Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Amos 5:25
Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?
25. Did ye bring unto me sacrifices &c.] The question evidently requires a negative answer; and the emphatic words in the sentence are not, as has been sometimes supposed, unto me (which hold in the Hebrew quite a subordinate position), but sacrifices and offerings (which follow immediately after the interrogative particle). The prophet shews that sacrifice is no indispensable element of religious service, from the fact that during the 40 years in the wilderness which, nevertheless, was a period when, above all others, Jehovah manifested His love and favour towards Israel (Amo 2:9-10) it was not offered.
bring ] of a sacrifice, as Exo 32:6; Lev 8:14 ; 1Sa 13:9.
sacrifices and offerings ] Rather, and meal – offerings: see on Amo 5:22. The same combination, Isa 19:21; Psa 40:6.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Have ye offered – (better, Did ye offer) unto Me sacrifices and offerings? Israel justified himself to himself by his half-service. This had been his way from the first. Their heart was not whole with God, neither abode they in His covenant Psa 78:37. He thought to be accepted by God, because he did a certain homage to Him. He acknowledged God in his own way. God sets before him another instance of this half-service and what it issued in; the service of that generation which He brought out of Egypt, and which left their bones in the wilderness. The idolatry of the ten tribes was the revival of the idolatry of the wilderness. The ten tribes owned as the forefathers of their worship those first idolaters . They identified themselves with sin which they did not commit. By approving it and copying it, they made that sin their own. As the Church of God in all times is one and the same, and Hosea says of Gods vision to Jacob, there He spake with us , so that great opposite camp, the city of the devil, has a continuous existence through all time. These idolaters were filling up the measure of their forefathers, and in the end of those forefathers, who perished in the wilderness where they sinned, they might behold their own. As God rejected the divided service of their forefathers, so He would theirs.
God does not say that they did not offer sacrifice at all, but that they did not offer unto Him. The unto Me is emphatic. If God is not served wholly and alone, He is not served at all. : He regardeth not the offering, but the will of the offerer. Some sacrifices were offered during the 38 years and a half, after God had rejected that generation, and left them to die in the wilderness. For the rebellion of Korah and his company was a claim to exercise the priesthood, as Aaron was exercising it Num 16:5, Num 16:9-10. When atonement was to be made, the live coals were already on the altar Num 16:46. These, however, were not the free-will offerings of the people, but the ordinance of God, performed by the priests. The people, in that they went after their idols, had no share in nor benefit from what was offered in their name. So Moses says, they sacrificed to devils, not to God Deu 32:17; and Ezekiel, Their heart went after their idols Eze 20:16.
Those were the gods of their affections, whom they chose. God had taken them for His people, and had become their God, on the condition that they should not associate other gods with Him Exo 20:2-5. Had they loved God who made them, they would have loved none beside Him. Since they chose other gods, these were the objects of their love. God was, at most, an object of their fear. As He said by Hosea, their bread is for themselves, it shall not enter into the house of the Lord Hos 9:4, so here He asks, and by asking denies it, Did ye offer unto Me? Idolatry and heresy feign a god of their own. They do not own God as He has revealed Himself; and since they own not God as He is, the god whom they worship, is not the true God, but some creature of their own imaginings, such as they conceive God to be. Anti-Trinitarianism denies to God His essential Being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Other heresies refuse to own His awful holiness and justice; others, the depth of His love and condescension. Plainly, their god is not the one true God. So these idolaters, while they associated with God gods of cruelty and lust, and looked to them for things which God in His holiness and love refused them, did not own God, as the One Holy Creator, the Sole Disposer of all things.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices] Some have been led to think that “during the forty years which the Israelites spent in the wilderness, between Egypt and the promised land, they did not offer any sacrifices, as in their circumstances it was impossible; they offered none because they had none.” But such people must have forgotten that when the covenant was made at Sinai, there were burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of oxen sacrificed to the Lord, Ex 24:5; and at the setting up of the tabernacle the twelve princes of the twelve tribes offered each a young bullock, a ram, and a lamb, for a burnt-offering; a kid for a sin-offering; two oxen, five rams, five he-goats, and five lambs, for a peace-offering, Nu 7:12, c. which amounted to an immense number of victims offered in the course of the twelve days during which this feast of the dedication lasted. At the consecration of priests, bullocks and rams to a considerable number were offered, see Le 8:1, c. but they were not offered so regularly, nor in such abundance, as they were after the settlement in the promised land. Learned men, therefore, have considered this verse as speaking thus: Did ye offer to me, during forty years in the wilderness, sacrifices in such a way as was pleasing to me? Ye did not; for your hearts were divided, and ye were generally in a spirit of insurrection or murmuring.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Their fathers and they, though at so great distance of time, are one people, and so the prophet considers them in this place.
Have ye offered? did you not frequently omit to offer, and yet were not reproved or plagued for the omission, when your frequent removes, and many other difficulties, made it unpracticable? so little is sacrifice with your God! and yet, when you did offer, was it to me only? or did you not sacrifice to idols and false gods, and provoked me? Will-worship and idolatry have been hereditary diseases in your generations; and it is well known, too, that these idolaters fell in the wilderness, and are made admonitions to you.
Sacrifices of beasts slain, as the word properly speaks.
Offerings: minchah, in general, is any gift or present made, but particularly here it is a gift or present of fine flour, oil, and frankincense unto God with the sacrifice.
In the wilderness forty years: it was a broken number of years in exact account, that is, thirty-eight years and eleven months; but, as is common in such cases, the full and round number is taken and so the account runs here, and in Act 7:42, forty years.
O house of Israel; you of the ten tribes.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25, 26. Have ye offered? c.Yes:ye have. “But (all the time with strange inconsistency) ye haveborne (aloft in solemn pomp) the tabernacle (that is, the portableshrine, or model tabernacle: small enough not to be detectedby Moses compare Ac 19:24) ofyour Molech” (that idol is “your” god; I amnot, though ye go through the form of presenting offerings to Me).The question, “Have ye,” is not a denial (for they didoffer in the wilderness to Jehovah sacrifices of the cattle whichthey took with them in their nomad life there, Exo 24:4;Num 7:1-89; Num 9:1,c.), but a strong affirmation (compare 1Sa 2:271Sa 2:28; Jer 31:20;Eze 20:4). The sin of Israel inAmos’ time is the very sin of their forefathers, mocking God withworship, while at the same time worshipping idols (compare Eze20:39). It was clandestine in Moses’ time, else he would have putit down; he was aware generally of their unfaithfulness, though notknowing the particulars (Deu 31:21;Deu 31:27).
Molech . . . Chiun“Molech”means “king” answering to Mars [BENGEL];the Sun [JABLONSKI];Saturn, the same as “Chiun” [MAURER].The Septuagint translates “Chiun” into Remphan,as Stephen quotes it (Act 7:42;Act 7:43). The same god often haddifferent names. Molech is the Ammonite name; Chiun,the Arabic and Persian name, written also Chevan. In an Arabiclexicon Chiun means “austere”; so astrologersrepresented Saturn as a planet baleful in his influence. Hencethe Phoelignicians offered human sacrifices to him, childrenespecially; so idolatrous Israel also. Rimmon was the Syrianname (2Ki 5:18); pronounced asRemvan, or “Remphan,” just as Chiun was alsoChevan. Molech had the form of a king; Chevan, or Chiun, of astar [GROTIUS]. Remphanwas the Egyptian name for Saturn: hence the Septuaginttranslator of Amos gave the Egyptian name for the Hebrew,being an Egyptian. [HODIUSII, De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus. 4.115]. The same asthe Nile, of which the Egyptians made the star Saturn therepresentative [HARENBERG].BENGEL considers Remphanor Rephan akin to Teraphim and Remphis, the nameof a king of Egypt. The Hebrews became infected with Sabeanism, theoldest form of idolatry, the worship of the Saba or starryhosts, in their stay in the Arabian desert, where Job notices itsprevalence (Job 31:26); inopposition, in Am 5:27, Jehovahdeclares Himself “the God of hosts.”
the star of your godR.ISAAC CAROsays all the astrologers represented Saturn as the star of Israel.Probably there was a figure of a star on the head of the image of theidol, to represent the planet Saturn; hence “images”correspond to “star” in the parallel clause. A star inhieroglyphics represents God (Nu24:17). “Images” are either a Hebraism for “image,”or refer to the many images made to represent Chiun.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings,…. No; they were not offered to God, but to devils, to the golden calf, and to the host of heaven: so their fathers did
in the wilderness forty years; where sacrifices were omitted during that time, a round number for a broken one, it being about thirty eight years; and these their children were imitators of them, and offered sacrifice to idols too, and therefore deserved punishment as they: even ye,
O house of Israel? the ten tribes, who are here particularly charged and threatened; [See comments on Ac 7:42].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Their heartless worship would not arrest the flood of divine judgments, since Israel had from time immemorial been addicted to idolatry. Amo 5:25. “Have ye offered me sacrifices and gifts in the desert forty years, O house of Israel? Amo 5:26. But have ye borne the booth of your king and the pedestal of your images, the star of your gods, which ye made for yourselves? Amo 5:27. Then I will carry you beyond Damascus, saith Jehovah; God of hosts is His name.” The connection between these verses and what precedes is explained by Hengstenberg thus: “All this (the acts of worship enumerated in Amo 5:21-23) can no more be called a true worship, than the open idolatry in the wilderness. Therefore (Amo 5:17) as in that instance the outwardly idolatrous people did not tread the holy land, so now will the inwardly idolatrous people be driven out of the holy land” ( Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 157 transl.). But if this were the train of thought, the prophet would not have omitted all reference to the punishment of the idolatrous people in the wilderness. And as there is no such allusion here, it is more natural to take Amo 5:25 and Amo 5:26, as Calvin does, and regard the reference to the idolatry of the people, which was practised even in the wilderness, as assigning a further reason for their exposure to punishment.
(Note: “In this place,” says Calvin, “the prophet proves more clearly, that he is not merely reproving hypocrisy among the Israelites, or the fact that they only obtruded their external pomps upon the notice of God, without any true piety of heart, but he also condemns their departure from the precepts of the law. And he shows that this was not a new disease among the Israelitish people, since their fathers had mixed up such leaven as this with the worship of God from the very beginning, and had thereby corrupted that worship. He therefore shows that the Israelites had always been addicted to superstitions, and could not be kept in any way whatever to the true and innate worship of God.”)
The question, “Have ye offered me sacrifices?” is equivalent to a denial, and the words apply to the nation as a whole, or the great mass of the people, individual exceptions being passed by. The forty years are used as a round number, to denote the time during which the people were sentenced to die in the wilderness after the rebellion at Kadesh, just as in Num 14:33-34, and Jos 5:6, where this time, which actually amounted to only thirty-eight years, is given, as it is here, as forty years. And “the prophet could speak all the more naturally of forty years, since the germ of apostasy already existed in the great mass of the people, even when they still continued outwardly to maintain their fidelity to the God of Israel” (Hengstenberg). During that time even the circumcision of the children born in the thirty-eight years was suspended (see at Jos 5:5-7), and the sacrificial worship prescribed by the law fell more and more into disuse, so that the generation that was sentenced to die out offered no more sacrifices. Z e bhachm (slain-offerings) and minchah (meat-offerings), i.e., bleeding and bloodless sacrifices, are mentioned here as the two principal kinds, to denote sacrifices of all kinds. We cannot infer from this that the daily sacrificial worship was entirely suspended: in Num 17:11, indeed, the altar-fire is actually mentioned, and the daily sacrifice assumed to be still in existence; at the same time, the event there referred to belonged to the time immediately succeeding the passing of the sentence upon the people. Amos mentions the omission of the sacrifices, however, not as an evidence that the blessings which the Lord had conferred upon the people were not to be attributed to the sacrifices they had offered to Him, As Ephraem Syrus supposes, nor to support the assertion that God does not need or wish for their worship, for which Hitzig appeals to Jer 7:22; but as a proof that from time immemorial Israel has acted faithlessly towards its God, in adducing which he comprehends all the different generations of the people in the unity of the house of Israel, because the existing generation resembled the contemporaries of Moses in character and conduct.
Amo 5:26-27 Amo 5:26 is attached in an adversative sense: “To me (Jehovah) ye have offered no sacrifices, but ye have borne,” etc. The opposition between the Jehovah-worship which they suspended, and the idol-worship which they carried on, is so clearly expressed in the verbs and , which correspond to one another, that the idea is precluded at once as altogether untenable, that “ Amo 5:26 refers to either the present or future in the form of an inference drawn from the preceding verse: therefore do ye (or shall ye) carry the hut of your king,” etc. Moreover, the idea of the idols being carried into captivity, which would be the meaning of in that case, is utterly foreign to the prophetical range of thought. It is not those who go into captivity who carry their gods away with them; but the gods of a vanquished nation are carried away by the conquerors (Isa 46:1). To give a correct interpretation to this difficult verse, which has been explained in various ways from the very earliest times, it is necessary, above all things, to bear in mind the parallelism of the clauses. Whereas in the first half of the verse the two objects are connected together by the copula ( ), the omission of both and the copula before indicates most obviously that does not introduce a third object in addition to the two preceding ones, but rather that the intention is to define those objects more precisely; from which it follows still further, that and do not denote two different kinds of idolatry, but simply two different forms of the very same idolatry. The two . . sikkuth and kiyyun are undoubtedly appellatives, notwithstanding the fact that the ancient versions have taken kiyyun as the proper name of a deity. This is required by the parallelism of the members; for stands in the same relation to as to . The plural , however, cannot be in apposition to the singular ( kiyyun , your images), but must be a genitive governed by it: “the kiyyun of your images.” And in the same way is the genitive after : “the sikkuth of your king.” Sikkuth has been taken in an appellative sense by all the ancient translators. The lxx and Symm. render it ; the Peshito, Jerome, and the Ar. tentorium. The Chaldee has retained sikkuth . The rendering adopted by Aquila, , is etymologically the more exact; for sikkuth , from , to shade, signifies a shade or shelter, hence a covering, a booth, and is not to be explained either from sakhath , to be silent, from which Hitzig deduces the meaning “block,” or from the Syriac and Chaldee word , a nail or stake, as Rosenmller and Ewald suppose. , from , is related to , basis (Exo 30:18), and , and signifies a pedestal or framework. The correctness of the Masoretic pointing of the word is attested by the kiyyun of the Chaldee, and also by , inasmuch as the reading , which is given in the lxx and Syr., requires the singular , which is also given in the Syriac. are images of gods, as in Num 33:52; 2Ki 11:18. The words which follow are indeed also governed by ; but, as the omission of clearly shows, the connection is only a loose one, so that it is rather to be regarded as in apposition to the preceding objects in the sense of “namely, the star of your god;” and there is no necessity to alter the pointing, as Hitzig proposes, and read , “a star was your god,” although this rendering expresses the sense quite correctly. is equivalent to the star, which is your god, which ye worship as your god (for this use of the construct state, see Ges. 116, 5). By the star we have to picture to ourselves not a star formed by human hand as a representation of the god, nor an image of a god with the figure of a star upon its head, like those found upon the Ninevite sculptures (see Layard). For if this had been what Amos meant, he would have repeated the particle before . The thought is therefore the following: the king whose booth, and the images whose stand they carried, were a star which they had made their god, i.e., a star-deity ( refers to , not to ). This star-god, which they worshipped as their king, they had embodied in ts e lamm . The booth and the stand were the things used for protecting and carrying the images of the star-god.
Sikkuth was no doubt a portable shrine, in which the image of the deity was kept. Such shrines ( ) were used by the Egyptians, according to Herodotus (ii. 63) and Diodorus Sic. (i. 97): they were “small chapels, generally gilded and ornamented with flowers and in other ways, intended to hold a small idol when processions were made, and to be carried or driven about with it” (Drumann, On the Rosetta Inscription, p. 211). The stand on which the chapel was placed during these processions was called (Drumann, p. 212); the bearers were called or (D. p. 226). This Egyptian custom explains the prophet’s words: “the hut of your king, and the stand of your images,” as Hengstenberg has shown in his Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 161), and points to Egypt as the source of the idolatry condemned by Amos. This is also favoured by the fact, that the golden calf which the Israelites worshipped at Sinai was an imitation of the idolatry of Egypt; also by the testimony of the prophet Ezekiel (Eze 20:7.), to the effect that the Israelites did not desist even in the wilderness from the abominations of their eyes, namely the idols of Egypt; and lastly, by the circumstance that the idea of there being any allusion in the words to the worship of Moloch or Saturn is altogether irreconcilable with the Hebrew text, and cannot be historically sustained,
(Note: This explanation of the words is simply founded upon the rendering of the lxx: , . These translators, therefore, have not only rendered erroneously as , but have arbitrarily twisted the other words of the Hebrew text. For the Hebrew reading is proved to be the original one, not only by the of Symm. and Theod., but also by the of Aquila and the malkum of the Peshito; and all the other ancient translators enter a protest against the displacing of the other words. The name ( ), or (Act 7:43), however, owes its origin simply to the false reading of the unpointed as , inasmuch as in the old Hebrew writings not only is similar to , but is also similar to ; and in 2Sa 22:12, where is rendered (i.e., ) , we have an example of the interchange of and . There was no god Rephan or Rempha; for the name never occurs apart from the lxx. The statement made in the Arabico-Coptic list of planets, edited by Ath. Kircher, that Suhhel (the Arabic name of Saturn) is the same as , and the remark found in a Coptic MS on the Acts of the Apostles, “ Rephan deus temporis ,” prove nothing more than that Coptic Christians supposed the Rephan or Remphan, whose name occurred in their version of the Bible which was founded upon the lxx, to be the star Saturn as the god of time; but they by no means prove that the ancient Egyptians called Saturn Rephan, or were acquainted with any deity of that name, since the occurrence of the Greek names and for sun and moon are a sufficient proof of the very recent origin of the list referred to. It is true that the Peshito has also rendered by k e ‘wam ( ), by which the Syrians understood Saturn, as we may see from a passage of Ephraem Syrus, quoted by Gesenius in his Comm. on Isaiah (ii. p. 344), where this father, in his Sermones adv. haer. s. 8, when ridiculing the star-worshippers, refers to the Kevan , who devoured his own children. But no further evidence can be adduced in support of the correctness of this explanation of . The corresponding use of the Arabic Kaivan for Saturn, to which appeal has also been made, does not occur in any of the earlier Arabic writings, but has simply passed into the Arabic from the Persian; so that the name and its interpretation originated with the Syrian church, passing thence to the Persians, and eventually reaching the Arabs through them. Consequently the interpretation of Kevan by Saturn has no higher worth than that of an exegetical conjecture, which is not elevated into a truth by the fact that is mentioned in the Cod. Nazar. i. p. 54, ed. Norb., in connection with Nebo, Bel, and Nerig (= Nergal). With the exception of these passages, and the gloss of a recent Arabian grammarian cited by Bochart, viz., “Keivan signifies Suhhel,” not a single historical trace can be found of Kevan having been an ancient oriental name of Saturn; so that the latest supporter of this hypothesis, namely Movers ( Phnizier, i. p. 290), has endeavoured to prop up the arguments already mentioned in his own peculiar and uncritical manner, by recalling the Phoenician and Babylonian names, San – Choniath , Kyn – el – Adan , and others. Not even the Graeco-Syrian fathers make any reference to this interpretation. Theodoret cannot say anything more about , than that they were ; and Theod. Mops. has this observation on : . It is still very doubtful, therefore, whether the Alexandrian and Syrian translators of Amos really supposed and to signify Saturn; and this interpretation, whether it originated with the translators named, or was first started by later commentators upon these versions, arose in all probability simply from a combination of the Greek legend concerning Saturn, who swallowed his own children, and the Moloch who was worshipped with the sacrifice of children, and therefore might also be said to devour children; that is to say, it was merely an inference drawn from the rendering of as . But we are precluded from thinking of Moloch-worship, or regarding , “your king,” as referring to Moloch, by the simple circumstance that unquestionably points to the Sabaean (sidereal) character of the worship condemned by Amos, whereas nothing is known of the sidereal nature of Moloch; and even if the sun is to be regarded as the physical basis of their deity, as Mnter, Creuzer, and others conjecture, it is impossible to discover the slightest trace in the Old Testament of any such basis as this.
The Alexandrian translation of this passage, which we have thus shown to rest upon a misinterpretation of the Hebrew text, has acquired a greater importance than it would otherwise possess, from the fact that the proto-martyr Stephen, in his address (Act 7:42-43), has quoted the words of the prophet according to that version, simply because the departure of the Greek translation from the original text was of no consequence, so far as his object was concerned, viz., to prove to the Jews that they had always resisted the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the Alex. rendering also contains the thought, that their fathers worshipped the .)
whereas star-worship, or at any rate the worship of the sun, was widely spread in Egypt from the very earliest times. According to the more recent investigations into the mythology of the ancient Egyptians which have been made by Lepsius ( Transactions of the Academy of Science at Berlin, 1851, p. 157ff.), “the worship of the sun was the oldest kernel and most general principle of the religious belief of Egypt;” and this “was regarded even down to the very latest times as the outward culminating point of the whole system of religion” (Lepsius, p. 193). The first group of deities of Upper and Lower Egypt consists of none but sun-gods (p. 188).
(Note: It is true, that in the first divine sphere Ra occupies the second place according to the Memphitic doctrine, namely, after Phtha ( Hephaestos), and according to the Theban doctrine, Amen ( ). Mentu and Atmu stand at the head (Leps. p. 186); but the two deities, Mentu, i.e., the rising sun, and Atmu, i.e., the setting sun, are simply a splitting up of Ra; and both Hephaestos and Amon ( Amon-Ra) were placed at the head of the gods at a later period (Leps. pp. 187, 189).)
Ra, i.e., Helios, is the prototype of the kings, the highest potency and prototype of nearly all the gods, the king of the gods, and he is identified with Osiris (p. 194). But from the time of Menes, Osiris has been worshipped in This and Abydos; whilst in Memphis the bull Apis was regarded as the living copy of Osiris (p. 191). According to Herodotus (ii. 42), Osiris and Isis were the only gods worshipped by the ancient Egyptians; and, according to Diodorus Sic. (i. 11), the Egyptians were said to have had originally only two gods, Helios and Selene, and to have worshipped the former in Osiris, the latter in Isis. The Pan of Mendes appears to have also been a peculiar form of Osiris (cf. Diod. Sic. i. 25, and Leps. p. 175). Herodotus (ii. 145) speaks of this as of primeval antiquity, and reckons it among the eight so-called first gods; and Diodorus Sic. (i. 18) describes it as . It was no doubt to these Egyptian sun-gods that the star-god which the Israelites carried about with them in the wilderness belonged. This is all that can at present be determined concerning it. There is not sufficient evidence to support Hengstenberg’s opinion, that the Egyptian Pan as the sun-god was the king worshipped by them. It is also impossible to establish the identity of the king mentioned by Amos with the in Lev 17:7, since these , even if they are connected with the goat-worship of Mendes, are not exhausted by this goat-deity.
The prophet therefore affirms that, during the forty years’ journey through the wilderness, Israel did not offer sacrifices to its true King Jehovah, but carried about with it a star made into a god as the king of heaven. If, then, as has already been observed, we understand this assertion as referring to the great mass of the people, like the similar passage in Isa 43:23, it agrees with the intimations in the Pentateuch as to the attitude of Israel. For, beside the several grosser outbreaks of rebellion against the Lord, which are the only ones recorded at all circumstantially there, and which show clearly enough that it was not devoted to its God with all its heart, we also find traces of open idolatry. Among these are the command in Leviticus 17, that every one who slaughtered a sacrificial animal was to bring it to the tabernacle, when taken in connection with the reason assigned, namely, that they were not to offer their sacrifices any more to the S e rm , after which they went a whoring (Amo 5:7), and the warning in Deu 4:19, against worshipping the sun, moon, and stars, even all the host of heaven, from which we may infer that Moses had a reason for this, founded upon existing circumstances. After this further proof of the apostasy of Israel from its God, the judgment already indicated in Amo 5:24 is still further defined in Amo 5:27 as the banishment of the people far beyond the borders of the land given to it by the Lord, where higlah evidently points back to yiggal in Amo 5:24. , lit., “from afar with regard to,” i.e., so that when looked at from Damascus, the place showed itself afar off, i.e., according to one mode of viewing it, “far beyond Damascus.”
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
The Prophet shows in this place, that he not only reproved hypocrisy in the Israelites in obtruding on God only external display of ceremonies without any true religion in the heart; but that he also condemned them for having departed from the rule of the law. He also shows that this was not a new disease among the people of Israel; for immediately at the beginning their fathers mixed such a leaven as vitiated the worship of God. He therefore proves that the Israelites had ever been given to superstitions, and could not by any means be retained in the true and pure worship of God.
Have ye then caused sacrifices, victims, or an oblation to come before me in the desert for forty years? He addresses them as though they had perverted God’s worship in the desert, and yet they were born many ages after; what does he mean? Even this, — the Prophet includes the whole body of the people from their first beginning, as though he said, “It is right to inclose you in the same bundle with your fathers; for you are the same with your fathers in your ways and dispositions.” We hence see that the Israelites were regarded guilty, not only because they vitiated God’s worship in one age by their superstitions, but also from the beginning. And he asks whether they offered victims to him: it is certain that such was their intention; for they at no time dared to deny God, by whom they had been not long before delivered; and we know that though they made for themselves many things condemned by the law, they ever adhered to this principle, “The God, who hath redeemed us, is to be worshipped by us: ” yea, they always proudly boasted of their father Abraham. They had never then willingly alienated themselves from God, who had chosen Abraham their father and themselves to be his people: and indeed the Prophet shortly before had said, ‘Take away from me,’ etc.; and then, ‘when ye offer to me sacrifices and a gift of flour, I will not count them acceptable.’ There seems to be an inconsistency in this — that God should deny that victims been offered to him — and yet say that they were offered to him by the people of Israel, when, as we have stated, they had presumptuously built a profane and spurious altar. The solution is easy, and it is even this, — that the people had ever offered sacrifices to God, if we regard what they pretended to do: for good intention, as it is commonly called, so blinds the superstitious, that with great presumption they trifle with God. Hence with respect to them we may say that they sacrificed to God; but as to God, he denies that what was not purely offered was offered to him. We now then see why God says now that sacrifices were not offered to him in the wilderness: he says so, because the people blended with his worship the leaven of idolatry: and God abhorred this depravation. This is the meaning.
But another objection may be again proposed. This defection did not prevail long, and the whole people did not give their consent to idolatry; and still more, we know what the impostor Balaam said, that Jacob had no idol; and speaking in the twentieth chapter of Numbers, (38) by the prophetic spirit, he testifies that the only true God reigned in Jacob, and that there were among them no false gods. How then does the Prophet say now that idolatry prevailed among them? The answer is ready: The greater part went astray: hence the whole people are justly condemned; and though this sin was reproved, yet they relapsed continually, as it is well known, into superstitions; and still more, they worshipped strange gods to please strumpets. Since it was so, it is no wonder that they are accused here by the Prophet of not having offered victims to God, inasmuch as they were contaminated with impure superstitions: it could not then be, that they brought anything to God. At the same time God’s worship, required by his law, was of such importance, that he declared that he was worshipped by Jacob, as also Christ says,
“
We know what we worship,” (Joh 4:22😉
and yet not one in a hundred among the Jews cherished the hope of eternal life in his heart. They were all Epicureans or profane; nay, the Sadducees prevailed openly among them: the whole of religion was fallen, or was at least so decayed, that there was no holiness and no integrity among them; and yet Christ says, “We know what we worship;” and this was true with regard to the law.
Now then we see that the Prophets speak in various ways of Israel: when they regard the people, they say, that they were perfidious, that they were apostates, who had immediately from the beginning departed from the true and legitimate worship of God: but when they commend the grace of God, they say, that the true worship of God shone among them, that though the whole multitude had become perverted, yet the Lord approved of what he had commanded. So it is with Baptism; it is a sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who may partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism ever retains its own character, and is never contaminated by the vices of men. The same must be said of sacrifices.
I shall now return to the words of the Prophet: (39) Have you offered to me victims for forty years in the desert? He enhances their sin by the circumstance of their condition; for they were there shut up in a narrow and hard confinement, and yet they turned aside after their superstitions. And it was certainly a monstrous thing: God fed them daily with manna; they were therefore under the necessity, however unwilling, of looking up to heaven every day; for God constrained their unwillingness with no common favor. They knew, too, that water flowed for them miraculously from a rock. Seeing then that God constrained them thus to look up to him, how was it that they yet became vain through their own deceptions? It was, as I have said, a prodigious blindness. Hence the Prophet speaks of the forty years and of the desert, that the atrocity of their sin might more fully appear; for the Lord could not, by so many bonds, keep the people from such a madness.
(38) Calvin is perhaps referring to Num 23:21, wherein the Douay version is: —
21. There is no idol in Jacob, neither is there an image god to be seen in Israel. etc.
—
fj.
(39) No commentator has given us a satisfactory rendering of these two verses. Perhaps that of Calvin, as a whole, comes nearest to the original. The question, Have ye, etc., is considered by many as not implying a negation but a concession, as though it had been said, “I grant this; ye did offer,” etc.; and then, what is said in verse 26 was what they did besides. It was this mixture of two worships, the worship of God and the worship of idols, that is here brought against the Israelites. I venture to present the following translation: —
Did you bring me sacrifices and oblation in the wilderness For forty years, O house of Israel? You did also bear Sacut, your king, And Kiun, which were your images; A star was your god, Which ye formed for yourselves.
That the hosts of heaven were the objects of their worship, is evident from Stephen’s Sermon in Act 7:42, “Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven.” Stephen then refers to, and quotes this passage, not from the Hebrew, but almost literally from the Septuagint. Instead of, “their figures which ye have made for yourselves,” he has, “figures which ye made to worship them.” He gives the meaning, but not the words.
Between the words of Amos, in Hebrew, and those of Stephen, there is a material, though not verbal agreement. Two objects of idolatrous worship are mentioned, and also their images, but their names are different. The probability is, that those used by Amos were not current at the time the Greek version was made, and that the names by which those deities were then known were used. Moloch, indeed, means a king, but applied, like Baal, to several heathen gods; and Kiun is said to be Arabic, and Remphan is an Egyptic term, designating the same star or planet, which critics suppose to have been Saturn. Moloch, as Grotius suggests, had the figure of a king, and Kiun that of a star.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.]
Amo. 5:25. Have] Lit. Did ye, equivalent to denial, some; others, not entire suspension of sacrifice, but mixed with idolatry. From of old they had been recreant to God. Their present offensive worship was only a continuation of the idolatry in the wilderness. Their sins were the very sins of their forefathers (Eze. 20:39).
Amo. 5:26. Borne] aloft in pomp, the portable shrine or model tabernacle. The idolatry censured is of Egyptian origin. A literal god of stars cannot be proved [Lange].
Amo. 5:27.] Banishment of the people far beyond the borders of their own land. Beyond] the capital of Syria, in which you trust for help instead of me (Act. 7:43): combines into one the several passages from prophecy. A most unlikely event then; but Thus saith the Lord indicates its certainty.
HEREDITARY SINS AND GRIEVOUS PUNISHMENT.Amo. 5:25-27
Hereditary sin was the second reason why the day of the Lord would be to them a day of distress. From the earliest period their hearts had been alienated. As heirs to the guilt and imitators of the ways of their fathers, they must be carried into a far country. Continued provocation will bring greater punishment than ever.
I. The same system of idolatry was practised. If we carefully compare the text with Deu. 32:17; Jos. 24:14, and Eze. 20:26, we find that Israel were guilty of idolatry in the wilderness.
1. They misrepresented the true God. They made images for themselves in direct opposition to Gods command. In the very tabernacle of Jehovah they bore the shrines of Moloch and Remphan. Amos declared the men of his day to be addicted to the same sins and identified with the same disgrace. Some men inherit the lusts as well as the lands of their ancestors. The idolatry of the fathers is seen in the worship of the sons. Thus we forfeit the distinction which God gives and entail one of our own. I will cause you to go into captivity.
2. They worshipped false gods. Have ye offered unto me? Here lies the emphasis. Notwithstanding all their pretensions and sacrifices they offered not to God. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods, whom your fathers feared not. We are not safe because we have a Protestant Bible and orthodox creeds, abundant churches, and religious privileges. The same tendency is in our hearts to forget the revealed character and despise the claims of Godto create and honour other gods, and amid constraining reasons for cleaving to God, make images of things in heaven above or in earth beneath. Their heart was not right with him, neither were they steadfast in his covenant.
II. The same perverse spirit was cherished. Stephen quotes this charge against the people, as a signal proof of perverseness of heart which had always been shown by the nation. Even in days of wonderful deliverance and multiplied acts of Divine favour they cherished a rebellious heart. Men are found now resisting the Holy Spirit as their fathers from generations before them have done. They partake of the sins of their progenitors.
1. In copying their example;
2. In commending their errors; and
3. In cherishing their spirit. Thus we may identify ourselves with sins which we do not really commit. Neither be partaker of other mens sins: keep thyself pure.
III. The same kind of punishment was inflicted. If we partake of other mens guilt we are liable to the same punishment. Israel suffered in a similar way to those in ancient days.
1. They fell under severe displeasure. Murmuring and rebellion brought upon a former race the judgments of God. Their carcases fell in the wilderness, a warning to all generations of idolatry and unbelief.
2. They were excluded from the land of promise. One race did not enter Canaan; the other was driven out of it into exile. Instead of warding off the curse, they secured its reversion. The day came when they presumptuously desired and brought darkness, not light; judgment, not deliverance. They were carried beyond Damascus, beyond all hope of return (2Ki. 17:6). Learn
1. That God gives a record and warning from the punishment of mens sins.
2. That he who commits and cherishes a sin, puts himself in the company of those who have been guilty of it from the beginning of the world.
3. That it is a principle with God to punish more severely, if less judgment do not work the end for which they are sent.
4. If men would seriously meditate upon Gods greatness and power, they would not sleep securely under his awful threatenings. Thus saith the Lord, whose name is the God of Hosts.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 5
Amo. 5:25-27. The fact that physical, mental, and moral qualities are hereditary, is proved in the persistent characteristics of races and nations. Jewish and negro types, Chinese and Japanese, have had the same characteristics for centuries. So features of morality are stamped upon descendants. By walking in the steps of their fathers, nations and families reap the same harvest. We have hereditary transmission of sins and punishment.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(25, 26) Much uncertainty belongs to the interpretation of these verses and their connection in thought. Some commentators would treat Amo. 5:25 as a statement, and not a question, the first word being read as a definite article, and not an interrogative prefix in the Hebrew. But the construction of the following words forbids this supposition, and nearly all exegetes follow the LXX., Vulg., Targ., in taking the sentence as interrogative. Is the expected answer negative or affirmative? Heb. usage points to the former. So Ewald and Keil According to the latter, the words apply to the nation as a whole, or to the great mass of the people, individual exceptions being passed by. The following verse is then taken in an adversative sense, To me ye have offered no sacrifices, but ye have borne, &c. The opposition is between the Jehovah-worship, which they suspended, and the idol-worship which they carried on. This is a possible interpretation, as Driver (Heb. Tenses, 119a, foot-note) admits. But as that writer shows (l.c.), it is more in consonance with grammatical usage to translate in Amo. 5:26 by a future, as Ewald does: So ye shall carry away the tabernacle, &c., i.e., when driven into exile. To this thought Amo. 5:27 forms a natural development: And I will carry you away captive, &c. Moreover, in the light of this interpretation the logical connection of Amo. 5:21-27 becomes much simpler: I, Jehovah, abhor the mechanical round of corrupt and hollow ceremonial cloaking wickedness of conduct. Live righteously. Did I exact punctilious discharge of ceremonial in the desert wanderings? [No.] Therefore I shall submit you once more to the discipline of exile wanderings. On the meaning of the difficult clause, Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made for yourselves, as well as on the rendering of the LXX. and St. Stephens quotation of the passage, see Excursus B. Kuenen is scarcely justified in founding an argument on this passage as to the origin of the Sabbath.
EXCURSUS B (Amos 5:26).
Three obscure points render this verse one of the most difficult in the Old Testament.
1. As to tense. The interpretation to which preference has been given in the commentary on the textthe time being regarded as futurehas been decided on grounds of grammatical usage only. But certainly the larger number of commentators have rendered the verb as a past tense, But ye bore the tabernacle, &c., the time referred to being that of the desert wanderings. This view is upheld by Hitzig, Kuenen, Keil, Henderson, and also by R. S. Poole. It is also supported by the LXX.
2. The word Sikkth, rendered tabernacle, or tent, in the E.V. and by the LXX., is derived from a root signifying both to interweave and to coveran etymology which confirms the above rendering. Ewalds conjecture that it signifies stake, inferred from the Aramaic Sekkitho, is to be rejected. The conception of Moloch being carried in a tent may be illustrated from the Egyptian monuments of Rameses XII. Birch (Egypt, S. P. C. K., p. 149), refers to a tablet found in the south-west corner of Karnak: The picture of the tablet represents Rameses holding a censer, and worshipping the ark of the god [Khons], which, partly covered with curtains, is placed in a boat . . . Figures of priests, a sphinx, and standards are in the boat, while twelve priests carry it on their shoulders.
3. Both Moloch and Chiun were evidently star-deities. R. S. Poole endeavours to connect Chiun with Semitic deities worshipped in Egypt (see art. Remphan, Smiths Dict. of the Bible). The name Chiun appears as Remphan in the quotation of this passage in Stephens speech (Act. 7:43). And both Remphan and Chiun were held by Mr. Poole to be the corresponding male and female deities of Asiatic type, Renpu and Ken. But the form Remphan can be clearly shown to have arisen from textual corruption, originating, perhaps, in some false analogy. In the New Testament passage the best MSS. read Rephan, and this reading has been adopted in our Revised Version, and occurs in nearly the same form in the LXX., from which Stephen was freely quoting. In the LXX. the original order of the clauses has suffered transposition, and it is certainly safer to adhere to the Hebrew text (as in Amo. 9:11-12).
Rphan arose from the Hebrew text by the change of a single character. Instances of such interchange are not infrequent in the Old Testament. Yet the form Rephan, though corrupt, is invaluable, as indicating the true reading of the Hebrew word. The word for Chiun was read by the Masoretes as Kiyyn (according to Ewald, pedestal [?]). But the LXX. indicate, and much confirmatory testimony establishes the fact, that the word is to be read Kvan, and that Kvan, like the Ammonitish Moloch, represented the star-deity Saturn. Thus Kaivono is the form of the word in the Peshito. This view is supported by Aben Ezra and Kimchi, who cite Kivan as the name for the star Saturn in the Persian and Arabic. This star (see quotations in Hendersons Commentary) was held to exert malignant influence. Schrader (Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, p. 443) compares the name Ka-ai-vanu, the Assyrian name for that planet.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Amo 5:25-27. Have ye offered unto me, &c. See the note on Deu 12:8. Jer 7:22. These verses have made some people think that the Israelites, in their forty years’ wanderings through the wilderness, continued in a course of rebellion against God, nay, and in the practice of idolatry: but this is a thing highly improbable in itself, whether we respect Moses their leader, or God their supreme Governor, and the miraculous providences whereby they were all along fed and sustained in that wilderness; so neither do the words of the prophet carry with them any such import. The idolatry here mentioned is much more likely to have been the sin of the Israelites, who lived in Amos’s days, than of their forefathers, who perished in the wilderness. For why should the prophet denounce this punishment of captivity upon them for the sins of their ancestors, at such a distance? and for a species of idolatry, too, of which there is not the least mention in the history?Why not rather for their own sins? All that is here mentioned, relating to the Israelites in the wilderness, is the omission of sacrifices. Nor is this mentioned by way of reproach; for how should he reproach them for the omission of a thing, which, perhaps, was not in their power constantly to perform? Had the Israelites in the wilderness had plenty of sheep, and bullocks, and corn, so as to offer the accustomed sacrifices, there had been no need to feed them all that time by miracle. But if they had none, or not sufficient, they could not offer them; nor did God require it of them. And the design for which the prophet mentions this particular here, was evidently (as appears from the context) to let the people of his own time see how little God valued their sacrifices in reality, as to the mere worth of the thing; and how much he despised them, when offered to him by wicked hands, and with a vain persuasion that they would be accepted, instead of those other more substantial duties which they were bound to practise. Amo 5:21-25. I hate, &c. that is to say, “These things are much more acceptable to me, than the richest sacrifices that you can bring: for you know that I was not strict in exacting such things from your forefathers when they were in the wilderness, which was for the space of forty years. Why then should you think that I would accept them now, instead of that justice and judgment which you ought rather to have practised.””But, to make your sacrifices still more unacceptable to me, (as it goes on, Amo 5:26-27.) you have added your idolatrous practices to my worship. You have carried about in procession the tabernacles of Moloch, &c.” That is, “As you have carried about your idols in great pomp, so shall you yourselves be carried in triumph to a distant country, saith the Lord, the God of Hosts, the Creator and absolute Disposer of all the hosts of heaven, both visible and invisible; which you, in opposition to his declared will, so foolishly and presumptuously worship.” See Peters on Job, p. 312.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Amo 5:25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?
Ver. 25. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices, &c. ] i.e. To me only, and not to other gods also? did ye not begin betime to play the idolaters? and do ye not “fill up the measure of your fathers?” Mat 23:32 . They sojourned in Egypt, and brought thence a golden calf: Jeroboam sojourned there, and brought home two; which were no sooner up than you were down upon your knees, where still you continue at your mawmet worship. Is it not even so, O house of Israel? And was it not even so in the wilderness, where and when I bore with your “evil manners” ( ) “about the time of forty years,” Act 13:18 (for full forty it was not, but thirty-eight only and some few months), and was provoked by you ten times, Num 14:22 , when I had but newly brought you out of Egypt, Amo 3:1-2 . So that your idolatry is hereditary; and therefore the more ingrained and to be abhorred. God alone is to be worshipped, Exo 20:2-3 1Ki 18:21 ; truly that there be no halting, and totally that there be no halving. Be the gods of the heathen good fellows, saith one: the true God is a jealous God, and will not share his glory with another. For indeed he is the one, Deu 6:4 , and only God, Psa 86:10 , besides whom, Psa 18:32 , without whom, 1Sa 2:2 , and beyond whom, 1Ki 8:6 , there is none other, Deu 4:39 , nor any like him, 2Sa 7:22 , nor any with him, Isa 44:24 ; he is the only Lord, and besides him there is none other, Joe 2:27 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Amo 5:25-27
25Did you present Me with sacrifices and grain offerings in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel? 26You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves. 27Therefore, I will make you go into exile beyond Damascus, says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts.
Amo 5:25 This is a very difficult verse to interpret. It can be a question (continues from Amo 5:25) or an affirmation (linking it to Amo 5:27, cf. TEV). There have been two lines of interpretation: (1) Amos is asserting that the children of Israel did not sacrifice in the wilderness (cf. Jer 7:21-22 and NJB) or (2) although they did sacrifice in a limited (JB) way, the object of their sacrifice was not YHWH, but Assyrian gods who were leading them (sarcasm) into exile.
Amo 5:26 There is much discussion on the time element of this verse. Does it refer to the forty years of wilderness wandering of Amo 5:25 or does it refer to the future wanderings of the Assyrian exile? It seems that because the idols mentioned are Assyrian star gods this verse is referring to current time or the future exile, while Amo 5:25 refers to the wilderness wanderings after the Exodus from Egypt.
Another possibility is that Israel had made the sacrificial system ultimate when in fact they could not perform it after they left Egypt for many years (no tabernacle). During those years personal trust in God’s care, presence, and provision was the focus of their faith, not sacrifice. This does not depreciate the sacrificial system. It was surely the will of God, but God Himself was the goal, not the ritual, liturgy, and cultus! Motive and attitude were crucial!
Just a note about Stephen’s quote of Amo 5:25-27 in Act 7:42-43. Most Jews of the first century A.D. used the Septuagint translation of the OT. In some places it follows a different text from the Masoretic Text. This is a problem! However, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls both traditions are present. None of the verses affect the truth or trustworthiness of doctrine or practice. We must realize that Christianity does not stand or fall on difference between the Hebrew OT and its ancient versions or NT manuscript variation. See a discussion of this in Gleason Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp 381-382.
Sikkuth your king The LXX has booth of, however, this term is found in Assyrian documents to refer to a war god named Adar-Melek-Saturn (Ninurta in Ugaritic). Notice a deity is called king, which shows the cultural background for YHWH as king.
NASBKiyyun
NKJVChiun
NRSV, TEV,
NJBKaiwan
NIV, REBthe pedestal
This also refers to an Assyrian star god, who is also identified with the planet Saturn (BDB 475). The NASB reflects the Hebrew spelling which is a combination of the consonants of the name of the star god, but the vowels from the Hebrew word abominations (BDB 1055). This was a common way for Hebrew scribes to ridicule the names of gods, kings, and nations (e.g., Sikkuth). The spelling Kaiwan is from Akkadian or Arabic.
The translation of the term as pedestal supposes that the term comes from the root, to be firm (kwn).
Amo 5:27 I will make you go into exile beyond Damascus This refers to the Assyrian exile, which occurred in 722 B.C. after a three year siege of Samaria (cf. possibly Amo 4:3; and Hos 9:3; Hos 10:6; Hos 11:5). This again is an allusion to the cursings and blessings section of Deuteronomy 27-29.
says the Lord, whose name is God of hosts One of the names for Israel’s God is YHWH of hosts or YHWH Sabaoth (cf. 1Sa 1:3). In this text Elohim is substituted for YHWH. Here the title is connected to God as the controller of a heavenly army (i.e., the stars). YHWH, not astral deities (i.e., Assyrian star gods), was Israel’s hope!
The worship of the lights of the sky is condemned in many texts (cf. Deu 4:19; Deu 8:2; Deu 17:2-5; 2Ki 23:4-5; 2Ki 23:11; Jer 8:2; Jer 19:13; Jer 32:29; Zep 1:5). The OT asserts several times that God created and controls the heavenly lights (cf. Gen 1:14-19; Psa 19:1-6; Neh 9:6). It is in connection with these texts that LORD of hosts is a condemnation of idolatry (the worship of gods/angels/spirits of the heavenly lights, cf. LXX of Deu 32:8).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Have ye offered, &c . . . . ? Figure of speech Erotesis. App-6. This is a question in some codices and three early printed editions; but other codices, and four early printed editions, read it as an affirmative statement. If a question, the answer is No. See Deu 32:17. Jos 5:5-7. Jer 7:22, Jer 7:23. Eze 20:8, Eze 20:16, Eze 20:24.
unto Me, Not “unto demons”. Ref to Pentateuch (Lev 17:7. Deu 32:17). App-92, Compare Psa 106:37. 1Co 10:7.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Lev 17:7, Deu 32:17-19, Jos 24:14, Neh 9:18, Neh 9:21, Isa 43:23, Isa 43:24, Eze 20:8, Eze 20:16, Eze 20:24, Hos 9:9, Hos 9:10, Zec 7:5, Act 7:42, Act 7:43
Reciprocal: Num 28:6 – a continual Deu 4:19 – when thou Deu 12:8 – every man Deu 31:21 – I know 2Ki 18:11 – the king Isa 17:3 – fortress Act 13:18 – about
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Amo 5:25. God never asks a question for the sake of his own information, so this one is a reminder for the people of Israel, calling their attention to the practices that they followed alt through the wilderness.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Amo 5:25. Have ye offered Or, did you offer, unto me sacrifices and offerings Verborum emphasis in MIHI sita est, says Spencer: The emphasis of the passage lies in ME. Did ye offer such sacrifices as were acceptable to ME; such an entire and undivided service as I enjoin? Newcome. Certainly they did not. They offered sacrifices indeed, but in general did not offer them in a right manner, in a true spirit of piety; in the genuine fear and love of God, and with an upright intention to glorify him. On the contrary, they joined the worship of idols with the worship of God, and thereby polluted it, and rendered it insignificant in Gods sight. Thus Dr. Whitby: This question is a strong negative, importing, that though they really did offer sacrifices, as he had commanded, yet he did not accept, or look upon them, as offered to him. The expression is like that of the Prophet Zec 7:5, When ye fasted, &c., did ye at all fast to me, even to me? And this is here denied, 1st, Because God will accept of no worship as done unto him, which is not done unto him alone; and when any other is worshipped with him, he looks upon himself as not worshipped at all. So, of those nations which came from Assyria into the cities of Samaria, it is said, 2Ki 17:33, They feared the Lord, and served their own gods; and then it is added, 2Ki 17:34, They feared not the Lord. 2d, Because God will not own any worship as performed to him, while men continue in their disobedience to his laws, and in their hearts depart from him. Thus the Jews, in Zechariah, are said not to fast to him, because they would not hearken to nor obey his words; and he is said to have been angry with them in the wilderness forty years, because they erred from him in their hearts; that is, says the Chaldee, they had their idols in their hearts.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Another accusation of religious hypocrisy 5:25-26
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Lord now returned to explain further what He did not want (Amo 5:21-23). With another rhetorical question (cf. Amo 5:20) the Lord asked if His people really worshipped Him with their animal sacrifices and grain offerings when they were in the wilderness for 40 years. Animal sacrifices and grain offerings represent the totality of Israel’s Levitical offerings. As He clarified in the next verse, they had not. Their hypocritical worship was not something new; it had marked them from the beginning of their nation (e.g., the golden calf incident, Exodus 32).
"Today, there are those who are more in love with the church than with Christ, people who are more preoccupied with choir robes and candle holders [and with worship styles and worship teams?] than with an encounter with the living God. Can we imagine that the God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever will wink at this misdirected love?" [Note: Niehaus, p. 433.]