Articles
Great Fury on Israel: The Sacrifice of 2 Kings 3
One of the great difficulties in understanding the Book of Kings is that many events are presented without narrative commentary. In other words, many times the narrator of Kings doesn’t explicitly tell us how an event is meant to be read or what we’re supposed to think about it; he simply presents us the information and expects discerning readers to be able to understand what is occurring. This results in some passages that are extremely thorny to work out. One of the prime examples of this is 2 Kings 3:27 and the battle against Moab, which has puzzled commentators and scholars for years.
To give the context of this odd verse, we find the kings of Israel and Judah set aside their typical warfare against one another and instead band together to go fight a common foe. Ahab, the archvillain of much of the Elijah narrative, has been slain, and his son Jehoram is reigning as his successor after a brief two-year reign of Ahab’s son Ahaziah. Moab had been subdued by Israel and taken over as a client kingdom, but after Ahab’s death King Mesha rebels against Israel. Jehoram requests Judah’s king, Jehoshaphat, to fight against Moab with him. Jehoshaphat agrees, and proposes an invasion of Moab through the desert of Edom (who is a client state under the control of Judah). After seven days of marching through the desert, the army runs out of water. While Jehoram bemoans the situation and questions why the “the Lord called us three kings together only to deliver us into the hands of Moab?” (2 Kings 3:10), Jehoshaphat suggests they consult a prophet of the Lord. A servant notes that Elisha is nearby, and the three kings agree to go consult him. When they arrive, Elisha initially rebukes Jehoram by asking, “Why do you want to involve me? Go to the prophets of your father and the prophets of your mother,” although interestingly the text earlier noted that Jehoram had actually gotten rid of the Baal stones that Ahab had made in Israel and had refused to worship Baal as Ahab and Jezebel had (2 Kings 3:2-3). When Jehoram protests that it is the Lord’s fault that the three kings have been delivered into the hands of Moab (which is a curious claim seeing as how neither Jehoram nor Jehoshaphat actually consulted the Lord before launching this expedition), Elisha relents only because righteous Jehoshaphat is present (2 Kings 3:13-14).
The hand of the Lord comes upon Elisha and he prophesies that the Lord will provide pools of water for the army and Moab will be completely delivered into the army’s hands; Elisha says, “This is an easy thing in the eyes of the Lord; he will also deliver Moab into your hands. You 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,” (2 Kings 3:18). This is a surprisingly good prophesy for the kings, particularly given Elisha’s apparent distaste for Jehoram and the previous prophesies of Elijah that Ahab’s family line would soon be destroyed. Events, however, play out exactly like Elisha prophesies: the valley fills with water to sustain the army, and it even serves a double purpose of confusing the Moabite army. They see the sun shining on the water, mistake the water for blood, and believe the Israel-Judah-Edom alliance has collapsed under infighting. They eagerly plunge forward to plunder the camp, but the Israelites instead arise and fight the now disorganized Moabite army. The victory opens the door to invading Moab, and the alliance almost completely destroys the wicked nation. Towns are destroyed, trees cut down, springs stopped up, and fields ruined by stones. Elisha’s prophesy appears to have been true!
The final city left to Moab is Kir Hareseth, where Mesha himself resides. The city is put to siege by Israelite slingers, and an attempt to break out of the city by Mesha and his army fails. It seems as if the destruction of Moab will be complete until the unexpected final verse of the chapter: “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.” We are left utterly confused by what has occurred. Did Elisha’s prophesy not come true? What was the fury that occurred against Israel? Did child sacrifice actually work?
The first question seems difficult on its face, but perhaps is best answered by looking at a parallel passage in Kings. In 1 Kings 22, we see Jehoshaphat similarly allying with a king of Israel to go up against a foreign nation; in this previous episode, however, it had been Ahab himself who Jehoshaphat went to war with Aram with. In this chapter, we see a prophet of the Lord similarly bring a prophetic oracle to the alliance of kings. Micaiah, however, initially does not tell the true prophesy: he tells Ahab “Go up and succeed, and the Lord will give it into the hand of the king,” (1 Kings 22:15). While not explicitly said, it seems clear that Micaiah’s initial consultation was quite sarcastic given Ahab’s immediate response of frustration. It is also notable that Ahab’s initial request in verse 15 was asking “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?” That could easily be read as him asking Micaiah for his opinion, and then rephrases the question in verse 16 to be a direct asking for prophetic oracle. After this request, Micaiah reveals the truth of the situation: Ahab’s prophets are deceiving him, and the battle at Ramoth-gilead will result in Ahab’s death.
How does this relate to Elisha’s prophesy? Strictly speaking, Elisha’s prophesy does come true. The water arrives, Moab is given into the army’s hands, and the cities are “struck” (note: some translations obscure the fact that the word for “struck” or “overthrown” in vs. 19 is the same word used of the slingers who “struck” Kir-Hareseth, which indicates that every city was indeed attacked per Elisha’s prophesy). Elisha did not lie, and his prophesy did come to pass as we would expect of a true prophet. There is, however, a certain economy of truth about the prophesy: the ending of Israel and Judah being driven away by Moab had been concealed, and it seems as if the parallel reading of 1 Kings 22 indicates this was intentional. Just as Ahab was judged and condemned at Ramoth-gilead, so too has Jehoram been judged and condemned at Kir-Hareseth. As commentator Iain Provan says, “Total victory was never on the agenda, in spite of the way that Elisha’s words might have been construed. Once again a wicked Israelite king has been lured to disaster, this time not by a lying spirit speaking through false prophets, but by the Spirit of God revealing partial truth to a true prophet.” The prophesy makes clear that it is ultimately God in control of the prophetic oracles, and His will is not going to be denied.
The other two questions are the far knottier issues with the text. The fury that comes upon the Israelites and drives them away is not spelled out for the reader, and we are left to wonder what exactly is occurring. Readers are immediately uncomfortable with the idea that a child sacrifice, which has long been one of the abominations the Lord is noted as hating in the Law, would be successful is abhorrent. There have been four major theories offered up to explain what is occurring: 1) the Israelites left Moab out of disgust over the child sacrifice, 2) God’s wrath comes on Israel in response to Mesha’s sacrifice, 3) the Moabites became angry because of the sacrifice and drive Israel back, and 4) the Moabite god drove off the Israelites.
The first solution is the easiest to write off. The word often translated “fury” here is the Hebrew word “qetseph,” which is translated as “wrath” in every other occasion. For it to all of a sudden mean that the Israelites left because of righteous indignation would be an odd usage of the word, as well as not fit well with the narrative of 2 Kings 3. Jehoram has been noted as an unfaithful follower of Yahweh, and it would be odd if he suddenly became prudish at an enemy doing something ungodly. The second solution is similarly easy to dismiss. While God certainly hates child sacrifice and was undoubtedly angry over the Moabite king’s act, it makes no sense to say that God then poured that wrath out upon Israel for the Moabite’s sin. Why would he not direct his wrath against Moab rather than driving Israel away? We are then left with two plausible options: either the sacrifice spurred Moab to a burst of martial prowess, or there was supernatural activity working against Israel.
The idea that Moabite fury drove back Israel is the one that perhaps more easily sits with our cultural sensibilities. Most Christians of a restoration tradition tend to dismiss idols as representations of imaginary gods and glorified superstitions. This is not a particularly Biblical picture, however, of the false gods worshipped by the nations (and Israel, at times). Moses outright identifies the false gods as demons (Deuteronomy 32:16-17), and Daniel sees a vision of a “prince” of the kingdom of Persia who is portrayed as in opposition to the archangel Michael and Daniel’s angelic messenger. This is not to suggest polytheism; the Bible makes abundantly clear that these demonic false gods are not Yahweh, and they are not remotely equal to Yahweh. They are lesser spiritual beings that claim the title of “god” out of vain pretension. It does, however, present a fuller spiritual picture than many modern depictions of ANE religion does. Having said all of this, the Books of Samuel and Kings (which are collectively presented in the Septuagint as a single Book of Reigns) consistently portray the false gods of Baal and Ashtoreth as utterly powerless before God. The song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2, God’s victory over the Philistines in 1 Samuel 7, and the destruction of Baal worship in the Elijah-Elisha narratives are all presented as polemic proof that Yahweh is superior to Baal; so thorough is Yahweh’s dominance that it is made clear that Baal holds no true power. It would seem somewhat inconsistent, then, that 2 Kings 3:27 would suddenly have a false god (Chemosh, the national deity of Moab) demonstrate such divine power.
On the other hand, the word “qetseph” is almost always used of divine wrath in some sense. For it to be used of Moabite wrath against Israel would be almost as inconsistent a usage as the previously mentioned “righteous indignation” concept (although still a possibility based of the usage of “qetseph” in passages such as Esther 1:16). The simplest linguistic possibility is that supernatural wrath fell upon the Israelites. If this wrath was not Yahweh’s, as argued above, the only possibility of supernatural wrath is that of Chemosh. Would the context support this possibility? There are certainly numerous New Testament examples of demons possessing powers to assault and even overcome men (Acts 19:11-20), so the Bible supports the idea of demonic power (even if it does not compare to the power of Yahweh). A concern that is often raised with this interpretation is that, from an ANE perspective, a victory of Chemosh over Israel would be argued to be a victory of Chemosh over Yahweh. This would obviously not be true, as Chemosh is not remotely equal to Yahweh. Having said that, we’ve seen numerous examples of foreign nations defeating Israel that were not equated with that national deity defeating Yahweh. The most prominent example is the Philistine defeat of Israel and capture of the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel 4-6. While Israel is utterly humiliated and routed by their Philistine enemies, this is not a refutation of Yahweh’s power; Israel has lost due to Yahweh’s judgment upon their sins rather than a failure of Yahweh to protect them. In fact, the Philistines are soon firsthand witnesses to the superiority of Yahweh to their god Dagon; the episode ends with Dagon beheaded and prostrated before Yahweh and the Philistines returning the Ark of the Covenant to be spared a plague! A temporary victory by Chemosh over Israel, then, would not discredit Yahweh’s glory or power, particularly since we’ve seen there is at least some element of judgment against Jehoram and Israel occurring in this episode.
So, what is the proper conclusion for 2 Kings 3? There are reasonable arguments to be made for both the idea of Moabite fury driving back Israel and Chemosh supernaturally intervening against a Yahweh-opposed Israel, as well as weaknesses for both concepts. That may, in fact, be the point of the vagueness of the text. The author of Kings (and, consequently, God) may be calling us to consider and wrestle with the text in its context. Israel, under the leadership of the House of Ahab, have fallen so far that they are privy to being embarrassingly routed by foreign enemies, and perhaps even being opposed by the very idolatrous gods they themselves have embraced. The text is forcing us to weigh this in the balance of the prophesies against Ahab, and we’re being reminded that even though the sins of Jehoram are not as wicked as those of his father, the sins of Jeroboam are still causing Israel to suffer dire consequences. As for the modern reader, a text like 2 Kings 3 forces us to reconsider our conception of the false gods of the nations. While they are not Yahweh nor equal to Yahweh, they are certainly powers that are dangerous to mankind – whether through their direct intervention or their ability to manipulate the emotions of their followers. It is for this reason that we can well understand Paul’s great warning of our own spiritual battles against these demons: “Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places,” (Ephesians 6:11-12).
