Someone emailed and asked:
Is abortion ‘the sacrificing to Molech’?
No. People make such illogical, invalid comments, often because they heard someone else say it and thought it was clever or profound, when it just is not true. If they persist in their believing such, after they have had the facts explained to them, then they show that they are not merely illogical, but anti-intellectual and devoid of the discernment of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. Many “preachers” who “put on a good show” are often like a Rush Limbaugh who spew hot air and sayings that titillate the unrefined mental palates of his run-of-the-mill followers (often with little beyond a public high school education) and such people, like pigs at a trough, lap the clever sayings up without scrutinizing them. Truly it is the blind leading the blind (and that is very gratuitous, in not pointing out that some wicked shepherds are merely fleecing the flock, not truly nourishing them). Many a “good sounding” statement only “sounds good” if you don’t actually think about it. Such is the anti-intellectual emotionalism of many preachers, on either side of any issue (conservative or liberal, patriotic or traitors).
Unless the mother-to-be, the father-to-be, and the doctor and other “priests or priestesses” (doctor’s assistants, nurses) present have a brass idol of a hideous god with the face of an ox, whose outstretched arms form a bowl, and they build a fire under the bowl of the arms to the point that it is glowing red hot and then throw the living, natural born infant alive into the arms of the idol for it to scream and writhe in pain until it dies (loud music, especially drums and cymbals help block out the sounds of the screams, in which Molech delights, but which would cause all but the most dead-hearted parents to give bad testimony concerning their “wonderful religious experience” that might diminish the barbaric practice and “cut into the cash flow” of the “Holy” Pagan Temple)...
—then no, abortion is not sacrificing to Molech.
Scripture does not merely refer to it as “sacrificing” to Molech. People would be less confused if they actually read and understood and properly quoted Scripture (and not merely one verse, but looking at all of the Scriptures that deal with the topic) before they made such inept claims (and there are only 10 passages, so there is no excuse for such persons to have not made an exhaustive inquiry and engaged in valid thought before spouting nonsense).
- 2 passages, one in the Old Testament, one in the New mention Moloch (a spelling variant), but only in regard to the “tabernacle” or “tent” used for his worship.
- 8 other passages refer to Molech, and the most-specific form of the command is expressed in 3 passages:
“...thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech.” (Leviticus 18:21)
The translation of the word as “let” can give the wrong connotation to those who look for loopholes. “Let” is passive, and thus a loopholer (“gnat-straining camel-swallowing) Pharisee could claim that “let” does not apply to doing it yourself (a weak argument, agreed, but that’s what false doctrines are based upon). The translation as “cause” would be just the opposite: leaving a loophole for passively looking the other way while someone else (a priest) does it. Thus “allow” seems to be the best translation in the spirit and the letter.
Molech was a deity worshipped by the Canaanites, Phoenicians, and the Ammonites. The name Molech (of which Moloch is a variation) is a corruption of the Hebrew meh-lek meaning, “king, ruler”, from maw-lahk “to rule”.
[—which became Chemosh to the Moabites. Chemosh means “to subdue”, but I suggest (possibly) that it also may be a play on words, in a possible inversion and corruption of the two syllables in Mol-ech — and remember Phoenician was written left to right, while Hebrew, Canaanite, and Moabite (which was a Canaanite* dialect) were right to left. The “ech” is not pronounced like the ch in church, but as in the Scottish Loch or German Milch. Thus, due to changes in language, speech peculiarities, etc., there may be a possible link via corruption between the word Mol-ech and Che-mosh; and Chemosh may have been an irony in choosing an antagonistic word that also bears some of the same alphabetic qualities corrupted: one who “subdues” clearly is antagonistic to a “king”. It may be a mild bit of mockery, such as the sing-songy using of words in English such as “piddle paddle”, “chit chat”, etc., which often reduces that being spoken of as something insignificant. The other generic word for false gods (which were demons for whom sinful men fashioned idols / graven images) is Baal (pronounced bah-ahl), which simply means, “lord, master”. Baali, means, “my lord”; whereas baalim (pronounced bah-ahl-eem), the plural, means, “lords”.
* As I have written in many other Ruminations and books, Moab and Benammi, though pure Hebrews, were born of incest, like Canaan, and like Canaan were cursed by God. However, they also then went out and married Canaanite women, in whose land they were dwelling—and became doubly or triply cursed. Canaan himself was doubly cursed, because he married a woman descended from Cain, who, likewise had been cursed by God.]
Technically, in Leviticus 18:21, the word “fire” does not in the text, but was added for clarity by the translators; however, it does occur in two other passages:
The godly King Josiah uprooted all the false worship erected during the short reign of his godless father Amon, and threw down the high places, polluted the pagan altars executed the priests and sodomites, etc. —
“And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.” (II Kings 23:10)
“And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech.” (Jeremiah 32:35)
Leviticus 20:2,3,4 mention “giving” seed to Molech, and v.5 refers to it as “whoredom”. The rest of the chapter deals with improper sexual relations in a broad range of categories. The context, therefore, may infer relation in regard to the existence (self-depopulation) of the pure offspring of God’s people, in addition to violating the First Commandment and the Eight Commandment.
In v.23 God says that He abhorred the Canaanites because of all of their sins and abominations with which they polluted the land (even as they have done again today in Christendom, leading the way into perversion, immorality, corruption, atheism, paganism, false gods, temples, humanism, perversion of the law and oppression, corruption of church, state, and industry, etc.). However, those who don’t understand true theology miss the import of this declaration and misinterpret it. The nature makes the act; the act does not make the nature. Yes, the wicked Canaanites were guilty of all sorts of abominations and God hated them for those abominations—however, that is “efffect” not cause. God hated Esau and loved Jacob, while they were both in the womb, before either did good or bad. God rhetorically asked Cain, “If thou doest well shall thou not be accepted?”—however, the spiritually undiscerning reader with defective theology does not realize the unspoken truth: It was not within Cain’s nature to do good. Even the plowing of the wicked is sin. There is none good, no not one; there is none that doeth good; there is none that seeketh God. Therefore, any who do, do so only because God has given them a nature that is to be regenerated so that the Holy Spirit indwells to empower and give the ability and desire to do good. Thus, the unspoken truth concerning the Canaanites and their wickedness and God hating them for their abominations is to also realize that the “cause” was that God gave them the nature they had, and like Esau, God hated them before they were born or had done a thing, because they are vessels of wrath and all they can do is what their nature is. Thus, when God makes an extra declaration, it is to be understood in context as not being causal, but simply a secondary reason (effect, by-product, consequential) for which God additionally hates them.
[The same applies to Leviticus 19:29; Exodus 34:12-17; Deuteronomy 23:3,4 and other passages. While God sometimes may give us “one” reason why He forbids us to do something, that does not mean that is the “main” reason, but the reason that God is highlighting at that specific time to teach a different lesson (which does not invalidate other lessons or the main reason). If a father tells his son not to play with matches, the primary reason is because God commands children to obey their father and mother (in that order); the secondary and tertiary reasons to prevent him from burning himself or burning down the house, killing his siblings, possibly burning down the neighbors’ houses if the fire spreads, etc. Additional reasons are often offered, without re-iterating the main reason, which is obvious and understood (at least, understood to those who obey God and daily study His Word—and those who refuse to obey, reap what they sow, because false doctrine is sin, and ignorant sin still bears consequences, and after a period of time, ignorance is sin itself because we are commanded to know God’s Will revealed in His Word). Those who cannot think critically, and think casually and illogically simply take at face value whatever they read without attempting to see how it actually fits harmoniously in the whole picture. I guess such people never did jigsaw puzzles and don’t even care to see if things fit properly; and don’t care about actually pleasing their Father, but like spoiled children think that the father will just be delighted at whatever the child does. Spoiled brats are not honorable sons, and God says if any are in sin and do not receive His Chastisement (Discipline) that they are not His children but bastards.]
I Kings 11:7 also mentions the sin of Solomon in building temples for Chemosh and Molech for his pagan wives, as he did for his Egyptian wife, daughter of Pharaoh.
[It needs to be pointed out that there were pure Israelites and Hebrews living in Moab and Ammon and Edom (Jeremiah 40:11, though “Jews” in this passage should be “Judah-ites”), at different stages in history, often due to famine; as we see Jacob and his family themselves relocated to Egypt, centuries earlier, as also had Abraham and Isaac, at different times. This is the context of the book of Ruth (see my S.T.E.C. on Ruth). Naomi and her husband Elimelech (which means “God is my king”) were wealth and could hold out longer in time of famine before they had to move to the fields of Moab. Their sons Mahlon and Chilion were born in the land of Israel. Ruth and Orphah were Israelites, but their families had relocated much earlier to Moab during the beginning of the famine, and Ruth and Orphah were born in Moab, and thus are called, “Moabitesses”, but more properly should be called “Ruth Moab-born”, etc. Ruth was not a Moabitess because only a kinsman could be redeemed according to the Law of kinsmen Redeemer (“to be the next of kin”)—and an alien could not be redeemed; someone whom God forbid to marry, and whom God would command to divorce and send away could not be redeemed. Had Ruth been a Likewise, Solomon’s wife, though utterly pagan, was not an Ammonitess by race, but only geopolitically by nation of birth. How can we know this? —because God is Holy and True and Immutable. Solomon’s wife, Naamah (which name strikes me as being Aramaen) was the mother of Rehoboam.
“2A bastard [mongrel] shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 3An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:” (Deuteronomy 23)
The phrase “even to their tenth generation” is a figure of speech means “never”. But let’s play along with those who refuse to accept Scripture and pretend it means tenth generation. David was ineligible to be a King of Israel (being 3rd generation from Boaz and Ruth) and so was Rehoboam, being first generation from Solomon and Naamah. This also taints every single King of Judah and Christ Himself. God does not violate His Own Law. But the reality is, the command is “never”. Furthermore, this would violate the command of
“Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)
Solomon indeed sinned and married many alien women; but while Rehoboam’s mother was indeed pagan, she could not have been an Ammonitess racially. Naamah means, “pleasantness”. While it was the name of a woman descended from Cain (sister to Tubal-Cain), it was also the name of one of the cities given to Judah as part of its inheritance / allotment of land. Even after the return of the captives nearly half a millennia later, God commanded the Israelites to put away their aliens wives and send them and all children by them away. God does not compromise. Morality does not change. Sinful men think it does, and that is why they are sinful.]
So technically, as the classic example of the philosophy of logic teaches at a most basic level, “All beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are beagles”, so also, while “passing ones seed through the fire to Molech” may have been an (if you really “stretch” the meaning of) “abortion” of sorts, abortion itself, as practiced modernly is not passing ones seed through the fire to Molech. To call it such is absurd. The majority of people who terminate pregnancies do so because they are irresponsible and sinful and don’t want another child to raise and pay for and be bothered with (self-castration would be the better option but again the issue is that we are dealing with immoral, irresponsible, promiscuous people who want pleasure, no matter how sinful, but don’t want any ramifications of responsibility as a result of their sin).
Technically, abort refers to breaking off from completion during some activity—not after it is over; so technically abortion is “the murder of human life before it is born”. Invent another name for it post-partum, but technically, it is not abortion if the child is born; it is simply some other form of murder. Since the seed offered to Molech was not offered somehow while the child was yet in the mother’s womb, then it was not abortion. I believe the proper term would be infanticide; or if it was done immediately after birth, then possibly neonaticide.
However, at least from the Scriptural record, I do not see where we are informed of any more details other than simply causing ones child to pass through the fire to Molech; though some commentaries, Bible Dictionaries, and Bible Encyclopedias offer more insight from other ancient literature, as I explained concerning the type of idol and the method of the ritual. But we don’t know how old the infant was before offered, if the mother nursed him, etc. But it was not an “abortion”. This is not said to downplay the murderous act of abortion as God’s people practice, destroying God’s people; but abortion is not a sacrifice to Molech any more than a prayer that someone casually reads in the dialogue of a book is actually a prayer to God on the part of the reader. For many acts, there must be knowledge and intent; not merely mechanically going through the motions with no intention of volition to partake in some act of which he is utterly ignorant.
It cannot be denied that one result of passing ones seed through the fire to Molech resulted in a lowering of the Israelite population in proportion to the percentage of the Israelite population that practiced this abominable, sadistic, evil.
[It does not appear that we can know whether such evil Israelites offered only their firstborn in this fashion to Molech, or whether they offered their current infant whenever they wanted to propitiate Molech for a better crop or success in a business venture.]
This abominable practice was a form of self-genocide; even as abortion is today in Christendom; parents purposely killing off our own children—while the aliens among us reproduce 8 times faster, all funded by public money treasonously robbed from the legitimate citizens through unconstitutional taxes which monies are misappropriate criminally by the politicians in 95% of the ways tax monies are used (and thus taxes are 95% higher than they should be). The aliens have baby after baby without thought of raising the children properly, because the “host-nation” government stupidly and treasonously pays for it and having such large numbers of children is actually part of their Jihad—they merely crank out an army, the children often raising themselves on the streets in gangs. And if the children are around the father what does he learn from his role model but how to abuse, rape, assault, steal, vandalize, etc. ...?
So more properly, abortion is self-genocide and passing ones seed through the fire was not abortion, but was also self-genocide (as well as worshipping false gods, murder).
Also, the true Christian society is not supposed to turn a blind eye to sin—it is not supposed to be tolerant! The socialist-humanists who think that they are “Christians” who parrot “judge not” don’t have a clue what the Bible says or means.* Being a “tattletale” when it involves sin is a virtue and God commanded it! To not expose sin is a sin! Consider the textbook example of Ai and Jericho, Achan and his family—if you never read the story—here would be a good time! (Joshua 7)
[* See my, Ten Commandments for Youth; 440pp., 6.25 x 9.25, pb., 25.00 + P&H which shows that the Ten Commandments are not merely 10 individual laws but 10 Categories of Law under which the entire Law of God is organized. Also explains other misunderstood notions, such as “turn the other cheek”, “go the extra mile”, “give him your cloak as well as your coat”, etc. Obedience gives youth! —long life, health to thy navel, strength to thy bones!]
Numerous Scriptures declare that he who covers his sins shall not prosper—but this also applies to covering other people’s sins, because to know of sin in the camp, or your own house, your own neighborhood, workplace, etc., brings God’s Judgment on all if it is ignored.
[However, this should not be confused with other verses, such as James 5:20 and I Peter 4:8 which do not refer to covering up sins post-facto, but refer to preventing future sins from being committed by killing the root of sin before it can bear fruit.]
Leviticus 19:17 says, “...thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him”. This is translated abstrusely, and the intended (expanded) meaning is, “thou shalt certainly rebuke thy kinsman-neighbour if you see him in sin and to not do so would cause you also to suffer for his sin with him”.
Likewise, Leviticus 5:1 says,
“And if a soul [a person] sin, and hear the voice of swearing [be called to testify to what he had seen or heard in some criminal case], and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it [if he does not expose the sin that he witnessed], then he shall bear his iniquity God will judge him as an accomplice].”
Deuteronomy 13:1-11 indicates that if anyone, even a relative, tempts you to go worship other gods, you are to expose him and once he is judged to be guilty your hand is to cast the first stone to put this sin away. To not do so (as painful as it would be to condemn a loved one to death) brings God’s Judgment on you, your entire family, and the entire community.
In cases in which a false accusation as been made, the person who made the false accusation is to pay the penalty (in this case, death) for the crime they falsely accused someone else of, if that person is found innocent. This indeed raises questions: How can someone “prove” that another person tempted him to go sin? There were no tape recorders or video cameras? Would not a person then hesitate to not expose someone elses crime if he himself would bear the punishment of that crime if the person whom he accused was found innocent (or at least, not convicted)...? Unless the other person confesses on the witness stand, how could something like that be proven? That indeed would make it doubly difficult for a person to accuse a loved one. Obviously there is some crucial information we are lacking.
[This law is also insight into (as I explain in other writings) part of the reason why Christ did not demand the woman “taken in adultery” to be stoned. These Pharisees were liars or entrapped this woman. A woman cannot commit adultery all by herself. Where was the man with whom she was “caught”...? Where was this woman’s husband if she was married? where was her accomplice in adultery? where were the other family members of the accomplice who were wronged by the adultery? Christ did not order her to be stoned because Christ was not the Supreme Court in Israel. As a man He did not have the authority of high priest or judge to adjudicate such matters. Furthermore, even the High Priests, Chief Rulers of the Temple, or Israelite Judges, in Christ’s day, did not have the authority to put people to death. As the trial of Christ Himself shows, once the Israelites tried a person and found him guilty, he had to be taken to the Roman court to be tried and if Rome found him guilty of death, he would be put to death—but generally Rome did not recognize Israelite law (such as death for adultery) and they certainly did their best to ignore Talmudic Pharisee Regulations (which said if you killed a flea that jumped on you on the Sabbath you were not allowed to kill it or you would be guilty of “hunting”). Why did the Pharisees not take this woman to the Israelite court at the Temple? One, because they were trying to entrap Christ; but two, they did not think it through and they did not realize that according to the Law of God they themselves would be put to death if the woman they falsely accused was not guilty; also, they had no evidence, where was the adulterer? how did they “just happen” to be walking by as a group when “all of the sudden” they witnessed this woman committing adultery? and finally, Rome would not have executed her. I have long thought that maybe what Christ wrote in the sand was the names of those men that were there accusing her, then maybe He also wrote in the sand the names of the women with whom they themselves were committing adultery! However, now that I think of this angle, it is quite possible that what Christ wrote in the sand was maybe v.19 of Deuteronomy 19:
“16If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
Either way, regardless of what Christ wrote, it had the same effect, and these wicked men quietly, in fear and shame, slunk away without another word. This reminds me of Titus 1:9-11; 2:8; I Peter 2:15).]
Also, John tells us in his Second Epistle, chapter 1:
“10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [of Christ*], receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 12For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
* “8But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1)
Merely offering a salutation of blessing (“have a nice day”, “Good day”, “Good bye”, “take care”, “have a safe trip”, etc.) gives us another angle of view concerning what God considers makes a person an accomplice in other people’s sins—so actually knowing about their actual sins and not saying something, is even more reprehensible in God’s Eyes.
Some commentators, Bible Dictionaries, and Bible Encyclopedias indicate that the “passing through the fire” did not necessarily mean killing, but could have been a rite of purification and dedication, like walking on coals. While this is not impossible, the fact that at least some of it was actual torture killing in sacrifice to the gods is expressed elsewhere in Scripture:
“30Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise’. 31Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12)
So while it is not impossible that it may have been a dedicating ritual that later escalated to actual human sacrifice (since the gods did not answer prayers, clearly they were not satisfied with mere dedication and wanted the entire person), it is a moot point, because at some time (or from the very beginning) it was actual burning to death.