Does the Moabite god defeat Israel in 2 Kings 3:27?

[ToTheWest]

After reading all these commentaries, there seem to be three leading proposals as to the subject of wrath against Israel:

1. The Moabite god (favored by NAB notes)
2. The Moabites
3. Yahweh

The first one is possible, but seems so contrary to the rest of Scripture and so unlikely to be the kind of thing Israel would write that it is very difficult for me to believe. It would just seem to be a very odd exception to the norm. Thus I am not a fan of this one (despite what the NAB notes say).

The second one is also possible, though it goes against the typical usage of wrath elsewhere (it usually refers to divine wrath, not human wrath). So I don’t know that I would make this interpretation my primary choice (see my final comment at the end).

The third fits the typical usage of wrath (i.e. wrath of Yahweh), though it isn’t totally clear why Yahweh is angry. Nevertheless, there are numerous possibilities for why Yahweh could be angry: violation of the laws of war in Deuteronomy, driving the Moabite king to commit to such a horrific act, demanding excessive tribute from the Moabites, etc. So I would tend to favor this proposal.

It could also be that the wrath of Yahweh is manifested in the wrath of the Moabites, as they rise up in anger against Israel upon the sacrifice of the king’s son and become the medium for Yahweh’s response. Hence proposals 2 and 3 together seem like a good way to interpret this passage.

 

[jcrichton]

After reading all these commentaries, there seem to be three leading proposals as to the subject of wrath against Israel:

1. The Moabite god (favored by NAB notes)
2. The Moabites
3. Yahweh

The first one is possible, but seems so contrary to the rest of Scripture and so unlikely to be the kind of thing Israel would write that it is very difficult for me to believe. It would just seem to be a very odd exception to the norm. Thus I am not a fan of this one (despite what the NAB notes say).

The second one is also possible, though it goes against the typical usage of wrath elsewhere (it usually refers to divine wrath, not human wrath). So I don’t know that I would make this interpretation my primary choice (see my final comment at the end).

The third fits the typical usage of wrath (i.e. wrath of Yahweh), though it isn’t totally clear why Yahweh is angry. Nevertheless, there are numerous possibilities for why Yahweh could be angry: violation of the laws of war in Deuteronomy, driving the Moabite king to commit to such a horrific act, demanding excessive tribute from the Moabites, etc. So I would tend to favor this proposal.

It could also be that the wrath of Yahweh is manifested in the wrath of the Moabites, as they rise up in anger against Israel upon the sacrifice of the king’s son and become the medium for Yahweh’s response. Hence proposals 2 and 3 together seem like a good way to interpret this passage.

Hi!
…wow… :hypno::hypno::hypno:uch:

…my head is still spinning…

Though quite educated, none of the commentaries showed how this “wrath” was demonstrated by an actual military regrouping followed by an overpowering and devastating assault against Israel… further, they cover all bases from type (exodus) to Yahweh’s wrath on Israel to Elisha’s half prophesying to making king Jehoram an unwilling prophet to Yahweh’s foretelling Israel’s defeat at the hands of the Moabites…

Have you seen the news lately? There’s that issue with the dictator from N. Korea… he allowed certain event to be televised; it shows a whole-lot-to-do of honors and military marching and everyone is oh so happy… commentators mention two interesting facts: a) the sister being elevated to some official capacity, quickly followed by b) the dictator having terminated several of his generals, including his uncle, because they stepped out of line…

Are these people blind/ignorant to the tyrant’s wrath and blood-thirst?

Nope! He is their monarch… so what’s good for the monarch…

This seems to elude the above quoted commentators; they base their interpretation on anything but what is most likely the hidden mystery: a) desperate times call for desperate measures, and b) even the weakest person in the world can, given the right circumstances, muster up enough courage to face the object of oppression/fear.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ToTheWest]

Hi!
…wow… :hypno::hypno::hypno:uch:

…my head is still spinning…

Though quite educated, none of the commentaries showed how this “wrath” was demonstrated by an actual military regrouping followed by an overpowering and devastating assault against Israel… further, they cover all bases from type (exodus) to Yahweh’s wrath on Israel to Elisha’s half prophesying to making king Jehoram an unwilling prophet to Yahweh’s foretelling Israel’s defeat at the hands of the Moabites…

Have you seen the news lately? There’s that issue with the dictator from N. Korea… he allowed certain event to be televised; it shows a whole-lot-to-do of honors and military marching and everyone is oh so happy… commentators mention two interesting facts: a) the sister being elevated to some official capacity, quickly followed by b) the dictator having terminated several of his generals, including his uncle, because they stepped out of line…

Are these people blind/ignorant to the tyrant’s wrath and blood-thirst?

Nope! He is their monarch… so what’s good for the monarch…

This seems to elude the above quoted commentators; they base their interpretation on anything but what is most likely the hidden mystery: a) desperate times call for desperate measures, and b) even the weakest person in the world can, given the right circumstances, muster up enough courage to face the object of oppression/fear.

Maran atha!

Angel

Wow - thanks for all your thoughts. With your unique angle on this, it sounds to me like you need to write your own commentary on this passage!

I don’t recall seeing anything that talks very specifically about your interpretation, though I’ll take a look around and try and post some more excerpts from commentaries. A very fascinating passage indeed.

Now here’s a controversial thought that came to mind that could be way off, but I might as well throw it out there.

Is it possible that there is an intentional ambiguity in the text with respect to “wrath” because it has numerous meanings? As I said before, I could see the wrath as being both God’s wrath against Israel for their harshness and also the wrath of the Moabites being the instrument of God’s wrath.

Now here’s where I’ll get to the really controversial part. Is it possible to say that Yahweh technically answered the desperate prayer of the Moabites, as heinous as their sacrifice was, even though they attributed the answered prayer to their own god? After all, Yahweh is not just the god of Israel, but the god over all people. And we know that Yahweh abhors human sacrifice, but what if as some commentators suggest, the king’s son voluntarily offered himself as a sacrifice to save his people? Might Yahweh still possibly honor this selfless act? It almost sounds like a type of Christ.

Again, thanks for the great discussion!

 

[jcrichton]

Wow - thanks for all your thoughts. With your unique angle on this, it sounds to me like you need to write your own commentary on this passage!

I don’t recall seeing anything that talks very specifically about your interpretation, though I’ll take a look around and try and post some more excerpts from commentaries. A very fascinating passage indeed.

Now here’s a controversial thought that came to mind that could be way off, but I might as well throw it out there.

Is it possible that there is an intentional ambiguity in the text with respect to “wrath” because it has numerous meanings? As I said before, I could see the wrath as being both God’s wrath against Israel for their harshness and also the wrath of the Moabites being the instrument of God’s wrath.

Now here’s where I’ll get to the really controversial part. Is it possible to say that Yahweh technically answered the desperate prayer of the Moabites, as heinous as their sacrifice was, even though they attributed the answered prayer to their own god? After all, Yahweh is not just the god of Israel, but the god over all people. And we know that Yahweh abhors human sacrifice, but what if as some commentators suggest, the king’s son voluntarily offered himself as a sacrifice to save his people? Might Yahweh still possibly honor this selfless act? It almost sounds like a type of Christ.

Again, thanks for the great discussion!

Hi!
Thanks for the uplift… :dancing:
I love reading Scriptures and I truly believe that the Holy Spirit can reveal God’s Truth through us (we are all called to be part of the Priestly Kingdom); it is just that (from my perspective) intellect gets in the way and man’s ego inhibits the Holy Spirit … still, there are things that we may never truly be able to understand (hold full revelation)–*that is *until the change takes place (1 Corinthians 13:10-12).

We can note in Scriptures that when Yahweh God disapproves of Israel He lets them know exactly what He wanted and how they failed Him–He sends His Prophets to remind/warn them. And while He is God to all the world, there’s a significant distinction between those who Worship Him and those who do not: Immanuel–God is always a God with the people.

I recall one specific passage where we see the Wrath of God abated against someone that is not part of Israel:

25 In truth I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elias in Israel, when heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there was a great famine throughout all the earth. 26 And to none of them was Elias sent, but to Sarepta of Sidon, to a widow woman. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet: and none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian. (St. Luke 4:25-27)

During each of the above circumstances, it was the humility of the people that made it possible for Yahweh God to act upon their lives–and as Jesus counters, Israel’s stubbornness to reject God caused Him to ignore His firstborn (Jacob/Israel).

Now, on the issue of the Christ type (self-sacrifice)… well, we know what happens when man attempts to coerce God… :banghead::banghead::banghead:

There’s a type orchestrated by God Himself (Abraham and Isaac); still, though romantic as the idea is of the king’s son sacrificing himself… well, first, Scriptures do not even hint at that and, second, what we have come to know about the cultures of the past (and present) is that heirs would murder their siblings, their patriarchs and matriarchs rather than put themselves out or even wait out their turn…

Finally, when it comes to sacrifice, we find that Scriptures are always forbidding Israel from practicing the abominations of the nations around them… human sacrifice would be very high on that list!

So why would Yahweh be moved by an atrocious sacrificial act?

Maran atha!

Angel