There is little doubt that many ancient Canaanite religions called for child sacrifice. The rites of both Chemosh of the Moabites and Molech of the Ammonites appear to have called for sacrifices by “passing through the fire.” This is generally understood to mean sacrifice by burning the victim to death.
Pretty gruesome and often offered by Apologists as a justification for the genocide the early Israelites were instructed by God to carry out on the Canaanite tribes. The more secular idea of refugees from civilized Egypt entering Canaan and being horrified by the practice works as an explanation too.
There’s only one problem. If the kingdoms of Israel and Judah actually emerged from the indigenous nomads of the highlands as Finkelstein and others propose, then there was no exodus from Egypt and there is no reason to assume the early Hebrew religious practices would be all that distinct from the surrounding cultures. One would expect to find that the early Israelites practiced child sacrifice as well as their neighbors. The question is whether, as we are led to believe by most interpretations, this was the result of the Israelites becoming enamored of foreign gods and adopting their rites or it was the result of internal priestly disagreements related to the proper worship of the Hebrew God himself. In other words, did early Israelites perform child sacrifices to YHWH as their neighbors did to Chemosh and Molech?
Exodus hints at the practice by talking about “redeeming” each first born male. In Kings, the Kings of Israel are repeatedly condemned for performing child sacrifice.
Exodus 13:2 Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.
Rather a suggestive paragraph wouldn’t you say?
Exodus 13:13 Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.
I guess one could “redeem” a child the same way a donkey is redeemed, with a substitute lamb, but it’s interesting that it doesn’t specifically say that isn’t it? Then again, according to Numbers, it simply costs 5 shekels to redeem each firstborn son.
Exodus 13:14 In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.'
Most Apologists would point out that either these paragraphs simply refer to dedicating the first born male to the service of God or that they refer to redeeming the first born with lamb’s blood as was done on the first Passover.
I don’t find the first explanation terribly compelling. Dedicated to God’s service in order to do what? The Levites were the priestly class weren’t they? If this was simply a call to dedicate the first born male to the service of God, then how come the practice isn’t referred to and expanded upon elsewhere?
The second explanation sounds much more likely and first born children would be redeemed with a substitute animal sacrifice. I wonder what happened if the family didn’t have an animal to substitute?
2 Kings 16:3 He (Ahaz) walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
2 Kings 17:17 They (the Israelites) sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire.
The kings of Judah come in for similar criticism in this regard including Solomon.
1 Kings 11: 7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. 8 He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.
King Hezekiah and then Josiah, the guy with the white hat according to the Deuteronomistic History, take serious steps to put a stop to this practice. Unfortunately, their actions appear to get undone by the kings that follow them.
2 Kings 23:10 He (King Josiah) desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech.
Josiah was not a man to trifle with. Undoubtedly cheered on by Jeremiah, he ripped down all the altars dedicated by past kings to foreign gods.
2 Kings 23:12 He pulled down the altars the kings of Judah had erected on the roof near the upper room of Ahaz, and the altars Manasseh had built in the two courts of the temple of the LORD. He removed them from there, smashed them to pieces and threw the rubble into the Kidron Valley. 13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the people of Ammon.
It sounds like the priests came off even worse than the altars.
2 Kings 23:20 Josiah slaughtered all the priests of those high places.
Josiah re-organizes how the Passover is celebrated.
2 Kings 23:21 The king gave this order to all the people: "Celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant."
And what is this “Book of the Covenant?” Why it’s the book of laws fortuitously located by the High Priest Hilkiah in the Temple at Jerusalem. I say fortuitously because the book:
- Explained what the Israelites had been doing wrong and that got God all ticked off at them.
- Explained how to improve the situation.
- Established Judah’s ancient claim to the lands of the defunct northern kingdom of Israel
The book is of course Deuteronomy and the following historical books or at least the initial version of the histories. I find it a little strange that Josiah and company felt compelled to specify the Passover celebration.
Deuteronomy 16:2 Sacrifice as the Passover to the LORD your God an animal from your flock or herd at the place the LORD will choose as a dwelling for his Name.
The place is Jerusalem which pretty much puts the Kingdom of Judah, and Josiah himself, in the driver’s seat. It also guarantees that the Levite priests of Jerusalem would be the beneficiaries of the sacrifices.
Deuteronomy 6:20 In the future, when your son asks you, "What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?" 21 tell him: "We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.”
Note the absence of any references to sacrificing the first male offspring, redeeming the first male or any references to the death of the first born of Egypt here as opposed to Exodus 13.
Josiah, Deuteronomy and the supporting histories make it pretty darn clear that human sacrifice will not be tolerated nor will any other rites associated with foreign gods. If Josiah was the driving force behind Deuteronomy, or even if he simply acquiesced to something being touted by Hilkiah and his son Jeremiah, the legal and religious reform that he brought about deserves to be considered one of the greatest influences on the western world and King Josiah deserves to be considered one of history’s greatest law givers up there with Hammurabi, Moses, and Solon.
Unfortunately, Josiah makes the mistake of stepping in front of an Egyptian arrow and it’s unlikely that he managed to fully root out the practice since both Jeremiah and Ezekiel have a few words to say about the topic as well.
Jeremiah 7:31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.
I find it interesting that God has to specifically state that child sacrifice was “something I did not command” as late as the time of Jeremiah in the 7th century BCE.
Ezekiel 20:25 I also gave them (the Israelites) over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.'
This is another one of those “suggestive passages.” One can spin it a number of ways but one has to wonder about paragraph 26 and exactly what is implied by God letting them become defiled through the sacrifice of every firstborn and why this would fill them with horror?
Ezekiel 20:31 When you offer your gifts—the sacrifice of your sons in the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day.
This sort of implies that the practice was still going on around the time of the exile.
What I have never been able to understand is why so many of the kings of ancient Israel and Judah, at least according to the prevailing Biblical interpretation, fell into the habit of worshipping foreign gods. It seems like a pretty dumb thing to do. The cycle is obvious. The people fall into idolatry, God beats them over the head because of it, the people repent, God forgives them and restores their blessings and then the idiots immediately fall back into idolatry.
One has to suspect that this is the result of the cycle of success and failure that all nations and cultures experience. However, it usually takes something pretty major to turn a people away from their god. The first reaction is usually that the god is angry for some reason and needs to be appeased. This leads either directly to increased sacrifices or, if there is an ongoing debate between factions of the priesthood, a swing in which faction has the upper hand.
There certainly appears to have historically been some friction between the northern priesthood centered at Shiloh and the southern priesthood centered at Jerusalem. Allow me to speculate that the northern faction, in a more hospitable and more densely populated environment with more aggressive local neighbors, held to what they believed were the “old ways” which included the same child sacrifice as the other tribal religions, while the southern faction, in a much more sparsely populated environment, held the opinion that such rites were a perversion of the true worship of YHWH.
Since the north was the more powerful of the two kingdoms, its influence would tend to prevail and its theology would tend to dominate. After the fall of the northern kingdom, that influence would begin to wane but it would take a good while for it to disappear completely. If for no other reason than the strength of tradition, it might still hold sway unless strong liberal kings, like Hezekiah and Josiah, were on the throne of Judah.
I find it suggestive that the first great reform, that of Hezekiah, occurs right about the time of the fall of the northern kingdom. I also find it interesting that both reforms occurred during the period of influence of a great prophet. Isaiah was a contemporary of Hezekiah and Jeremiah was a contemporary of Josiah.
Upon the death of Hezekiah, Manasseh ascends to the throne of Judah. It’s a dangerous time. The northern kingdom has fallen and the king of Assyria is applying considerable pressure on Judah having even besieged Jerusalem during Hezekiah’s reign. Perhaps looking for a reversal of fortune, Manasseh undoes the reforms of Hezekiah.
2 Chronicle 33:2 He (Manasseh) did evil in the eyes of the LORD, following the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. 3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had demolished.
2 Chronicles 33:6 He (Manasseh) sacrificed his sons in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced sorcery, divination and witchcraft, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
As noted above, rather than appease God, Manasseh ticked him off to no end. To teach Manasseh a lesson, God let the Assyrians clean his clock.
2 Chronicles 33:11 So the LORD brought against them the army commanders of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh prisoner, put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon. 12 In his distress he sought the favor of the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers.
Not exactly what the Prophet Isaiah had in mind when he prophesized:
Isaiah 30:31 The voice of the LORD will shatter Assyria; with his scepter he will strike them down. 32 Every stroke the LORD lays on them with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm. 33 Topheth has long been prepared; it has been made ready for the king. Its fire pit has been made deep and wide, with an abundance of fire and wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of burning sulfur, sets it ablaze.
So Isaiah envisions that the King of Assyria will be burned in the pit of Topheth just as all the child sacrifices to false gods? Then why is the fire in the pit started by “the breath of the LORD?”
At least according to Chronicles, Manasseh sees the light and turns back to God. Strangely, Kings is silent about this change of heart.
2 Chronicles 33:15 He got rid of the foreign gods and removed the image from the temple of the LORD, as well as all the altars he had built on the temple hill and in Jerusalem; and he threw them out of the city. 16 Then he restored the altar of the LORD and sacrificed fellowship offerings and thank offerings on it, and told Judah to serve the LORD, the God of Israel. 17 The people, however, continued to sacrifice at the high places, but only to the LORD their God.
Let’s consider paragraph 17. “The people, however, continued to sacrifice at the high places, but only to the LORD their God.”
What the hell does this mean? The “high places” were the places where child sacrifice to the foreign gods took place. This passage can easily be interpreted to mean that while the sacrifices remained the same, they were now only directed toward the god of Israel while in the past they had been directed toward multiple deities including the god of Israel (note that I use a small “g” because I can’t possibly be talking about God here).
I might even argue that is the simplest interpretation. Any other interpretation requires reading into the passage a change in the manner of sacrifice as well.
As for Isaiah, Jewish tradition has it that he was executed by Manasseh by being cut in half with a wooden saw. I guess Manasseh was unamused that he got a hook through his nose rather than the Assyrian monarch getting fried in a fiery pit. Manasseh reigned for fifty-five years! His successor, Amon, was assassinated after only two years.
2 Chronicles 33:22 He (Amon) did what was evil in the LORD's sight, just as his father Manasseh had done. He worshiped and sacrificed to all the idols his father had made. 23 But unlike his father, he did not humble himself before the LORD. Instead, Amon sinned even more.
Very strange isn’t it? Manasseh sees the light after getting a hook shoved into his nose but Amon doesn’t learn anything from that. I might also point out that the passage sort of implies that sacrificing to idols is ok as long as you humble yourself before the LORD.
2 Chronicle 33:24 At last Amon's own officials plotted against him and assassinated him in his palace. 25 But the people of the land killed all those who had conspired against King Amon, and they made his son Josiah the next king.
This sure sounds like another event in an ongoing internecine struggle. This time it’s a failed palace coup.
Josiah ascends the throne next at the tender age of eight and doesn’t begin his reforms until twelve years later. Coincidentally, Jeremiah gets his first person to person call from God in the thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign.
The untimely death of Josiah and Judah getting caught between the millstones of Egypt and Babylon sort of pushes the theological struggle into the background but it’s the Babylonian exile which finally appears to settle the question.
Historically child sacrifice in Canaan seems to have continued in some places until the Romans took measures to stamp it out once and for all in the 1st century CE! It took the empire to succeed despite the fact that both the Greeks and the Jews, after the Babylonian exile, abhorred the practice.
The traditional understanding is that the people were constantly being seduced into worshipping false gods and performing their abominable acts. I suspect that it was a little more complicated than that. I suspect that early on there was some disagreement over whether the God of Israel required such sacrifices as well.
I suspect that the priestly faction of the northern kingdom insisted that such sacrifices were right and proper and based this argument upon a distorted interpretation of the book of Exodus. If you learn nothing else young Padawan learn this, NEVER entrust a priest, or anyone else that calls himself a “man of God,” with the authority to make decisions related to law or justice. Feel free to use them as moral advisors if you must, but leave the authority, in the hands of secular leaders.
Not until the fall of the northern kingdom does a minority southern viewpoint, which holds child sacrifice an abomination of false gods, begin to replace the distorted northern view. Not until Josiah produces the Book of Deuteronomy, which clearly refutes child sacrifice by providing an alternate set of rules, is there a book of Moses that supports the southern viewpoint, but, as indicated by Ezekiel, it still takes a hundred years or so for the conflict to finally be resolved. Perhaps the practice was finally abandoned at the insistence of the Babylonians who, despite the sexual myths recorded by Herodotus, seem to have practiced a reasonably high morality as free of human sacrifice as the Egyptians.
Yes, yes, it’s all speculation and undoubtedly being driven by my ignorance and lack of understanding. Actually it’s being driven by my philosophy of “accept nothing without questioning everything.”
Clearly my suspicions and ramblings are totally meaningless since there is no way to verify them one way or the other. This is merely an exercise in cherry picking passages and twisting the interpretation to fit some pre-defined conclusion. But isn’t this basically what all biblical interpretation consists of?
I find amusing the position that the Bible is simple to understand except when it appears to say something uncomfortable. Then one needs years of training in biblical interpretation and exegesis in order to understand what it REALLY means.
I’m certainly not saying that I believe child sacrifice was a part of the early worship of the Israelite God. I’m well enough trained to be able to consider an idea that I don’t accept. There are a few that do accept it however starting with the anthropologist Patrick Tierney.
I find it interesting that I only encountered Tierney AFTER I wrote the first drafts of the above speculation. While I thought Isaiah would have been supporting Hezekiah’s initial attempt at reform, Tierney believes the passages from Isaiah 30:31-33 are an acceptance of the sacrificial practices. I’m not so sure. I think Isaiah was speaking metaphorically and cheered on Hezekiah all the way. Perhaps that was another reason Manasseh decided to shorten his existence.
I’ve found some Apologetics on this topic but not much. No one tries to refute the idea since the overwhelmingly majority interpretation of the scriptures is that they are referring to the repeated descent into idolatry and the worship of false gods. Doesn’t God, when he stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, make it clear that he abhors human sacrifice?
Well, not really. You could interpret it that way, and lots of folks do, but God never actually says that. Well then surely when God stopped Jephthah from sacrificing his daughter he makes it clear then. Oh wait, God didn’t stop Jephthah did he? Nope, not one word of protest. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, Jephthah’s oath in Judges 11:31 “whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering” sort of has built into it the possibility that it could be a person. Jephthah couldn’t have been so stupid that he didn’t realize that could he?
Christianity has the problem that Jesus is fundamentally being pushed as a human sacrifice for the atonement of man’s sins. Most folks don’t raise this point since it tends to be viewed as a terribly offensive suggestion. I did find one Apologetic refutation of the idea though, which went through great pains, primarily by playing fast and loose with some Hebrew bible translations, to establish that it’s only child sacrifice that the bible condemns! And he was quite content that he had addressed the issue. What an idiot.
Josiah’s Deuteronomy clearly declares human sacrifice an absolute no-no along with a number of other abhorrent practices.
Deuteronomy 18:9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
This means that all the phony mediums and psychics fleecing people by claiming to speak to the dead are performing actions that are “detestable to the LORD.”
As for Jesus as human sacrifice, these laws are given to men. It’s God’s sandbox so I guess he’s not necessarily bound by them. Besides, dying is only a temporary, although awfully painful, inconvenience for a god-man isn’t it?