy goat. “Wait a bit till the second Billy Goat Gruff comes. He's much bigger.”
“Very well, be off with you,” said the troll.

A little while after came the second Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge. “Trip, trap, trip, trap” went the bridge.
“Who's that tripping over my bridge?” roared the troll.
“Oh, it is only I, the second Billy Goat Gruff, and I'm going up to the hillside to make myself fat.” said the billy goat and his voice was not so small.
“Now, I'm coming to gobble you up!” said the troll.
“Oh, no! Don't take me,” said the billy goat. “Wait a bit till the big Billy Goat Gruff comes. He's much bigger.”
“Very well, be off with you,” said the troll.

Just then up came the big Billy Goat Gruff. “T-r-i-p, t-r-a-p, T-r-i-p, t-r-a-p!” went the bridge, for the billy goat was so heavy that the bridge creaked and groaned under him.
“Who's that tramping over my bridge?” roared the troll.
“It is I! the BIG BILLY GOAT GRUFF!” said the billy goat, who had an ugly hoarse voice of his own.
“Now, I'm coming to gobble you up!” said the troll.
“Well, come along! I've got to spears,
And I'll poke your eyeballs out at your ears,
I've got besides to great big stones,
And I'll crush you to bits, body and bones.”

That was what the billy goat said, and so flew at the troll, and poked his eyes out with his horns, and crushed him to bits, body and bones, and tossed him into the river. Then he went up to the hillside.

There the billy goats got so fat they were scarce able to walk again, and if the fat hasn't fallen off them, why they're still fat and so --

“Snip, snap, snout.

This tale's told out.”

You are probably wondering why I told you that story. Well, I did so because it illustrates what goes on in oral literature. You typically read stories like this and the three little pigs to children who can't read. They become totally caught up in the story and the author sets them up for the unexpected conclusion. The NT does this for us with the story of the Good Smaritan in Luke 10.

That is what Amos does to his audience with the next three visions. He uses the same literary technique. The first two visions are similar but the third one is different and catches the listener or reader's attention.

A. The Vision of the Locust Swarm (7:1-3)

1. The vision of destruction - 7:1-2a
2. The plea for mercy 7:2b
3. The suspension of judgment 7:3

B. The Vision of the Fire (7:4-6)

1. The vision of the all consuming fire 7:4
2. The plea for mercy 7:5
3. The suspension of judgment 7:6

C. The Vision of the Plumb Line (7:7-9)

1. The vision of the Plumb Line 7:7-8
2. The promise of Judgment

The third vision does not begin with judgment nor have a plea for mercy and the subsequent cancellation of judgment. The rhetorical purpose of this trilogy of visions is to set the audience up for the message of the third vision. The contrast of the third vision with the first two should draw attention to what is being said emphasize to the audience that Israel is “out-of-line” and doesn't measure up to God's standards. The prophet had asked for mercy in the first two visions, but when he was shown just how bad the people were (with the plumb line), he didn't ask for mercy because he could see that the judgment was deserved.

What is the main point of these visions? First we notice that the first two visions are like motion pictures. Amos responds to them emotionally and is overwhelmed by the destruction and effect on the nation. The third vision is like a snapshot. It invites reflection from the one seeing it. Amos sees the nation as God sees it. He looks at the situation theologically (the plumb line) and from reality (Amaziah's response) and sees that the judgment is deserved.

Too often we respond to bad things emotionally and blame God or think that it isn't fair, but we don't see what is going on from God's perspective.

The Reaction (10-17)

The biographical account in 7:10-17 seems out of place but really isn't. It shows the reaction of the leaders of Israel (especially the priest) to the message of Amos. They rejected his warning and this proves that the visions are correct. The nation is corrupt all the way up to the priests and the king.

Amaziah's report is not accurate. He accuses Amos of conspiring to kill Jeroboam with the sword (7:11) but Amos' prophecy and reference to the sword was figurative language (metonomy of adjunct) referring to God's judgment on Jeroboam or perhaps it was picturing the severing of the king's line. Amaziah also says that the Israelites will go into exile. Amos didn’t say that.

Amos responded to Amaziah's accusation by describing in more detail what God's judgment would bring. It is ironic that the details of Amaziah's saying would indeed come true. Many would fall by the sword and the rest would be hauled away into exile.

D. The Vision of Ripe Fruit (8:)

The vision in 8:1-3 fits in nicely with the preceding section. The three visions, culminating with the vision of the plumb line, showed that judgment was very much deserved. The response of Amaziah, the priest, showed the corruption of the nation, even up through the leadership. It also showed that the warning was rejected. Finally, the vision of the basket of ripe fruit showed the time was ripe for executing the judgment. The time was now.

There is word play in 8:2 between the word for “fruit” (Jy!q*) q*y!J and the word for “the end” (JQ@h^) h^ Q@J. They both sound the same. I believe this figure of speech is called paronomasia. When Amos said he saw a basket of Jy!q*, God says, “Yes, the JQ! has come.”

This is one figure of speech that could be transferred into English. It is not the same type of figure of speech, but the idea is similar. The NIV says the fruit is “ripe” and God says the time is “ripe” for judgment.

8:5 shows the hypocrisy of the people. They went to worship on the Sabbath, but they resented the Sabbath because they couldn’t go to work and make more money by cheating others. If the law can be summed up by loving God and loving your neighbor, the Israelites showed that they did neither. And as we have pointed out before, if you don’t love your neighbor, it proves that you don’t love God.

8:11 shows that it is worse to go without hearing the word of God than to go without food.

E. The Avenging Lord (9:1-10)

9:8-9 shows that God will shake the nation to separate the wheat from the chaff. And when God shakes, no chaff will remain. Time and again, we see God will sort everyone out in the end and He will determine who will be saved and who will not. We have a tendency to want to judge others and determine if they are saved, but that is God’s job.

V. Restoration (9:11-15)

The ultimate purpose for God's judgment is not revenge, it is restoration. God punishes us to bring us back to Him. This is always the purpose for discipline. You see it in Mat 18 when Jesus talks about reproving your brother. The goal is to bring him to the point where he sees his sin and repents. Peter understands this and so he asks the question in Mat 18:21 about how many times we must forgive. Jesus’ answer is - always.

A. Political Renewal (9:11)

There will come a time when God will restore Israel.

B. National Purpose (9:12)

9:12 shows that it will be time when godly people from other nations will be included. That was Israel's purpose all along -- to be a testimony to the world of how great God is and lead the nations to Him. In Eze 17:22-23 God says:

22Thus says the Lord GOD: “I myself will take a sprig from the lofty top of the cedar, and will set it out; I will break off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I myself will plant it upon a high and lofty mountain; 23 on the mountain height of Israel will I plant it, that it may bring forth boughs and bear fruit, and become a noble cedar; and under it will dwell all kinds of beasts; in the shade of its branches birds of every sort will nest. (RSV)

Matthew 13:31-32 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.” (RSV)

In these passages the birds represent the nations partaking of and benefitting from the establishment of the kingdom.

Application: It is the church's and the individual believer's role to attract the nations to God and bring them into the kingdom.

C. Prosperity, Peace and Permanence

Verse 15 says they will not again be rooted out from their land. This has to be a reference to the millennium and eternity. The many references to the land promise made to Abraham are one reason I believe there is still a future for Israel and they haven't been replaced by the Church.

Application/Conclusion

Although the unbeliever's sins often appear worse to us, in God's eyes, those of the Christian are worse because we should know better. Chapters 1-2

Just like the Israelites looked down on her neighbor's for the atrocities they committed, I think we look down on those that commit gross sins and think that we are better than they, not realizing that God hates our sins of hypocrisy and idolatry more. Chapters 1-2

Just like God was patient with Israel and gave opportunity to repent. God also is patient with us an gives us time to repent, but don't abuse God's grace because we don't know when He will finally bring judgment. Chapter 4

Just like Amos reacted to God's judgment emotionally and thought it was unfair, we often do the same. When Amos saw things from God's perspective, he didn't protest any more. Chapter 7

God will restore Israel and will set up his kingdom so that all the nations can benefit from His rule.

The Lord’s Guidance

Related Media

The Scriptures often speak of the availability of God’s guidance. Indeed, early Israel experienced such in their exodus from Egypt. As the psalmist records it, however, the Ephraimites on their journey to the promised land too often failed to keep in fellowship with the Lord.

Thus, the psalmist points out that the Lord, guided them with a cloud by day and with light from the fire all night. (Ps. 78:14).1 Indeed, a compassionate God:

Guided them safely so they were unafraid;
but the sea engulfed their enemies.

Thus, he brought them to the border of his holy land,
to the hill country his right hand had taken,

He drove out nations before them
and allotted their lands to them as an inheritance,
he settled the tribes of Israel in their homes. (Ps. 78:53-55).

Others also experienced God’s kindness, such as those who sailed on ships. For when the sea waters grew heavy due to a vicious storm, the sailors:

Cried out to the LORD in their trouble,
and he brought them out of their distress.

He stilled the storm to a whisper;
the waves of the sea were hushed.

They were glad when it grew calm,
and he guided them to their desired haven. (Ps. 107:28-30)

So it is that some Israelites learned to depend greatly on the Lord in their lives before God. As David remarked:

To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul;
in you I trust, O my God….

No one whose hope is in you
will ever be put to shame…

Good and upright is the LORD;
therefore, he instructs sinners in his ways.

He guides the humble in what is right
and teaches them his way. (Ps. 25:1, 3a, 8-9)

In this psalm David also refers to his strong belief that God is “my Savior” (v. 5). Therefore, he pleads with the Lord:

Show me your ways, O LORD,
teach me your paths;

Guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God, my Savior,
and my hope is in you all day long. (Ps. 25: 4-5)

As Futato suggests, “Since David knows the Lord as his guiding shepherd (23:2-4), he can plead for and be assured of the guidance he needs to avoid disgrace.”2 VanGemeren also points to the psalmist’s desire to reproduce God in his life: “He desires to live faithfully in accordance to his will and hopes daily and regularly in his God. Submission to God finds expression in constant trust and godliness.”3 May that be said of the psalmist’s readers as well.

Similar thoughts may be found in David’s later psalms:

In you, O LORD, I have taken refuge;
let me never be put to shame;
deliver me in your righteousness.

Turn your ear to me,
come quickly to my rescue;

be my rock of refuge,
a strong fortress to save me.

Since you are my rock and my fortress,
for the sake of your name lead and guide me. (Ps. 31:1-3)

David’s confident trust in the Lord may also be found in other psalms. Thus, in Psalm 23 where he expresses such trust he views the Lord, as the one who shepherds the humble in paths of righteousness.

The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not be in want.
he makes me lie down in green pastures,

he leads me beside quiet waters,
he restores my soul.

He guides me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake. (Ps.23:1-3)

Another psalmist pleads with the Lord to: “Send forth your light and your truth, let them guide me” (Ps. 43:3). As believers we should follow David’s example, not only in times of trouble and discouragement, but constantly. May we all trust the Lord to guide us every moment of every day! As the hymn writer says:

O God, Our help in ages past,
Our hope for years to come.
Be Thou our God while life shall last,
And our eternal home.4

In the 48th Psalm, the psalmist sings praise to the Lord (v.1) and recounts his grace and guidance to the Israelites. He concludes by charging his readers/hearers to appreciate fully what the Lord has done for Jerusalem. Most importantly, he praises the Lord for being Israel’s “God forever and ever; He will be our guide even to the end” (Ps. 48:14). So, it is that he can say that not only will the Lord guide his people, but will be their God forever.

Such includes not only what lies ahead for God’s people but everywhere, whether on earth or in heaven (see Ps. 139:7-10). As I have written elsewhere, “It is simply the case that the Lord, the sovereign Creator, is a righteous God who can be trusted in every circumstance, no matter how difficult or terrifying.”5

So, Fanny Crosby, the famous hymn writer, can confidently praise the Lord for his gracious guidance:

All the way my Savior leads me;
Oh, the fullness of his love!
Perfect rest to me is promised
In my Father’s house above;
When my spirit, cloth’d immortal,
Wings it flight to realms of day,
This my song through endless ages:
Jesus led me all the way.6


1 All scripture references are from the NIV.

2 Mark D. Futato, “The Book of Psalms”, in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort (Carol Stream, Il., Tyndale House, 2009), 7:25.

3 Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms”, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 5:266.

4 Isaac Watts, “O God, Our Help in Ages Past”.

5 Richard D. Patterson, “A God Who Cares”, Bible.org., 2016, 13.

6 Fanny J. Crosby, “All the Way My Savior Leads Me.

Related Topics: Character of God, Devotionals

Pages