Text -- Amos 5:26 (NET)

5:26 You will pick up your images of Sikkuth, your king, and Kiyyun, your star god, which you made for yourselves,

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Amo 5:26

Ye carried along with you in the wilderness; the shrine, or canopy in which the image was placed.

Wesley: Amo 5:26

The great idol of the Ammonites.

Wesley: Amo 5:26

Another idol.

JFB: Amo 5:25-26

Yes: ye have. "But (all the time with strange inconsistency) ye have borne (aloft in solemn pomp) the tabernacle (that is, the portable shrine, or model tabernacle: small enough not to be detected by Moses; compare Act 19:24) of your Molech" (that idol is "your" god; I am not, though ye go through the form of presenting offerings to Me). The question, "Have ye," is not a denial (for they did offer in the wilderness to Jehovah sacrifices of the cattle which they 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 2:27-28; Jer 31:20; Eze 20:4). The sin of Israel in Amos' time is the very sin of their forefathers, mocking God with worship, while at the same time worshipping idols (compare Eze 20:39). It was clandestine in Moses' time, else he would have put it down; he was aware generally of their unfaithfulness, though not knowing the particulars (Deu 31:21, Deu 31:27).

JFB: Amo 5:25-26

"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 7:42-43). The same god often had different names. Molech is the Ammonite name; Chiun, the Arabic and Persian name, written also Chevan. In an Arabic lexicon Chiun means "austere"; so astrologers represented Saturn as a planet baleful in his influence. Hence the Phœnicians offered human sacrifices to him, children especially; so idolatrous Israel also. Rimmon was the Syrian name (2Ki 5:18); pronounced as Remvan, or "Remphan," just as Chiun was also Chevan. Molech had the form of a king; Chevan, or Chiun, of a star [GROTIUS]. Remphan was the Egyptian name for Saturn: hence the Septuagint translator of Amos gave the Egyptian name for the Hebrew, being an Egyptian. [HODIUS II, De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus. 4.115]. The same as the Nile, of which the Egyptians made the star Saturn the representative [HARENBERG]. BENGEL considers Remphan or Rephan akin to Teraphim and Remphis, the name of a king of Egypt. The Hebrews became infected with Sabeanism, the oldest form of idolatry, the worship of the Saba or starry hosts, in their stay in the Arabian desert, where Job notices its prevalence (Job 31:26); in opposition, in Amo 5:27, Jehovah declares Himself "the God of hosts."

JFB: Amo 5:25-26

R. ISAAC CARO says 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 the idol, to represent the planet Saturn; hence "images" correspond to "star" in the parallel clause. A star in hieroglyphics represents God (Num 24:17). "Images" are either a Hebraism for "image," or refer to the many images made to represent Chiun.

Clarke: Amo 5:26

But ye have borne - The preceding verse spoke of their fathers; the present verse speaks of the Israelites then existing, who were so grievously addicted to idolatry, that they not only worshipped at stated public places the idols set up by public authority, but they carried their gods about with them everywhere

Clarke: Amo 5:26

The tabernacle of your Moloch - Probably a small portable shrine, with an image of their god in it, such as Moloch; and the star or representative of their god Chiun. For an ample exposition of this verse, see the note on Act 7:42; to which let me add, that from Picart’ s Religious Ceremonies, vol. 3 p. 199, we find that there was an idol named Choun worshipped among the Peruvians from the remotest antiquity.

Calvin: Amo 5:26

It now follows, And ye have carried Sicuth your king. This place, we know, is quoted by Stephen Act 7:42 : 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.

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?”

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 ;) 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.”

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.

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 —

TSK: Amo 5:26

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

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Amo 5:26

But ye have borne - 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. Such are mentioned in Egyptian idolatry. "They carry forth"we are told , "the image in a small shrine of gilt wood."

Of your Moloch and Chiun - 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, 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, 1Ki 11:33; 2Ki 23:13 (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."

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; Jer 32:35, "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.

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 Ephrem’ s time, the pagan Syrians worshiped "the child-devouring Chivan".

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 ."

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. Jerome’ s 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.

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. 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."

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.

Which ye made to yourselves - 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 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.

Poole: Amo 5:26

But ye the idolatrous children of idolatrous fathers,

have borne carried along with you in the wilderness,

the tabernacle 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.

Moloch 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.

Chiun: 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 , 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.

Your images: whatever these were, it is plain God accounts them their inventions and their gods.

The star of your god: 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.

Which ye made to yourselves all which deities you have found out and established to yourselves.

Haydock: Amo 5:26

A tabernacle, &c. All this alludes to the idolatry which they committed, when they were drawn away by the daughters of Moab to the worship of their gods, Numbers xxv. (Challoner) ---

They imitated the superstitions of Egypt, and bore the image of Osiris, adorned with a star and crescent, on a sort of base, under a canopy. Hebrew, "You carried the tents of your king and the base of your statues, the star of your gods, which you have made for yourselves." Septuagint by changing (Calmet) ciun in Rephan, or Greek: raiphan, (Haydock) have caused great confusion among commentators. If any change were requisite, (Calmet) cima (Haydock) would be preferable, ver. 8., and Job ix. 9. Yet the Hebrew seems to be correct, and chiun denotes a pedestal rather than an idol. Some read Kevan, the Saturn of the Arabs, &c., and think that Rephan has been mistaken for it. The only difficulty is the authority of St. Stephen, who follows the Septuagint, Acts vii. 43. Yet he probably spoke in Syriac, and might pronounce Chevan; though St. Luke might adopt the Septuagint in a matter of so little consequence. (Calmet, Diss.) ---

This decision may not probably give satisfaction to those who reflect that both these authors were under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost, and that if an error had crept into the copy of the Septuagint, he would have corrected it. Truth is always of sufficient consequence. See Kennicott, Diss. ii. p. 344. (Haydock) ---

Chiun and Rephan are "expressive of the same" god or idol, representing the machine of the heavens. The people of Peru worshipped Choun. (Parkhurst, p. 137.) ---

Remvan may be Remmon, (4 Kings vi. 18.) or Saturn. (Grotius) ---

In a Coptic alphabet of the planets it is thus explained: (De Dieu. Collier. Dict. Sept. and Acts) "You have taken the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your Rempham, figures," &c. Protestants marginal note, "the Siccuth, your king, and Chiun, your images, the star," &c. (Haydock)

Gill: Amo 5:26

But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Mo,.... The god of the Ammonites; See Gill on Amo 1:13; and See Gill on Jer 7:31; 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;

and Chiun, your images; Mo 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 Act 7:43;

the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves; 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,

"ye have borne the tabernacle of your priests, Chiun your image, the star your God, which ye have made to yourselves.''

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; 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 Mo 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 Mo 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; and those of Diana's, Act 19:24; 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 Act 7:43; 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 Gen 14:5. 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 Gill on Amo 1:15.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Amo 5:26

¹ tn This word appears in an awkward position in the Hebrew, following “Kiyyun.” It is placed here for better sense.

² tn The Hebrew term סִכּוּת (sikkut) apparently refers to Sakkuth, a Mesopotamian star god identified with Ninurta in an Ugaritic god list. The name is vocalized in the Hebrew text after the pattern of שִׁקוּץ (shiqquts, “detestable thing”). See S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia), 195-96. Some English versions, following the LXX, translate as “tent” or “shrine” (NEB, NIV), pointing the term as סֻכַּת (sukkat; cf. 9:11).

³ tc LXX, Vulgate, and Acts 7:43 read “Moloch” (cf. KJV). The Hebrew consonants are the same for both “king” and “Moloch” (מֹלֶךְ; molekh).

⁴ tn The Hebrew term כִּיּוּן (kiyyun) apparently refers to the Mesopotamian god Kayamanu, or Saturn. The name, like “Sikkuth” in the previous line, is vocalized in the Hebrew text after the pattern of שִׁקוּץ (shiqquts, “detestable thing”). See S. M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia), 195-96. Some versions translate as “pedestal” (NEB, NIV), relating the term to the root כּוּן (kun).

Geneva Bible: Amo 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.

^{( 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.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Amo 5:1-27

1 A lamentation for Israel.

4 An exhortation to repentance.

21 God rejects their hypocritical service.

MHCC: Amo 5:18-27

Woe unto those that desire the day of the Lord's judgments, that wish for times of war and confusion; as some who long for changes, hoping to rise upon the ruins of their country! but this should be so great a desolation, that nobody could gain by it. The day of the Lord will be a dark, dismal, gloomy day to all impenitent sinners. When God makes a day dark, all the world cannot make it light. Those who are not reformed by the judgments of God, will be pursued by them; if they escape one, another stands ready to seize them. A pretence of piety is double iniquity, and so it will be found. The people of Israel copied the crimes of their forefathers. The law of worshipping the Lord our God, is, Him only we must serve. Professors thrive so little, because they have little or no communion with God in their duties. They were led captive by Satan into idolatry, therefore God caused them to go into captivity among idolaters.

Matthew Henry: Amo 5:21-27

The scope of these verses is to show how little God valued their shows of devotion, nay, how much he detested them, while they went on in their sins. Observe,

I. How unpleasing, nay, how displeasing, their hypocritical services were to God. They had their feast-days at Bethel, in imitation of those at Jerusalem, in which they pretended to rejoice before God. They had their solemn assemblies for religious worship, in which they put on the gravity of those who come before God as his people come, and sit before him as his people sit. They offered to God burnt-offerings, to the honour of God, together with the meat-offerings which by the law were to be offered with them; they offered the peace-offerings, to implore the favour of God, and they offered them of the fat beasts that they had, Amo 5:21, Amo 5:22. In imitation likewise of the temple-music, they had the noise of their songs and the melody of their viols (Amo 5:23), vocal and instrumental music, with which they praised God. With these services they hoped to make God amends for the sins they had committed, and to obtain leave to go on in sin; and therefore they were so far from being acceptable to God that they were abominable. He hated, he despised, their feast-days, not only despised them as no valuable services done to him, but hated them as an affront and provocation to him, as we hate to see men dissemble with us, pretend a respect for us when really they have none. Nothing more hateful, more despicable, than hypocrisy. He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, it shall be counted a curse, when it appears that his heart is not with him. God will not smell in their solemn assemblies, for there is nothing in them that is grateful to him, but a great deal that is offensive. Their sacrifices are not to him of a sweet smelling savour, as Noah's was, Gen 8:21. He will not accept them; he will not regard them, will not take any notice of them; he will not hear the melody of their viols; for, when sin is a jar in the harmony, it grates in his ears: " Take it away, "says God, "I cannot bear it."Now this intimates, 1. That sacrifice itself is of small account with God in comparison with moral duties; to love God and our neighbour is better than all burnt offering and sacrifice. 2. That the sacrifice of the wicked is really an abomination to him, Pro 15:8. Dissembled piety is double iniquity, and so it will be found when, if any place in hell be hotter than another, that will be the hypocrite's portion.

II. What it was that he required in order to the acceptableness of their sacrifices and without which no sacrifice would be acceptable (Amo 5:24): Let judgment run down as waters, among you, and righteousness as a mighty stream, that is 1. "Let there be a general reformation of manners among you; let religion (God's judgment ) and righteousness have their due influence upon you; let your land be watered with it, and let it bear down all the opposition of vice and profaneness; let it run wide as overflowing waters, and yet run strong as might stream."(2.) "In particular, let justice be duly administered by magistrates and rulers; let not the current of it be stopped by partiality and bribery, but let it come freely as waters do, in the natural course; let it be pure as running waters, not muddied with corruption or whatever may pervert justice; let it run like a might stream, and not suffer itself to be obstructed, or its course retarded, by the fear of man; let all have free access to it as a common stream, and have benefit by it as trees planted by the rivers of waters. "The great thing laid to Israel's charge was turning judgment into wormwood (Amo 5:7); in that matter therefore they must reform, Zec 7:9. This was what God desired more than sacrifices, Hos 6:6; 1Sa 15:22.

III. What little stress God had laid upon the law of sacrifices, though it was his own law, in comparison with the moral precepts (Amo 5:25): " Did you offer unto me sacrifices in the wilderness forty years? No, you did not."For the greatest part of that time sacrifice was very much neglected, because of the unsettledness of their state; after the second year, the passover was not kept till they came into Canaan, and other institutions were in like manner intermitted; and yet, because God will have mercy and not sacrifice, he never imputed the omission to them as their fault, but continued his care of them and kindness to them: it was not that, but their murmuring and unbelief, for which God was displeased with them. He that so owned his people, though they did not sacrifice, when in other things they kept close to him, will certainly disown them, though they do sacrifice, if in other things they depart from him. But, though ritual sacrifices may thus be dispensed with, spiritual sacrifices will not; even justice and honesty will not excuse for the want of prayer and praise, a broken heart and the love of God. Stephen quotes this passage (Act 7:42), to show the Jews that they ought not to think it strange that ceremonial law was repealed when from the beginning it was comparatively made light of. Compare Jer 7:22, Jer 7:23.

II. What little reason they had to expect that their sacrifices should be acceptable to God, when they and their fathers had been all along addicted to the worship of other gods. So some take Amo 5:25, " Did you offer to me sacrifices, that is, to me only? No, and therefore not at all to me acceptably;"for the law of worshipping the Lord our God is, Him only we must serve. " But you have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch (Amo 5:26), little shrines that you made to carry about with you, pocket-idols for your private superstition, when you durst not be seen to do it publicly. You have had the images of your Moloch - your king "(probably representing the sun, that sits king among the heavenly bodies), "and Chiun, or Remphan "(as Stephen calls it, Act 7:43, after the Septuagint), which it is supposed, represented Saturn, the highest of the seven planets. The worship of the sun, moon, and stars, was the most ancient, most general, and most plausible idolatry. They made to themselves the star of their God, some particular star which they took to be their god, or the name of which they gave to their god. This idolatry Israel was from the beginning prone to (Deu 4:19); and those that retain an affection for false gods cannot expect the favour of the true God.

V. What punishment God would inflict upon them for their persisting in idolatry (Amo 5:27): I will cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus. They were led captive by Satan into idolatry, and therefore God caused them to go into captivity among idolaters, and hurried them into a strange land, since they were so fond of strange gods. They were carried beyond Damascus. Their captivity by the Assyrians was far beyond that by the Syrians; for, if less judgments do not work that for which they were sent, God will send greater. Or the captivity of Israel under Shalmaneser was far beyond that of Damascus under Tiglath-pileser, and much more grievous and destructive, which was foretold Amo 1:5. For, as the sins of God's professing people are greater than the sins of others, so it may be expected that their punishments will be proportionable. We find the spoil of Damascus and that of Samaria carried off together by the king of Assyria, Isa 8:4. Stephen reads it, I will carry you away beyond Babylon (Act 7:43), further than Judah shall be carried, so far further as not to return. And, to make this sentence appear both the more certain and the more dreadful, he that passes it calls himself the Lord, whose name is, The God of hosts, and who is therefore able to execute the sentence, having hosts at command.

Keil-Delitzsch: Amo 5:25-27

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 bhâchı̄m (slain-offerings) and minchâh (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 הגּשׁתּם and נשׂאתם , 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 נשׂא 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 ו ( ואת ), the omission of both את and the copula ו before כּוכב indicates most obviously that כּוכב אלהיכם 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 סכּוּת מלכּכם and כּיּוּן צלמיכם do not denote two different kinds of idolatry, but simply two different forms of the very same idolatry. The two ἁπ. λεγ. sikkūth and kiyyūn are undoubtedly appellatives, notwithstanding the fact that the ancient versions have taken kiyyūn as the proper name of a deity. This is required by the parallelism of the members; for צלמיכם stands in the same relation to כיון as מלככם to סכות . The plural צלמיכם , however, cannot be in apposition to the singular כיון ( kiyyūn , your images), but must be a genitive governed by it: "the kiyyūn of your images."And in the same way מלככם is the genitive after סכות : "the sikkūth of your king." Sikkūth has been taken in an appellative sense by all the ancient translators. The lxx and Symm. render it τὴν σκηνήν ; the Peshito, Jerome, and the Ar. tentorium . The Chaldee has retained sikkūth . The rendering adopted by Aquila, συσκιασμός , is etymologically the more exact; for sikkūth , from סכך , to shade, signifies a shade or shelter, hence a covering, a booth, and is not to be explained either from sâkhath , to be silent, from which Hitzig deduces the meaning "block,"or from the Syriac and Chaldee word סכתא , a nail or stake, as Rosenmüller and Ewald suppose. כּיּוּן , from כּוּן , is related to כּן , basis (Exo 30:18), and מכונה , and signifies a pedestal or framework. The correctness of the Masoretic pointing of the word is attested by the kiyyūn of the Chaldee, and also by צלמיכם , inasmuch as the reading כּיון , which is given in the lxx and Syr., requires the singular צלמכם , which is also given in the Syriac. צלמים are images of gods, as in Num 33:52; 2Ki 11:18. The words כּוכב אל which follow are indeed also governed by נשׂאתם ; but, as the omission of ואת 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 כּוכב , "a star was your god,"although this rendering expresses the sense quite correctly. כּוכב אלהיכם 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 ואת before כּוכב . 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 ( אשׁר refers to אלהיכם , not to כּוכב ). This star-god, which they worshipped as their king, they had embodied in ts^e lâmı̄m . The booth and the stand were the things used for protecting and carrying the images of the star-god.

Sikkūth was no doubt a portable shrine, in which the image of the deity was kept. Such shrines ( ναΐ́σκοι ) 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 παστοφόριον (Drumann, p. 212); the bearers were called ἱεραφόροι or παστοφόροι (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: καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολόχ καὶ τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑμῶν Ῥαιφάν, τοὺς τύπους οὓς ἐποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς . These translators, therefore, have not only rendered מלכּכם erroneously as Μολόχ , but have arbitrarily twisted the other words of the Hebrew text. For the Hebrew reading מלככם is proved to be the original one, not only by the τοῦ βασιλέως ὑμῶν of Symm. and Theod., but also by the Μαλχόμ of Aquila and the malkūm of the Peshito; and all the other ancient translators enter a protest against the displacing of the other words. The name Ῥαιφάν ( Ῥηφαν ), or Ῥεμφάν (Act 7:43), however, owes its origin simply to the false reading of the unpointed כיון as ריפן , inasmuch as in the old Hebrew writings not only is כ similar to ר , but ו is also similar to פ ; and in 2Sa 22:12, where חשׁרת־מים is rendered σκοτός (i.e., חשׁכת ) ὑδάτων , we have an example of the interchange of כ and ר . 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 Ῥηφάν , 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 Υλια and Σελινη 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 כּיּוּן by k^e 'wām ( כּיון ), 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 כּיון . 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 כיון 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 ( Phönizier , 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 - Choniâth , Kyn - el - Adan , and others. Not even the Graeco-Syrian fathers make any reference to this interpretation. Theodoret cannot say anything more about Μολόχ καὶ Ῥεφάν , than that they were εἰδώλων ὀνόματα ; and Theod. Mops. has this observation on Ῥεμφάν : φασὶ δὲ τὸν ἑωσφόρον οὕτω κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραίων γλῶτταν . It is still very doubtful, therefore, whether the Alexandrian and Syrian translators of Amos really supposed Ῥαιφάν and כּיון 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 מלככם as Μολόχ . But we are precluded from thinking of Moloch-worship, or regarding מלככם , "your king,"as referring to Moloch, by the simple circumstance that כּוכב אלהיכם 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 Münter, 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 στρατιᾶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ .)

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 ( Ἄμων ). 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 διαφερόντως ὑπὸ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων τιμώμενον . 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 שׂעירים in Lev 17:7, since these שׂעירים , 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 ‛ı̄rı̄m , 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 higlâh evidently points back to yiggal in Amo 5:24. מהלאה ל , 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."

Constable: Amo 1:3--7:1

II. Prophetic messages that Amos delivered 1:3--6:14

The Book of Amos consists of words (oracles, 1:3-6:14) and visions (chs. 7-9), though these sections also contain short sub-sections of other types of material.

Constable: Amo 3:1--6:14

B. Messages of Judgment against Israel chs. 3-6

After announcing that God would judge Israel, Amos delivered five messages in which he explained more fully why God would judge the Northern Kingdom. Appeals for repentance and explanations of how to avoid judgment appear within these messages. The first three begin with the word, "Hear" (3:1; 4:1; 5:1; cf. Prov. 8:32), and the last two begin "Alas" (5:18) and "Woe" (6:1), both translations of the Hebrew word hoy.

Constable: Amo 5:18-27

4. The fourth message on unacceptable worship 5:18-27

This lament also has a chiastic structure. It centers on a call for individual repentance.

A A description of inevitable judgment vv. 18-20

B An accusation of religious hypocrisy vv. 21-22

C A call for individual repentance vv. 23-24

B' An accusation of religious hypocrisy vv. 25-26

A' A description of inevitable judgment v. 27

Constable: Amo 5:25-26

Another accusation of religious hypocrisy 5:25-26

5:25 The Lord now returned to explain further what He did not want (vv. 21-23). With another rhetorical question (cf. v. 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.⁵⁴ 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, Exod. 32).

5:26 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. Acts 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) in their names.⁵⁵ "The star of your gods [or god]" probably refers to the planet Saturn that represented Kiyyun.⁵⁶ They 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.⁵⁷ 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.⁵⁸

Guzik: Amo 5:1-27

Amos 5 - The Offerings God Hates

A. Seek the LORD in a time of impending judgment.

1. (1-3) Coming exile and captivity.

Hear this word which I take up against you, a lamentation, O house of Israel: the virgin of Israel has fallen; she will rise no more. She lies forsaken on her land; there is no one to raise her up. For thus says the Lord GOD: "The city that goes out by a thousand shall have a hundred left, and that which goes out by a hundred shall have ten left to the house of Israel."

a. The virgin of Israel has fallen: Amos sees Israel as a tragic young woman who is fallen and forsaken, no one coming to her aid. In rebelling against God, Israel is as helpless as a young woman among violent men.

i. Virgin "depicts the vulnerability of Israel and the special sadness that accompanies her death, as though she should have had a whole life of live and fruitfulness before her." (Hubbard)

b. The city that goes out by a thousand shall have a hundred left: Amos predicts that things will be so bad for Israel that when the enemy comes, a city that would have before sent out a thousand soldiers will now only send out a hundred. "Only a handful of ragged, war-weary men will be left of Israel's proud army." (McComiskey)

2. (4-9) An invitation to seek the LORD.

For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: "Seek Me and live; but do not seek Bethel, nor enter Gilgal, nor pass over to Beersheba; for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nothing. Seek the LORD and live, lest He break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, with no one to quench it in Bethel; you who turn justice to wormwood, and lay righteousness to rest in the earth!" He made the Pleiades and Orion; He turns the shadow of death into morning and makes the day dark as night; He calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth; the LORD is His name. He rains ruin upon the strong, so that fury comes upon the fortress.

a. Seek Me and live: When Israel was ripe for judgment, the key to survival was to simply seek the LORD. However, we can't seek the Lord unless we do not seek places of disobedience and self-will (exemplified by Bethel and Gilgal and other rival centers of worship).

i. Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba were once places associated with great privlidge and spiritual heritage. Bethel was the place where God met Jacob (Genesis 28:11-19, Genesis 35:1-7). Gilgal was the place where Israel's spiritual reproach was rolled away in the days of Joshua (Joshua 5:1-12). Beersheba was connected to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 21:22-33, 26:23-33, 46:1-5). Now these were places of vain, empty worship.

ii. There is a play on words in the phrase for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nothing. It doesn't come across in the English translation, but in Hebrew it is a clever pun.

b. You who turn justice to wormwood, and lay righteousness to rest: Amos again confronts the corrupt legal system of Israel. Justice had been thoroughly spoiled, and righteousness was as good as dead.

c. He made the Pleiades and Orion: Amos explains why God is worthy to be sought, and why He can deliver Israel from their coming doom. He can do it because He is the God mighty and wise enough to make and uphold the starry constellations in the sky, and to "manage" the creation.

i. This means that God is strong enough to save, but also plenty strong enough to bring judgment (He rains ruin upon the strong, so that fury comes upon the fortress). If the strong and the fortress can't stand before God's power, no one can.

3. (10-15) The cause, the curse, and the cure.

They hate the one who rebukes in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks uprightly. Therefore, because you tread down the poor and take grain taxes from him, though you have built houses of hewn stone, yet you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink wine from them. For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: Afflicting the just and taking bribes; diverting the poor from justice at the gate. Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time. Seek good and not evil, that you may live; so the LORD God of hosts will be with you, as you have spoken. Hate evil, love good; establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.

a. They hate the one who rebukes in the gate: Amos tells us the cause of coming judgment - the terrible way that the people of Israel treat one another, especially how the strong take advantage of the weak. The weak has no voice in the gate, is robbed by oppressive taxes. The rich take advantage with bribes and pay off the system to drive the poor from justice.

i. The gate was the law-court in ancient cities. Israel's courts were so corrupt that they silenced the poor and righteous. The effect of this culture of injustice was that the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time - godly and righteous people did not speak out either fearing retribution or knowing it would do no good.

ii. "Judicial decisions for each community were taken at the gate of the city, where the heads of families and other elders assembled to hear witnesses, arbitrate disputes, decide controversies and generally dispense justice. The space on the inner side of the gate together with rooms or alcoves in the gate area itself were used as courtrooms." (Hubbard)

b. Though you have built houses of hewn stone, yet you shall not dwell in them: Amos tells us God's curse for Israel's wickedness. Though the wicked in Israel gained fancy houses and vineyards from their oppression of the poor and railroading of justice, the gains were only temporary. God will evict them from their dishonestly gained houses and vineyards.

c. Seek good and not evil, that you may live; so the LORD God of hosts will be with you: Amos proclaims God's cure for Israel's sin. They must begin to simply seek good and not evil. They must transform their corrupt courts and establish justice in the gates.

B. Wailing and woe upon Israel.

1. (16-20) Wailing and woe in the day of the LORD.

Therefore the LORD God of hosts, the Lord, says this: "There shall be wailing in all streets, and they shall say in all the highways, 'Alas! Alas!' They shall call the farmer to mourning, and skillful lamenters to wailing. In all vineyards there shall be wailing, for I will pass through you," says the LORD. Woe to you who desire the day of the LORD! For what good is the day of the LORD to you? It will be darkness, and not light. It will be as though a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him! Or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him! Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light? Is it not very dark, with no brightness in it?

a. They shall call the farmer to mourning, and skillful lamenters to wailing: This refers to the Jewish practice of hiring professional mourners to wail at a funeral. Amos describes judgment so widespread that there was a shortage of skillful lamenters, so they had to hire the farmer to mourning.

i. Because the Prophet Amos as a farmer, he often relates the judgments of God to how they affect the farmers of Israel.

b. For what good is the day of the LORD to you? It will be darkness, and not light: In their religious ritualism, the people of Israel still claimed they longed for the day of the LORD. Amos rightly warns them that they don't know what they are asking for because the day of the LORD will bring them judgment, not mercy. They will end up worse off than before, it will be as though a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him!

i. "The illustrative parable makes it clear that darkness and light do not speak here of wickedness and righteousness but of disaster and safety." (Hubbard)

2. (21-27) Israel's religious ceremonies will not save them from the wailing and woe to come.

"I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments. But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream. Did you offer Me sacrifices and offerings In the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves. Therefore I will send you into captivity beyond Damascus," says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts.

a. I hate, I despise your feast days: This would have amazed - and offended - those in Israel who heard Amos say this. They told themselves that they were really honoring God and pleasing Him by their observance of the feasts and sacred assemblies, but God was offended by their religious ceremonialism, disconnected from the heart and justice towards one another.

i. Amos expresses the same idea Jesus did in Matthew 5:23-24: Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Israel thought their feast days, their sacred assemblies, their burnt offerings, their grain offerings, their peace offerings, and their songs were nothing as long as there was no justice or righteousness in their dealings with others.

b. Let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream: It is easy to separate our religious ceremonies from the way we treat others, and to think that God should be happy if we give Him "His due" without regard to justice and righteousness towards others. God won't have it. He says, "Keep your annoying religious ceremonies, and let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

i. "A momentary flow of justice and righteousness will not do; these virtues are to keep on in the social order like a stream that does not dry up with summer heat." (McComiskey)

c. You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves: Apparently, these were pagan deities Israel brought with them from Egypt into the Promised Land. God reminds Israel that though they sacrificed to Him in the wilderness, they also hung on to their idolatry. It didn't please Him then and it doesn't please Him now.

i. The NIV translates Sikkuth and Chiun as shrine and pedestal. It's simply a difficult passage to translate. The Septuagint has Moloch for Sikkuth and Rephan (an Egyptian deity related to the planet Saturn) for Chiun.

d. Therefore I will send you into captivity: Israel's extreme sin merited an extreme correction, nothing less than exile and captivity.

© 2001 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Amos (Book Introduction)

AMOS (meaning in Hebrew "a burden") was (Amo 1:1) a shepherd of Tekoa, a small town of Judah, six miles southeast from Beth-lehem, and twelve from Jerusalem, on the borders of the great desert (2Ch 20:20; compare 2Ch 11:6). The region being sandy was more fit for pastoral than for agricultural purposes. Amos therefore owned and tended flocks, and collected sycamore figs; not that the former was a menial office, kings themselves, as Mesha of Moab (2Ki 3:4), exercising it. Amos, however (from Amo 7:14-15), seems to have been of humble rank.

Though belonging to Judah, he was commissioned by God to exercise his prophetical function in Israel; as the latter kingdom abounded in impostors, and the prophets of God generally fled to Judah through fear of the kings of Israel, a true prophet from Judah was the more needed in it. His name is not to be confounded with that of Isaiah's father, Amoz.

The time of his prophesying was in the reigns of Uzziah king of Judea, and Jeroboam II, son of Joash, king of Israel (Amo 1:1), that is, in part of the time in which the two kings were contemporary; probably in Jeroboam's latter years, after that monarch had recovered from Syria "the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath to the sea of the plain" (2Ki 14:25-27); for Amos foretells that these same coasts, "from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of the wilderness," should be the scene of Israel's being afflicted (Amo 6:14); also his references to the state of luxurious security then existing (Amo 6:1, Amo 6:4, Amo 6:13), and to the speedy termination of it by the Assyrian foe (Amo 1:5; Amo 3:12, Amo 3:15; Amo 5:27; Amo 8:2), point to the latter part of Jeroboam's reign, which terminated in 784 B.C., the twenty-seventh year of Uzziah's reign, which continued down to 759 B.C. He was contemporary with Hosea, only that the latter continued to prophesy in reigns subsequent to Uzziah (Hos 1:1); whereas Amos ceased to prophesy in the reign of that monarch. The scene of his ministry was Beth-el, where the idol calves were set up (Amo 7:10-13). There his prophecies roused Amaziah, the idol priest, to accuse him of conspiracy and to try to drive him back to Judah.

The first six chapters are without figure; the last three symbolical, but with the explanation subjoined. He first denounces the neighboring peoples, then the Jews, then Israel (from the third chapter to the end), closing with the promise or restoration under Messiah (Amo 9:11-15). His style is thought by JEROME to betray his humble origin; but though not sublime, it is regular, perspicuous, and energetic; his images are taken from the scenes in nature with which he was familiar; his rhythms are flowing, his parallelisms exact, and his descriptions minute and graphic. Some peculiar expressions occur: "cleanness of teeth," that is, want of bread (Amo 4:6); "the excellency of Jacob" (Amo 6:8; Amo 8:7); "the high places of Isaac" (Amo 7:9); "the house of Isaac" (Amo 7:16); "he that createth the wind" (Amo 4:13).

HENGSTENBERG draws an able argument for the genuineness of the Mosaic records from the evidence in Amos, that the existing institutions in Israel as well as Judah (excepting the calves of Jeroboam), were framed according to the Pentateuch rules.

Two quotations from Amos occur in the New Testament (compare Act 7:42-43, with Amo 5:25-26; and Act 15:16-17, with Amo 9:11).

PHILO, JOSEPHUS, MELITO'S catalogue, JEROME, JUSTIN MARTYR (Dialogue with Trypho, 22, quoting the fifth and six chapters of Amos as "one of the twelve minor prophets"), and the sixtieth canon of the Laodicean council support the canonicity of the book of Amos.

JFB: Amos (Outline)

• GOD'S JUDGMENTS ON SYRIA, PHILISTIA, TYRE, EDOM, AND AMMON. (Amo 1:1-15)
• CHARGES AGAINST MOAB, JUDAH, AND LASTLY ISRAEL, THE CHIEF SUBJECT OF AMOS' PROPHECIES. (Amos 2:1-16)
• GOD'S EXTRAORDINARY LOVE, BEING REPAID BY ISRAEL WITH INGRATITUDE, OF NECESSITY CALLS FOR JUDGMENTS, WHICH THE PROPHETS ANNOUNCE, NOT AT RANDOM, BUT BY GOD'S COMMISSION, WHICH THEY CANNOT BUT FULFIL. THE OPPRESSION PREVALENT IN ISRAEL WILL BRING DOWN RUIN ON ALL SAVE A SMALL REMNANT. (Amo 3:1-15)
• DENUNCIATION OF ISRAEL'S NOBLES FOR OPPRESSION; AND OF THE WHOLE NATION FOR IDOLATRY; AND FOR THEIR BEING UNREFORMED EVEN BY GOD'S JUDGMENTS: THEREFORE THEY MUST PREPARE FOR THE LAST AND WORST JUDGMENT OF ALL. (Amo 4:1-13)
• ELEGY OVER THE PROSTRATE KINGDOM: RENEWED EXHORTATIONS TO REPENTANCE: GOD DECLARES THAT THE COMING DAY OF JUDGMENT SHALL BE TERRIBLE TO THE SCORNERS WHO DESPISE IT: CEREMONIAL SERVICES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM WHERE TRUE PIETY EXISTS NOT: ISRAEL SHALL THEREFORE BE REMOVED FAR EASTWARD. (Amos 5:1-27)
• DENUNCIATION OF BOTH THE SISTER NATIONS (ESPECIALLY THEIR NOBLES) FOR WANTON SECURITY--ZION, AS WELL AS SAMARIA: THREAT OF THE EXILE: RUIN OF THEIR PALACES AND SLAUGHTER OF THE PEOPLE: THEIR PERVERSE INJUSTICE. (Amo 6:1-14)
• AMAZIAH'S CHARGE AGAINST AMOS: HIS DOOM FORETOLD. (Amo 7:10-17)
• VISION OF A BASKET OF SUMMER FRUIT SYMBOLICAL OF ISRAEL'S END. RESUMING THE SERIES OF SYMBOLS INTERRUPTED BY AMAZIAH, AMOS ADDS A FOURTH. THE AVARICE OF THE OPPRESSORS OF THE POOR: THE OVERTHROW OF THE NATION: THE WISH FOR THE MEANS OF RELIGIOUS COUNSEL, WHEN THERE SHALL BE A FAMINE OF THE WORD. (Amo 8:1-14)
• FIFTH AND LAST VISION. (Amo 9:1-15) None can escape the coming judgment in any hiding-place: for God is omnipresent and irresistible (Amo 9:1-6). As a kingdom, Israel shall perish as if it never was in covenant with Him: but as individuals the house of Jacob shall not utterly perish, nay, not one of the least of the righteous shall fall, but only all the sinners (Amo 9:7-10). Restoration of the Jews finally to their own land after the re-establishment of the fallen tabernacle of David; consequent conversion of all the heathen (Amo 9:11-15).

TSK: Amos 5 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Amo 5:1, A lamentation for Israel; Amo 5:4, An exhortation to repentance; Amo 5:21, God rejects their hypocritical service.

Poole: Amos (Book Introduction)

THE ARGUMENT

IF we might be allowed to make a conjecture at the quality of our prophet’ s sermons by the signification of his name, we must conclude that they contain heavy tidings and grievous judgments coming upon them to whom he is sent to preach; Amos in the Hebrew coming from a word which signifies to burden, to lay a weight or load on one. But we have a surer rule to judge the contents of his prophecy by. He is by some ancient writers, erring in this point, said to be the father of Isaiah; but besides that Isaiah was contemporary with Amos, which fairly argues it unlikely that Isaiah should be Amos’ s son, Amoz the father of Isaiah is quite another name, different from Amos, both in letters wherewith each is spelt, and in signification also. And if Isaiah were of the royal line, (as some say he was,) nephew to either Amaziah or Uzziah by a brother, it cannot be conceived how Amos, a plain herdsman of Tekoa, should be his father. It is certain he was either by birth, or education, or employment, or in all these respects, of the tribe of Judah, and as certain that by an immediate call from God he was taken off the herdsman’ s work and made a prophet, Amo 7:14,15 . He did in deed, as he professed in word, come from the Lord, and in his name delivered his message to all those whom God sent him unto. And pursuant hereto he preacheth first against those nations who were borderers, and had been bitter, oppressive, and old adversaries to Israel and Judah, Amo 1:3 , to the end, and Amo 2:1-3 . By this express course, declaring future just executions upon Syria, Palestine, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab, the prophet doth much prevent the prejudices which Israel and Judah might have had against his person and doctrine. Now he may more freely and plainly reprove and threaten the sins of God’ s own people, since he hath so plainly reproved and threatened their enemies; and they who easily believed him a prophet in his predictions against foreigners, must in reason as easily believe him a prophet in his reproofs and predictions against themselves. He doth bestow the far greater part of his discourses on Israel, or the kingdom of the ten tribes, to whom he was principally sent; yet he doth prophesy against Judah also; and to both he is very sharp in his reproofs, impartial in his censures, earnest in his persuasions to repent, very full in his encouragements to this duty, and demonstratively evident in his charging sin upon them. He had Isaiah, Joel, and Hosea contemporary with him, though it appear not how long.

He is in many places sententious and concise, which makes the passages the more obscure. Though he do bring with him many things from his country employment in his reproofs, allusions, and arguments, yet fitted with admirable skill, and beautified with an unimitable eloquence, and fortified with that loftiness of style that proclaims itself to be from Him who gave man both judgment, fancy, and tongue, which is an intrinsic character of divinity in our prophet’ s writing. He was a person of most undaunted resolution, of a prudent conduct, and of spotless integrity, as appears by the contest he had with Amaziah chief of the priests of Beth-el, Amo 7:10 , &c.

He lived when Judah’ s affairs were tolerably well and prosperous, but when Israel’ s were in the highest meridian, when they thought themselves secure against all the dangers he foretold: Uzziah had pretty well recovered Judah, and settled it; Jeroboam had highly advanced Israel’ s fame, riches; and power. With their growth in these, sin grew as fast and as exorbitant, and called for judgments, which our prophet foretells very plainly in express words, Amo 7:11,17 , and in very significant hieroglyphics, Am 7 Am 8 Am 9 . He foretells the earthquake, Amo 1:1 ; an emblem of those civil dissensions which shook their foundations, and half ruined them before the Assyrian conquered and captivated them. Which miseries lasted through an interregnum of eleven years, say some; to be sure through the reign of Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hoshea, in whose time all these miseries were swallowed up in a greater, their perpetual captivity, which came upon them about fifty-four or sixty-five years after the death of Jeroboam the Second, near to whose court and within their hearing Amos preached many, perhaps most of his sermons; and therefore you may observe his reproofs, threats, and predictions seem to be calculated for that court, which was highly guilty of the sins he reproved, and were called to repent of them, which because they did not, they did deeply suffer both in the civil wars under those four usurpers and conspirators, Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea, and most deeply in the Assyrian captivity. In the annotations you will find there is some reference to those times, with somewhat more particular application of the prophetic text to the circumstances of times he aimed at, than hath been by any learned pen I have happened to peruse; and would the brevity to which these annotations are bound have borne a larger account of those times, and a fuller accommodation of them to the prophetic discourses, I do not doubt but the truth of the prophet’ s charge, reproof, threats, and predictions against Israel would appear to every reader. Lastly, our prophet, as others, closeth the sad tragedy of this fleshly, sinning Israel with promise of a spiritual state under the Messiah, full of grace and peace.

Poole: Amos 5 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 5

A lamentation for Israel, Amo 5:1-3 . An exhortation to repentance, Amo 5:4-20 . God rejecteth their hypocritical service, Amo 5:21-27 .

This preface you have in the same words Amo 3:1 , and in part also Amo 4:1 ; to which I now add, that the person here speaking may refer to the prophet and to the Lord who sent him, both speak this word.

MHCC: Amos (Book Introduction)

Amos was a herdsman, and engaged in agriculture. But the same Divine Spirit influenced Isaiah and Daniel in the court, and Amos in the sheep-folds, giving to each the powers and eloquence needful for them. He assures the twelve tribes of the destruction of the neighbouring nations; and as they at that time gave themselves up to wickedness and idolatry, he reproves the Jewish nation with severity; but describes the restoration of the church by the Messiah, extending to the latter days.

MHCC: Amos 5 (Chapter Introduction)

(Amo 5:1-6) Israel is called to seek the Lord.

(Amo 5:7-17) Earnest exhortations to repentance.

(Amo 5:18-27) Threatenings respecting idolatries.

Matthew Henry: Amos (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Prophecy of Amos

Though this prophet appeared a little before Isaiah, yet he was not, as some have mistaken, that Amos who was the father of Isaiah (Isa 1:1), for in the Hebrew their names are very different; their families too were of a different character, for Isaiah was a courtier, Amos a country-farmer. Amos signifies a burden, whence the Jews have a tradition that he was of a slow tongue and spoke with stammering lips; we may rather, in allusion to his name, say that his speech was weighty and his word the burden of the Lord. He was (as most think) of Judah, yet prophesied chiefly against Israel, and at Bethel, Amo 7:13. Some think his style savours of his extraction, and is more plain and rustic than that of some other of the prophets; I do not see it so; but it is plain that his matter agreed with that of his contemporary Hosea, that out of the mouth of these two witnesses the word might be established. It appears by his contest with Amaziah the priest of Bethel that he met with opposition in his work, but was a man of undaunted resolution in it, faithful and bold in reproving sin and denouncing the judgments of God for it, and pressing in his exhortations to repentance and reformation. He begins with threatenings against the neighbouring nations that were enemies to Israel, Amo 1:1-15 and 2. He then calls Israel to account, and judges them for their idolatry, their unworthy walking under the favours God had bestowed upon them, and their incorrigibleness under his judgments, Amo 3:1-15 and Amo 4:1-13. He calls them to repentance (ch. 5), rejecting their hypocritical sacrifices unless they did repent. He foretels the desolations that were coming upon them notwithstanding their security (Amo 6:1-14), some particular judgments (ch. 7), particularly on Amaziah; and, after other reproofs and threatenings (Amo 8:1-14 and Amo 9:1-15), concludes with a promise of the setting up of the Messiah's kingdom and the happiness of God's spiritual Israel therein, just as the prophecy of Joel concluded. These prophets, having opened the wound in their reproofs and threatenings, which show all wrong, in the promises of gospel-grace open the remedy, which alone will set all to rights.

Matthew Henry: Amos 5 (Chapter Introduction)

The scope of this chapter is to prosecute the exhortation given to Israel in the close of the foregoing chapter to prepare to meet their God; the prophet here tells them, I. What preparation they must make; they must " seek the Lord," and not seek any more to idols (Amo 5:4-8); they must seek good, and love it (Amo 5:14, Amo 5:15). II. Why they must make this preparation to meet their God, 1. Because of the present deplorable condition they were in (Amo 5:1-3). 2. Because it was by sin that they were brought into such a condition (Amo 5:7, Amo 5:10-12). 3. Because it would be their happiness to seek God, and he was ready to be found of them (Amo 5:8, Amo 5:9, Amo 5:14). 4. Because he would proceed, in his wrath, to their utter ruin, if they did not seek him (Amo 5:5, Amo 5:6, Amo 5:13, Amo 5:16, Amo 5:17). 5. Because all their confidences would fail them if they did not seek unto God, and make him their friend. (1.) Their profane contempt of God's judgments, and setting them at defiance, would not secure them (Amo 5:18-20). (2.) Their external services in religion, and the shows of devotion, would not avail to turn away the wrath of God (Amo 5:21-24). (3.) Their having been long in possession of church-privileges, and in a course of holy duties, would not be their protection, while all along they had kept up their idolatrous customs (Amo 5:25-27). They have therefore no way left them to save themselves, but by repentance and reformation.

Constable: Amos (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title and Writer

The title of the book comes from its writer. The prophet's name means "burden-bearer" or "load-carrier."

Amos was a sheepherder (Heb. noqed; cf. 2 Kings 3:4) or sheep breeder, and he described himself as a herdsman (Heb. boqer; 7:14). He was more than a shepherd (Heb. ro'ah). He evidently owned or managed large herds of sheep and or goats and was probably in charge of shepherds. Amos also described himself as a grower of sycamore figs (7:14). Sycamore fig trees are not true fig trees but are a variety of the mulberry family, which produces fig-like fruit. Each fruit had to be scratched or pierced to let the juice flow out so the "fig" could ripen. These trees grew in the tropical Jordan Valley and around the Dead Sea to a height of 25 to 50 feet and bore fruit three or four times a year. They did not grow as well in the higher elevations such as Tekoa, Amos' hometown, so the prophet appears to have farmed at a distance from his home as well as ranching. Tekoa stood 10 miles south of Jerusalem in Judah. Thus Amos seems to have been a prosperous and influential Judahite, but there is no indication that he was a priest or had any connection with the royal family or the ruling classes in his land. Amos' natural surroundings had a profound effect on him and his writing (cf. 1:2; 2:9; 3:4-5; 5:19-20, 24; 6:12; 7:1-6; 8:1; 9:3-15).

Date

Amos ministered during the reigns of King Jeroboam II of Israel (793-753 B.C.) and King Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah (792-740 B.C.), specifically two years before "the earthquake" (1:1). Zechariah also referred to a notable earthquake during the reign of Uzziah (Zech. 14:5). Josephus wrote that an earthquake occurred when Uzziah entered the temple and was struck with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:16-20).¹ Archaeological excavations at Hazor and Samaria point to evidence of a violent earthquake in Israel about 760 B.C.² So perhaps Amos ministered about 760 B.C. This date may account for the omission of the name of King Jotham who ruled as coregent with Uzziah from 750-740 B.C. Thus Amos was a contemporary of the other eighth-century prophets: Hosea, Jonah, Micah, and Isaiah.

Place of Composition

Since Amos lived in the Judean town of Tekoa, he was a prophet from the Southern Kingdom.

Audience and Purpose

Amos prophesied against the Northern Kingdom of Israel (1:1). Yahweh raised him up to announce judgment on Israel because of her covenant unfaithfulness and rebellion against His authority. Amos announced the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, but he also predicted that the Lord would preserve a remnant that was repentant. He would restore this remnant to political prominence and covenant blessing and, through them, draw all nations to Himself. Amos announced a warning to the residents of the Northern Kingdom, but he also held out hope.

Historical Background

These were times of political stability, material prosperity, and geographical expansion for both the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms (cf. 1:6; 6:2, 13; 2 Kings 14:23-29; 2 Chron. 26:1-15). Jeroboam II and Uzziah were two of the most competent and effective kings that their respective kingdoms enjoyed. They brought their nations to heights of success second only to those in Solomon's golden age.³ The Northern Kingdom was at the height of its power during Jeroboam II's reign. Aramea had not recovered from its defeat by Adad-Nirari III of Assyria in 802 B.C., and Assyria had not yet developed into the superpower that it became under Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B.C.).

"Commerce thrived (8:5), an upper class emerged (4:1-3), and expensive homes were built (3:15; 5:11; 6:4, 11). The rich enjoyed an indolent, indulgent lifestyle (6:1-6), while the poor became targets for legal and economic exploitation (2:6-7; 5:7, 10-13; 6:12; 8:4-6). Slavery for debt was easily accepted (2:6; 8:6). Standards of morality had sunk to a low ebb (2:7)."⁴

Religion flourished too. The Hebrews participated in the yearly festivals (4:4; 5:5; 8:3, 10) and offered their sacrifices enthusiastically (4:5; 5:21-23). They believed God was with them and considered themselves immune to disaster (5:14, 18-20; 6:1-3; 9:10). Yet they worshipped the native Canaanite deities along with Yahweh.

Unity

Almost all scholars agree that the Book of Amos was originally a single book that the prophet Amos wrote. Comparison with the writings of the other eighth-century prophets and the consistently vivid and forthright style of Amos make this conclusion virtually inescapable.⁵

Theology

Amos stressed the sovereignty of Yahweh over history. He controls the movements of peoples (9:7) and the order of nature (4:13; 5:8). The prophet also affirmed the ability of people to submit to or reject the Lord's authority. He reminded his hearers of Yahweh's election of Israel (3:2) but repudiated the popular idea of his day that God would not punish His people.

"Amos, more than any other prophet, urged the responsibility of elective privilege."⁶

Like many of the other prophets, Amos spoke of the day of the Lord. He saw it as a time when God would judge sin, even in His own people (5:18-20). Another day would come, however, when David's kingdom would be restored and would include both Jews and Gentiles (9:13-15).⁷

Message⁸

The Book of Amos is distinctive from the other prophetic books of the Old Testament in two respects.

First, the prophet Amos was not a prophet in the same sense that the other prophets were prophets. He was not recognized as a prophet among his contemporaries. He had not been to one of the schools of the prophets. He had not been discipled by another recognized prophet. He was what we would call today a "layman" and an untrained layman at that.

Second, the prophecy of Amos is not a prophecy in the same sense that the other prophetic books were prophecies. Amos' perspective was wider than most of the other prophets. One evidence of this is that he did not refer to God as the God of Israel, as the other prophets did. Instead he thought of Him and referred to Him as the God of the whole earth. Moreover, Amos grouped Judah and Israel with Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab. He saw Yahweh as sovereign over all these city-states and nations, not just over Judah and Israel primarily. Whereas Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel all recorded messages of judgment against foreign nations, they focused on Judah and Israel particularly in their books. Amos viewed Judah and Israel as two among many nations that God would judge for the same sins.

In Amos we see God as detached from the prophetic order and from every nation yet directing through a man uniquely chosen as His prophet and directing over the affairs of all nations.

There are at least three permanent values of the Book of Amos. It reveals the philosophy, the practice, and the promise of divine government.

Amos gives us the philosophy of the divine government in the comprehensiveness of its outlook. The prophet did not argue for God's universal sovereignty nor did he even affirm it. He assumed it and applied it. In particular, he explained the standard by which God exercises His universal sovereignty, the principle by which He rules, and the patience that marks His governing.

The standard by which God measures nations is their treatment of other nations. God would judge the Arameans because they were cruel to their neighbors. He would judge the Philistines because they bought and sold other human beings. The Phoenicians traded in human lives in spite of a covenant in which they pledged to do otherwise. The Edomites were unforgiving and took revenge. The Ammonites were cruel. The Moabites were violent and vindictive. The Judahites had despised the Lord's word regarding what their treatment of others should be. And the Israelites had oppressed the poor and needy even within their own borders. These are all expressions of violations of human rights.

The principle that lies behind this standard is that privilege brings responsibility. God's harshest judgment fell on His own people who had the most light. The pagan nations were guilty of violating human rights too, but their punishment would be less because they did not have the privilege of having God's revealed will as the Israelites did. We see the same principle in operation in Romans 1-3. All people are under divine wrath because everyone has failed to respond positively to the light we have. But those who have more light fall under severer judgment because they sin with a greater knowledge of God's will. Similarly, national privilege determines national responsibility.

The patience that marks God's sovereign governing of the world comes out clearly in Amos too. The phrase "for three transgressions, yes, for four" reminds us that God does not judge nations for only one transgression. Every transgression will receive punishment from God, but judgment does not fall immediately. God could have judged these nations much sooner than He did, but He was patient and waited until they had sinned repeatedly. In Genesis we read that "the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete" (Gen. 15:16). God waited to judge all these nations until they had amassed so much sin that He could wait no longer to judge them. Fortunately, God deals with us the same way, or we all would have died long ago.

If cruelty to other nations makes God angry, it is because His heart is set upon kindness. If oppression stirs up His wrath, it is because He desires people to live in peace. If violations of human rights call down His judgment, it is because He longs that people experience happiness and well-being. His sovereign government always moves toward the best conditions for humanity. He resists what mars those conditions. Amos closes with a picture of the world order that God desires and will bring to pass eventually.

The second permanent value of this book is its presentation of Israel as a case study of Yahweh's government. No nation had so much light as Israel or a closer relationship to God than Israel did (3:1-2, 7). But in Israel privilege had borne the fruit of sin and would end with judgment.

When God wanted to convict His people of their sins, he described the luxury and wantonness of Israel's women (4:1). John Ruskin, the English poet, claimed that war would cease when enough pure women demanded it. Amos pictured the depravity of the Israelites by describing the evil women of the nation promoting it. He also described it this way: 4:4. The Israelites were going to places of worship to engage in sinful rituals, not to worship. A modern equivalent would be, "Let's go to church to meet someone of the opposite sex that we can sin with."

Israel had sinned in failing to yield to Yahweh's chastisement (4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11). None of God's judgments on His people had moved them to repent. The Israelites who longed to see "the day of the Lord" failed to realize that it would be a day of judgment for them (5:18-20). Those of them who never gave "the day of the Lord" a thought and were at ease in Zion needed to realize that this day was coming.

The terrible descriptions of Israel's sins in this book appear all the worse because of Israel's privileged position. These were His chosen people. He did nothing without revealing it to them through His servants the prophets. Yet the Israelites were guilty of the sins of wanton womanhood, of refusal to submit to discipline, of professing a desire for God to act, and of indifference to the fact that He would act in judgment.

In five visions Amos pronounced judgment that would fall on the Israelites. These were the visions of the locusts, the fire, the plumb line, the basket of summer fruit, and the coming of Yahweh by way of the altar of judgment. In all of them Amos pictured divine judgment determined, temporarily restrained, and finally executed. These prophecies of coming judgment must have sounded strange to the Israelites who were then living lives of ease and material prosperity. After all, had not God said He would bless the godly with prosperity? How could Amos then say that the Israelites were such great sinners? Furthermore, Amos was a nobody in society, a despised shepherd, a rural dolt.

Because Israel's light had been clear, her judgment would be pervasive. She had failed to take advantage of her privileges and had lived selfishly. Consequently her ruin would be complete.

The third permanent value of this book is the promise of ultimate restoration that it contains at the very end. This restoration would come in three stages. First, there would be preliminary restoration. God would restore the Davidic dynasty to power (9:11). Then progressive restoration of the nation would follow (9:12-14). Finally, there would be permanent restoration (9:15).

Amos, then, reveals the sovereign government of the God of all the earth. We discover His philosophy of government, we see a case study of His government, and we learn of the outcome of His government in this book.

The message of Amos is that God blesses people so they can be channels of blessing to others, not so they may simply squander His blessings selfishly.

This message is applicable mainly to national life because national life is the primary focus of the revelation in Amos.

God still rules over all nations, not just His chosen people. He still opposes nations that violate human rights, and He will judge them. The old order may pass away with the turning of the pages of the calendar, but the divine order does not change. God remains the same. God's methods change, His requirements for His people change, His dispensations (household rules) change, but His underlying attitudes toward people do not change. Cruelty is as hateful to God today as it ever has been.

Another major lesson of Amos is that people who have the light of God's truth live with greater responsibility than those who live in darkness. The light exposes our sins, and when we see our sins we must humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God or we will experience His judgment. Christians have a greater responsibility to judge themselves that we be not judged than the unsaved. And we will be judged, not with separation from God eternally but with separation from much future blessing.

Amos charged Israel with injustice, avarice, oppression, immorality, profanity, blasphemy, and sacrilege: seven deadly sins. These same sins mark believers today. We are in danger of doing what the Israelites in Amos' day of material prosperity did. We can conclude that our prosperity is a reward from God, that He is blessing us for our goodness. All the while we are preparing ourselves for judgment. It is only as we turn from our sins in profound repentance that we can live. Yet if judgment comes, its purpose is not to destroy us but to restore us to Himself.

We must distinguish between secular nations and the church of Jesus Christ. The principles that Amos reveals are applicable to both groups. The nations with greater light have greater responsibility. The church has greater light and has greater responsibility. When nations fail to take advantage of their light they become degraded. When the church fails to take advantage of its light it becomes degraded.

These principles are also applicable to individuals, as I'm sure you have seen by now. God's people are greatly blessed people. Unfortunately many Christians conclude that because there is therefore now no condemnation in Christ Jesus there is also no accountability to Christ Jesus. We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to receive payment for what we have done with the light that God has given us. This is an awesome thought that should sober and humble us every day we live. We need to prepare for our "day of the Lord," when we will see our Savior, stand before Him, and give an account of our stewardship to Him. Amos spoke to the Israelites as the people of God. We are the people of God in our day and need to heed his strong words of warning as well.

Constable: Amos (Outline)

Outline

I. Prologue 1:1-2

A. Introduction 1:1

B. Theme 1:2

II. Prophetic messages that Amos delivered 1:3-6:14

A. Oracles against nations 1:3-2:5

1. An oracle against Aram 1:3-5

2. An oracle against Philistia 1:6-8

3. An oracle against Phoenicia 1:9-10

4. An oracle against Edom 1:11-12

5. An oracle against Ammon 1:13-15

6. An oracle against Moab 2:1-3

7. An oracle against Judah 2:4-5

8. An oracle against Israel 2:6-16

B. Messages of judgment against Israel chs. 3-6

1. The first message on sins against God and man ch. 3

2. The second message on women, worship, and stubbornness ch. 4

3. The third message on injustice 5:1-17

4. The fourth message on unacceptable worship 5:18-27

5. The fifth message on complacency and pride ch. 6

III. Visions that Amos saw chs. 7-9

A. Three short visions of impending judgment 7:1-9

1. The swarming locusts 7:1-3

2. The devouring fire 7:4-6

3. The plumb line 7:7-9

B. An intervening incident 7:10-17

1. The challenge 7:10-13

2. The response 7:14-17

C. Two more visions of impending judgment chs. 8-9

1. The basket of summer fruit ch. 8

2. The Lord standing by the altar ch. 9

Constable: Amos

Amos

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic, 1985.

Andersen, F. I., and D. N. Freedman. Amos. Anchor Bible series. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Does God Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99.

_____. "A Theology of the Minor Prophets." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 397-433. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H. Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Michael Avi-Yonah and E. Stern. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1990.

Hammershaimb, E. The Book of Amos: A Commentary. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970.

Hayes, J. H. Amos. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988.

Hoffmon, Herbert B. "The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada'." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 181 (February 1966):31-37.

Hubbard, David A. Joel and Amos. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kassis, H. "Gath and the Structure of Philistine' Society." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):259-71.

Limburg, J. "Sevenfold Structures in the Book of Amos." Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987):217-22.

Mays, J. Amos: A Commentary. Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

McComiskey, Thomas Edward. "Amos." In Daniel-Minor Prophets. Vol. 7 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

Motyer, J. A. The Day of the Lion: The Message of Amos. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1974.

Munro, John "Prayer to a Sovereign God." Interest 56:2 (February 1990):20-21.

Niehaus, Jeff. "Amos." In The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. 3 vols. Edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Paul, S. Amos. Hermeneia series. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Smith, Billy K., and Frank S. Page. Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. The New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Smith, G. Amos: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989.

Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Sunukjian, Donald R. "Amos." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 1425-52. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Thomas, D. W., ed. Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

Weiss, Meir. "The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1-2, A Re-examination." Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967):416-23.

Wolff, H. W. Joel and Amos. Hermeneia series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Yadin, Y., et al. Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p30amo-1@

Haydock: Amos (Book Introduction)

THE PROPHECY OF AMOS.

INTRODUCTION.

Amos prophesied in Israel about the same time as Osee, and was called from following the cattle to denounce God's judgments to the people of Israel and the neighbouring nations, for their repeated crimes, in which they continued with repentance. (Challoner) --- The kingdom was then almost free from idolatry, except that of the calves, yet dissolute and flourishing under Jeroboam II. The prophet spoke at Bethel, (chap. vii.) till the idolatrous priest, Amasias, forced him to flee to Thecua, four leagues south of Jerusalem, where he continued to prophesy against the various nations of Damascus, Juda, &c., but particularly against Israel, chap. i., &c. How long he continued is uncertain. St. Jerome and others account his style rustic; but St. Augustine (Doct. iv. 7.) as good a judge, pronounces that it was eloquent, and like that of the other inspired writers, suited to the speakers. (Calmet) --- Amos means "one carrying," or "a people torn away." (St. Jerome in Joel.) (Haydock) --- He deals in metaphors agreeably to his pastoral education, but is profound in sense. (St. Jerome, ep. ad Paulin.) --- After denouncing judgments on different nations, he foretells the coming of Christ and abundance of grace. (Worthington)

Gill: Amos (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO AMOS

This book in the Hebrew Bibles is called "Sepher Amos", the Book of Amos; and, in the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, the Prophecy of Amos. This is not the same person with the father of Isaiah, as some have ignorantly confounded them; for their names are wrote with different letters; besides, the father of Isaiah is thought to have been of the royal family, and a courtier; whereas this man was a country farmer and herdsman. His name signifies "burdened": the Jews ^a say he was so called, because burdened in his tongue, or had an impediment in his speech, and stammered; but rather because his prophecies were burdens to the people, such as they could not bear, being full of reproofs and threatenings; however, his prophecy in this respect agrees with his name. What time he lived may be learned from Amo 1:1; by which it appears that he was, contemporary with Isaiah and Hosea; but whether he lived and prophesied so long as they did is not certain. The author of Seder Olam Zuta ^b makes him to prophesy in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. R. Abraham Zacut ^c, and R. David Ganz ^d, place him later than Hosea, and prior to Isaiah; they say that Amos received the law from Hosea, and Isaiah from Amos. Mr. Whiston ^e makes him to begin to prophesy in the year of the world 3231 A.M. or 773 B.C.; and Mr. Bedford ^f earlier, in 802 B.C.; and, from some passages in his prophecy, he appears to be of the land of Judah; see Amo 1:1; though he prophesied in the land of Israel, and against the ten tribes chiefly; the occasion of which was, Jeroboam had been very successful and victorious, and the people under him enjoyed great plenty and prosperity, and upon this grew wanton, luxurious, and very sinful; wherefore this prophet was sent to reprove them for their sins, to exhort them to repentance, and threaten them with captivity, in case of impenitence; and to comfort the truly godly with promises of the Messiah's coming and kingdom. The authenticity of this book is not to be questioned, since many passages out of it were taken by following prophets, as the words in Amo 1:2, by Joel, Joe 3:16, and by Jeremiah, Jer 25:30; Amo 4:9, by Haggai, Hag 2:17; Amo 9:13, by Joel, Joe 3:18; and others are quoted by the writers of the New Testament as divinely inspired, as Amo 5:25, in Act 7:42; nor is there any room to doubt of his being the writer of this book, as is manifest of his speaking of himself as the first person in it; though Hobbes ^g says it does not appear. Some have thought that his language is rustic, suitable to his former character and employment; but certain it is there are masterly strokes and great beauties of eloquence in it; and which shows that it is more than human. According to some writers, he was often beat and buffeted by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel; and at last the son of the priest drove a nail into his temples, upon which he was carried alive into his own country, and there died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his ancestors at Tekoa ^h.

Gill: Amos 5 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO AMOS 5

In this chapter the prophet exhorts Israel to hear his lamentation over them for their impending ruin, Amo 5:1; nevertheless to seek the Lord, and all that is good; to forsake their idols, and repent of their sins, in hopes of finding mercy, and living comfortably; or otherwise they must expect the wrath of God for their iniquities, especially their oppression of the poor, Amo 5:4; otherwise it would be a time of weeping and wailing, of darkness and distress, however they might harden or flatter themselves, or make a jest of it, Amo 5:16; for all their sacrifices and ceremonial worship would signify nothing, so long as they continued their idolatry with them Amo 5:21; and therefore should surely go into captivity, Amo 5:27.