—Is Abortion offering to Molech? (Revised)
Someone emailed and asked:
Is abortion ‘the sacrificing to Molech’?
----------------------
My reply:
No. People make such illogical, invalid comments, often because they heard someone else say it and thought it was clever or profound; even though 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, or the culinarily impared (and that is very gratuitous, in light of the fact that some wicked shepherds are merely fleecing the flock and feeding themselves off the flesh of the flock, not guarding or feeding the flock).
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 (doctor’s assistants, nurses) —and any actual “priests or priestesses” of Molech who are 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 they 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.
Someone could no more sacrifice a child unto Molech without conscious awareness and intent, than a person could worship and serve God without knowing God or intending to do so.
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 actively 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. Jay P. Green in his Interlinear shows the literal translation, “And your seed shall you not give, to set apart them to Molech”.
Molech was a deity worshipped by the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, and the Ammonites. The name Molech / Moloch is a corruption of the Hebrew meh-lek meaning, “king, ruler”, from maw-lahk “to rule”; even as the word for false gods Baal, means, “lord, master”.
[Molech 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 or a “kh” (a guttural, hacking or rasping sound in the back of the throat, not in the front of the mouth off the teeth like the ch in church). 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. Again, the other generic word for false gods (which were actually demons who seduced men into believing and worshipping them, and fashioning idols / graven images to represent them) 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 they were cursed by God (liberal “snowflakes” can bemoan the “injustice” of that, for Eternity in Hell, but God is Sovereign, Lord, Master, Owner and He has the right to do as He pleases with His universe). However, Moab and Benammi 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 exist 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 that had been 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 (as also does chapter 18). 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. As I show in my Ten Commandments for Youth, God said if you offend one point of the Law you offend all. The Fifth Commandment (honor thy mother and father) is also violated by causing your seed to pass through the fire to Molech—it destroys the family (and family name by both reproach of the sin as well as possibly causing the family name to cease—if you kill off your sons and any living sons die before they can have sons of their own) in addition to the other Commandments it violates.
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 their descendents have done again today in Christendom, leading the way for God’s true people into perversion, immorality, corruption, atheism, paganism, false gods, pagan 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 “effect” 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.” ANYTHING that they do is evil; even if it has the appearance of being good; and the act itself might be good if a godly person had done it. “There is none good, no not one; there is none that doeth good; there is none that seeketh God.” Therefore, any who do, in fact, do that which is good, do so only because God has given them a nature that has been regenerated and the Holy Spirit indwells such a person 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 are to prevent him from burning himself or burning down the house, possibly killing himself, 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 who 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 or other 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 or doting grandfather 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 wealthy 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 they 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 forbade to marry, and whom God would command to divorce and send away could not be redeemed. Had Ruth been a Moabite racially (and not geo-politically) David could not have been king of Israel and Jesus could not have been the Christ, Saviour, Redeemer of Israel. 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 and “swears to His own hurt” and cannot violate His Own Law and does not give law hastily or senselessly to later be ignored. God is a PERFECT Bookkeeper. Solomon’s wife, Naamah (which name strikes me as being Aramaen, as was one of David’s wives Maacah, the mother of Absalom, who was daughter of the King of Geshur) was the mother of Rehoboam—who was ancestor to all the subsequent kings of Israel.
“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 and means “never”. But let’s play along with those who refuse to accept Scripture and pretend it means after the tenth generation they can enter. David was ineligible to be a King of Israel (being only the 3rd generation from Boaz and Ruth; and Solomon was only the 4th generation from Ruth). Likewise, Rehoboam was the 1st generation from Solomon and Naamah. This also taints every single King of Judah and Christ Himself (Christ did not descend in male line from Solomon—Mary’s husband Joseph did—Mary descended from David’s son Nathan; however, it is most probable that the Royal lines of Nathan and Solomon intermarried). God does not violate His Own Law. But the reality is that God declares and commands “never”. Furthermore, if David was part Moabite and Rehoboam was part Ammonite, 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.
* This itself may be a false assumption. Solomon had around 1,000 wives and concubines. Surely he married more than one Ammonitess (and the others may have indeed been both Ammonites racially, and pagan). Also, Rehoboam was not all bad; he was good and true to God for the first few years of his reign, so maybe his mother was not a pagan.
For more detail on Ruth, see my: S.T.E.C. on Ruth: The Truth About Ruth—Ruth the Israelite!, 328pp., pb., 18.00 + P&H.]
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). Of course, some early term abortions are carried out because women have whored around and don’t want their husbands or fathers to know.
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 abortion, but technically, it is not abortion if the child is born; it is simply some other form of murder / infanticide. Since the seed (offspring) that was offered to Molech was not offered somehow while the child was yet in the mother’s womb, then it was not abortion. The proper term would be infanticide or neonaticide. Abortion would seem to be fetusicide.
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 modernly, 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. A person indeed may intend to commit abortion, but he does not offer his seed to Molech without being a Molech worshipping and actually intending to offer his seed to Molech.
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, or WHY they did it; at least, from the Scriptural record. Some evil men even laid their firstborn in the foundation of a house or city wall that he built, in dedicating it to his pagan diety (Joshua 6:26; I Kings 16:34). See also II Kings 3:27.]
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 misappropriated 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 do the children learn from his role model other than how to abuse, rape, assault, steal, vandalize, etc. ...?
So more properly, abortion is self-genocide; passing ones seed through the fire was not abortion, but though it also was a form self-genocide, the only intention was worshipping false gods (for whatever reason, dedication, blessing, appeasement, etc.).
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, that is, turning a person away from sin before he actually sins.]
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 [that is, hear someone swearing an oath to a false god], 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. This is brutal—but so is sin; and turning a blind eye to sin destroys the entire community. It is like quarantining someone with leprosy, forcing him out of the community to live in some hovel out in the wilderness outside the city limits and away from the dwellings of other people. It seems “unfair”, but the alternative is to risk the entire community contracting the horrible disease. But the bottom line is, GOD COMMANDED IT.
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 that he 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. “Christians” who are spiritually blind claim that Christ “set aside” the Law and blabber nonsense like “Grace and Mercy triumph over Law”. Such statements are abominations. Here is the reason why Christ did not demand that the woman be stone: 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”, her accomplice in adultery...? Where was this woman’s husband, if she was married? Where were the family members of the accomplice who were wronged by the adultery? It would be the responsibility of the next of kin to bring charges against the woman, if she committed adultery. However, being of higher authority (and being the stronger vessel), the man would be held to a higher level of responsibility. There could be no trial without both adultering parties. Also, Jesus did not order her to be stoned because He 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 or idolatry) 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” on the Sabbath). 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 or could not be proved to be guilty. They had no evidence—where was the adulterer? Why did they not bring him also? Who was he? How did these pharisees “just happen” to be walking as a group when “all of the sudden” they witnessed this woman committing adultery? Where? —in the middle of the street? in the public fountain? How did they happen upon a man and woman in flagrante delicto in some private room? Finally, Rome would not have executed a woman for adultery. 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.”*
[* Also, often ignorant Christians who don’t understand Scripture, think that “eye for an eye” was something invented by sinful Israelites—but it was GOD who established it and it is JUST. You reap what you sow.]
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.
[* These are all blessings. People who are not really good Christians and not really good pagans don’t realize that anciently, both Christians and pagans actually believed in God or their gods. “Wishing” is really impotent, if you think about it. HOW PATHETIC it is to read in the news of some tragedy and have someone say, “our thoughts are with you”. WHAT GOOD are “thoughts”...? “Be ye warmed and filled” comes to mind. PRAYERS are what are needed, if a god exists, if God will hear and answer the prayers. Also, ignorant people are unaware of the origin of phrases that they use. Goodbye in 1570 was godbwye, a shortened form of, “God be with ye”.]
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. For example, let’s say a person “dedicated” his son to the pagan idol, in exchange for greatly needed rain, or his crop would fail. If rain did not come, then this person would conclude that the gods did not answer his prayers because clearly they were not satisfied with a mere dedication—and they wanted the entire person. Thus, the person eventually did sacrifice his own child (for if the crop failed, they all would starve to death, so the youngest family member had to “take one for the team”). Similarly, this escalation of desperation can be seen with the priest of Baal in the showdown on Mt. Carmel with Elijah. So desperate were the priests that merely praying was not enough, and they began to cut themselves and even hop over or on the altar (a tempting moving target and “extra offering”) to tempt the gods to send down fire to consume the offering on the altar.
Regardless, even if it started with a mere dedication, it is a moot point, because at some point in time (or from the very beginning) causing ones seed to pass through the fire to Molech was actual burning the infant or child to death, as historical records also show.
[See also my Rumination on Jephthah’s Vow. Some commentators or preachers claim that Jephthah did not really sacrifice his own daughter. But is that what Scripture indicates?]
----------------------
Post-Script:
Sadly, I had a Baptist minister email me after I initially posted this Rumination, appalled that I had written it and imploring me to remove it from the internet. Sadly, rather than considering the truth that I presented, his reasoning was, as he expressed, “I’ve taught for 40 years that abortion is passing seed to Molech”. Well, this is unfortunate, but falsehood does not become true by even 40 years of repetition or misbelief. This does not mean that abortion is not sin and that it is not a horrible crime; it only means that it is not passing ones seed through the fire to Molech. HOW TRAGIC that people, even ministers, cling to their own ideas rather than the truth! Leo Tolstoy explained,
“Shallow ideas can be assimilated. Ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility. I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusion which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
----------------------
Someone else emailed and said:
Robert, Here is an interpretation by ________ that I believe to be an accurate explanation of that which you seemed uncertain. Please read and consider. ....
[He then quoted at length from this person’s book.]
----------------------
My reply:
Hi, thanks, you misunderstood me, I was not uncertain whether it was human sacrifice (as several verses clearly mention burning them), but only that at one time it may be possible that it had been a mere dedication (not an actual sacrificial death), which eventually escalated into actual sacrifice. That was it; there was not any other “uncertainty”. A doctor may intend to remove only the tumor, but then in the middle of the operation decide to remove the entire limb or organ. However, there is no case that I know of that instead of removing the tumor or the organ, he instead begins to practice yoga.
[Rather than reproduce at length the dozen paragraphs of this third-party’s book, which this person emailed me, I will explain what the book claimed, as well as refute it.]
This person claimed that the passage in Leviticus 18:21 concerning not giving ones seed to Molech was referring to a sexual act of out of kind unions and claimed that the “seed” referred to semen. The portion of this book that this person quoted was full of false assumptions, illogic, and was based on the works of dubious sources. The author of the book claimed that passing the seed through the fire was out of place here in among other sexual sins. However, that is based on numerous false assumptions. God does not always order things as we would. His Thoughts and Ways are not ours. Just because we do not understand His Purpose, does not mean that He had no purpose. Furthermore, Baal worship and other pagan worship often included sexual relations in the “worship”—and it cannot be denied that God compares idolatry with adultery. The author, claiming this chapter is solely about sexual sins and that worship of Molech by fire is out of place falsely infers that there were other forms of “passing seed” to Molech than fire, and myopically, overlooks the very introduction of this chapter of Leviticus, in which God explains what shall follow:
“3...after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. [INSTEAD] 4Ye shall do My Judgments, and keep Mine Ordinances, to walk therein...”
Leviticus 18 is not merely a chapter of sexual sin (though indeed it is proliferated with it, even as the modern Talmudists also reduce everything to sex, which also seems to point toward original sin—as I explain in depth in my book, Who Was the Serpent in the Garden...?—and they use it to sell everything from Lamborginis to hambugers). It is a list of all the abominations of the Canaanites in the land of Canaan. In consistent myopic fashion, he also ignores the closing of this chapter, in which God then declares at the end of this list of abominations of the Canaanites,
“24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26Ye shall [INSTEAD] therefore keep My Statutes and My Judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations...”
Ironically, the author claimed that v.21 was “sandwiched” in between vv.20 and 22, and therefore, in his mind, v.21 was “out of place” if referring to passing through the fire ones offspring—and yet he overlooks entirely that vv.6 to 23 are sandwiched in between 3,4 and 24,25,26 which explain the list of abominations!
While this person mentions many good things in his book, the means by which he attempted to support his suppositions was spurious.
That the words “the fire” are in italics indeed mean that the words were added by the translators for clarity; however, the authors authoritarian declaration that they “do not belong in this verse” is untrue. I have already explained this in my Rumination. While the words “the fire” indeed are not in this verse, that is what this verse refers to. Also, based upon his illogic, “neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy God: I am Yahweh” is out of place also. The “passing through” of the seed IN FIRE is explained in other passages. It is common in Hebrew and Greek to leave out nouns and even verbs in some verses, when the audience understands what is being discussed. This is also quite common in English and a LOT of words are left out in more casual speech. To understand the pronouns in one sentence (in the Bible or in any book) one must often read back several sentences or even paragraphs to dicipher who is who.
Furthermore, the “seed here” cannot refer to semen in “out-of-kind” copulations—for this entire list that God is giving us are abominations in which the Canaanites engaged in—and Leviticus 18 was written before the Israelites ever set foot in the land of Canaan, so it is not referring to Israelites having out of kind relations (which, indeed, they often sinned and did—and God always commanded all alien wives to be divorced and all offspring by them sent away forever!); it is a list of the sins of the Canaanites and the “passing through” is explained in other passages (and in secular historical works). While the translators, sometimes, misunderstood a passage and inserted in italics extra words for clarity and were sometimes wrong—this is not one of those cases.
It is also irrelevant that neither Leviticus 18:21 nor Leviticus 20:1-2 use the Hebrew word beyn. He says beyn means children, but more properly beyn means “son”. When used in the plural, beyn can mean “sons and daughters” and thus can mean “children”. The feminine form, “daughter” is bahth.
While Deuteronomy 18:10 and Leviticus 18:21 do not have the words “the fire” in the text, Deuteronomy 12:31, which I quoted in the Rumination does include the words “the fire”, as does Ezekiel 20:
“30...commit ye whoredom after their abominations? 31For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols...”
So do II Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10; and II Chronicles 33:6. The fact that some verses include the word “the fire” and others do not is NOT evidence that different things are being discussed UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING OVERT (not hidden) in the text to cause us to think that something entirely different is being discussed. Narrow minds thus see all sorts of “inconsistencies” in the whole of Scripture, including the Gospels—not because of any contradiction, but because they can’t keep up with the continuity of the story! One who does not understand common Hebraisms and Hellenisms will be confused—and such a person should not then presume to attempt to teach. Due to the same ignorance of Hebraisms, all sorts of false doctrine have been concocted, because the reader refuses to accept the simple truth. As I show in my booklet, The Creation of Man in Genesis 1 and 2, the “man” created in Genesis 1 is the very same as in Genesis 2 (and also in Genesis 3). A common Hebraism is to give an overview, then go back and explain in more detail other aspects of the story. This is common in English and it is truly amazing that some people can be so utterly confused. This method of overview then re-mention in greater detail of a specific area is used throughout Scripture. People who cannot see it are spiritually blind. The blind should not attempt to lead others who are blind, but call out to someone who can actually see!
It is also ironic that this author who denies Seedline doctrine (see my book, Who Was the Serpent...?) here claims that seed means sperm. To claim that it means, “future progeny” is a wild stretch as well as biological inaccuracy, since spermatazoa is not future progeny without ovum. I guess it could be called “future progeny” in the same sense that a man who is a frontiersman can point to a wooded area of mature trees and say to his wife, “Look: There is your new home”; though the trees will have to be cut down, milled, and built into a house once an area is cleared. Yes, the Hebrew zera “can” mean sperm—in the right context. In Jeremiah 33:26 God says that if His Promise with David is broken, if His Covenant with day and night and the oceans waves cease, only then could His Promise be broken concerning Israel and “I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. Do you think that “seed” here is referring to the mere sperm of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...? Of course not. Likewise, the Greek sperma has a literal meaning, as well as an extended meaning. However, the Hebrew zera only means sperm under specific circumstances.
The author’s focusing on the specific meaning of abiyr (or awbar) “to pass through” as meaning “to cover (in copulation) is dishonest, in that it overlooks entirely the dozens of other meanings; as well as the fact that it is a verb of a transition (an act of passing from one point to the other). While words take on figurative or extended meaning, that does not mean that such is their only meaning. Most all words (in any language) have a very wide divergence of different meanings. In Genesis 49:6 “digged down a wall” could also be rendered, “houghed [hamstrung] a bullock”. The figurative meaning cannot be separated etymologically from the literal meaning—and it surely never replaces it.
Indeed, parallels can be drawn. The New Agers believe that during sex, before climax, if they think thoughts such as “death to Christianity” all that energy is channeled toward that end. Savages in Africa and elsewhere delight in the torture of their victims, extending out the victims’ agony and torment and screaming even for days, thinking that all that “energy” will be gained once they finally kill their victim and eat him! (And indeed, hormones like adrenalin are released by the body during such terror and abuse.) I can only imagine that the ancient pagan Molech-worshippers believed in something similar, that the screams of the infant in the red-hot brass bowl, being fried to death, offered some “power” to Molech, which Molech would then bestow part onto the offerants. Loud drums, cymbals, and other instruments were used to drown out the screams so that the parents did not bear testimony to the horror to other would-be offerants. However, just because a parallel can be drawn does NOT mean that is the intention of Scripture.
However, the author massively hemorrhages when he blunders that since the passages in Leviticus cannot be referring to having sex with the idol Molech itself, that Molech must represent someone else. This fallacy of logic is based upon the false assumption that a sexual act is being spoken of in passing ones seed through (the fire) to Molech—for which there is no evidence. This begging the question / false disjunction is circular logic that goes nowhere and only those who are easily led astray don’t see the error.
He then also errs by claiming that Molech was the national deity of the Ammonites, and therefore, it provides a final clue; although I showed in my Rumination that Molech was a deity of the Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Ammonites (not the Ammonites exclusively) and became the Chemosh of the Moabites.
The author then shows profound lack of spiritual discernment and / or scholarship, when he uses Peake’s Bible Commentary and George Lamsa (and his “Syriac” or “Peshitta” version) as support for his theory.
Peake’s Commentary (1919) was edited by liberal Methodist Arthur Samuel Peake (1865-1929); assisted by A. J. Grieve on the New Testament, which combined the works of 61 Bible “scholars” of dubious nature, who wrote 96 articles and was printed in 1014 pages and used the Revised Version of the Bible. Grieve added a 40-page supplement in 1937 after Peak’s passing. A 1962 edition was then prepared—which was actually completely rewritten! It was revised by editor Matthew Black (1908-1994), the General Editor and New Testament Editor; the the Old Testament editor was Harold Henry Rowley (1890-1969). The new edition was comprised of 103 articles by 62 contributors in 1,126 pages and Black stated in the Preface: “About one thing there was no question: there could be no departure from the Peake tradition of accurate and reliable popular scholarship.” The Commentary was geared toward the layman and “generally accepted results of Biblical Criticism, Interpretation, History and Theology”. “Criticism”, of course, actually means, “denial”. Conerning this Commentary and Peake, others historically have interesting things to say.
“At the 1922 Victorian Methodist Conference there was a proposal to remove Peake’s Commentary of the Bible from the reading list at Queen’s College becaue of its (moderate) use of critical methods.” (pp.276,277; The Hebrew Bible / Old Testament - The History of Its Interpretation, Book III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century (2013) [830 pages] editor Magne Sæbø)
In Christian Faith and Life, Volume 29, Issue 4 (April 1923), under “Review of Recent Books” by Professor Leander S. Keyser, D.D., Springfield, Ohio (of the book, Where the Higher Criticism Fails: A Critique of the Destructive Critics, by W. H. Fitchett), wrote
“The author’s rapier pierces the joints in the armor of such self-styled Modernists as Canon Barnes, Griffith-Jones, Foakes-Jackson, Dean Rashdall, Bethune-Baker, George Jackson, and some of the writers of Peake’s Commentary, which is decidedly off on the liberalist tangent. He proves that if their views are true (which happily they are not), historical Christianity would be destroyed, and we would have no Saviour from sin. This book is too important to be passed by.” (p.243)
Even liberal Union Theological Seminary, on page 336 of its The Union Seminary Review, Volume 33 (1922), wrote nearly a century ago:
Of course Union’s liberal modernism in 1922 cannot be compared to what it is today. Wikipedia writes:
“It was founded in 1836 by members of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., but was open to students of all denominations. In 1893, Union rescinded the right of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church to veto faculty appointments, thus becoming fully independent. In the 20th century, Union became a center of liberal Christianity. It served as the birthplace of the Black theology, womanist theology, and other theological movements....
“Union is affiliated with neighboring Columbia University. Since 1928, the seminary has served as Columbia’s constituent faculty of theology. .... In 1964, Union also established an affiliation with the neighboring Jewish Theological Seminary of America.”
[As I recall, psychologist Carl Rogers had studied at Union Theological Seminary, but his faith in the Bible during the 2 years that he was there, was the destroyed, he became an atheist; and left the institution, crossed the street, and attended Columbia Teacher’s College, to study . He then developed a humanistic method of psychology in which all he did was repeat back what the person in the counselling session said to him. “Non-directive” but then later ephemistically renamed it “client-centered”; though it is commonly referred to as “Rogerian”. He became professor of Clinical Theology at Ohio State University; he later established a counselling center at the University of Chicago and was elected president of the American Psychological Association; then taught at the University of Wisconsin; then Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in Lo Jolla, California. Note mine. R.A.B.]
Rob Stephens, a ministry student at Union expressed,
“The original founders envisioned a place for privileged, white men. .... called abolitionism ‘fanaticism.’ .... This seminary has turned Black Lives Matter into a commodity ... They sell this campus as being allied with Black Lives Matter and other social justice movements.” (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/25/suicide-liberal-church)
TylerR, on September 13, 2018, in “Theology Thursday: Union Theological Seminary On Inerrancy” (https://sharperiron.org/article/theology-thursday-union-theological-sem…) rightfully declared,
“...the Bible-believing Christian why Machen was right – liberalism is another religion entirely.
“Union Theological Seminary is not a Christian institution. Its an incubator of leftist ideology and rank unbelief. This clarification, below, speaks for itself. It could only have been written in an echo-chamber of “elitism,” borne out of a worldview entirely disconnected from Scriptural revelation. And, remember, the great church historian Phillip Schaff once taught at Union, when it was a very different place!”
He then lists a non-doctrinal statement of sorts, by Union, in the face of recent criticism, showing that Union does not believe in Biblical inerrancy. Also, quite alarming, the statement reads:
“13. Moreover, relinquishing infallibility is the only means by which you can fully square Scripture with a loving, just God. A god that would condemn LGBTQ people for their love, or consign women to subservience, is not a god worth worshipping.
14. Fortunately, that god was never God—simply an idol worshipped by people who valued print and ink over divine justice. Letting go of that idolatry is the first step towards truly knowing God, to developing faith that honors both humanity and the divine.”
The author whose dozen or so paragraphs you emailed to me used poor discernment here, using Peak’s Commentary as his “authority” as well as George Lamsa, who was a middle easterner (who tried to claim he was of the same stock as Abraham, but was of mixed heritage, who though was in a backward area cut off from modern civilization, was right within the Kingdom of the Hittites / Turks) and was not the scholar that he held himself out to be. His doctrine was utterly unbiblical in many areas (not even so-called “mystical”, but completely confabulated and which was a higher criticism of sorts in the denial of the literal meaning of the Word of God); as I show in my S.T.E. Commentary on Jonah. Charlatan is the more-common word used to describe him; not “scholar”. Lamsa made things up and misrepresented the language that he spoke, claiming that it was the same as the language spoken 2,000 years earlier—which it is not!
Oftentimes in the Law God mentions things that are not easily categorized together often without any segue from one category to another. However, they usually have some association to each other, even if the reader does not discern it.
The Hebrew word zeh-ra does not carry the exact meaning of sperm as does the Greek sperma. The use of zeh-ra does not refer to the sperm itself, but the fruit / progecy that grows out of it. The translation of the Eastern / Syriac / Peshitta text (by Lamsa) as “You shall not let any of your semen be cast into a strange woman to cause her to be pregnant” is spurious.
Despite what Lamsa claimed, Molech does not mean “strange woman” and is not used that way in other passages of Scripture. All one has to do is read more of Lamsa and his perversions of Scripture, to realize that you are drawing from a contaminated well. Someone who did not realize how spurious Lamsa was, to actually build his case upon Lamsa’s words, also shows that he did not do his homework and that his scholarship is seriously lacking.
The use of seed as “sperm” is found nowhere else in the OT. Even in Genesis 38:9 “seed” in both the times it appears refers not to his semen, but the progeny that would result from it. The one time that sperm is intended, the word “it” is added by the translators for clarity. The “seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” does not refer to a Patriarchal sperm bank, but to their PROGENY: their offspring; not their “off-sperm”.
See Levitucus 22:4
“What#376 man#376 soever of the seed#2233 of Aaron#175 is a leper#6879, or#176 hath a running#2100 issue#2100; he shall not eat#398 of the holy#6944 things, until#5704 he be clean#2891. And whoso toucheth#5060 any#3605 thing that is unclean#2931 by the dead#5315, or#176 a man#376 whose#834 seed#7902-#2233 goeth#3318 from him.”
When sperm is intended, it is compounded with another word; a more literal translation should have been “seed of copulation”.
No reflection on you, but this work by ________ that you have sent me cannot even be called bad scholarship, for it is not even scholarship.
The words for stranger / alien used in the Bible, Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew (geyr, guwr, toshawb, etc., and even zuwr and nokriy / nehker / noker), have no racial connotation whatsoever; they are all generic terms and context alone determines to whom they refer. Often all the tribes of Israel are referred to as “strangers” when counterposed to the seed of Aaron, since no one who was not of Aaron’s house was to perform certain duties or enter certain places or partake of certain things [See Numbers 3:10,38; 16:40, which are zuwr, though the last should be “son of the stranger”, beyn zuwr; and Genesis 31:15; Psalm 69:8; Isaiah 56:3,6; Obadiah 1:12, which are nokriy / nehker / noker. Clearly these words also appear in verses in which the “stranger” is referring to a non-kinsman, of a different race (not merely of a pure lateral Semitic branch, such as Aramaens). But it is context that indicates each meaning and Scripture will not contradict itself, so it must be in harmony with the Law of God. Those “strangers” (of another race, or of a cursed race / tribe) whom God forbade any association cannot be the strangers who join with Israel. Also, nehker / noker can be used as an adjective merely meaning “strange” and context clearly shows, as with the verses I listed above, that the meaning is strange in general, not “non-Israelite / non-Semite / non-Adamite,” etc. Jacob did not become a non-Hebrew to Esau, who was himself a Hebrew. The Edomites themselves (that is, those descended from Esau’s Canaanite wives) were not legitimate brothers to Israel; though Esau’s “Edomite” descendents through his Ishmaelite wife were brethren (which is to whom Deuteronomy 23:7 refers) for as long as they remained pure. Leah and Rachel were not treated by their father Laban as of being of another race, but as if they were not his daughters, from his own loins, precious to him.]
----------------------
He replied:
Thank you. I will have to to re-examine this. This is slightly disappointing as ______’s explanations had seemed to fit so neatly. I think Bertrand Comperet wrote that those two words you mention meant alien stranger as well if my memory serves me right. What you have written is something worthy of research if I can find the time. Thank you
----------------------
I replied:
As I explained in my article, many things that people say seem to sound good until you actually think about them (that is, think about them in a scholarly fashion, scrutinize them, based upon a wealth of evidence, not merely the bits and pieces of information that you can glue together in the attempt to make your position seem viable). As Sir Thomas Huxley honestly expressed when his research led in a direction different than he thought it would, “a beautiful theory smashed by an ugly little fact”.
It is unfortunate indeed... because such a poor argument gives the enemy reason to mock the validity and lack of scholarship of our position (or rather, the position of some of those in our ranks—and then equally as unscholarly, we are all painted by the opposition with the same broad brush).
My highly annotated editions of Races in Chaos and Kind unto Kind, deal with the Bible and race in a very comprehensive way, as does my Ten Commandments for You(th).
Most self-assumed authorities in our ranks are very unscholarly—terrible, terrible thinkers and non-theologians, who think they are experts. I explained to one self-assumed “expert” after one of his long senseless email diatribes that all Hebrew and Greek words for “stranger” / “alien”, etc. are generic words with no specific racial connotation whatsover and the exact meaning of each word can only be determined by context—immediate context as well as in harmony with the whole of Scripture (even as the Hebrew goy and Greek ethnos, even as with pronouns).
His “scholarly” response was, “THE HELL WITH CONTEXT!” I then sent him an email showing from Scripture every single Greek or Hebrew word that he claimed meant “stranger outside the Israelite race”—those very same words are used in Scripture to refer to Israelites. He never replied. People love their pet doctrines and ideas more than truth. Sad. Thanks, Robert