Amos 5:25-27, King James Version
Italic words were supplied in the English translation for clarity.
Amos 5:25-27
Wilderness Worship Questioned and Exile Announced
The wilderness question and disputed astral-cult terms expose divided allegiance, and the oracle ends by sending Israel into exile beyond Damascus under the authority of the LORD God of hosts.
Why this sits here
The unit moves from rejected present worship to a deeper history of allegiance and the concrete consequence of exile.
How the passage moves
A question asks whether Israel brought sacrifices during forty wilderness years.
The hearers bear disputed cult objects or deity symbols.
These are described as self-made images and a star.
What the author is communicating
A needed correction
Reading Amos 5:25-27 inside Amos's complete judgment-restoration movement rules out these uses:
Moloch, Chiun, Sikkuth, Kiyyun, Remphan, or the star do not identify a modern logo, ethnicity, technology, conspiracy, or political movement.
The exile sentence does not authorize forced migration, ethnic cleansing, or celebration of refugees' suffering.
Acts 7 does not authorize Christian contempt for Jews or replacement theology.
What remains true
Worship cannot be used to domesticate God while loyalty is given to systems that contradict justice.
How this should shape us
How should this shape us today?
Name competing institutional loyalties with evidence and humility, avoiding conspiratorial symbol-matching or coercion.
Teach it back
Explain Amos 5:25-27 in your own words. Include its place in Amos's judgment-restoration movement, one material uncertainty, and one use the context rules out.
Your explanation stays in this browser. It is not sent or saved.
Go deeper
The explanation above is meant to stand on its own. Open these notes only if you want language, history, disagreements, or source locations.
Read it sentence by sentenceEach line inside the larger movement
Movement 1
A question asks whether Israel brought sacrifices during forty wilderness years.
Movement 2
The hearers bear disputed cult objects or deity symbols.
Movement 3
These are described as self-made images and a star.
Movement 4
Captivity beyond Damascus is announced by the LORD God of hosts.
What the first readers would have understoodRelevant history and culture
Israel, Judah, empire, land, and the limits of reconstruction
Astral worship was known in the ancient Near East, and Assyrian exile beyond Damascus is plausible. The text does not identify a modern religion, symbol, or nation.
How certain? probableWhy translations sometimes differMaterial translation choices
KJV wording and material alternatives
Verses 26-27 contain difficult names and vowels. KJV 'Moloch' and 'Chiun' reflect an older interpretive tradition; many modern translations read Sikkuth and Kiyyun or related titles, and Acts 7 follows Greek forms. 'Beyond Damascus' is nonspecific here.
How certain? probableEarlier Scripture and inherited backgroundSupported quotations, allusions, and inherited ideas
Amos among Israel's Scriptures
Pentateuchal texts do narrate wilderness sacrifices, so the question may contrast them with present practice, emphasize deficient worship, or participate in a disputed tradition.
How certain? strongHow this connects with the rest of ScriptureThe passage's own meaning remains primary
Responsible canonical connections
Acts 7:42-43 cites the Greek form in Stephen's Israel-history argument; the citation is not a warrant for antisemitism or rejection of Jews.
How certain? probableTextual variantsManuscript differences only when they affect meaning
Textual, grammatical, and compositional care
The deity names, grammatical relation to the wilderness question, and the Greek form cited in Acts 7 are material textual and reception uncertainties; no modern cult identification should be built on them.
How certain? probableWhere careful interpreters disagreeThe strongest options and their difficulties
Where do careful interpreters disagree?
Best judgment: The wilderness question, divine names, syntax, ancient versions, historical cult, and relation to Acts 7 are heavily disputed; divided worship and exile form the present unit's clear movement.
How certain? probableTheology that emerges from this passageConclusions drawn after reading the complete section
Theological contribution
The LORD God of hosts cannot be carried as one religious object among rival allegiances.
How certain? strongTheological contribution
This unit contributes to Amos's movement from judgment through contested hope to covenant mercy: The wilderness question and disputed astral-cult terms expose divided allegiance, and the oracle ends by sending Israel into exile beyond Damascus under the authority of the LORD God of hosts.
How certain? strongCommon ways this passage gets misusedFair explanation, context check, and stronger reading
Moloch, Chiun, Sikkuth, Kiyyun, Remphan, or the star do not identify a modern logo, ethnicity, technology, conspiracy, or political movement.
A vivid line can feel easier to reuse than the whole oracle's historical target and literary movement.
Religious performance cannot conceal divided allegiance, and persistent rebellion leads to displacement beyond familiar security.
Worship cannot be used to domesticate God while loyalty is given to systems that contradict justice.
Moloch, Chiun, Sikkuth, Kiyyun, Remphan, or the star do not identify a modern logo, ethnicity, technology, conspiracy, or political movement.
The exile sentence does not authorize forced migration, ethnic cleansing, or celebration of refugees' suffering.
A strong prophetic claim can be detached from the LORD's role and the text's protection of harmed people.
Religious performance cannot conceal divided allegiance, and persistent rebellion leads to displacement beyond familiar security.
Worship cannot be used to domesticate God while loyalty is given to systems that contradict justice.
The exile sentence does not authorize forced migration, ethnic cleansing, or celebration of refugees' suffering.
Acts 7 does not authorize Christian contempt for Jews or replacement theology.
Readers may prefer a modern slogan where the passage preserves textual, historical, or ethical limits.
Religious performance cannot conceal divided allegiance, and persistent rebellion leads to displacement beyond familiar security.
Worship cannot be used to domesticate God while loyalty is given to systems that contradict justice.
Acts 7 does not authorize Christian contempt for Jews or replacement theology.
Research trail and exact locationsThe source record behind this section
Supports: Exact reader-facing Scripture wording, paragraph markers, supplied-word markup, and complete verse coverage.
Amos 5:25-27, pinned eng-kjv2006 USFM corpus
Supports: Masoretic Hebrew wording, morphology, clause relationships, wordplays, names, and the base text behind translation discussion.
Open Scriptures MorphHB v.2.2, commit 6a5db284c715c18b239422e57bb89684e6a19f00, wlc/Amos.xml, 5:25-27
Supports: Verse-level translation, syntax, textual, literary, historical, and uncertainty notes.
NET Bible Amos PDF, printed pp. 1713-1716, translation and notes on 5:25-27
Supports: Whole-book movement, eighth-century horizon, literary boundaries, composition, and verse-level alternatives.
Dines, 'Amos,' Oxford Bible Commentary, printed pp. 585-587, discussion of 5:25-27
Sources for This Section
These records identify the source, the claim it supports, and the exact location used. A source remains evidence to evaluate; it does not replace the biblical text.
Biblical text
King James (Authorized) Version — eng-kjv2006
eBible.org and CrossWire Bible Society
USFM archive eng-kjv2006_usfm.zip; source files dated 2026-08-19; downloaded 2026-08-24; archive SHA-256 aec1b3b26c622fd3d963d2bbac963016b9513246ffbfa20da00bb100372ea007; normalized corpus SHA-256 09aef51d90488aa7b9722b3fd9a93f4b25f6bf2064c5fd798fb39673c300ddf2.
Supports: Exact reader-facing Scripture wording, paragraph markers, supplied-word markup, and complete verse coverage.
Exact location: Amos 5:25-27, pinned eng-kjv2006 USFM corpus
Open source ↗hebrew text and morphology
Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible: Amos
Open Scriptures
Open Scriptures, release 2.2
Supports: Masoretic Hebrew wording, morphology, clause relationships, wordplays, names, and the base text behind translation discussion.
Exact location: Open Scriptures MorphHB v.2.2, commit 6a5db284c715c18b239422e57bb89684e6a19f00, wlc/Amos.xml, 5:25-27
Open source ↗translation and translator notes
NET Bible: Amos with translators' notes
Biblical Studies Press
Biblical Studies Press, 2006
Supports: Verse-level translation, syntax, textual, literary, historical, and uncertainty notes.
Exact location: NET Bible Amos PDF, printed pp. 1713-1716, translation and notes on 5:25-27
Open source ↗modern critical commentary
Amos
Jennifer M. Dines
Oxford University Press, in The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001
Supports: Whole-book movement, eighth-century horizon, literary boundaries, composition, and verse-level alternatives.
Exact location: Dines, 'Amos,' Oxford Bible Commentary, printed pp. 585-587, discussion of 5:25-27
Open source ↗