Chapter 18

1 Unlawful marriages. 19 Unlawful lusts.

3. After the doings. Having come out from the land of Egypt, Israel was to leave behind the ways of Egypt. They were on their way to Canaan, and iniquity prevailed there also. They were to shun evil, whatever its source.

4. Do my judgments. This was their only salvation. In the midst of sin and degradation, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, God wanted His people to shine forth as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15).

Some have wondered why God permitted His people to live among such conditions as prevailed in Egypt and Canaan. But though they lived in Egypt they were not to mingle with the Egyptians (see John 17:15). This is evident from the fact that He provided a separate place for them to live, the land of Goshen. Had they kept their place, had they obeyed God’s counsel, they would have remained separate from the evils that surrounded them. Instead, they mingled with the Egyptians, learned their ways, and became corrupt themselves. Their 40 years of wandering were years of education, during which God designed that they should forget the ways of Egypt and learn His ways. When the time came for them to enter the land of Canaan, the generation that departed from Egypt had all but vanished. During this interval God gave them His law from Sinai, He gave them ordinances, “which if a man do, he shall live in them”; He gave them demonstrations of His power and of His ability to provide for them under all circumstances. All this was intended to strengthen their faith. If they would but place their trust in God, all would be well.

God led Israel into the land of Canaan, knowing the temptations that awaited them there. He could have done otherwise, but in His wisdom He considered this best. Nevertheless they were not to mingle with the Canaanites nor learn their ways. The process of occupying the land of Canaan was to be a gradual one (Ex. 23:29, 30). During that process they were to have further opportunity for character development; their loyalty to God was to be tested. Had God removed all temptation immediately, there could have been no development of character.

Israel was to occupy only sufficient territory to meet their immediate needs. The plan was ideal. It would protect Israel and give them the territory needed; at the same time it would keep them from direct association with the heathen and leave a missionary field right at their door. But Israel failed to cooperate; they “entered not in” (Heb. 4:6).

6. None of you shall approach. One of the outstanding sins of antiquity was immorality, and the land of Canaan was not exempt. Marriage was held in low esteem and women were treated as cattle. This chapter gives a true picture of conditions as they were among the heathen (vs. 24–27), and against all this God warned Israel. The fact that God found it necessary to issue such a warning, with all its stark details, emphasizes the danger that confronted them and of which they must beware.

In the beginning God created one man and one woman, thus establishing ideal conditions for man’s blessing and comfort. God’s plan would preserve the home, the nation, and the chastity of both sexes. Marriage is not dishonorable; it is not sinful, a thing to be shunned, as some would have us believe. It was ordained by God Himself and is honorable (Heb. 13:4). It is a divine institution as much as is the Sabbath, and like it is to be held in high esteem. As the Sabbath demands reverence and holiness for its proper observance, so does marriage. Both can be desecrated, or both can be a blessing. Reverence for the body and its functions is the theme of this chapter, reverence for one’s own body and for the bodies of others.

21. To Molech. The obscure pagan rite described by the phrase, “pass through the fire to Molech,” is here mentioned for the first time. Other statements dealing with the same practice are found in Lev. 20:2–5; 2 Kings 23:10, and Jer. 32:35. The “Molech” of 1 Kings 11:7, who is describedas the god of the Ammonites, is probably the “Milcom” of vs. 5 and 33 of the same chapter, and of 2 Kings 23:13.

But who is Molech? Generations of theologians have been puzzled by this word. Some have thought that Molech (molek) stands for the Canaanite god Mekal, who is attested by inscriptions, and that the last two consonants have become inverted. Other scholars, however, have given the following interpretation: The word “Molech” (molek) has the same consonants in Hebrew as the word for “king” (melek). In ancient Hebrew, only the consonants were written, in this instance, mlk. The insertion of different vowels thus resulted in a different word. Therefore, according to these scholars, who reflect the ancient Jewish tradition, “Molech” was not the name of a deity, but the designation of any god, who could be called “king” in the same sense as God was called “king” by the Hebrews (see Ps. 5:2; 10:16; etc.). They also accepted the Jewish tradition that the ancient Hebrews reserved the title melek, “king,” for the true God, and pronounced the consonantal group of letters, mlk, when applied to Canaanite gods, with the vowels, “o” and “e,” as found in the word bosheth “shame,” thus creating the word molek. This title for a pagan god was thought to mean “shame-king” in contrast to the melek, the true King of heaven and earth. This explanation of the word “Molech” has been widely held in theological circles.

In 1935 O. Eissfeldt published his findings in regard to certain Punic inscriptions of Carthage in North Africa of the period from 400-150 b.c., in which the terms “molk of sheep” and “molk of man” are used to describe animal and human sacrifices (Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebra¬ischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch). Since the Punic language is closely related to Hebrew, Eissfeldt explained the Hebrew word molek to mean “vow” or “pledge.” Thus the Biblical passages usually translated, “pass through the fire to Molech,” should be rendered, “as a molech,” that is, as the fulfillment of a pledge to a pagan god.

Many scholars have been inclined to accept Eissfeldt’s explanation. However, the excavation of the city of Mari, in Mesopotamia, has furnished texts in which G. Dossin found a god named Muluk, who was worshiped in the Middle-Euphrates region in the 18th century b.c. (Revue dХ Assyriologie, vol. 35, p. 178, [1938], n. 1). Also the gods of Sepharvaim, Adrammelech (attested in Mesopotamian inscriptions as AdadРmilki) and Anammelech, to whom children were sacrificed by fire (2 Kings 17:31), apparently had some connection with the godMuluk, as the last half of their names reveal.

In the light of this latest evidence Molech seems to have been a particular pagan god, one to whom children were offered as burnt sacrifices, so that the traditional translation, “pass through the fire to Molech,” can be considered as correct. The name of this god, however, was later also applied as a technical term for certain animal and human sacrifices as is revealed by the Punic inscriptions of Carthage.

24. Defile not ye yourselves. The nations round about Israel were guilty of all the sins here enumerated, and were for this reason to be dispossessed. Israel therefore was to avoid similar guilt, or be cast out. The message here given is evidence of the very real danger that confronted them.

28. Spue. From qoХ, “to vomit up” (see Lev. 18:25; Jonah 2:10). Israel held title to the Promised Land only on the basis of the covenant relationship. When they violated the covenant they forfeited their right to remain in Canaan. They would be “plucked from off the land” and scattered (Deut. 28:63, 64). Under the symbol of a “vine” Isaiah represents Israel “planted” in “a very fruitful hill.” But when the vine “brought forth wild grapes” God determined to lay the whole land waste (Isa. 5:1–7).

30. I am the Lord. The chapter ends as it began, with this affirmation, designed to remind them of the holiness of God and of the high standard He held before them.

Ellen G. White comments

5 PP 372

26, 27 1T 280