thought re accuracy of Amos 3:7

[questioning_seeker]

Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all.

Hi all

Here are some notes that I made during yesterday’s Sacrament meeting when a speaker referred to Amos 3:7. Being only brief notes, they are not as polished as they could be, but I think they are sufficient to give the gist of my thinking.

I'm not sure how to interpret Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing save He shall reveal His secret to His servants the prophets.” One interpretation of this scripture leads to the conclusion that the extent or number of God's daily activities, or possibly only those activities which are secret, are limited by what He can reveal to the prophet in a 24 hour period. I suspect there is a limit to how much revelation a prophet can receive in one day, given how many other daily activities he is involved in. This leads to one of only three conclusions: 1 God does things which He does not reveal to His prophets. 2 He reveals all His works and secrets to His prophets but perhaps very few of His works are secret. 3 God does reveal all His secret works and acts to His prophets but perhaps He does very few works.

I’d be interested in any feedback on these thoughts, or any comments which might explain how Amos 3:7 could be correct.

[Jezebel2011]

The correct passage reads -

"7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets"

I believe that things are revealed by God as and when necessary on a 'need-to-know' basis. Also that our understanding will be more correct when those things are revealed at the appointed time, at a relevant point.

Given that, anyone's interpretation of prophecy has to be understood as theory until the evidence arises that it is a true interpretation.

Therefore the likes of our current Prophet and Apostles, etc, will get revelation when it is necessary for them to receive it.

[pam]

I kind of take a different approach.

Back in Amos' day people worshipped idols of gold and silver. Even in more recent days made a God without a voice.

If God can't speak or ever say anything to man then he can "do nothing." According to Amos God "will do nothing" without letting his prophets know what he is going to do.

Since I'm very much into quotes I'll use one here.

“The improbability of a mute God was… expressed by the fiery preacher Jonathan Edwards: ‘It seems to me an… unreasonable thing, to suppose that there should be a god… that has so much concern [for us]… and yet that he should never speak… that there should be no word [from him].” (Tad R. Callister, The Inevitable Apostasy, 77)

[questioning_seeker]

I guess the essence of my ponderings is the question of whether God does things without first revealing those things to the prophets. My guess is that He does, and if that is true, then it raises questions about the accuracy of our usual understanding/interpretation of Amos 3:7 which I believe is normally understood to mean that God does nothing unless He first tells His prophets.

[volgadon]

The word translated as "secret" is sod. Not sod as in certain hostile instructions of the English language, but, as the Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testaments puts it, a circle of confidants. From this developed an abstract, secondary meaning of something confidential, a secret if you will. What this verse says is that the Lord's council will carry out no plan without making the prophet privy to it at some point.

[Dravin]

I guess the essence of my ponderings is the question of whether God does things without first revealing those things to the prophets. My guess is that He does, and if that is true, then it raises questions about the accuracy of our usual understanding/interpretation of Amos 3:7 which I believe is normally understood to mean that God does nothing unless He first tells His prophets.

Is that the normal understanding? I've never been under the impression that say God will let President Monson know that he's going to strengthen me in a trial before he does so. God does a lot of things to a lot of people, do a lot of people (for it to be the normal understanding I feel it requires a significant number of people subscribing to it) read that verse to be the Prophets being bombarded with a massive Divine twitter feed? I've always felt there was a certain importance threshold implied by the verse.

[volgadon]

There is an interesting line of thought in the medieval Jewish commentaries on Amos. I think it has some merit in understanding the verse. As the whole chapter is filled with imagery of violence and destruction, the "secret" would be a decree of destruction or disater. It is revealed to the prophet in order for him to raise a warning voice, and if the people heed the warning, the decree would be annulled.

[questioning_seeker]

The replies to this question, and to many other questions, highlight the difficulties of scriptural interpretation. One particular approach to scriptural interpretation might result in a correct understanding of this verse, but the same approach might produce a faulty understanding when applied to another verse. Is there any non-spiritual means of determining which interpretive approach might apply to which verse? How can we know which is the correct tool to use for each particular verse? I suspect that sometimes, as Latter-Day Saints, we apply the interpretive tool that is most likely to produce the result that fits with our pre-conceived ideas, regardless of whether that is the correct tool to use.

[volgadon]

The replies to this question, and to many other questions, highlight the difficulties of scriptural interpretation. One particular approach to scriptural interpretation might result in a correct understanding of this verse, but the same approach might produce a faulty understanding when applied to another verse. Is there any non-spiritual means of determining which interpretive approach might apply to which verse? How can we know which is the correct tool to use for each particular verse? I suspect that sometimes, as Latter-Day Saints, we apply the interpretive tool that is most likely to produce the result that fits with our pre-conceived ideas, regardless of whether that is the correct tool to use.

Were there a foolproof method of interpreting anything then, for instance, there would be no need for the discipline known as historiography, which examines how historians approach and interact with their sources.

There are many approaches to interpreting the scriptures. Literary, historical, socio-rhetorical, comparative, philological, etc. ad nauseum. The key is finding which approach (or combination of them) to use. One method which I think yields fairly good results is to read through the early interpreters, Jewish and Christian. It helps to see how others percieved things.

Last- but certainly not least- are spiritual methods: prayer, likening the scriptures unto ourselves, personal revelation, the Holy Ghost.

[rameumptom]

When it reads "secrets" I interpret it as the mysteries of God, those things unknown now, but will be revealed. The Lord especially reveals the "mysteries of godliness" and the knowledge of God through prophets (see D&C 84:19-26).

Minor things can often be revealed to minor prophets - for example, we should be prophets in our own lives. Not everyone does so, however, and so stumble through life without the added guidance via the Holy Ghost.

But major things require a Prophet (big P, as in Moses or Isaiah) in order to reveal the most important things of God to the world.

We must place these things in context in Amos' world. Look at the time frame, who he was preaching to, and how the term prophet and secret would have been applied.

[Madriglace]

With my very simple view of the gospel ... it isn't hard if you are paying attention. If you have a question look to the prophet ... as opposed to some guy who thinks he can figure out the date of the second coming by doing the math. Now if the prophet had given a specifc date as from thew Lord it would have been note worthy and worth action.

[Gargantuan]

God does reveal His will to His servants the Prophets in our day through the proper priesthood authority found in His Church. In Amos' day, as far any record reveals, that type of organization existed, but we have little record of it. Today as it was with Amos, I think that we all have the right to be inspired for things that pertain to us, but when it comes to receiving inspiration for the Church, God will only reveal that through the proper priesthood organization that is here to run His Church or the Prophet. I hope this makes some sense.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Gargantuan
Spelling

[Matthew0059]

The replies to this question, and to many other questions, highlight the difficulties of scriptural interpretation. One particular approach to scriptural interpretation might result in a correct understanding of this verse, but the same approach might produce a faulty understanding when applied to another verse. Is there any non-spiritual means of determining which interpretive approach might apply to which verse? How can we know which is the correct tool to use for each particular verse? I suspect that sometimes, as Latter-Day Saints, we apply the interpretive tool that is most likely to produce the result that fits with our pre-conceived ideas, regardless of whether that is the correct tool to use.

1 Corinthians 2:11 JST:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, except he have the Spirit of God."

If one tries to interpret the scriptures without the Spirit of God, they will not attain to the truest meaning. Real prayer and study is required to understand the scriptures.

Amos 3:7 JST:

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, until he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

I agree with Dravin, an "importance threshold" is in place. Also, it depends on whether or not the prophet in question has stewardship in the place where God intends to do His work. Some works of God are more important than others in the grand scale of things.

Conversely, prophets can receive revelation incredibly fast, and God doesn't always do monumental, huge things. Brigham Young said that if he were to write down all the revelation He received, he would have to write faster "than a dog trots" constantly.

What do you think Amos 3:7 means, questioning_seeker?

[Snow]

Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all.

Hi all

Here are some notes that I made during yesterday’s Sacrament meeting when a speaker referred to Amos 3:7. Being only brief notes, they are not as polished as they could be, but I think they are sufficient to give the gist of my thinking.

I'm not sure how to interpret Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing save He shall reveal His secret to His servants the prophets.” One interpretation of this scripture leads to the conclusion that the extent or number of God's daily activities, or possibly only those activities which are secret, are limited by what He can reveal to the prophet in a 24 hour period. I suspect there is a limit to how much revelation a prophet can receive in one day, given how many other daily activities he is involved in. This leads to one of only three conclusions: 1 God does things which He does not reveal to His prophets. 2 He reveals all His works and secrets to His prophets but perhaps very few of His works are secret. 3 God does reveal all His secret works and acts to His prophets but perhaps He does very few works.

I’d be interested in any feedback on these thoughts, or any comments which might explain how Amos 3:7 could be correct.

It's just a figure of speech... it means God really reveals things to prophets.