www.preceptaustin.org/spurgeon_sermons_on_amos What I have heard and heard is a call to the separation of the brethren in Christ, based on a lack of coherence in an area that is not even remotely linked to the concerns of the Prophet. Of course, the biblical separation is not or does not fall on the misunderstanding of a text. There is much support in the New Testament for the separation of increment (2 Co 6, 14) and Christians of division and disobedience (Romans 16: 17; 2 Teas. 3.6, 14). Amos 3:3, however, was abused to reinforce an idea of separation that cannot be supported by the text of the writing. The argument often goes in this direction: “You and I do not agree and therefore we cannot go together. We could agree on many biblical issues, including the foundations of faith, but we are divided on musical styles, biblical versions, standards of modesty, church politics, the best venerable colleges and universities where conferences can participate safely, and the application of real or imaginary divisions. Fourth, who are these two? The fourth and final question deals with the validity of the use of Amos 3:3 to support current notions of biblical separation in light of the above. One might ask, “Who are the two in question?” Does this refer to the Lord and Israel, to one Israel and to idols, to Israel and to false gods, to the prophets and to the spirit that inspires them, to God and Amos, or to God and men in general? Whatever the correct identification – which I leave to the exegetes – the emphasis is not to agree to walk together, but to meet or agree, to meet to go together. If anyone has ever thought about the separation of the agreement, Amos 3-3 fits well, but the verse does not support biblical separation. Third, what does “accept” mean? The root of the Hebrew word for “accept” here means “to name.” In its niphalic form, “it can also set a date.” 1 Keil-Delitzsch states: “n`ad, to come to a place, to meet at a place or at an hour; not just to agree. 2 When we insert in the text our definition of “agreement” in the 21st century, we do a disservice to the inspired word. If the verse does not mean an absolutely unconditional uniform agreement in all, does it mean that we must agree on all “religious teachings” in order to have a community? On the contrary, there is no reference to this kind of restriction in the verse.
And the intriction of this verse, to add the idea of “only religious teachings,” adds to the Word of God, as it was expressly warned in Revelation 22:18. She may suffer the wrath of God. The New American Standard Bible reads Amos 3:3: “Do two men go together, unless they have made an appointment?” The agreement is to meet and leave together. The agreement or appointment precedes the common march, because the “cause” precedes the effect. You can make an agreement to meet and go together to discuss the differences.