Acts 7:43

Acts 7:43. Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch. This Tabernacle was a small portable tent which sheltered the image of the idol; this they carried about with them from one place of encampment to another in solemn procession, in imitation of the Tabernacle constructed by Moses after the pattern received by him in the mount. Moloch was most probably identical with the Tyrian Baal (Baal-Shemesh), the sun-god. In the rabbinical tradition respecting the worship paid to this deity, a fire was kindled beneath the idol, which was a hollow figure with the head of an ox with outstretched arms: a child was placed in the arms of the figure, and thus was burned to death, while the priests beat their drums so as to stifle the child's cries. The image received the name Tophet from Tophim drums. See 1 Kings 11:7, where we read of King Solomon erecting a high place to Moloch, the abomination of the children of Ammon; see also Jeremiah 32:35, and Leviticus 18:21.

And the star of your god Remphan. Remphan or Rephan is the Coptic name for Saturn. This deity (the planet Saturn) was worshipped by the Arabians, the Phoenicians, and Egyptians. The description in Diodorus Siculus of the horrid child-sacrifices offered at Carthage to Saturn resembles the rabbinical account of the worship of Moloch. Stephen here quotes verbatim from the LXX., which differs in some respect from the Hebrew of Amos 5:26, which runs thus: ‘Ye have borne the Tabernacle of Moloch [so the Authorised Version, which here must have followed the LXX.; for the Hebrew has, instead of “Moloch” your king, םַלְ בּ ְבֶם malk'kem] and Chiun.' Rephan, a Coptic word, is supposed generally to be the equivalent for Chiun, an Arabic name for Saturn.

Beyond Babylon. The passage in Amos concludes with the words ‘beyond Damascus;' but the fulfilment of the prophecy, in the well-known captivity of Babylon, made it natural to substitute for ‘Damascus' the name which had become inseparably connected with the great captivity of the people. Such a quotation with the denunciation of the original prophecy intensified, when subsequent history demanded it, was a rabbinical custom (see Meyer here). This change of ‘Damascus' into Babylon, therefore, cannot be termed an error of Stephen. The original prediction, besides, did not turn upon the name of the place of the future banishment, but on the fact that one day as a punishment they would be driven beyond the boundaries of their own land.