tagged: Church, Guest Authors, Kevin Peacock, Ministry, Theology, Unity

Can Two Walk Together? – Part II

Posted by Guest Author in Bible & Theology

[Note: This is Dr. Kevin Peacock's second installment of a three-part discussion on the interpretation of Amos 3:3.  For your reference, please read his first installment from Saturday, September 20.]

Words have usages more than definitions. In other words, people use words in ways beyond those listed in the dictionary. Consider how the connotation of the term “gay” has changed over the years. A dictionary definition for the word “home” might be “the place where one lives.” As good as that may be for a start, the term “home” means something different to a father, an orphan, a congressman, or even to a baseball player. A word’s context best determines its meaning, not its dictionary definition. “How does the writer use the term?”

Having understood the thrust of Amos’ argument by reading the phrase in its context, we must now consider what he meant grammatically with his first question, “Do two people walk together without having met/agreed/made an appointment?”

Grammar. The question for our discussion centers on the translation of the Hebrew verb yā‛ad. Its biblical usages carry the ideas of: (1) “appointing” something such as a time [2 Sam 20:5], a place [Jer 47:7], or an object [Mic 6:9]); (2) “meeting” with someone [Exod 29:42-43], or (3) a group of people “gathering together” (Josh 11:5). Several nouns are directly related to this verb. The noun ‛ēdāh, means a “congregation, assembly, gathering,” of people (1 Kgs 8:5) or even a “swarm” of bees (Jdg 14:8). The noun mō‛ēd refers to an appointed “time” (Gen 18:14), “place” (Lam 2:6), “sign” (Jdg 20:38), or an appointed “meeting” of people (Lam 1:15). Frequently the term mō‛ēd is used in the phrase referring to the “tent of meeting” (e.g. Exod 33:7; Num 12:4).

The clearest cross references for our passage, and the most instructive usages, are the nineteen passages with the same grammatical construction of yā‛ad (Niphal imperfect) as Amos 3:3. God promised to “meet” with His people (Exod 25:22; 29:42-43; 30:6, 36; Num 17:4). A congregation “gathers” or “assembles” themselves (Num 10:3-4; 14:35; 16:11; 17:19; 27:3; 1 Kgs 8:5; 2 Chr 5:6; Ps 48:4). A group of people decide to “meet together” (Josh 11:5; Job 2:11; Neh 6:2, 10). The idea common to all of these is that of at least two parties “gathering together” or “meeting.”

These final three references seem most instructive for our purposes, for each describes some sort of deliberate appointment. A number of kings “met” at the waters of Merom to fight against Israel (Josh 11:5). Sanballat, Geshem, and a group of evildoers wanted Nehemiah to “meet together” with them so that they might do him harm (Neh 6:2, 10). Job’s friends “met together” to comfort Job (Job 2:11). Even though these “meetings” were deliberate appointments, the question remains, “How ‘unified’ were these people?” Job’s story reveals how little his “friends” agreed, for they argued with each other, with Job, and they all attempted to speak for God from their own individual perspective. As has been stated, “The three friends of Job did not meet to agree, they simply agreed to meet.”

Thus Amos probably referred little to unity among the two walking together. Rather, in its simplest meaning, he described two people walking together who had “met” without any implication of their personal beliefs. At some point they were congregated together and walked with each other. “Do two walk together unless they have met?” The Septuagint (LXX), the earliest translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, renders the question, “Do two walk together without meeting?”

One of the earliest renderings of this term in Amos as “agreed” is found in the KJV, with little grammatical basis for this meaning and no strong biblical cross reference to another passage with that connotation. This mistranslation has been perpetuated through many modern renderings (NKJV, 21st Cent. KJV, NIV, NIrV, TNIV, ASV, CEV, Darby, New Life). The NLT highlights the idea of walking together with “agreeing on the direction” (similar to the Message’s “going to the same place”). Probably with the earlier mentioned cross references of deliberate appointment in mind, the NASV renders the term “made an appointment,” and the Amplified ties this together with the KJV with “make an appointment and have agreed.” Young’s Literal Translation probably renders the term most literally with “if they have not met.” The ESV and Holman seem to strike a median between the extremes with “agreeing to meet” (Holman includes the LXX rendering in the footnote).

Logic. What is the logic of Amos’ statement? Amos’ argument loses its punch if the answer is not blatantly obvious. An answer that is not self-evident could be easily refuted, and then Amos could not build to his conclusion of the legitimacy of his prophetic ministry and message his audience should affirm. “Can two walk together unless they are agreed (that is, they are unified)?” Of course they can! It happens all the time. I spent several hours on an airplane traveling side-by-side with a lesbian and another with a devout Muslim. We traveled together, but we had little agreement among ourselves.

“Can two walk together unless they have made an appointment?” “Can two walk together unless they have agreed to meet?” Of course they can! Chance meetings happen all the time. My family found itself walking in the same direction with quite a few at Disney World. We made no “appointment” or any kind of “agreement” with them. We simply happened to be walking in the same direction and somehow “walked together.”

“Can two walk together unless they are going in the same direction?” The NLT rendering “agreeing on the direction” and The Message’s rendering of “going to the same place” do make perfect sense and would contribute to the logic of Amos’ argument. The problem is, however, that the biblical usage of the term focuses upon “gathering,” “assembling,” or “meeting,” not on agreement.

The blatant, obvious “Duh” question that accounts for the grammar and receives the automatic intended response is, “Can two walk together unless they have gathered/assembled/met?” The correct answer is “Of course not!”

[To Be Continued on Saturday, October 4]