26 27<\/strong>. But ye<\/em> shall take up Sakkuth your king<\/strong>, and<\/em> Kaiwn<\/strong> your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves;<\/em> and I will<\/strong> cause you to go into<\/em> exile<\/strong> beyond Damascus, saith<\/em> Jehovah<\/strong> ] You and your idols (cf. Jer 43:7<\/span> b<\/em>, Jer 49:3<\/span> b<\/em>; Isa 46:1-2<\/span>) will go into exile together: this will be the end of your self-chosen course [159] . But though the general sense of the verse is clear, some of the details are obscure. Sakkuth<\/em> (probably read as sukkath<\/em>) was taken by the ancients as an appellative, LXX. , Vulg. tabernaculum<\/em>, hence A.V. tabernacle<\/em>, i.e., here, the shrine<\/em> of an image: but more probably R.V. Siccuth<\/em> or better, disregarding the Massoretic punctuation [160] , Sakkuth<\/em> is correct, Sakkuth<\/em> being a name of Adar, the Assyrian god of war and the chase (also of the sun, light, fire, &c.), and said to mean “chief of decision,” i.e. “chief arbiter” (viz. in warfare): see Schrader, K.A.T<\/em> [161][162] p. 443, Tiele, Bab.-Ass. Gesch<\/em>. p. 528 f.; Sayce, Hibbert Lectures<\/em>, pp. 7, 151 154. Chiun<\/em> (R.V.) should in all probability be pointed Kwn<\/em> or Kaiwn<\/em>; it will then be identical with the Assyrian name of the planet Saturn, Ka-ai-va-nu<\/em> (whence also Kwn<\/em> and Kaiwn<\/em>, the Syriac, Persian, and Arabic names of the same planet [163] ): so the Pesh., Ibn Ezra, Schrader, and many other moderns. The middle part of the verse does not, however, seem to be altogether in order; images<\/em> (in the plural), for instance, being strange as applied to Kaiwn alone; and perhaps we should either (with Schrader) transpose two groups of words, and read “Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwn your star-god, the images which ye made” &c., or (with Wellhausen) omit , “your images,” and , “the star of” (or “star”), as glosses on , “your god” and , “Kaiwn,” respectively. The reference must be to star-worship introduced into Israel from Assyria: cf., somewhat later, in Judah, Deu 4:19<\/span>; Deu 17:3 , 2Ki 23:12<\/span> &c. [164] The context appears to shew, as W. R. Smith remarks ( Proph<\/em>. p. 140), that the cult alluded to was not a rival service to that of Jehovah, but was attached in some subordinate way to the offices of His sanctuary.<\/p>\n [159] The rendering of A.V., R.V., have borne<\/em>, is possible grammatically, but not probable: the reason which decisively excludes it is that a reference to idolatries practised in the wilderness is entirely alien to the line of the prophet’s thought. (In the Heb., there is no therefore<\/em> in Amo 5:27<\/em><\/span>.)<\/p>\n [160] Which may be intended to suggest the word shiutz<\/em>, “detestable thing,” often applied to idols (Deu 29:17<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n [161] .A.T.<\/em> Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T.<\/em>, ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O. T<\/em>. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the German, which is given on the margin of the English translation.<\/p>\n [162] Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T.<\/em>, ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O. T<\/em>. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the German, which is given on the margin of the English translation.<\/p>\n [163] See Payne Smith, Thes. Syr.<\/em>, who cites (p. 1660) Ephr. Syrus ii. 458 B; Ges. Thes<\/em>. p. 669 f.; Fleischer in Levy, Chald. Wrterb.<\/em> i. 428; Ges. Jesaia<\/em>, ii. 343 f.<\/p>\n [164] The explanation of this verse adopted above is that of Ewald and most modern authorities; but it is right to add that there are some scholars whom it fails to satisfy. These scholars agree indeed that the verse cannot refer to idolatry in the past, but object, for instance (Wellh.), that the idols of a vanquished nation would be carried off as trophies by the victors (Isa 46:1<\/span>), rather than taken into exile by the vanquished themselves, and point out that the fault with which elsewhere Amos reproaches the people is an exaggerated ceremonialism in the worship of Jehovah, not devotion to other gods. There is no doubt force in these objections; but it may be doubted whether our knowledge of the times is such as to render them conclusive; nor has any preferable explanation been yet proposed. Cf. Wellh., p. 83; G. A. Smith, p. 172 f.; N. Schmidt, Journ. of Bibl. Lit.<\/em>, 1894, p. 1 15; Cheyne, Expositor<\/em>, Jan. 1897, p. 42 44 (who, like Wellh., rejects the verse as a gloss).<\/p>\n LXX. has , , whence the quotation in Act 7:43<\/span> , , . is evidently a corruption of Kaiwn<\/em>, which in Act 7:43<\/span> has become further corrupted into .<\/p>\n beyond Damascus<\/em> ] Syria, in Amos’s time, was to Israel a more familiar power than Assyria or Babylon; Damascus was its capital; and exile into the unknown regions beyond Damascus<\/em> is accordingly announced as the climax of Israel’s punishment. After the Babylonian exile Babylon became both the type of Israel’s oppressor and Israel’s typical place of exile; and this, no doubt, is the reason why St Stephen, in Act 7:43<\/span>, unintentionally substitutes Babylon for Damascus.<\/p>\n The passage Amo 5:21-25<\/span> is one of the first statements in the O.T. of the great prophetic truth, that sacrifice or indeed any other outward religious observance, is not, as such<\/em>, either valued or demanded by God; it is valued, and demanded, by Him only as the expression of a right state of heart: if offered to Him by men who are indifferent to this, and who think to make amends for their moral shortcomings by the zeal with which they maintain the formal offices of religion, He indignantly repudiates it. The Israelites, like men in many other ages, were sufficiently ready to conform to the external forms and offices of religion, while heedless of its spiritual precepts, and especially of the claim which it makes to regulate their conduct and their lives; and the prophets again and again take occasion to point out to them their mistake, and to recall to them the true nature of spiritual religion. See Hos 6:6<\/span> [165] ; Isa 1:10-17<\/span>; Mic 6:6-8<\/span>; Jer 6:19-20<\/span>; Jer 7:1-15<\/span>; Jer 7:21-23<\/span>; Isa 66:2-4<\/span> (in Amo 5:3<\/em><\/span> “as” = “no better than”): also 1Sa 15:22<\/span>; Psa 40:6-8<\/span>; Psa 50:13-15<\/span>; Psa 51:16-17<\/span>; Pro 15:8<\/span>; Pro 21:27<\/span>; Sir 34:18 to Sir 35:11 .<\/p>\n [165] Comp. on this text the writer’s Sermons on the Old Test<\/em>. (1892), pp. 217 232.<\/p>\n (3) 6. A second rebuke, addressed to the self-satisfied political leaders of the nation, who “put far the evil day,” and, immersed in a life of luxurious self-indulgence, are heedless of the ruin which is only too surely hastening upon their people ( Amo 5:1-6<\/em><\/span>). But, as before, exile is the end which the prophet sees to be not far distant: Israel’s sins have caused Jehovah to turn His face from them. Invasion and destruction are coming upon them; their boasted strength will be powerless to save them from the consequences of their violation of the laws of truth and right ( Amo 5:7-14<\/em><\/span>).<\/p>\n But ye have borne – <\/B>Literally, And ye bare the tabernacle of your Moloch (literally, your king, from where the idol Moloch had its name.) He assigns the reason, why he had denied that they sacririced to God in the wilderness. Did ye offer sacrifices unto Me, and ye bare? that is, seeing that ye bare. The two were incompatible. Since they did carry about the tabernacle of their king, they did not really worship God. He whom they chose as their king, was their god. The tabernacle or tent was probably a little portable shrine, such as Demetrius the silversmith and those of his craft made for the little statues of their goddess Diana Act 19:24<\/span>. Such are mentioned in Egyptian idolatry. They carry forth we are told , the image in a small shrine of gilt wood.<\/P> Of your Moloch and Chiun – <\/B>The two clauses must be read separately, the tabernacles of Moloch (strictly, of your king,) and Chiun your images. The two clauses, the tabernacle of your king, and Chiun your images, are altogether distinct. They correspond to one another, but they must not be read as one whole, in the sense, the tabernacle of your king and of Chiun your images. The rendering of the last clause is uncertain. God has so utterly abolished the idols Isa 2:18<\/span>, through whom Satan contested with Him the allegiance of His people, that we have no certain knowledge, what they were. There may be some connection between the god whom the Israelites in the wilderness worshiped as their king, and him whose worship Solomon, in his decay, brought into Jerusalem, the god whom the Ammonites worshiped as the king, Hammolech, or, as he is once called, Molech , and three times Milchom 1Ki 11:5<\/span>, 1Ki 11:33<\/U><\/span>; 2Ki 23:13<\/span> (perhaps an abstract, as some used to speak of the Deity). He is mostly called Hammolech, the Ammonite way of pronouncing what the Hebrews called Hammelech, the king.<\/P> But since the name designates the god only as the king, it may have been given to different gods, whom the pagan worshiped as their chief god. In Jewish idolatry, it became equivalent to Baal Jer 19:5<\/span>; Jer 32:35<\/span>, lord; and to avert his displeasure, the Hebrews (as did the Carthaginians, a Phoenician people, down to the time of our Lord ), burned their own children, their sons and their daughters, alive to him. Yet, even in these dreadful rites, the Carthaginian worship was more cold-blooded and artificial than that of Phoenicia. But whether the king, whom the Israelites worshiped in the wilderness, was the same as the Ammonite Molech or no, those dreadful sacrifices were then no part of his worship; else Amos would not have spoken of the idolatry, as the carrying about his tabernacle only.<\/P> He would have described it by its greatest offensiveness. The king was a title also of the Egyptian Deity, Osiris , who was identified with the sun, and whose worship Israel may probably have brought with them, as well as that of the calf, his symbol. Again most of the old translators have retained the Hebrew word Chiyyan , either regarding it as a proper name, or unable to translate it. Some later tradition identities it with tire planet Saturn , which under a different name, the Arabs propitiated as a malevolent being . In Ephrems time, the pagan Syrians worshiped the child-devouring Chivan .<\/P> Israel however, did not learn the idolatry from the neighboring Arabs, since it is not the Arab name of that planet . In Egyptian, the name of Chunsu, one of the 12 gods who severally were thought to preside over the 12 months, appears in an abridged form Chuns or Chon . He was, in their mythology, held to be the oldest son of Ammon ; his name is said to signify , power, might; and he to be that ideal of might, worshiped as the Egyptian Hercules .<\/P> Etymology M. See Sir G. Wilk. in Rawlinson, Herodotus, ii. 78. note. The Egyptians called Hercules Chon. L. Girald (Opp. ii. 327) from Xenophon. Antioch. Drus. but the authority given is wrong). The name Chun extended into Phoenician and Assyrian proper names. Still Chon is not Chiyyun; and the fact that the name was retained as Chon or Chun in Phoenicia (where the worship was borrowed) as well as in Assyria, is a ground for hesitating to identify with it the word of Chiyyun, which has a certain likeness only to the abridged name. Jeromes Hebrew teacher on the other hand knew of no such tradition, and Jerome renders it image . And certainly it is most natural to render it not as a name, but as a common noun. It may probably mean, the pedestal, the basis of your images. The prophet had spoken of their images, as covered over with their little shrines, the shrines of your king. Here he may, not improbably, speak of them, its fastened to a pedestal. Such were the gods, whom they chose for the One true God, gods, carried about, covered over, fixed to their place, lest they should fall.<\/P> The worship was certainly some form of star-worship, since there follows, the star of your god. It took place after the worship of the calf. For Stephen, after having spoken of that idolatry says, Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets Act 7:42<\/span>. Upon their rebellions, God at last gave them up to themselves. Stephen calls the god whom they worshiped, Rephan, quoting the then existing Greek translation, having regard, Jerome says, to the meaning rather than the words. This is to be observed in all Holy Scripture, that Apostles and apostolic men, in citing testimonies from the Old Testament, regard, not the words, but the meaning, nor do they follow the words, step by step, provided they do not depart from the meaning.<\/P> Of the special idolatry there is no mention in Moses, in like way as the mention of the worship of the goat , a second symbol of the Pantheistic worship of Egypt , is contained only incidentally in the prohibition of that worship. After the final rebellion, upon which God rejected that generation, Holy Scripture takes no account of them. They had failed God; they had forfeited the distinction, for which God had created, preserved, taught them, revealed Himself to them, and had, by great miracles, rescued them from Egypt. Thenceforth, that generation was cast aside unnoticed.<\/P> Which ye made to yourselves – <\/B>This was the fundamental fault, that they made it for themselves. Instead of the tabernacle, which God, their king, appointed, they bare about the tabernacle of him whom they took for their king; and for the service which He gave, they chose new gods Jdg 5:8<\/span> for themselves. Whereas God made them for Himself, they made for themselves gods out of their own mind. All idolatry is self will, first choosing a god, and then enslaved to it.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 26<\/span>. But ye have borne<\/B><\/I>] The preceding verse spoke of their fathers<\/I>; the present verse speaks of the Israelites then<\/I> existing<\/I>, who were so grievously addicted to idolatry, that they not only worshipped at stated public places the idols<\/I> set up by public authority<\/I>, but they carried their gods about with them<\/I> everywhere.<\/P> <\/P> The tabernacle of your Moloch<\/B><\/I>] Probably a small portable shrine, with an image of their god in it, such as Moloch<\/I>; and the star<\/I> or representative<\/I> of their god Chiun<\/I>. For an ample exposition of this verse, See Clarke on Ac 7:42<\/span>; to which let me add, that from Picart’s<\/I> Religious Ceremonies, vol. iii. p. 199, we find that there was an idol named Choun worshipped among the Peruvians<\/I> from the remotest antiquity.<\/P> <\/p>\n But ye, <\/B>the idolatrous children of idolatrous fathers, <\/P> have borne, <\/B>carried along with you in the wilderness, <\/P> the tabernacle, <\/B>or little chapel, or shrine, or canopy, in which the image of their idol was placed. Though others conjecture this to be the proper name of an idol, I conjecture it is the name of the portable temple or chapel in which the supposed deity was placed. <\/P> Moloch; <\/B>the great idol of the Ammonites, as Jupiter was of the Greeks and Romans; some ancient king among them, who was a famous founder, or raiser, and benefactor to their nation, though we know not who this was. <\/P> Chiun:<\/B> perhaps if we understand the whole apparatus or storehouse of their images, We shall not err. Their grand idol was Moloch, whose image they kept, and carried about in a sacellum<\/I>, or consecrated portable chapel, and with him the rest of their petit deities, in their images placed orderly, as they fancied, about their great deity. Others will have Chiun to be Saturn. <\/P> Your images:<\/B> whatever these were, it is plain God accounts them their inventions and their gods. <\/P> The star of your god:<\/B> what star this was we need not inquire; the idolaters appropriated the stars to their gods, and probably did in the roof of their gods tabernacles frame the star over the image of their god: or, the star your god, or which you worship. <\/P> Which ye made to yourselves; <\/B>all which deities you have found out and established to yourselves. <\/P> <\/p>\n But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch<\/strong>,…. The god of the Ammonites; [See comments on Am 1:13]<\/span>; and<\/p>\n [See comments on Jer 7:31]<\/span>; called theirs, because they also worshipped it, and caused their seed to pass through the fire to it; and which was carried by them in a shrine, or portable tent or chapel. Or it may be rendered, “but ye have borne Siccuth your king” p; and so Siccuth may be taken for the name of an idol, as it is by Jarchi, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, to whom they gave the title of king, as another idol went by the name of the queen of heaven; perhaps by one was meant the sun, and by the other the moon;<\/p>\n and Chiun, your images<\/strong>; Moloch or Siccuth was one, and Chiun another image, or rather the same; and this the same with Chevan, which in the Arabic and Persic languages is the name of Saturn, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi say; and is so rendered by Montanus here; and who in the Egyptian tongue was called Revan, or Rephan, or Remphan; as by the Septuagint here, and in Ac 7:43<\/span>;<\/p>\n the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves<\/strong>; or the star “your god” q; meaning the same with Chiun or Saturn; perhaps the same with the star that fell from the air or sky, mentioned by Sanchoniatho r; which Astarte, the wife of Chronus or Saturn, is said to take and consecrate in Tyre; this they made for themselves, and worshipped as a deity. The Targum is,<\/p>\n “ye have borne the tabernacle of your priests, Chiun your image, the star your God, which ye have made to yourselves.”<\/p>\n Various are the senses put upon the word Chiun. Some read it Cavan, and take it to signify a “cake”; in which sense the word is used in Jer 7:18<\/span>; and render it, “the cake of your images” s; and supposing that it had the image of their gods impressed upon it. Calmet interprets it “the pedestal of your images” t; and indeed the word has the signification of a basis, and is so rendered by some u; and is applicable to Moloch their king, a king being the basis and foundation of the kingdom and people; and to the sun, intended by that deity, which is the basis of the celestial bodies, and of all things on earth. Some take Moloch and Chiun to be distinct deities, the one to be the sun, the other the moon; but they seem rather to be the same, and both to be the Egyptian ox, and the calf of the Israelites in the wilderness, the image of which was carried in portable tents or tabernacles, in chests or shrines; such as the Succothbenoth, or tabernacles of Venus, 2Ki 17:30<\/span>; and those of Diana’s, Ac 19:24<\/span>; the first of these portable temples we read of, is one drawn by oxen in Phoenicia, mentioned by Sanchoniatho w; not that the Israelites carried such a tent or tabernacle during their travels through the wilderness, whatever they might do the few days they worshipped the calf; but this is to be understood of their posterity in later times, in the times of Amos; and also when Shalmaneser carried them captive beyond Damascus, as follows. It may be further observed, for the confirmation and illustration of what has been said concerning Chiun, that the Egyptian Anubis, which Plutarch x says is the same with Saturn, is called by him Kyon, which seems to be no other than this word Chiun: and whereas Stephen calls it Rephan, this is not a corruption of the word, reading Rephan or Revan for Chevan; nor has he respect to Rimmon, the god of the Syrians, but it is the Egyptian name for Saturn; which the Septuagint interpreters might choose to make use of, they interpreting for the king of Egypt: and Diodorus Siculus y makes mention of an Egyptian king called Remphis, whom Braunius z takes to be this very Chiun; see Ac 7:43<\/span>; but Rephas, or Rephan, was the same with Chronus, or Saturn, from whence came the Rephaim a, who dwelt in Ashtaroth Karnaim, a town of Ham or Chronus; see Ge 14:5<\/span>. Some b, who take Siccuth for an idol, render it in the future, “ye shall carry”, c. and take it to be a prediction of Amos, that the Israelites should, with great reproach and ignominy, be obliged by the Assyrians, as they were led captive, to carry on their shoulders the idols they had worshipped, and in vain had trusted in, as used to be done in triumphs [See comments on Am 1:15]<\/span>.<\/p>\n p “Siccuth regem vestrum”, Munster, Montanus, Vatablus, Calvin, Mercerus. q “sidus deum vestrum”, Liveleus; “sidus, [vel] stellam deos vestros”, Calvin. r Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 1. p. 38. s “placentam imagiuum vestrarum”, Pagninus, Tigurine version, Vatablus. t Dictionary, in the word “Chiun”. u “Basim imaginum vestrarum”, Junius Tremellius, Piscator “statumen”, Burkius. w Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 1. p. 35. x De Iside. y Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 56. z Selecta Sacra. l. 4. c. 9. sect. 132. p. 435. a Vid. Cumberland’s Sanchoniatho, p. 120. b Vid. Scholia Quinquarborei in loc. So Jarchi and Lyra.<\/p>\n It now follows, And ye have carried Sicuth your king. This place, we know, is quoted by Stephen Act 7:42<\/span> : but he followed the Greek version; and the Greek translator, whoever he was, was mistaken as to the word, Sicuth, and read, Sucoth, and thought the name an appellative of the plural number, and supposed it to be derived from סוך suk, which means a tabernacle; for he translated it σκήνην as if it was said, “Ye bore the tabernacle of your king instead of the ark.” But it was a manifest mistake; for the probability is, that Sicuth was the proper name of an idol. Ye bore then Sicuth your king. He called it their king by way of reproach; for they had violated that priestly kingdom, which God had instituted; for he, as a king, exercised dominion over them. Since then God would be deemed the king of Israel, as he had ascribed to himself that name, and since he promised to them a kingdom, as in due time he gave them, it was the basest ingratitude in them to seek an idol to be their king; it was indeed a denial of God which could not be borne, not to allow themselves to be governed by him. We hence see how sharply he upbraids them, for had refused to God his own kingdom, and created for themselves the fictitious Sleuth as their king. <\/p>\n Then it follows, And Kiun, your images Some think that כיון , Kiun, means a cake, and כוה , kue, is to burn, and from this they think the word is derived; but others more correctly regard it as a proper name; and the Prophet, I have no doubt, has named here some reigned god after Sleuth. Kiun then, your images; I read the words as being in apposition. Others say, “The cake of your images;” and some render the words literally, “Kiun your images;” but yet they do not sufficiently attend to the design of the Prophet; for he seems here to ridicule the madness of the people, because they dreamt that some deity was inclosed in statues and in such masks. “Ye carried,” he says, “both Sicuth and Kiun, your images. I am now deprived of honor, for ye could not bear me to govern you. Ye now enjoy your King Sicuth; but, in the meantime, let us see what is the power of Sicuth and Kiun; they are nothing more than images. Seeing then that there is neither strength nor even life in them, what madness is it to worship such fictitious things?” <\/p>\n But some think that Kiun was the image of Saturn. What the Hebrews indeed say, that this idolatry was derived from the Persians, is wholly groundless; for the Persians, we know, had no images nor statues, but worshipped only the sacred fire. As, then, the Persians had no images. the Jews fabled, in their usual way, when they said that Kiun was an image of Saturn. But all the Jews, I have no doubt, imagined that all the stars were gods, as they made images for them; for it immediately follows, A constellation, or a star, your gods These, he says, are your gods; even stars and images; and there is here a sarcasm ( σαρκασμος \ud83d\ude09 used; for the Prophet derides the folly of the people of Israel, who, being not content with the Maker of heaven and earth, sought for themselves dead gods, or rather vain devices. “Your gods then,” he says, “are images and stars.” <\/p>\n But it must be observed, that he calls them images: he does not, as in other places, call them idols; and this, I say, ought to be observed, for here is refuted the foolish and refinement of the Papists, who at this day excuse all their superstitions, because they have no idols; for they deny that their devices are idols. What then? They are images. Thus they hide their own baseness under the name of images. But the Prophet does not say that they were idols; he does not use that hateful word which is derived from grief or sorrow; but he says that they were images. The name then in itself has nothing base or ominous; but, at the same time, as the Lord would not have himself represented by any visible figure, the Prophet here expressly and distinctly condemns Sicuth and Kiun. The Greek translator whom Stephen followed, put down the word, types or figures, that is, images. Now, when any one says to the Papists that their figures or images are sinful before God, they boldly deny this; but we see that their evasion avails nothing. <\/p>\n He adds in the last place, Which ye have made for yourselves I prefer rendering the relative אשר, asher, in the neuter gender, as including all their fictitious gods, and also their images, which things then ye have made for yourselves. To make these things is at all times vicious in sacred things; for we ought not to bring any thing of our own when we worship God, but we ought to depend always on the word of his mouth, and to obey what he has commanded. All our actions then in the worship of God ought to be, so to speak, passive; for they ought to be referred to his command, lest we attempt any thing but what he approves. Hence, when men dare to do this or that without God’s command, it is nothing else but abomination before him. And the Greeks call superstitions εθελοθρησκείας; and this word means voluntary acts of worship, such as are undertaken by men of their own accord. We now understand the whole design of the Prophet. It follows — <\/p>\n 26, 27<\/strong>. <\/strong> The sentence. <\/em> The translation of Amo 5:26<\/span> and its relation to the context are matters of much dispute. Does it refer to the past, the present, or the future? Should it be rendered “ye have borne,” or “ye bear,” or “ye shall bear”? Is it a condemnation of past or present idolatry, or a threat of judgment? Is the text correct, or has it suffered in transmission? Are the words translated tabernacle <\/em> and shrine <\/em> common or proper nouns? Is Amo 5:26<\/span> to be connected with 25 or with 27? These and similar questions are responsible for the greatest variety of opinion among interpreters. To the present writer it seems best to connect Amo 5:26<\/span> with 27 as a threat of judgment, and to translate, with R.V. margin, “ye shall <\/em> take up.” This is in harmony with the prophet’s reasoning and is supported by Hebrew usage. He believes also that the order of the words in LXX. is to be preferred, and that the first word, A.V., “But,” R V., “Yea,” should be rendered “Therefore,” which is permissible. The transposition of the words suggested by LXX. results in a more satisfactory connection for the relative clause and in a smoother reading throughout. Amo 5:26<\/span>, then, may be rendered, “Therefore ye shall take up the tabernacle of your king, and the shrine of your star-god, your images which ye made to yourselves.” Some, taking greater liberties with the text, propose as the original, “Ye shall lift up the shrine of your king and the image of your god, which ye have made for yourselves.” <\/p>\n Tabernacle shrine <\/strong> Both these nouns occur only here in the Old Testament; hence the exact meaning is doubtful. The former resembles very closely the common Hebrew word for tabernacle, <\/em> and it has been customary, from very early times, to regard it as a synonym of the same. With the meaning of this word fixed, the laws of parallelism required that in the next line a word of similar import should be read; hence the rendering shrine, <\/em> though the most important of the ancient versions take the second as a proper noun. If this translation is adopted king <\/em> must be understood as a poetic synonym of god (but compare Act 7:43<\/span>); and the thought is that they will be compelled to carry the shrines of the false gods with them into exile.<\/p>\n In more recent times, as a result of archaeological discoveries, it has become customary to interpret both words as proper nouns, names of Assyrian deities. In order to do this the vocalization of the Hebrew must be changed, though the consonantal text may remain the same. Schrader was the first to identify the first word Hebrews sikkuth <\/em> with the Assyrian sakkut, <\/em> a name of the god Ninib. Oppert recognized in the second Heb, kiy<\/em> – yun <\/em> the Assyrian kaiwan, <\/em> the name of the planet Saturn. Ninib is the god of Saturn, and the two names have been found together on a Babylonian tablet (see Encyclopaedia Biblica, <\/em> article “Chiun”). These identifications are accepted by nearly all modern commentators, and Amo 5:26<\/span> is now commonly rendered, “Therefore ye shall take up (to carry into exile) Sakkut your king and Kaiwan your star-god, the images which you made to yourselves.” This translation sees here an implied condemnation of Assyrian idolatry, which had been introduced into Palestine and had helped to corrupt Hebrew religion. The “host of heaven” was worshiped in Israel before the fall of Samaria (2Ki 17:16<\/span>); however, 2Ki 17:31<\/span>, places the introduction of Assyrian religious practices subsequent to the deportation of the northern tribes. That similar customs had been adopted before the time of Amos, as the above interpretation assumes, cannot be asserted with absolute certainty, nor can it be denied. The future may throw additional light on the interpretation of this much-discussed verse.<\/p>\n Amo 5:27<\/span> <\/strong> continues the threat. <\/p>\n Therefore will I <\/strong> Better, literally, and I will. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Go into captivity <\/strong> See Amo 4:3<\/span>; Amo 7:17<\/span>. <\/p>\n Beyond Damascus <\/strong> The place is not named, but the expression implies a far-distant country. Armenia (see on Amo 4:3<\/span>) was beyond Damascus, and far distant from Palestine. Act 7:43<\/span>, reads, “beyond Babylon.” <\/p>\n Jehovah, The <\/strong> God of hosts <\/strong> See on Amo 4:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n Amo 5:26<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And Chiun your images<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> And the image of our idols. <\/em>Houbigant; who understands the word chiun <\/em>to be an appellative, and not a proper name in this place. The LXX for Chiun <\/em>read , Raiphan, <\/em>and St. Stephen, Act 7:43<\/span>. , Remphan, <\/em>or, as some copies read, , or . Parkhurst is of opinion, that Chiun <\/em>and Remphan <\/em>are two words very properly expressive of one and the same god. Learned men have generally supposed that the Arabian or Canaanitish chiun, <\/em>answers to the Greek Chronos, <\/em>and the Roman Saturn: <\/em>an opinion not a little confirmed by the attributes given to Chronos, <\/em>in the Orphic hymn addressed to that idol. He is there called the ever-blooming father of gods and men. <\/em>He is said to subdue or consume all things, and again to renew them. <\/em>The attributes of universal parent of the world,fructifier <\/em>[ ] of earth and heaven, <\/em>and several other remarkable epithets are assigned to him. We meet with an idol of the same kind, and almost of the same nature as Chiun, <\/em>among the West-Indian philosophers: the Peruvians relate, “That a man of extraordinary shape, whose name was Choun, <\/em>and whose body had neither bones nor muscles, came from the north into their country: that he levelled mountains, filled up valleys, and opened himself a passage through the most inaccessible places: and that this Choun <\/em>created the first inhabitants of Peru, giving them herbs and wild fruits of the field for their sustenance.” They also relate, that “this first founder of Peru, having been injured by some savages who inhabited the plains, changed part of the ground which before had been very fruitful, into sand; forbad the rain to fall, and dried up the plants: but, being afterwards moved with compassion, he opened the springs, and suffered the rivers to flow. This Choun <\/em>was worshipped as a god, till such time as Pachacamac <\/em>came from the South.” See Religious Ceremonies, <\/em>&c. vol. 3: p. 199 and Parkhurst’s Lexicon on the word . <\/p>\n See commentary on Amo 5:25<\/span><\/p>\n Amo 5:26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.<\/p>\n Ver. 26. But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch<\/strong> ] That idols were wont to be carried upon men’s shoulders we may see, Isa 56:7<\/span> ; Bar 6:3 ; Bar 2:5 . That Moloch or Milcom was the abomination of the Ammonites (who called their king as the Israelites called the true God, Isa 44:6<\/span> ; Isa 33:22 ), see 1Ki 11:5<\/span> ; that the Israelites should do thus in the wilderness (where they had God’s tabernacle erected), carrying about them privily some portable chapels or pictures of these idols (as some hold they did, and Josephus seems to say as much), was monstrous wickedness, and the guise of men given up to a reprobate sense, Rom 1:23<\/span> 2Th 2:10-11<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And Chiun your images<\/strong> ] That is, your notable image, the plural for the singular, as often; especially in names of dignity. Jerome here for Chiun hath Remphan; confer Act 7:43<\/span> , and the commentators thereon. Aben Ezra thinks that by Chiun is meant the planet Saturn, called Chivan in the Arabic. And other Hebrews by the star of your god (that is, the star which is your god), understand Mercury.<\/p>\n ye have borne = borne aloft. Figure of speech Hysteresis. App-6. <\/p>\n tabernacle = booth. Hebrew. sikkuth. <\/p>\n Chiun. The Egyptian or Greek equivalent was Remphan (Septuagint Raiphan; another spelling preserved in the Septuagint and in Act 7:43). Proper names frequently differ in spelling: e.g. Ethiopia is the Hebrew Kush; Egypt is Mizrain; Mesopotamia and Syria is ‘Aram, or ‘Aram naharaim, & c. <\/p>\n the star of your god: or, your star-god. <\/p>\n the tabernacle of your Moloch: or, Siccuth your king, Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5, 1Ki 11:33, 2Ki 23:12, 2Ki 23:13, Milcom <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 4:19 – when thou Deu 31:21 – I know Jos 24:14 – put Eze 20:16 – for their Zep 1:5 – Malcham Act 7:42 – O ye Act 13:18 – about<\/p>\n Amo 5:26. The Lord admits that Israel had performed the services stated ill the preceding verse, but they were offset by their practices of idolatry. Moloch was one of the invisible gods of the heathen, and the Israelties look up the worship of that false deity. Chiun was an image that they made, a star or chief article they made in honor of the heathen god that they worshiped.<\/p>\n Amo 5:26. But ye have borne, or did bear, the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun Your ancestors manifested their want of true devotion toward me, in that they were so prone to practise those idolatries which they learned in Egypt, or which they saw practised in the countries through which they passed: see Num 25:2; Jos 24:14; Eze 20:7; Eze 20:16; and Eze 23:3; Eze 23:8. As these words are quoted by St. Stephen, (Act 7:42-43,) to prove that God gave them up to worship the host of heaven, it is probable that by Moloch is meant the sun, which the whole East worshipped in ancient times, called also, as almost all interpreters agree, Baal, Bel, or Belus: Baal, the Lord, (as the word signifies,) and Moloch, the king of heaven, being the same. As for the other word, Chiun, rendered by the LXX. Rephan or Remphan, according to Vossius, it signifies the moon; but Aben Ezra understands it of Saturn, an interpretation which many learned men approve: see particularly Lud. de Dieu, upon Act 7:43, and Dr. Spencer, De Leg. Hebr., lib. 3. cap. 3, where it is shown that Saturn was called Rephan, or Remphan, by the Egyptians. Your images They had images of these supposed deities, that of Moloch representing the sun, and that of Chiun the star Saturn: see Seldon, 2:396. These images were placed in shrines, here termed , a tabernacle, or tabernacles, and these they used to carry about with them, as Grotius and Dr. Hammond, on Act 7:43, have proved.<\/p>\n 5:26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your {n} Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.<\/p>\n (n) That idol which you esteemed as your king, and carried about as you did Chiun, in which images you thought that there was a certain divinity.<\/p>\n During the wilderness wanderings the Israelites had also carried shrines of their king. This may refer to unauthorized shrines honoring Yahweh or, more probably, shrines honoring other deities (cf. Act 7:42-43). "Sikkuth, your king," probably refers to Sakkut, the Assyrian war god also known as Adar. "Kiyyun, your images," probably refers to the Assyrian astral deity also known as Kaiwan or Saturn. Amos evidently ridiculed these gods by substituting the vowels of the Hebrew word for "abomination," (shiqqus<\/span>) in their names. [Note: Andersen and Freedman, p. 533.] <\/span> "The star of your gods [or god]" probably refers to the planet Saturn that represented Kiyyun. Stephen’s quotation of this verse in Act 7:42-43 was from the Septuagint, which interpreted these names as references to pagan idols. The worshippers may have carried pedestals for their images of various idols including astral deities. Many scholars believe the Israelites conceived of the golden calf as a representation of that on which Yahweh rode, a visible support for their invisible God. Another view is that the golden calf represented Yahweh Himself. The bull in Egyptian iconography was a symbol of strength and power. Jeroboam I had erected bulls at Dan and Bethel in Israel and had revived this idolatrous form of worship. Amos pointed out that Israel had always mixed idolatry with the worship of Yahweh, so Israel’s worship of Him had been hypocritical throughout her history. Certainly at times the Israelites worshipped God exclusively and wholeheartedly, but throughout their history there had been these instances of syncretistic hypocrisy. Do we still carry our idols around with us?<\/p>\n Another description of inevitable judgment 5:27<\/span><\/p>\n Because of this hypocritical worship, Yahweh, the God of armies, promised that the Israelites would go into exile beyond Damascus. They did go into exile in Assyria, to the northeast of Damascus, after 722 B.C. (cf. Amo 4:3).<\/p>\n "The horror of ’exile’ was more than the ruin of defeat and the shame of capture. For Israel, it meant being removed from the land of promise, the land of God’s presence. Exile, in effect, was excommunication." [Note: Sunukjian, p. 1442.] <\/span><\/p>\n But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. 26 27. But ye shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwn your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves; and I will cause you to go into … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Amos 5:26”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22460","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"