Biblical scholars agree that Amos 3:3-8 is an important passage on prophecy. The majority hold that it is a prophetic defense. I prove conclusively that this is not, and cannot be, the case. Instead, Amos frames it as a disputation speech in a covenant lawsuit, using inductive logic to arrive at a conclusion. He then applies that generalization to two historical events. His intent is to prove that Yahweh's messages have a clear, single meaning, with the result that Israel has no excuse for violating the covenant. In Amos 3:3-6, he lists seven examples of messages in various forms, each of which convey a single meaning of their own. Seven is often considered to indicate completeness. Because Yahweh created the universe to reflect His nature, Amos generalizes in verse 7 that He also adheres to the principle that statements can have only one meaning when He communicates His plans to the prophets in the Divine Council. That this is comprised of one statement alludes to its singularity. Finally, in verse 8 Amos applies this conclusion to two major historical events in which Yahweh conveyed messages to Israel in different forms. He presents two examples because the Jews required at least two witnesses to establish something as true. In verse 8a, the Sovereign Lord Yahweh communicated His message through an unusual act of nature. In verse 8b, He declared His message verbally, accompanied by terrifying natural phenomena. In both cases, the recipients understood the single meaning being conveyed. This book is unique in another way. For almost 400 years, scholars have debated whether Amos 3:4a means lions roar before or after they attack their prey, but none of them quote an expert on lions. The world's expert on lions stated that neither is true, and his explanation provided the key to understanding Amos's references to lion behavior. Finally, I defend the thesis of the passage with the fact that this is Amos's message, not mine.