Sadly, too many American churches are embracing the far-left efforts to redefine Biblical justice as something inherently unethical and thus, by definition, unjust.  Meanwhile, despite the fact that the books of the Bible, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Micah, and even the Gospels, openly confront the sin of injustice, a growing number of conservative American churches consider any effort to address injustice to be an attempt at cultural relevance and woke appeasement.  But the fact remains that we cannot study the book of Amos and avoid the subject, because to do so would be to literally skip over one of the primary reasons Amos tells Israel that God is about to pour out his terrifying wrath on them!  They had completely trampled justice, and God was about to trample them!

But what is justice?  Generically speaking,

 Justice is the equal application of ethical and moral standards.

 The context of justice can be the legal system, economy, culture, and relationships.  If ethical and moral standards are applicable in any way, then the only way for justice to exist is for the application of those standards to be equal.

Now we can certainly expand that definition and make it much more complex and biblically specific, but this is as far as we need to go with it for our purpose of understanding what Amos is going to address in relation to justice.  However, I do need to address two distinct matters within my generic definition so that, as we look at Amos, we are viewing it in the right context of justice.

First of all, although the terms “ethical” and “moral” are certainly very similar, there are nonetheless important differences between the two of them that need to be understood.

Ethics concern the impact something has on others.

Morality concerns what is right or wrong, regardless of how it affects others.

One could argue that all unethical behavior is immoral behavior.  For instance, because the Bible is very clear that love is the ultimate law of God, one could argue that all unethical behavior is ultimately immoral because it treats people contrary to the law of love.  However, one could also argue that not all immoral behavior is necessarily unethical, since not all immoral behavior negatively impacts others.

For example, biblically, sex outside of marriage is always immoral; however, on the surface, it can be argued that it's not always unethical.  When an unmarried adult female and an unmarried adult male decide to have sex with each other, it is, without question, biblically immoral, but it does not necessarily affect anybody else.  However, if either of them is married, the act violates a clearly communicated standard for marriage and, as such, becomes not only an immoral act but also an unethical one.  I’m not stating this to lower the level of obvious immorality in this example, but to show that something can be judged by God as immoral even though it may be argued as not being unethical.

Now, that’s the easiest, most noncontroversial part of my basic surface-level definition of justice.  However, the fact that I used the word “EQUAL” instead of “EQUITABLE” probably has some people a little stirred up!

What’s the difference between equal and equitable?

“Equal” assumes justice is a process that ensures equal standards. 

In equal justice, the rules are applied the same way to everybody.  For instance, when you stand before a judge for violating a law, you are judged based on your actions alone—your faith, race, gender, economic status, or any other description of your life or identity has no bearing on the decision of guilt.  In an equal system, the teacher grades your assignment based on the answers you gave, and you pass or fail the class based on nothing more than your grade, which is based on nothing more than your performance against the same standard every other student was measured against.

Now, equity is an entirely different process.

 “Equitable” assumes justice is a process that ensures equal outcomes. 

 In equitable justice, the rules can be changed to ensure that everyone receives the same perceived outcome, regardless of how they participated — or didn’t participate — in the process.  For instance, in San Fransico, proponents of “equity” said that it was unjust that white and Asian students were graduating from High School with statistically higher achievements in math than non-white and non-Asian students.  Therefore, to make outcomes equal and, in their minds, just, they no longer allowed anyone to take algebra in middle school.  The theory was that by keeping anyone from taking algebra in middle school, white and Asian students, who qualified at a higher rate in middle school to take it, would be held back in their achievement, and at graduation, more students would have the same level of math achievement and thus be seen more equitably by colleges and employers.  Because they couldn’t make a kid who didn’t want to learn calculus learn it, they decided to keep kids who did want to learn it from learning it.

The irony of San Francisco’s equity effort in math was that in refusing to allow anybody to take algebra in middle school, they actually increased the disproportionate achievement of non-white and non-Asian students.  In San Fransico, white and Asian students are more represented in higher-income families, and, as a result, those families have access to resources to help their kids overcome the obstacles the school system put in place to make math achievement more difficult.  The results of the “equity” initiative were not only that fewer students graduated with advanced mathematical achievements, but those who did achieve higher mathematical achievements were disproportionately more white and Asian than ever before!  In an effort to make things more equitable, they actually made things more inequitable.[1]  Every time justice is defined by equity, injustice seems to be the result, and the reason is that justice isn’t the equitable application of standards, nor can it be.

To no surprise, then,

 Biblically, justice is a process of equally applying God’s standards, NOT equitably arranging outcomes.

 When justice is measured by the modern definition of “equitable,” justice can never be Biblically ethical because it applies different standards to different people and most frequently attempts to do so based on race, which in every prior generation was called racism!

 Some people say, “What about God’s grace?  Isn’t it equitable?  Doesn’t it guarantee the same outcome for all?”  The answer to that question is a resounding and clear NO in Scripture.  By the modern definition of equity,

 God’s grace is NOT equitable.  We are all equally unqualified and unable to meet God’s standards.  Jesus equally died for all.  However, only those who repent and believe in Jesus will be saved (John 3:1-36).

Therefore, with that general understanding of JUSTICE, let’s look at some of the examples of INJUSTICE that were so rampant in Israel that God sent Amos to announce His judgment on them!

Amos confronts three blatant examples of injustice in the northern Kingdom of Israel.

 The first blatant example of injustice by the people in the northern Kingdom was that,

They oppressed the poor.

6 Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals--7 those who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth and turn aside the way of the afflicted; a man and his father go in to the same girl, so that my holy name is profaned; 8 they lay themselves down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge, and in the house of their God they drink the wine of those who have been fined. (2:6-8)

 There’s a lot in this passage, so it’s going to be mentioned frequently in part three of our study of Amos.For instance, we are going to dive much deeper into the sin of oppressing the poor in two weeks, but for now, I just want to make sure you don’t miss the general concept that oppression of any kind is, of itself, an injustice.

Furthermore, when we talk about this in two weeks, you will see that no concept of Biblical justice holds wealthy people responsible for ending poverty, nor does it require them to give up their wealth so that others are no longer in poverty.There is no injustice in someone being successful so long as they achieved it morally and ethically (justly).  It is also unjust to presume I have an inherent right to the fruits of another person’s success!  As a matter of fact, if a society forces successful people to give up the fruit of their success, then it is actually the poor who are oppressing the rich, and that’s why oppression, no matter when it’s applied, is of itself an injustice.

Now in Israel, the most prominent oppression taking place was clearly of the poor, and as I stated, I’m going to dig into the details in this verse and others on how they were being oppressed in two weeks.For now, I just want to draw your attention to the verse that captures the ugliness of this injustice.  In verse 7, we see an explicit image of what the oppression of the poor was like in the northern kingdom of Israel.

Imagine you’re at the top of a mountain watching a person walk up the path.As they work their way up the mountain, you see them approach a person who fell and was in such a state of suffering that they couldn’t stand up or even get out of the way.  Anticipating you were about to see the person you had been watching walk up the mountain, stop and see if the person who fell was ok, to your horror, you instead saw the person never break stride and trample right over the person lying on the ground in agony.  You couldn’t believe what you just saw!  They didn’t even bother to walk around the person, but instead intentionally walked right on top of the helpless man lying on the ground, using him like a rug, increasing his pain and suffering, and making it even harder for him to get up!

That’s precisely what it means to oppress somebody.Instead of helping them get up the mountain, you do the opposite!  You trample on them while they’re down to decrease their chance of staying down rather than getting up!  If the person were an enemy who was trying to keep you from getting up the mountain, one would be justified in trampling them, but in this case, this is a fellow countryman!

It turns out the wealthy and influential people of Israel were doing things that intentionally took the opportunity away from the poor in their land to get out of poverty so that they could keep them dependent on them and subservient to them in their efforts to feed their own pursuit of power and prosperity.They were intentionally denying the EQUAL application of ethics and standards to people based on their socioeconomic status and, by definition, were treating them unjustly!

In our society, there is no greater example of the injustice of oppression than what was done to Black Americans before the court cases and laws passed in the 1950s and 1960s that ended the legality of these practices.

In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt created a regulatory agency that established policies to keep banks from investing in black communities.It was known as redlining.  Without discretion, communities with a certain percentage of blacks living in them were automatically categorized as too risky for investment, without regard to any other statistic.   There was no equal application of ethics and morals; it was just a blanket judgment based on nothing but race.  Right in the middle of the great depression, when a mass majority of society was lying in the road, the Roosevelt administration created policies that intentionally kept black residents in black communities from accessing the kind of credit others could access to purchase homes or to start or expand their businesses.  It even inhibited white people and local governments from obtaining loans to invest in businesses or infrastructure in black communities. As such, black communities were trampled on as they were intentionally pushed out of the opportunity to compete for investment dollars when they needed them the most!  Ethics and morals were not equally applied.

Furthermore, efforts of Black Americans to elect officials to confront injustices like redlining had been prohibited for decades.Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, southern states began to pass laws known as Jim Crow laws.  They were intended to deny black Americans justice in the courtroom, government, economy, or anywhere else, but especially in their ability to elect people to office who represented their values and needs.

1890. “At the 1890 Mississippi State Convention a new constitution was adopted that included a literacy test and poll tax for eligible voters. Under the new literacy requirement, a potential voter had to be able to read any section of the Mississippi Constitution or understand any section when read to him, or give a reasonable interpretation of any section. “There is no use to equivocate or lie about the matter,” said James Vardaman in 1890. Vardaman served in the Mississippi Legislature at the time of convention and later became governor of the state. “In Mississippi we have in our constitution legislated against the racial peculiarities of the Negro. . . . When that device fails, we will resort to something else.” … Illiterate white people were often excluded from these literacy tests through the use of grandfather clauses, which tied their voting rights to their grandfathers' before the Civil War. Former slaves, who had no voting rights until the 15th Amendment, could obviously not benefit from this provision. The grandfather clause also applied to poll taxes, which were another measure created by white-dominated southern legislatures to suppress the Black vote.”¹https://www.history.com/articles/jim-crow-laws-black-vote

1. This was the reality of America until my parents’ generation stood up and demanded it change, and praise God they did!The America I grew up in and the one my children are growing up in is very different than the one that legally trampled on people because of the color of their skin.

 The second blatant example of injustice by the people in the northern Kingdom was that,

They used the justice system to cover up unethical and immoral actions. 

 Let me handle this passage in reverse.Let’s look at verses 10 and 12 first, then we will look at verse 7.

 10 They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth. … 12 For I know how many are your transgressions and how great are your sins—you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. 

 The wealthy people and the ruling class were using the justice system to cover up their unethical and immoral behavior, especially their unjust treatment of the poor, and it comes out right here in this passage.

To understand what’s being said here, you first need to know what’s up with the gates and why it mattered so much to Amos that injustice was occurring in them.In the ancient Jewish world, the city gates were where official business deals and court hearings took place.  However, many of these court hearings weren’t overseen by a professional judge but rather by people within the town who had been entrusted with that task.

To no surprise, the wealthy people and the members of the ruling class who treated people unjustly and lived in rebellion to God’s law, hated the people in the gates who actually judged matters according to the law of God, spoke God’s truth to the situations, and refused to be swayed!We are going to get into how they attempted to silence those voices in our third example, but what I want you to notice here is that he’s speaking of the suppression of justice to cover up injustice!

More specifically, he’s speaking of the suppression of justice by the men chosen to be judges at the gate; the very men who were entrusted to ensure justice!These were the men accepting bribes to ignore the Law of God and issue judgments that favored the ones who refused to submit to it!

In doing so, these judges afflicted the righteous.The people who were trying to live right were being attacked, denigrated, taken advantage of, and silenced, even though they were the ones who were actually living according to God’s moral standards and ethics.  The justice system that should have defended the righteous was afflicting them, to the extent that the judges not only disregarded God’s laws on the just treatment of the poor by the wealthy and ruling class, but they themselves even disregarded the needy who gathered in the gates!  The very judges whose job it was to uphold the standards within the Law of Moses concerning how the poor were to be ethically treated were not only taking bribes to issue completely unbiblical judgments that favored the people who were oppressing the poor, but the judges themselves showed no personal concern for the poor as well!

“In Israelite towns, these judicial proceedings were often conducted in the gate, an entrance structure to a fortified town with rooms or recesses where public gatherings could be held. Here, the men of the town gathered to hear cases in which wrong was claimed. The system depends not on professional officers (judges or lawyers) but on the integrity of the citizens (perhaps like the notion of being tried before peers in our legal system). When Amos calls for Israel to “establish justice in the gate” (v. 15a), he is asking for an honest … court system where those who are exploited and wronged can seek help. By the same token, his condemnation is harsh for those who “hate the one who reproves in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks the truth” (v. 10). This speaks of those who seek to avoid and circumvent the jurisdiction of the courts, who resist truthful witness and fair adjudication of cases. Those who “trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain” (v. 11) exploit the poor and do not wish to be held accountable for their actions. Those “who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and push aside the needy in the gate” (v. 12b) are those who, as citizen-judges, are swayed in their opinions by bribes or as influential citizens seek to deny access to the judicial process.”²Birch, B. C. (1997). Hosea, Joel, and Amos (P. D. Miller & D. L. Bartlett, Eds.; pp. 215–218). Westminster John Knox Press.

This is why Amos states what he did in verse 7.Amos wrote,

7 O you who turn justice to wormwood and cast down righteousness to the earth!

 “turn judgment to wormwood—that is, pervert it to most bitter wrong. As justice is sweet, so injustice is bitter to the injured. “Wormwood” is from a Hebrew root, to “execrate,” on account of its noxious and bitter qualities.”³Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 1, p. 674). Logos Research Systems, Inc. 

“He says also that righteousness was cast down on the ground, or thrown to the ground. Now the judges ought to have defended what was right among the people: for this, we know, is the duty enjoined them: and the Prophet now lays this to their charge—that they left justice on the ground—that they suffered it to lie prostrate. ⁴Calvin, J., & Owen, J. (2010). Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets (Vol. 2, p. 259). Logos Bible Software.

 Nothing could be more inherently unjust than to use the justice system to cover up injustice; to do so is to trample justice!

The third blatant example of injustice by the people in the northern Kingdom was that,

They destroyed the testimonies of the men who exemplified God’s holiness and silenced the voices of those who proclaimed God’s righteous standards. 

 12 "But you made the Nazirites drink wine, and commanded the prophets, saying, 'You shall not prophesy.' 

“God gave the Nazirites to Israel in order that they would be ‘spiritual billboards’ reminding the people of Israel that the Lord was worthy of Israel’s total devotion and faithfulness. They served as symbols of Israel’s unique relationship to God among the nations—they were distinct, holy. Then again, to a people who were rebelling against God and who were unfaithful to their covenant with Him, the presence of the prophets and Nazirites was more of a bother than a blessing. Just like no one wants to hear how badly one may be hurting one’s body as one sits down to eat a tantalizing hot fudge sundae, so the Israelites had no stomach for hearing the prophets point out Israel’s rebellious ways. Likewise, few enjoy eating the tantalizing hot fudge sundae when someone sitting across from them is eating a healthy fruit salad. Just the presence of the Nazirites became annoying to the Israelites as they witnessed the contrast of their respective lifestyles. If misery loves company, so do sinners. Sinners hate being reminded of what they are whether by word or deed. Consequently, the Israelites sought to eliminate their nuisance. First, they corrupted the Nazirites by coercing them to drink wine and thus break their vows. Those in rebellion against God rejoice when one who has been faithful to God falls. It makes the rebellious ones feel better about themselves as the once-strong message of righteousness is rendered impotent. No longer do they have to face the accusation of a pure and devoted life in their midst. Furthermore, the Israelites opposed God’s prophets. Throughout Israel’s history of unfaithfulness to the Lord there are many instances where the Israelites attempted to silence God’s messengers. Even Amos faces such opposition when Amaziah the priest insisted that Amos go back home to Judah and prophesy there instead of in Israel (7:12–13). The Israelites were glad to hear Amos condemn their neighbors, but when he turned the spotlight of God’s judgment upon them, they had heard enough.”⁵Betts, T. J. (2011). Amos: An Ordinary Man with an Extraordinary Message (pp. 51–52). Christian Focus.

“Numbers 6:1–6 tells us that Nazirites had to refrain from imbibing strong drink and their hair had to remain uncut. Perhaps these practices had been an embarrassment to the people because they highlighted their own bad behaviour: apparently the Israelites had tried to force the Nazirites to ‘drink wine and [had] commanded the prophets not to prophesy’ (v. 12). These same sins are illustrated in the New Testament. The Lord Jesus Christ wept over Jerusalem because the people killed the prophets and stoned those sent there (Matt. 23:37) and Paul warned the early church that men would continue to ‘arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them’ (Acts 20:30).”⁶Bentley, M. (2006). Opening up Amos (pp. 31–32). Day One Publications.

2024. A classic example of this occurred in 2024.The United Methodist Church stated that it had essentially mishandled the visa applications and other key aspects involved in bringing delegates from its churches in Africa to its 2024 general conference in Charlotte, NC.  Ironically, these were the same delegates who had previously blocked the passage of anti-biblical woke measures.  However, with the African delegation pushed out, the denomination had no trouble securing the necessary votes to approve its break from Biblical morality.

Personally, I get a kick out of the media’s attempts to downplay the overt effort on public universities to completely silence the voices of those who proclaim Biblical truth.With the advent of social media, there is an onslaught of twisted stories and false accusations of people who try to live Biblical moral lives and proclaim the Gospel. There is an audacious effort to keep conservative voices from speaking out on campus.  When they do speak, there is an outright effort on social media to demonize them as individuals and undermine their integrity.  But what you are seeing as recently as last week at the University of California, Berkeley, is not new.  It’s been going on for decades!

When I was at Virginia Tech in the early 1990s, there was a gay pride week.During that week, the homosexual groups on campus went door to door in the dorms with surveys to help students discover that they were actually homosexuals.  In response, I helped a tiny organization that discreetly put out the word to students who wanted to get out of the homosexual lifestyle.  We didn’t directly interact with anybody who sought help, but we gave them the names of trusted free ministries that worked with people who wanted to leave homosexuality.  In the early 1990s, there was no such thing as Google, so finding out about organizations like that was extremely difficult.  To receive communications, we set up a post office box for people to mail us.  However, because of the threats against us, we had to have the mail forwarded to a different post office box at an entirely different post office so that people wouldn’t find out who we were when we went to pick up the letters.  We literally had to operate like we worked for the CIA because some of the people within the homosexual community made it very clear that they intended to do everything in their power to have us kicked out of Virginia Tech and even threatened physical violence against us.  This wasn’t last week at Cal Berkeley; this was more than 30 years ago in Blacksburg, Virginia!  Now, to be clear, when they threatened us, they were threatening people they were never able to identify, but the threats were explicit.  Although they had no idea who the people were that ran the ministry, it didn’t stop them from spreading rumors accusing these anonymous people of being sinister, hypocritical, charlatans who they claimed were clearly doing all this for profit, among other horrible purposes.  The truth of the matter was, the handful of us who organized that ministry were all broke college kids with barely enough money to pay for the post office boxes and print a handful of very non-confrontational flyers inviting people to reach out and how.  Even though the homosexual groups were given free rein to directly proselytize as many people into their movement as they wanted, with absolutely nothing in their way of doing it, they still did everything they could to silence a tiny voice that did nothing but passively offer the opportunity to be connected with a ministry that would help people wanting to leave homosexuality.

My point here is that what the United Methodist Church did to the African delegation in 2024 is precisely what the homosexual groups were attempting to do to us in the early 90s.And let me be clear: myself and the people I helped lead that ministry were in no way a perfect representation of God’s holiness, nor did we claim to be.  We weren’t hated because we were perfect or even claimed to be perfect, but because we simply strived to live by God’s standards and invited others who wanted to live the same way to join us.  It’s unjust at the core, but when you add to it that the attempt is to silence the testimonies of God’s morality and ethics, it exacerbates the injustice!

No standard is more right than God’s; therefore, the attempt to remove or silence it as a standard creates an inherent injustice.If there is no righteous standard to be applied, then there certainly can’t be an equal process of applying it!  This is exactly what they were doing in Israel, and God sent Amos to call it out for what it was—injustice!

In light of the injustices Amos was confronting, what’s the challenge?  Well, Amos himself actually gave it to us.  He said,

 Challenge

23 Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. 24 But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5:23-24)

Verse 24 is a command for the people to DO THIS.  Verse 24 is not a statement of God’s judgment on people as if God was going to punish them with justice and righteousness, but rather that they should repent and live in a way that justice and righteousness are in abundance; that justice would become the description of the culture rather than injustice!

Notice the action of justice and righteousness points to the same image.  Water not only brings refreshment, but it's a necessity for life—to grow fruitful things you can eat and to drink for your own survival!  Amos calls the people to create a very different ethos in their culture.  They had built one where injustice was the norm.  Amos is saying to do the opposite.  Be so personally committed to justice and righteousness that it flows into the culture like waters rushing down a hill; that it comes with the guaranteed abundance and reliability of an ever-flowing stream!

The Bible Knowledge Commentary notes,

“This indicates a shift from national accusation (vv. 21–22) to individual invitation (vv. 23–24). … God wanted a day-to-day life of surging integrity and goodness.”⁷Sunukjian, D. R. (1985). Amos. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, pp. 1441–1442). Victor Books.

Application  

 Mob justice is of itself unjust. As Christians, we must refuse to participate in it, whether that be in person or online!

 Mob justice is uninterested in facts that don’t support its already established opinion. Therefore, as Christians, we must refuse to participate in the foolishly reactionary outrage culture that has always been inherent to humanity but is now being inflamed by social media and national media outlets for nothing more than profit.The outrage culture we live in is in direct defiance of basic wisdom and God’s Word; therefore, as a believer, I should never allow myself to get sucked up in it.

29 Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly. (Proverbs 14:29)

2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. (Matthew 7:2)

19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. (James 1:19-20)

 The most unjust thing I can ever do is justify my own unrighteousness. Where am I living unjustly?

 For justice to roll down like water from my life, I must first stand as a man of integrity who is publicly committed to live in submission to God’s ethics and morals, and then not only do so publicly but also privately.I’m not saying we can ever be perfect, but rather, that it is a core injustice to the cause of Christ and to one’s own self to claim to be living in submission to God while justifying or excusing a life that points people in the opposite direction.

21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. (James 1:21-25)

Discussion Guide 

Justice is the equal application of ethical and moral standards.

Ethics concern the impact something has on others.

Morality concerns what is right or wrong, regardless of how it affects others.

“Equal” assumes justice is a process that ensures equal standards.

“Equitable” assumes justice is a process that ensures equal outcomes.

Biblically, justice is a process of equally applying God’s standards, NOT equitably arranging outcomes.

God’s grace is NOT equitable.  We are all equally unqualified and unable to meet God’s standards.  Jesus equally died for all.  However, only those who repent and believe in Jesus will be saved (John 3:1-36).

Discuss the definitions above

Has it been your experience that the definitions above have been applied to you as defined above?

How have you seen them defined or applied inaccurately in your close surroundings?

Amos confronts three blatant examples of injustice in the northern Kingdom of Israel

They oppressed the poor. (2:6-8)

How is oppression present in our community?

How is society lending to the oppression?

What is the Christian’s responsibility to the oppressed?

They used the justice system to cover up unethical and immoral actions. (5:7, 10, 12)

How can we change a system that we, seemingly, don’t have access to?

 They destroyed the testimonies of the men who exemplified God’s holiness and silenced the voices of those who proclaimed God’s righteous standards. (2:12)

Describe the role of the Nazirites and Prophets in the community

How should the Christian relate to the Nazirite and Prophet?

What is our responsibility to our community, especially including anyone oppressed?

Challenge

23 Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. 24 But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5:23-24)

Application

Mob justice is of itself unjust. As Christians, we must refuse to participate in it, whether that be in person or online! (Proverbs 14:29, Matthew 7:2, James 1:19-20)

The most unjust thing I can ever do is justify my own unrighteousness. Where am I living unjustly? (James 1:21-25)

Someone share your testimony in less than a minute

Someone share the Gospel in less than a minute

Someone share Venture’s mission statement:  "To engage those far from God with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to know and follow Him."

Considering all this, how do the challenge verses relate to me?