Except They Be Agreed

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 161]

     Solomon was the last monarch of the twelve tribe kingdom in its undivided state. In the days of his son and successor, a revolt occurred because of the oppressive taxation required to maintain the opulent splendor of the regal family. Ten of the tribes seceded and set up the Kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam. He immediately introduced calf-worship at Dan and Bethel and plunged his domain into idolatry from which it never recovered. In 220 years nine different dynasties succeeded each other to the throne as a result of suicide, conspiracy and assassination.

     If the reign of Jeroboam II in the fifth dynasty seemed an exception because of its outward prosperity, it was deceptive. The undercurrent of degeneracy continued unchecked beneath the surface. Because of it God called a prophet to denounce the open sins of the people. The man whom he selected was not a recognized prophet. He had not gone to one of the schools of the prophets which had flourished since the days of Samuel to train young men in the prophetic role. He was a simple farmer living in the wilderness serenity of the little village of Tekoah, six miles south of Bethlehem and twelve miles south of Jerusalem. His livelihood was derived from the rustic pursuits of herding cattle and caring for his sycamine fig orchard.

     Since he lived in Judah, the commission to go to the king's court in Bethel, was a call to invade a hostile region. The message he was to deliver was calculated to make him more unpopular. In addition to his denunciation of corruption he was to foretell the captivity and exile of the people under a rapidly growing alien power. Amos lifted up his voice against the immorality, injustice and intemperance which characterized the people with such effectiveness that something had to be attempted to thwart his effort.

     The local priest was Amaziah, a fawning sycophant on the king's payroll. He began his attack by telling Jeroboam that Amos was a conspirator, an implication that he was an infiltrator collaborating with the Davidic regime in Judah, and sent up north to create unrest and dissension. He then confronted Amos and ordered him off the property and out of the country, closing with the words, "Never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom."

     But the country preacher was not easily frightened. He pointed out that he was not a professional making his living out of prophesying nor was he a seminary graduate. He was actually following the flock at the very time the Lord said, "Go, prophesy to my people Israel." He then told Amaziah that his sons and daughters would be slain, his wife would have to become a prostitute in the city to support herself, his real estate holdings would be parceled out to strangers, and

[Page 162]

he would become a captive and die in a foreign land.

     Because of the fearlessness of Amos we think the first part of his prophecy deserves some attention, especially since sermon text hunters (scriptural scrap-doctors, Alexander Campbell called them) have abused one of his statements to make him mean something he never even implied. The passage referred to is Amos 3:3 but we shall start at the beginning. Chapter 1 begins with a specification of the time when the prophecy was uttered. It was "two years before the earthquake," a tremor of such magnitude that the people in Jerusalem fled from it as they would the day of the Lord (Zech. 14:5).

     It is important to note that the Lord is referred to as a lion whose den, or place of abode, is Jerusalem in Zion. So powerful is his voice and so certain its fulfillment that the pastures dry up and the dew-covered summit of Mount Carmel withers. The roar of God is expressed through his prophets. There follows in regular succession pronouncements against Damascus, in Syria; Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Ekron, in Philistia; Tyre in Phoenicia; Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah, and Israel.

     The utterances against these last two bring the prophet to the point where he addresses all of the tribes as a whole. They are more responsible than any other nation for two reasons, viz., God formed them as a nation by delivering them from the womb of Egypt, and he claimed them for his own out of all the nations of the earth. Now he speaks against them, because the day has come when their iniquities and their judgments have met. Throughout all denunciatory prophecy runs the thread of certainty that God will bring to judgment every evil work. The divine appointment is that inevitably the sin and its punishment must meet.

     Since this is the very nature of divine justice the prophet appeals to natural reactions to illustrate it. He exemplifies it by two people walking together because of a previous appointment to meet, a lion roaring because he has captured prey, young lions snarling in a den over their food, a trap or snare springing shut because a victim has hit the trigger, or people in a city running for shelter when the official trumpet signals an alarm. His argument is simply one of cause and effect. He reasons that for every effect there is a cause and you may determine the cause by observation of the effect.

     He concludes by pointing out that God does not visit his wrath upon a city without revealing his secret to the prophets. When the prophets speak it is the voice of God and the populace should react accordingly. The prophet cannot resist speaking the word of God; the hearers should not resist obeying it. "The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken; who can but prophesy?" With this introduction we are prepared to look at the prophetic message itself.

     Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
     Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing?
     Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him? shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all?
     Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?
     Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
     The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?

     The art of sermon-making, a skill wholly unknown to the new covenant scriptures, has led its practitioners far afield in their ardent pursuit of texts. When one is found which seems to suit the propaganda purpose of the hour, they operate and remove it from the contextual body, and by injections of their own intellectual distillate seek to make it develop into a new body of its own. No creation of homiletic fantasy better illustrates this than the use of Amos 3:3

[Page 163]

by modern advocates of unity based upon conformity. The proponents of the cult of the rubber stamp have seized upon this passage as the one stone which will grind their grist, and wherever they speak the sound of that millstone is heard in the land.

     As any person of even slight scholarly bent can ascertain for himself, this is an absurd abuse of the prophetic intent. Not only was Amos not providing a text for a sermon on unity but the passage is not even remotely connected with the use made of it by solemn clerics who weave from this one little filmy thread a gossamer web of tissue to cover all the saints in all of their association with each other.

     Can two walk together unless they be agreed? Do two people have to agree upon everything in the world before they can walk together? If. so, no two people on earth will walk together, or ever have done so. Shall we interpret God's word to forbid and make absolutely impossible the unity it commands? But I am told that this does not mean they must be agreed upon every thing. This surrenders the whole argument. Either two people must agree upon everything in order to walk together or else two people can walk together who are not agreed, and you will need to find a new text for the ridiculous doctrine of unity based upon conformity.

     The utter absurdity into which people are driven by forced exegesis to sustain a pre-supposition and partisan position was observed not long ago in the home of a certain preacher. He contended that two could not walk together unless they were agreed, but his wife challenged that statement. She mentioned that she had never agreed with her parents on their attitude toward her brother but they still all continued to walk together as one family. She and her husband then got into an argument and could not even agree upon what it meant to be agreed, but the last I heard they were still walking together--and arguing as they walked!

     The only unity possible on this earth to thinking people is unity in diversity. This is true in the domestic realm. My wife and I could not be one flesh at all if we were alike. It is our very diversity which makes our union possible. We are not uniform in our mental and intellectual attainments. We sometimes disagree in our understanding of the import of certain scriptures. We are held together by love and respect for each other as persons.

     The same is true in the governmental realm. We are a part of the United States, but these fifty states which enjoy unity and constitute one body of people have a considerable diversity. Those who postulate unity upon conformity and deny that it can obtain in diversity, lie every time they give the flag salute and murmur, "One nation under God, indivisible." Can we walk together as citizens of the same republic if we disagree?

     The only fellowship possible in the spiritual realm which involves fleshly men at all, must be unity in diversity. How could I be "in the fellowship of the Father and of His Son Jesus Christ" on any other basis? How else could I be in the fellowship with any of my brothers, seeing that I do not concur fully with any of them? No, not one! I am joined to my Lord and I am one spirit with him. But I am not as good as my Lord and I am not as wise as my Lord. The union of the perfect Lord Jesus with our imperfect selves while in the flesh, forever gives the lie to the fallacious notion that there can be no unity in diversity where the spirit is concerned.

     But what did Amos mean? We will be helped in our understanding by consulting other versions. First, I shall refer to the translation by Robert Young, who was the author of various works in Hebrew, Chaldee, Samaritan, Syriac, Greek, Latin, etc., and who is best known to most of us as author of an Analytical Concordance. Dr. Young was quite critical of the King James translators for laxity in translating and compiled a lengthy list which he designated "Lax Renderings," and which we have found most interesting. He translates Amos 3:3,

[Page 164]

     "Do two walk together if they have not met?"

     Many of our readers possess, or have access to a Revised Standard Version, and can easily ascertain that it renders the passage, "Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment?" It will readily be seen that if these are correct the use of this passage as descriptive of the nature of unity is forever barred to honest men who use integrity and do not "handle the word of God deceitfully."

     This brings us to a study of the word yaad, a Hebrew primitive root, which is defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance thus, "To fix upon (by agreement or appointment); by implication to meet (at a stated time), to summon (to trial), to direct (in a certain quarter or position), to engage (for marriage)." The word translated "agreed" has not one thing to do with the attitude, purpose or nature of two people while walking together. The agreement is to meet and walk together, and is not related to walking together in agreement. The agreement or appointment precedes the walking together as the cause precedes the effect. The word yaad is not marriage, but engagement to marry; not occupying a position, but directing one to it; not a trial, but the summons to appear; not the state of walking together, but the appointment to meet for the walk.

     The word occurs in the same form and tense 19 times in the Hebrew scriptures. It is translated "meet" 9 times, of which six (Exodus 25:22; 29:42, 43; 30:6, 36; Numbers 17:4) refer to God's appointment to meet his people in the tabernacle. In Joshua 11:5 it relates to meeting together by appointment of a number of kings at the waters of Merom to fight against Israel. In Nehemiah 6:2, 10, it refers to the attempt of Sanballat, Geshem, and others, to meet with Nehemiah, to work mischief. The meeting never occurred.

     Even more revealing is the usage of the word in Job 2:11 concerning Job's three friends who came every one from his own place, "for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him." The emphasized words are the translation of yaad. Any student of the book of Job knows that these three men did not share the ideas of God, Job, or one another, yet they were "together" with each other. There is no use of multiplying other usages of the original for to do so would be the equivalent of flogging a dead horse.

     After all, we should not need to do profound reasoning to show that the controversial passage in Amos does not relate to unity based upon conformity. The inconsistency of those who affirm that it does is sufficient to prove the unworkability of their contention. Those who declaim the loudest that two cannot walk together except they be agreed are forced to walk with those with whom they cannot agree upon many things. They resort to the subterfuge of selecting some partisan test of fellowship which is elevated to a status above the cross and demanding agreement upon it, while allowing liberty upon most everything else. Each party has its own point of emphasis, its own unwritten creed. Each time one moves from one party to another he must alter his criterion for measuring togetherness and must cast out his brothers on a different basis than he did before.

     I am opposed to this mixed-up mess and messed-up mix. I recognize no other appointment to meet than at the cross of Jesus. Nothing will be allowed to negate the oneness created by the cross. I will walk with all of God's children

[Page 165]

even while I disagree with all of them about many things. I am walking today with my brothers who disagree with me about instrumental music, the millennium, cups, classes, colleges, and a great host of other things. I shall continue to walk with all of them tomorrow, for no party proponent will ever inveigle me again into aligning myself with any faction whose orthodoxy is the criterion of faithfulness to my blessed Lord and Savior. I shall walk together with all of my brothers, realizing that we are not together in head but in heart.

     The world needs a demonstration of the victorious power of love over all lesser things. It needs to know that the cross can still batter down walls of partition. I intend, God being my helper, to prove it can be done. The best place to start is with a clear understanding of what God's word teaches. For that reason I suggest that all of my brothers look once more at Amos 3:3, and make an appointment for us to meet and walk together.

     (This is one of a series of monthly analyses of scriptures wrested from context and meaning to justify division among the saints. There will be one more, then these will be gathered into book form under the title "The Twisted Scriptures." This attractive clothbound, fully indexed volume will be ready for mailing March 1, 1966. Advance orders are now being received at the rate of $2.49 per copy).