We have often talked about the worship of Molek. For instance:

Vayiqra (Leviticus) 18:21
And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molek, neither shall you profane את eth-the name of your ELOHIYM: I am YAHUAH.

When we take a look at the concordance we find that the definition of Molek (מֶלךְ) is “the chief deity of the Ammonites” (Strong’s H4432). Of course, this is not the root. Malak (מַלךְ) is the root. A careful examination shows that both words are spelled mem, lamed, kaf sofit – in both instances. Malak means to reign; or, inceptively, to ascend the throne. Compare with melek (מֶלךְ) (Strong's H4428), meaning king. We can see here, how we might find that the word Molek would mean king, or royalty of the Ammonites. However, we get that extra leap from king to deity somehow, in the contexts where this word appears.

Vayiqra (Leviticus) 20:2-5
Again, you shall say to the children of Yashar’el: Whoever he be of the children of Yashar’el, or of the strangers that sojourn in Yashar’el, that gives any of his seed to Molek; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set את eth-my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people; because he has given of his seed to Molek, to defile את eth-my sanctuary, and to profane את eth-my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do any way hide את eth-their eyes from the man, when he gives of his seed to Molek, and not kill him: 5 Then I will set את eth-my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and את eth all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molek, from among their people.

Melekiym Ri’shon (1 Kings) 11:7
Then did Shalomah build a high place for Kemosh, the abomination of Mo’av, in the hill that is before Yerushalayim, and for Molek, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

Here, in this passage, we see a further exposition of this name Molek, now calling him the abomination of the children of Ammon. None of these describe Molek as a deity, so one might wonder how the Strong’s interpreters reached the conclusion that Molek was a deity.

Melekiym Sheniy (2 Kings) 23:10
And he defiled את eth-Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make את eth-his son or את eth-his daughter to pass through the fire to Molek.

Finally, in our last passage using this name we find as follows:

Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 32:35
And they built את eth-the high places of Ba`al, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause את eth-their sons and את eth-their daughters to pass through the fire to Molek; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause את eth-Yahudah to sin.

Before we abandon this inquiry, let us also consider another deity here:

Malkam or Milcom (ַמְלָכם) (Strong’s H4445), which the concordance tells us is “the national idol of the Ammonites;” its root being either melek, (ֶמֶלךְ) (H4428), meaning king, or Molek (ֹמֶלךְ), an Ammonite deity. Malkam is called the abomination of the Ammonites in Melekiym Ri’shon (1 Kings) 11:5; the elohiym of the children of Ammon in Melekiym Ri’shon (1 Kings) 11:33; and the abomination of the children of Ammon in Melekiym Sheniy (2 Kings) 23:13.

COMPARE with:

Tsephanyahu (Zephaniah) 1:4-5
I will also stretch out my hand upon Yahudah, and upon all the inhabitants of Yerushalayim; and I will cut off את eth-the remnant of Ba`al from this place, and את eth-the name of the Kemariym with the priests; 5 And them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by YAHUAH, and that swear by Malkam;

We have another word here, which is worthy of consideration, and that is the word malak (מְלָאךְ) (Strong's H4397). This word is generally interpreted as a messenger of YAH, an angel (but also, a prophet, priest, or teacher). We note here the same spelling, with one exception: that is, we have mem, lamed, and kaph sofit, but there is the inclusion of aleph (א) within, giving it a divine signature. Now, let us suppose you would like to make reference to these same angels who had lost their divine appointment, the divine signature. Would you not spell it without the aleph?

Consider also the term for watcher found in Daniy’el, which is iyr (עיר) (Strong's H5894), generally interpreted as a watcher, i.e. an angel (as guardian). The Watchers, described in the Cepher Chanok would then be iyriym (עירים), but then again each such watcher may be described also as an angel (malak) (מְלָאךְ), or in the plural malakiym (מְלאָכְים). However, if they were fallen watchers, whose divine signature had been removed, would they not be malak (ֹמֶלךְ) and in the plural malakiym (מְלָכם)?

What therefore is the warning given in Yirmeyahu 32, concerning passing through the fire to Molek? Let’s examine a couple of key words more closely.

The word used for pass through is this word ‛âbar (עַבר) (H5674), although the complete presentment is (להעביר) which is l’h’abiyr (עבוּר) H5668), which is the passive participle of H5674; and is generally interpreted to mean crossed, i.e. (abstractly) transit; used only adverbially, on account of . . ., in order that . . ., because of . . ., and so on.

When reviewing the passage in Ivriyt (Hebrew) we discover that the word fire does not appear, and that the passive participle abiyr (rather than abar) appears with the prefix to and the prefix the. The passage is then better stated thusly:

Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 32:35
And they built את eth-the high places of Ba`al, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to transit את eth-their sons and את eth-their daughters to Molek; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause את eth-Yahudah to sin.

Notwithstanding the use of the passive participle, let’s consider the root word ‛âbar (עַבר) (H5674) for a more complete understanding of that which is being discussed. Abar means to cross over; used very widely of any transition (literally or figuratively; transitively, intransitively, intensively or causatively); specifically, to cover (in copulation): to alienate, alter, to bring (over, through), to carry over, to overcome, to conduct (over), to convey over, to translate, or to turn away. Now, using these interpretations, we discover that Molek, may in fact be a malak – an angel or watcher, but without a divine signature, i.e., a fallen watcher. Malkam, or Malkam may not be a proper name, but rather, the plural of Molek/Malak, that is, Malakiym, i.e., fallen watchers.

Now consider Tsephanyahu again:

Tsephanyahu (Zephaniah) 1:5
And them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by YAHUAH, and that swear by Malakiym! (i.e., fallen watchers!).

Molek; Malak; Melek; they are all spelled the same. Yet in this instance, we may have a toxic blend to give us the king (melek) of the watcher (malak) who fell (molek).

What is, then, transiting your children to Molek? Is it not giving your children to the ways of the fallen one? And what are his ways?

Chanok (Enoch) 9:1-2
MOREOVER Aza'zel, taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, the fabrication of mirrors, and the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, the use of stones of every valuable and select kind, and all sorts of dyes, so that the world became altered. 2 Impiety increased; fornication multiplied; and they transgressed and corrupted all their ways.