In Amos 3:3, the King James and New King James versions of the Holy Bible asks the following question, “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” There are some professing Christian groups, teachers and individuals that will use this verse to support the view that unless people are in complete and total agreement on theology and church doctrine, then people should not engage in having friendships, relationships and/or fellowship with people outside of their church or group, and should, therefore, separate themselves from those individuals. In this article, I will provide how Amos 3:3 is used to support those views. I will then provide the context of Amos 3, and review other Bible translations of verse 3 in order to show beyond a reasonable doubt, that this verse is not referring to, nor supports the ideas of theological/doctrinal uniformity and biblical separation.
Let’s first look at how Amos 3:3 is used by some people and groups to supports the ideas of theological/doctrinal uniformity and biblical separation. One way in which Amos 3:3 is used to support the view of theological/doctrinal uniformity is through the guise of “unity”. In an attempt to provide an answer for why there are so many denominations within the Christian faith, Dr. Douglas S. Winnail of the Living Church of God (Armstrongism) wrote, “Today, it is important to ask: why do these separate fellowships exist? And does it make any difference which fellowship you decide to join?” He then goes on to say, “These fellowships do not walk together, because they are not in agreement on doctrine, on government, on prophecy – or on numerous other matters (Amos 3:3).” He then writes that “However, the Bible describes the Church as a body made up of many parts that work together in unity without schism (1 Corinthians 12:12-25).”
In an article written by Steve Davis, he does a good job of explaining how people or groups use Amos 3:3 in order to support the view of separation, when he wrote, “The argument often runs along these lines: “You and I disagree and therefore we cannot walk together.””
Now let’s explore the context of chapter 3, in order to get an understanding of what it is talking about. In the very first verse of chapter 3, we see who the audience is that Amos is addressing. The verse is explicitly clear that these words of God, that Amos is speaking, is, in fact, being directed to all twelve tribes of the nation of Israel, as seen in the words “sons of Israel, against the entire family”, but especially to the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
In the second verse the LORD (through Amos) is informing all the tribes of Israel that He had chosen them among all other ethnic groups (i.e. chose them instead of any other ethnic group) on the planet to be in covenant relationship with Him, and that He was about to punish them for all their iniquities. In verses 3-6, we then see the LORD asking seven (what would seem to be rhetorical) questions, in where He is giving cause and effect scenarios to set up His divine and legal right to judge and punish the tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel. The LORD then points out in verses 7 and 8, that when He is about to speak or do something, He informs His servants the prophets, and then sends them out to proclaim His words to the intended audience who is to receive those words. In the remaining verses of Chapter 3 (9-15), we then see that Amos is informing the Northern Kingdom of Israel of their sins of idolatry, neglecting the poor and ignoring injustice. Amos points out Israel’s doom when he informs them that God will send their enemies to destroy their infrastructure, that the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom would not be able to defend themselves, and that their rich would be plundered of their possessions.
Now let’s go back to verse 3, and read this verse using some other translations, so that we can draw out the context of the verse itself. The English Standard Version (ESV) translates this verse as, “Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to meet?” The New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates the verse as, “Do two men walk together unless they have made an appointment?” There is a footnote provided in the NASB that shows that the word “appointment” can also mean “agreement”, so it could very well be translated as, “Do two men walk together unless they have made an agreement?” Lastly, the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) translates the verse as, “Do two people travel together without having so agreed?” So, what we see and are able to conclude from these three translations of Amos 3:3 is that the context of the verse is basically saying that in order for two individuals to travel or walk together, they must first agree to meet (or set an appointment) so that they can presumably travel together and arrive at their desired destination. However, since destination isn’t mentioned, we’ll just stick to what the context of the verse is saying regarding setting an appointment to meet and coming to an agreement to travel together.
At this point, let’s briefly look at the topics of uniformity and biblical separation. In an article written by Eric Geiger about unity and uniformity, he states, “There is a danger in confusing uniformity and unity. Uniformity offers a pseudo-unity. After all, it is possible to build something (even a ministry) on uniformity and call it unity, when in reality it is not unity at all. A church with uniformity gathers people from the same socio-economic strata, the same cultural background, the same ethnicity, and the same social aspirations. If the “unity” is based on something other than Christ, folks attend each week with people just like them and miss the joy of true Christian unity.”
In his article on Amos 3:3 and biblical separation, Steve Davis wrote, “One true measure of our understanding of biblical separation may not be how quickly and how often and from how many we will separate, but with how many we will agree to walk together in true obedience and genuine fellowship in spite of our disagreements. Demand agreement and you will find yourself exceedingly lonely and defensive. Seek obedience and fellowship in biblical unity and your circle of faithful co-laborers in the gospel may increase.”
What we can clearly see from Amos 3:3 is that this verse does not mean that people must agree on all areas of theology (doctrine, church government, eschatology, etc.) for them to be in relationship or to have fellowship with one another and that if they don’t agree then they must separate from one another. It may seem that Amos 3:3 could be implying uniformity or separation if you just read one translation and/or skim over this verse, but as we just clearly saw when reading other translations of this verse, the meaning drawn out has absolutely nothing to do with uniform agreement on theology or with biblical separation. So, those people and groups that use this verse as a proof text to support theological/doctrinal uniformity under the guise of “unity”, and separation are seriously abusing and twisting this verse out of its context.
As Christians, we don’t have to agree on all areas of doctrine in order to walk together. People who are united in marriage don’t even agree on absolutely everything (uniformity) prior to or even during their marriage. As we have seen earlier, Amos 3:3 is not referring to walking together in agreement (doctrinal/theological uniformity), nor is it referring to biblical separation, but in coming to agreement to meet and to walk together. People who don’t know one another won’t usually travel together, but they may decide to travel together if they agree to a meeting and then get acquainted with one another.
I strongly agree and believe that theology matters, but most importantly truth matters. Additionally, I believe that in principle, a better application of Amos 3:3 would be to use it within the area of sharing the gospel with those who may differ with the Christian world view or our theology. We may already know that we disagree on our world view or theology, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t get together to discuss those disagreements and hopefully come to a clearer understanding of God’s word. Therefore, we should reach out to these individuals and encourage them to agree to meet with us and then set an appointment. Once an agreement to meet is made and an appointment is set, then we can travel down the road of having an honest theological dialogue together, and allow God’s word (the Holy Bible) to show us what it says about a topic.
In conclusion, after investigating the context of Amos 3 and reviewing other Bible translations of verse 3 specifically, the evidence given is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amos 3:3 has been used out of its context in order to support the erroneous view of theological uniformity under the guise of “unity”, and it has been used improperly to support the view of separation. In its actual context, what Amos 3:3 clearly reveals to the reader is that it is discussing the coming to an agreement to meet, in order to walk or travel together.
Sources:
1. Winnail, Douglas S. “Challenges Ahead!” Living Church News, July/August 2005. Retrieved from Living Church of God
2. Davis, Steve. “Agreeing to Walk Together: What does Amos 3:3 say about Biblical Separation?” December 21, 2010
3. Geiger, Eric. “5 Thoughts on Unity and Uniformity”. December 8, 2014.
Comments