transgression

Judgment

The prophet Amos was an ordinary man that God used to deliver a universal message of judgment to all the inhabitants of the land promised to Abraham. Unlike Isaiah who had a formal role in the kingdom of Judah, Amos worked for a living as a sheepmaster. Although Amos was probably uneducated, he spoke eloquently, perhaps a sign that the words he spoke came directly from God.

Amos used the same phrase to introduce each of the eight judgments he pronounced. “For three transgressions…and four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof” (Amos 1:3). The Hebrew word translated transgression, pesha’ means a revolt (7588). “Basically, this noun signifies willful deviation from, and therefore rebellion against, the path of godly living.” Amos’ reference to three transgressions, and four that they would be punished for indicated there was a repeated or habitual tendency that remained unchanged.

Amos’ testimony of God’s judgment on the nations revealed that all were guilty and deserved punishment. No one, including Israel and Judah, had met God’s expectations of a peaceful co-existence. Much like Jacob’s family, the conflict was continual and bitter dissention kept the nations divided. Among the list of offenders were enemies that had plagued Israel since they had arrived in the Promised Land; Damascus, the capital of Syria; the Philistine territory of Gaza; Tyrus and Edom; Ammon and Moab, who were the descendants of Lot.

Prominent in the description of eight judgments was the failure of Israel to conform to God’s standards. Amos’ indictment stated, “Because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes; that pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go into the same maid, to profane my holy name” (Amos 2:6-7). God wanted his people to reflect his character, but instead they resembled the heathen who were cruel and oppressive, and eager to take advantage of those who couldn’t defend themselves.

Israel’s powerful army had enabled them to withstand numerous attacks by the Syrians. Because they had come to rely on their military skill rather than God’s protection and defense, their punishment would be an overwhelming defeat by the king of Assyria:

Therefore the flight shall perish from the swift, and the strong shall not strengthen his force, neither shall the mighty deliver himself: neither shall he stand that handleth the bow; and he that is swift of foot shall not deliver himself, and he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day; saith the LORD. (Amos 2:14-16)

David’s transgression

After the Syrians and the children of Ammon fled from Joab and Abishai his brother, the Syrians sent for “the Syrians that were beyond the river; and Shophach the captain of the host of Hadarezer” (1 Chronicles 19:16). At this point, there was a shift in the conflict and it became personal for David. He may have felt threatened or insecure in his new position as king of Israel, but instead of asking God for counsel, David took matters into his own hands.

It says in 1 Chronicles 19:17, “And it was told David; and he gathered all Israel, and passed over the Jordan, and came upon them, and set the battle in array against them. So when David had put the battle in array against the Syrians, they fought with him.” The original conflict was between David and Hanun the son of Nahash, the Ammonite that had been defeated by Saul. David’s decision to cross over the Jordan with all his army opened the door to a war between Israel and Syria.

Crossing over the Jordan may not seem like a big deal, but it was symbolic of returning to a point in time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. In a sense, it was like opening an old wound or taking a trip down memory lane in order to rewrite history. The word translated passed in the phrase, passed over Jordan, is the Hebrew word ‘âbar (aw – bar´). “This word communicates the idea of transgression, or crossing over the boundary of right and entering the forbidden land of wrong” (5674).

The word ‘abar literally means to cross over, but its used very widely of any transition (5674). The significance of David’s decision probably lies in its outcome. David did not eliminate the Syrians or defeat them to the point where they were no longer a threat. He merely established a peace treaty with them that enabled him to dominate them temporarily.

David’s pursuit of external peace was a problem because he took matters into his own hands. David was not relying on the LORD for his victory. He was using a show of strength, he may have had as many as a half a million soldiers with him when he passed over the Jordan, in order to intimidate Shophach the captain of the Syrian army.

The transition that occurred at the point when David passed over the Jordan with his army was probably a transition in David’s attitude. Whether it was pride or a lack of humility, David’s dependence on the LORD was no longer evident. Perhaps David thought he was in control of the situation. The victory he achieved was his last before his internal peace began to diminish.