This note about Amos 7:1-6 is mainly about the text, and yet it also involves what has been termed the King James Only Controversy. I have recently been reading through the KJV (the King James Version of the Bible) and regularly note issues that cause unnecessary confusion. I haven’t met any Americans who regularly speak the Ol’ King’s English (this is subjective, for I don’t frequent Medieval Times or the Renaissance Fair either), but I DO regularly see debates online as to why the KJV is the ONLY God-inspired, Spirit-preserved, and now Church-authorized translation to be used. Reading through Amos 7 this morning I found an instance in the KJV that is unnecessarily difficult that I'd like to address here:
7:1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings. 2 And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small. 3 The Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith the Lord. | The use of “the Lord repented” in Amos 7:1-6 is one of the many reasons I don’t like the KJV. Though “to repent” means “to change one’s mind,” unfortunately many pastors and teachers mistakenly teach that repentance means to turn from sin. The problem then presents itself immediately. Is God guilty of sin? If so, we then see that scripture has conveyed two contradictory messages about who God is: God cannot sin and has no need to repent, and yet God also DOES repent. Not even well-respected theologian/pastor John Piper can make the issue of God's repentance clear. It turns out to be a muddled, confused mess. But there is another contention that’s a little more difficult: Namely, if “to repent” means “to change one’s mind,” how can the God who does not change, then, “repent/change His mind?” The answer is found throughout scripture, but is often missed by those who mistakenly jump from favorite passage to favorite passage and so misunderstand the nature of God. The Word says there is no shifting shadow/change with God; the context is not a robotic predictability in God but the knowable character OF God. The same God who promises destruction of His people and other nations IF they continue in sin and rebellion also promises deliverance and restoration IF they turn from sin and return to Him. |
This doesn’t describe a God that cannot change His actions but a God that does not change His direction. When God tells us that IF we do this HE will do that, is God being deceitful when He so changes based on what we do, to stay true to that statement? Not at all! What we see is a God who repeatedly claims to be responsive to His people and resolute in His nature. His character is steadfast, immovable, and this is to what these types of passages refer. So His promises to relent of the judgment He proclaimed over a nation IF they turn from sin and trust the Lord to relent are TRUE in Him, His nature, and His character. Whether people turn from sin or don’t turn from sin, God’s actions are true and consistent with His revealed Word.
The "if/then, either/or" concept confuses or bothers some skeptical unbelievers, like atheist poster child and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who then label God as capricious (i.e. irregular, inconsistent, “moody,” etc.). Dawkins (et. al) thereby confuses unsure believers who read the same passages Dawkins addresses without reading what comes before and after those few verses. THEN, both unbelievers and believers alike will mistakenly develop a view of God that is inconsistent with, and not found in, scripture; they are deceived by false information to believe falsehood about God. The result is many are therefore deceived/destroyed by lack of knowledge about the topics which they discuss, just as God says.
The "if/then, either/or" concept confuses or bothers some skeptical unbelievers, like atheist poster child and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who then label God as capricious (i.e. irregular, inconsistent, “moody,” etc.). Dawkins (et. al) thereby confuses unsure believers who read the same passages Dawkins addresses without reading what comes before and after those few verses. THEN, both unbelievers and believers alike will mistakenly develop a view of God that is inconsistent with, and not found in, scripture; they are deceived by false information to believe falsehood about God. The result is many are therefore deceived/destroyed by lack of knowledge about the topics which they discuss, just as God says.
God’s Word has been proven true over and over again, and every man a liar. But that does not stop people from standing as judge, jury, and executioner over God. We accuse God of being wrong when we have failed in at least one of the following ways:
I know those are “thick” sentences, but they are necessary. Though the focus of this passage is primarily on how we understand the Lord, we must deal here with some of the unique challenges for the KJV (and KJV readers). They are not insurmountable tasks, but they must be done to keep the clarity in the text and protect our hearers from developing a misunderstanding about the Lord. In these passages where the Lord is being said to repent “for this,” your reading in the KJV must involve layers of translation/understanding:
- We mistakenly misunderstand God’s nature/ways b/c we do not rightly interpret His Word in context.
- We understand God’s nature/ways but purposefully deceive others.
- We do not understand God’s or man’s nature/ways and so accept another’s words ABOUT God’s Word AS God’s Word without searching God’s Word to discern the truth. (Did you follow that train??)
I know those are “thick” sentences, but they are necessary. Though the focus of this passage is primarily on how we understand the Lord, we must deal here with some of the unique challenges for the KJV (and KJV readers). They are not insurmountable tasks, but they must be done to keep the clarity in the text and protect our hearers from developing a misunderstanding about the Lord. In these passages where the Lord is being said to repent “for this,” your reading in the KJV must involve layers of translation/understanding:
- Understand the nature of the God who does not sin or change His nature.
- Understand the reasons why the original languages were translated into these Old English words.
- Understand the differences between the purpose of the original language, the usage of the Old English, and the current meanings of modern English.
- Understand how these language differences can distort the textual meaning of the original author (i.e. God).
- Understand how a good study Bible or concordance can help you decipher the language to arrive at an accurate understanding of the text.
- Understand, therefore, that not all interpretations are created equal and can result in understanding truth or believing a lie.
Choosing, instead, to use the NASB (my favorite), ESV, or NRSV will cut out the need to understand the language differences of Old English well FIRST. But if you already like Shakespeare, which I do, or speak in the King’s English, which I don’t, you might not mind it. If neither of those apply to you, you should still discern the words of KJV-Only advocates with as much wisdom as you would God’s Word. I do not question their union with Christ, but their stalwart rejection of so many discoveries (and a commitment to language that has changed in its meaning over the years) demands unnecessary work on the part of the reader. You will also have to contend with the KJV's use of more recent (i.e. later) translations and rejection of the oldest (i.e. early) manuscripts. This, especially, sometimes creates divisive camps or groups that divide the body of Christ needlessly. We do not need to do this, and I fear such division may be well-intentioned but serve only to bolster pride. Amos 7 is not the only place where such issues may arise, but should be considered when you're looking for a Bible to study.
In summary, the KJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, and even the NIV are passably sufficient translations of God's Word, taken from the original languages, and can adequately guide any reader into a relationship with Jesus as both Savior and Lord. One's choice has more to do with tradition and preference than anything divinely orchestrated or nefariously constructed (depending on your attitude). These verses––which KJV-Only advocates claim have been removed (with the implication being that they are less faithful to the accuracy of God's Word)––do not affect ANY doctrinal teaching of scripture or in any way remove the deity of Christ, the truth of God's Word, or the student's ability to find Jesus as the only means of salvation. In fact, in many cases it can be deduced that they were later additions, meant to clarify an aspect of teaching or history contained in the text, for later audiences that might not be aware of a reference.
And lastly, just a little bit of KJV humor to cap off the post...
In summary, the KJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, and even the NIV are passably sufficient translations of God's Word, taken from the original languages, and can adequately guide any reader into a relationship with Jesus as both Savior and Lord. One's choice has more to do with tradition and preference than anything divinely orchestrated or nefariously constructed (depending on your attitude). These verses––which KJV-Only advocates claim have been removed (with the implication being that they are less faithful to the accuracy of God's Word)––do not affect ANY doctrinal teaching of scripture or in any way remove the deity of Christ, the truth of God's Word, or the student's ability to find Jesus as the only means of salvation. In fact, in many cases it can be deduced that they were later additions, meant to clarify an aspect of teaching or history contained in the text, for later audiences that might not be aware of a reference.
And lastly, just a little bit of KJV humor to cap off the post...