-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
General The Solomon discussion
- Thread starter Julia Mykaele
- Start date
I don’t have the references handy, but I just saw them last night. He even built an idol to Moloch for his wives in Jerusalem. It sat on the edge of the valley of Hinnom (later known as Gehenna) and they would sacrifice by lighting a fire in its belly till the idol became scalding hot and then place the babies in its hands which were inclined towards an opening in its belly. The babies would basically roll down its arms into the furnace in its belly. I think Hezekiah was one who somehow survived being passed thru the fires.
Apparently, the practice itself began during the reign of Manasseh.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10937-moloch-molech
From the link you posted
MOLOCH (MOLECH).
By: Isidore Singer, George A. Barton
Table of Contents
—Biblical Data:
In the Masoretic text the name is "Molech"; in the Septuagint "Moloch." The earliest mention of Molech is in Lev. xviii. 21, where the Israelite is forbidden to sacrifice any of his children to Molech. Similarly, in Lev. xx. 2-5, it is enacted that a man who sacrifices his seed to Molech shall surely be put to death. Then, curiously, it is provided that he shall be cut off from the congregation. In I Kings xi. 7 it is said that Solomon built a high place for Molech in the mountain "that is before Jerusalem." The same passage calls Molech an Ammonite deity. The Septuagint as quoted in the New Testament (Acts vii. 43) finds a reference to Moloch in Amos v. 26; but this is a doubtful passage. In II Kings xxiii. 10 it is stated that one of the practises to which Josiah put a stop by his reform was that of sacrificing children to Molech, and that the place where this form of worship had been practised was at Topheth, "in the valley of the children of Hinnom." This statement is confirmed by Jer. xxxii. 35. From II Kings xxi. 6 it may be inferred that this worship was introduced during the reign of Manasseh. The impression left by an uncritical reading of these passages is that Molech-worship, with its rite of child-sacrifice, was introduced from Ammon during the seventh century B.C.
Something else I saw that was interesting is apparently, Molech and Baal are the same deity though I’m not certain of that.
MOLOCH (MOLECH).
By: Isidore Singer, George A. Barton
Table of Contents
—Biblical Data:
In the Masoretic text the name is "Molech"; in the Septuagint "Moloch." The earliest mention of Molech is in Lev. xviii. 21, where the Israelite is forbidden to sacrifice any of his children to Molech. Similarly, in Lev. xx. 2-5, it is enacted that a man who sacrifices his seed to Molech shall surely be put to death. Then, curiously, it is provided that he shall be cut off from the congregation. In I Kings xi. 7 it is said that Solomon built a high place for Molech in the mountain "that is before Jerusalem." The same passage calls Molech an Ammonite deity. The Septuagint as quoted in the New Testament (Acts vii. 43) finds a reference to Moloch in Amos v. 26; but this is a doubtful passage. In II Kings xxiii. 10 it is stated that one of the practises to which Josiah put a stop by his reform was that of sacrificing children to Molech, and that the place where this form of worship had been practised was at Topheth, "in the valley of the children of Hinnom." This statement is confirmed by Jer. xxxii. 35. From II Kings xxi. 6 it may be inferred that this worship was introduced during the reign of Manasseh. The impression left by an uncritical reading of these passages is that Molech-worship, with its rite of child-sacrifice, was introduced from Ammon during the seventh century B.C.
Something else I saw that was interesting is apparently, Molech and Baal are the same deity though I’m not certain of that.
Yup! Solomon built the high place, but the article itself states that: "it may be inferred that this worship was introduced during the reign of Manasseh." As has happened with Christianity, practices from other religions, may have in fact infiltrated that particular religion.
Seems silly to think that Solomon built a high place to worship these gods but they were never worshipped or sacrificed to for over 300 years.
Especially since 1 Kings 11:7,8 state
Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abominationof the children of Ammon.
And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
Again. The appropriate sacrifice for Molech was child/baby sacrifice.
Ultimately, by the time of Manasseh, the sacrifice did involve children, but that passage you cite, does not indicate that children were sacrificed at that time at all! It does not state WHAT was sacrificed, but rather that the sacrifice was made to those foreign gods.
You should probably read Leviticus 18:21 and Leviticus 20:1-5. This was written 4-500 years previous to Solomon and was the accepted practice and sacrifice then. Deuteronomy 18:10 makes it pretty clear that making their children to pass through the fire was one of the reasons that God drove out the nations of Canaan before the Israelites. Child sacrifices predated the Exodus in the Moabite and Ammonite areas.
Also 2 Kings 23:10 & 13 makes it pretty clear what sacrifices were being done to Molech.
Jeremiah 32:35 is the passage that connects Baal with Molech. Also Jeremiah 19:5&6
2 Kings 16:3 is an example of Ahaz king of Israel making his son to pass through the fire, also 2 Kings 17:16,17
According to 2 Chronicles 33 and 2 Kings 21, Manasseh revived the practices that had existed before his father Hezekiah tore down the houses. They didn’t start with Manasseh, he just reinstituted them.
According to the link I posted, it did. How and when that practice began in the Molech religion, is not clear in Scripture. Was it a Canaanite practice? Sure! I just cannot fathom Solomon engaging in it, and Scripture not mentioning anything other than the fact that he erected those placed, which in and of itself was an offense to God.
Obviously the link is flawed as Deuteronomy and Leviticus indubitably state that the sacrifice to Molech was a mans seed (children) passing thru the fires 4-500 years prior to Solomon.
To think that Solomon was not at the least a passive participant is to ignore 1 King’s 11:4-8
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom [another name for Molech] the abomination of the Ammonites.
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods
Solomon went after these strange gods and goddesses that demanded child/baby sacrifices. And provided opportunity and locations to facilitate his foreign wives to “worship” these foreign gods publicly.
I get that you’d rather not believe that Solomon or any man would do something like this either as an active or passive participant. But you are preferring a fallible assumption over multiple scriptures to the contrary
I see the Scriptures that you posted, and we know that the practice did occur in that religion, from Scripture, but the timeline of when that practice began in that particular religion, not evident from those Scriptures. I could care less whether Solomon engaged in wicked deeds or not, but there is too much silence from Scripture as to whether he actually practiced that, for me to go along with it. Yes the Scriptures show that this practice occurred in some of the Canaanite religions, prior to the reign of Solomon, but those religions are not specified. Do religions adopt new practices that were foreign to their ancestors? Without a doubt! I just believe that is too heinous of a deed, for Scripture to be silent about, while it clearly does mention that it did occur at a different time, so we know that it is not silent about those other instances.
Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
. . . 24. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
. . . 27. (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
. . . 30. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
Not certain when the baby sacrifices started but it was obviously being done long enough before the Exodus to make God fed up with it at least 700 years before Manasseh.
. . . 24. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
. . . 27. (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
. . . 30. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
Not certain when the baby sacrifices started but it was obviously being done long enough before the Exodus to make God fed up with it at least 700 years before Manasseh.
Alright! You win! Wow!
I’m not really sure that anyone wins with this. I’m still having to wrap my mind around this new perspective on Solomon. I was vaguely unaware until I started looking into it
The next part of this is the warning that the man who does this will be cut off from Israel. I’m unaware of Solomon repenting before his death. I’m almost afraid to chase this thought down for someone that was highly regarded and even blessed by God himself at some point in history
The next part of this is the warning that the man who does this will be cut off from Israel. I’m unaware of Solomon repenting before his death. I’m almost afraid to chase this thought down for someone that was highly regarded and even blessed by God himself at some point in history
I'm sure it has some ramifications for our daily lives, and I suppose the Holy Spirit will reveal that to us in due time. The most glaring warning it seems to me, is that we should not marry someone outside the faith, and of course the Wiccan religion comes to mind.
C
Cap
Guest
This work has a lot to say about Solomon. It begins with information about the ark that gets a little carried away and ends with mainstream Christian end times assumptions, but the work on Solomon is very thorough.
What's also interesting is to take into account the genealogis of Luke and Matthew and you come up with an interesting idea of who Solomon really is, maybe. Was Adonijah really the one that was suppose to build the temple?
https://www.aeragon.com/itz/06-solomon-01.html
What's also interesting is to take into account the genealogis of Luke and Matthew and you come up with an interesting idea of who Solomon really is, maybe. Was Adonijah really the one that was suppose to build the temple?
https://www.aeragon.com/itz/06-solomon-01.html
I just went thru a good portion of this article. The author is undoubtedly a word smith, but bases his approach and conclusions on unsubstantiatable conjecture and assumptions that quite frankly become absurd when examined from context of many of the passages he quotes from. Not to mention multiple other passages that confirm Solomons appointment including the blessing from God, the confirmation of his position and right to build the Temple by the shekinah Glory just to name a few. Especially 1 Kings 9:3 and following.
C
Cap
Guest
What interests me is were does it say that God said that the one who would build the temple would be named Solomon. God said to name David's son Jedidiah. In speaking about the temple God was referring to the Son of God and the true Prince of Peace. The genealogy of both Mathew and Luke point Joseph and Mary but yet, just as in Adam, God creates His own Son. Impressive that you were able to dismiss all that information in such a short time. I agree there is a lot of conjunction and assumptions, but all that information does have some purposeful information which require one to think outside the box of they choose to do so.
To find out that a servent of God sacrificed his children maybe more box than one would care to learn about in the first place.
Not saying I agree with him, but still this whole thing with Solomon is a curiosity.
To find out that a servent of God sacrificed his children maybe more box than one would care to learn about in the first place.
Not saying I agree with him, but still this whole thing with Solomon is a curiosity.
I agree it is possible that Solomon sacrificed children to Moloch - but find it difficult to believe that he could do that and still be chosen by God to author three books of the Bible. So I find it unlikely, but possible.
But even if he did sacrifice children to Moloch, he would not sacrifice all children to Moloch. People sacrificed to gods wanting to get some benefit from it - and an infant sacrifice is essentially a fertility offering, giving up one child in the expectation of receiving many more (or receiving some other benefit). If people sacrificed all their children, then the entire civilisation would die. So even the most ardent idol-worshipper would only sacrifice a portion of their children.
This means that this cannot be the reason for Solomon not having children mentioned in scripture. The idea that he sacrificed all of them, so none of them survived, is not realistic as nobody would do that. A very large number would not have been sacrificed. So either way, whether he was involved in infant sacrifice or not, the only logical explanations for him having few children mentioned are either:
1) He had very few children (e.g. due to personal infertility), or
2) His children just aren't mentioned.
The lack of children's names provides no evidence for infant sacrifice, because infant sacrifice would not have resulted in a complete lack of children's names. So it's circular reasoning.
But even if he did sacrifice children to Moloch, he would not sacrifice all children to Moloch. People sacrificed to gods wanting to get some benefit from it - and an infant sacrifice is essentially a fertility offering, giving up one child in the expectation of receiving many more (or receiving some other benefit). If people sacrificed all their children, then the entire civilisation would die. So even the most ardent idol-worshipper would only sacrifice a portion of their children.
This means that this cannot be the reason for Solomon not having children mentioned in scripture. The idea that he sacrificed all of them, so none of them survived, is not realistic as nobody would do that. A very large number would not have been sacrificed. So either way, whether he was involved in infant sacrifice or not, the only logical explanations for him having few children mentioned are either:
1) He had very few children (e.g. due to personal infertility), or
2) His children just aren't mentioned.
The lack of children's names provides no evidence for infant sacrifice, because infant sacrifice would not have resulted in a complete lack of children's names. So it's circular reasoning.
Last edited:
Actually, the 700 wives were the political gifts, the 300 concubines were not. This is stated very clearly in 1 Kings 11:3 - the 700 wives are described as "princesses" or "daughters of nobility" - in other words, they were the ones given as gifts by kings and noblemen in order to seal alliances with Solomon. The Hebrew word does not refer only to the daughters of kings, but the daughters of any nobility, even "lesser rulers". Even these were wives, not concubines. And the verse specifically states that the "wives" turned away his heart - but not the concubines. The concubines were different.
I take the concubines to be the girls he took on because he actually liked them personally, or because he wanted them as domestic servants to take care of practical matters around the palace. Remember that when David fled his palace, he left concubines to run it - they were his domestic servants, and presumably served the same role for Solomon. So they were selected based on their personal traits - their attractiveness to Solomon or their qualifications for a particular job. They were probably mostly local Israelite girls who had been spotted by Solomon or his officials, though obviously he may have purchased some as slaves from elsewhere. But probably most were local, which is why they were not the ones who led him astray.
Last edited: