Amos 5:21-23 - Homiletics

The autograph of the unreal.

Wicked Israel, strange to say, was worshipping Israel still. Theirs was sanctimonious sinning. It was done more or less in a religious connection. It was accompanied, and attempted to be covered, by an unstinted dressing of pietistic cant. But it only smelled the more rank to Heaven. Unreal worship is no mitigation, but only an aggravation, of the guilt of unholy living.

I. INSINCERITY IS OFTEN SCRUPULOUS ABOUT ALL THE CIRCUMSTANTIALS OF WORSHIP . This is natural. It builds on the form as a substitute for the spirit, and on the observance of the ordinance thus as a substitute for a godly life. Going through religious forms costs nothing in the way of crucifying the flesh. Accordingly, the scrupulosity of Israel seemed to be great in proportion to their hypocrisy.

1 . They kept the feasts. "Feasts" ( Amos 5:21 ) means the annual feasts. There is no hint that these, or any of them, were neglected or overlooked. The routine of celebration went mechanically on. They were observed without purpose and without heart, but they were observed.

2 . They performed the acts of worship. "The assemblies" ( Amos 5:21 ) were probably the meetings for worship (Le 23:36) appointed to be held at the feasts. These as a class, no exception to which is indicated, are spoken of as having been held. "Then 'songs,' no doubt of Zion, and inspired by God, were duly sung, and the accompaniment played on harps—instruments almost exclusively consecrated to the service of God" (Pusey).

3 . They offered the usual gifts. The "burnt offering," the "meat offering," and the "peace offering," which are all voluntary offerings, were regularly made, so far as appears. They were made, moreover, with fatlings—beasts the best of their kind, and such as the Law prescribed. So far, therefore, as form went, their worship was scrupulously correct. And the same is generally true of hollow and unspiritual worship. Being purely formal, it will seem excellent in proportion as it is elaborate. The absence of the spirit is attempted to be compensated for by the exaltation of the letter. Worship can no more be appraised by its fulness, and fairness of outward form, than the dietary value of a fruit by its size and colour.

II. INSINCERITY IS CHARACTERISTIC NO LESS IN WHAT IT OMITS THAN IN WHAT IT OBSERVES . No mention is made of the "sin offering" or the "trespass offering." Yet these were both compulsory, whereas the three observed were optional. Hence it appears that:

1 . To the formalist that is least acceptable which is most Divine. He has no true respect for God's authority. He is a self-pleaser first of all and most of all, and will find the ordinance most acceptable into the observance of which there enters most of his own will and least of God's. On this principle the optional in worship will be preferred to the prescribed ( Isaiah 1:12 ), and the unauthorized to either ( Mark 7:9 ). The illustration of this in the countless vagaries of the Romanist and Ritualist is easy to trace. Practical attention to the various details of worship by the unspiritual almost seems to be inversely as their Divine authority.

2 . To the formalist that is most distasteful which most closely connects him with his sin. The sin offering was an acknowledgment, and involved a remembrance, of guilt. This is distasteful to the natural heart. Give a sinful man his way, and the last matter he will face will be his own sinfulness. Allow a formalist discretion in worship, and the ordinance that most articulately speaks of sin will be the one least observed. Singing will be preferred to praying, a form of prayer will be preferred to the directness of spontaneous utterance, and preaching, which most distinctly brings face to face with personal responsibility and duty, will be almost crowded out. Worship, in fact, in proportion as it becomes formal, becomes impersonal and indirect.

III. SUCH HOLLOW WORSHIP IS UTTERLY OFFENSIVE TO GOD . The degrees of Divine disapprobation run up a graduated scale. "I will not accept;" "I will not take pleasure in;" "I will not regard;" "I hate;" "I despise." In all such worship the moral element, the first element of acceptability, is altogether wanting. The thing is not meant for worship, and cannot be treated as such. It is not observed according to God's will, nor as God's appointment at all, but as our own invention or choice. It is not aimed at the God-glorifying, soul saving objects prescribed in Scripture. Gone through without interest or heart, done for fashion, or freak, or gain, it honours neither God nor his command, whilst it calls into play no grace of the religious life whatever. It is a mere performance, not only destitute of moral value, but distasteful to God, and in gratuitous violation of his Law. Hence the vocabulary of condemnation is exhausted on it ( Isaiah 1:11-15 ) as the meanest and most hateful thing in the whole spiritual connection.