Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
“Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.” 2 Kings 3:27
How does the text read most accurately?
2 Kings 3:27 Did Israel depart in victory or flee without the spoils?
I think it was a case of take your accumulated profits and cut your current minor losses and go home.
2 Kings 3:27
Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.
so they withdrew
וַיִּסְעוּ֙ (way·yis·‘ū)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine plural
Strong's Hebrew 5265: To pull up, the tent-pins, start on a journey
The verb indicates some kind of orderly withdrawal.
Elisha prophecied earlier starting in verse 18b
he will also deliver Moab into your hands. 19You will overthrow every fortified city and every major town. You will cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every good field with stones.”
It was quickly fulfilled in
25They destroyed the towns, and each man threw a stone on every good field until it was covered. They stopped up all the springs and cut down every good tree.
This was where the allied forces, Edom, Israel, and Judah took their spoils.
The alliance was not so tight and strong and withdrew in verse 27 with at least some of the winning spoils.
Some centuries later, a final prophecy appears in Jeremiah 48
46Woe to you, Moab!
The people of Chemosh are destroyed;
your sons are taken into exile
and your daughters into captivity.
47“Yet I will restore the fortunes of Moabin days to come,” declares the Lord.
Here ends the judgment on Moab.
The Hebrew clause in 2 Kings 3:27:
וַיְהִ֥י קֶצֶף־גָּדֹ֖ול עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
Is literally, "And there was great wrath upon Israel".
Note what we are NOT told: we are not told the origin of the wrath (who was angry with whom). Was it Moab that was angry or God, or someone else? There are essentially two possibilities:
In any case, the juxtaposition of the appalling act of the king of Moab sacrificing his son on the wall appears to be the cause of the wrath.
It is apparent that the commentaries are far from united on this matter - what was the origin of the wrath. I presume that in a large coalition (three kings and their forces) that the ideas were equally far from uniform and people had mixed feelings. The differences between the above options were often quite blurred in the minds of the ancients and it may have been a mixture of all four.
In any case, the purpose of the expedition was not plunder but submission - the coalition of armies was to remedy the rebellion of Moab (2 Kings 3:5) and thus to reinstate the regular tribute (2 Kings 3:4). No plunder was sought and no plunder was taken.
