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.]
Article excerpted. You can read the rest of this article at the source: http://sacredtruthministries.com/articles/abortion-offering-molech