high places read high place. There would not be more than one altar in Topheth. So LXX and Targ.

Topheth This probably is not the original vocalisation (LXX Ταφέθ), though the latter cannot be determined with certainty. As Bosheth was a frequent substitute for Baal (see on Jeremiah 3:24), and as the vowels of the former word were for a similar reason given to the consonants MLK (Melech, king), in order that offerings which the more enlightened felt it shameful to connect with Israel's Divine King (Melech) might be represented as really made to a heathen god (M ol ech); so here the original form of the word Topheth is thought to have been disguised for the same purpose of discredit. The etymology of the word is doubtful. Perhaps it comes from a root appearing in Aramaic in the sense of fire-place. So Rob. Sm. Rel. of the Semites, p. 377 (1894), who points out that when the term "first appears in Hebrew, the chief foreign influence was that of Damascus" (2 Kings 16). A great pit constituted the "fire-place," where the victims were consumed. See C. B. on Isaiah 30:33, where the word is from the same root, though in a slightly different form. As to the position of Topheth see next note. It was defiled by Josiah (2 Kings 23:10) as the scene of idolatrous and cruel rites.

valley of the son of Hinnom The majority of scholars identify it with the Wady er-Rubâbeh, running W. and S. of Jerusalem, rather than with the Tyropoeon or the Kidron valleys. The derivation and meaning of Hinnom are unknown. Possibly it was the name of a former owner. See further on Jeremiah 2:23. As to the position of Topheth in connexion with it, all that we can say with tolerable certainty is that it was near the junction of the three valleys which encompass Jerusalem, and below Siloam. See HDB. Hinnom, Valley of, and Topheth.

to burn, etc.] The law laid down that firstborn alike of men and of cattle were dedicated to Jehovah. The firstborn of men and of unclean animals were to be redeemed, those of clean animals to be offered in sacrifice (Exodus 13:2; Exodus 13:12 f., Jeremiah 22:29; Jeremiah 34:19 f.; cp. Numbers 3:46 f., Jeremiah 18:15 f.). The fact that neighbouring nations, Arabs, Phoenicians, Moabites, actually sacrificed their firstborn, together with a misinterpretation of the above passages, may have led to a belief that Jehovah meant that this should be done, and possibly Jeremiah in Jeremiah 8:8 refers to a writtenperversion of the law in this direction. See note there. According to Ezek. (Ezekiel 20:25) the people were left by God in this belief as a judicial punishment. (Cp. for a parallel case Ezekiel 14:9.) Ezekiel there traces the custom to wilderness days. As human sacrifices came under the category of the burnt offering, and as animals were slain before they were consumed, we may presume that the same was done in these cases. (Milton, P.L. I. 394 ff. takes the other view.)

which I, etc.] Micah 6:7 shews that in his day the question of the efficacy of such sacrifices was a practical one.

mind mg. heart. See on ch. Jeremiah 5:21.

Continues after advertising
Continues after advertising