An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 7

Drew Holland

Martin Methodist College

dholland@martinmethodist.edu

Abstract

King Mesha’s sacrifice of his son and the subsequent retreat of the

Israelite army from Moab in 2 Kgs 3:27 has proven to be a puzzling

text for interpreters from rabbinic Judaism to the present. Modern his-

torical analysis has fallen short in providing a coherent explanation for

the events of this verse. This article attempts to seek a new and cogent

interpretation for this passage based upon support from other texts

and lexemes within the Old Testament. In keeping with the theme of

Omride disobedience found throughout the Old Testament, this arti-

cle deduces from intertextual evidence that Israel participated in Me-

sha’s burnt offering after securing victory over Moab. This cultic im-

propriety led YHWH to drive the Israelite army from its newly re-

gained territory.

Keywords: 2 Kgs 3:27, Mesha, Elisha, Intertextuality, Child Sacrifice

Introduction

After mustering help from Edom, Judah, and the prophet Elisha, Israel

inflicts a crushing campaign against Moab, which had previously been

a vassal of the Northern Kingdom. The battle appears to conclude

8 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

when Mesha, king of Moab, attempts to break through enemy lines with

seven hundred horsemen and fails (2 Kgs 3:26). However, the narrative

takes an unexpected turn with the following verse, which reads:

וַיִּקּ ַח֩ אֶת־בְּנ֨וֹ הַ

בְּכ֜וֹר אֲשֶׁר־ י ִמְ9֣; תַּחְתָּ ֗ יו ו ַיַּﬠֲלֵ֤הוּ עֹלָה֙ ﬠַל־הַ֣חֹ מָ ֔ה ו ַי ְהִ ֥י קֶצֶף־גָּד֖ וֹל

ﬠַל־ יִשְׂר ָאֵ֑ ל

וַיִּסְעוּ֙ מ ֵֽﬠָלָ ֔יו וַיָּשֻׁ ֖בוּ לָאָֽרֶץ

And he (Mesha) took his son, his first-born who was to reign after

him, and he offered him as a burnt offering upon the wall. And

there was great wrath upon Israel. So they withdrew from it, and

they returned to the land.

This abrupt change of fortune for Israel ends the account of chapter

3. Its suddenness, brevity, and verbal ambiguity leave the reader with

myriad questions. Does this mean Elisha’s prophecy of victory for Is-

rael (3:15–19) has gone unfulfilled? Why does a sacrifice by a non-Is-

raelite lead to “great wrath” upon Israel? Who sends this wrath? To

whom does Mesha offer his sacrifice?

The enigmatic nature of this verse has puzzled interpreters from

Josephus to the modern-day. Josephus and later rabbis understood the

Israelites to be so repulsed at such a horrific act that they returned.

the critical period, G. R. Driver suggested that the wrath ( קֶצֶף ) demon-

strated in this passage bears the sense arising later in Aramaic and

Mishnaic Hebrew, that of “sorrow.”

Others, however, have not been

willing to massage the text in this way. Instead, they view Elisha’s

prophecy as a failure since Israel could not conquer Moab.

Two recent

interpreters, Jesse C. Long and Raymond Westbrook, have offered

Josephus, A.J. 9.42–43; Qimḥi and Gersonides, Commentary in Mikraʾot

Gedolot.

G. R. Driver, “Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament. VIII,” JTS 36

(1935): 293.

Cf. Robert B. Jr. Chisholm, “Israel’s Retreat and the Failure of Prophecy in 2

Kings 3,” Biblica 92 (2011): 70; Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, 2 Kings: A New

Translation with Commentary, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 51.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 9

more nuanced readings in which they see Elisha’s prophecy as techni-

cally fulfilled in terms of the prophet’s verbiage, yet this prophecy did

not necessitate that the battle would go Israel’s way.

The cacophony

of voices attempting to make sense of the confusion in this passage

has led Cogan and Tadmor to proclaim that the writer’s inclusion of

the wrath upon Israel “has been an embarrassment to all his readers.”

This paper attempts to add a new understanding of the text to this

inventory of interpretations. I propose that this passage need not em-

barrass readers but rather provide constructive background toward our

understanding of the history of Yhwh’s relationship with the Northern

Kingdom. Instead of presenting a failed prophecy or show of divine

power by a foreign deity, 2 Kgs 3:27 reckons with Israel’s disobedience

and thus failed responsibility to the gift of victory given them by Yhwh.

Elisha’s prophecy did come true, but at the very moment Moab fell

back into Israel’s hands, the Northern Kingdom failed the God who

had led them to reclaim their rebellious vassal when they participated

with Mesha in his illicit sacrifice. The result was divine anger from

Yhwh against Israel, which forced them to withdraw from the land.

Such an interpretation requires filling in many gaps not present in

the text of 3:27. As daunting as this seems, my proposal is that these

gaps may be filled inductively from elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Jesse C. Long, 1 & 2 Kings (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), 304–305; Long,

“Unfulfilled Prophecy or Divine Deception? A Literary Reading of 2 Kings 3,” SCJ

7 (2004): 101–17; Long, “Elisha’s Deceptive Prophecy in 2 Kings 3: A Response to

Raymond Westbrook,” JBL 126 (2007): 168–72; Raymond Westbrook, “Elisha’s

True Prophecy in 2 Kings 3,” JBL 124 (2005): 530–33; Westbrook, “Law in Kings,”

in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, ed. Baruch Halpern

and Andre Lemaire (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 445–66.

Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 52.

I adopt this approach from the work of Shemaryahu Talmon, who contends

that, before looking to ancient Near Eastern parallels, we must first look within the

linguistic and thought world of the Bible. See Shemaryahu Talmon, “The

‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation–Principles and Problems,” in

Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977, ed. Walther Zimmerli, VTSup 29 (Leiden: Brill,

1991), 320–56. For my use of the term “inductive,” I draw upon the definition from

Bauer and Traina that inductive Bible study is “a commitment to the evidence in and

around the text so as to allow that evidence to determine our understanding of the

10 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

The reader is required to bring to this text a number of other passages

from Israel’s history that create a fuller meaning than one finds by

merely accepting the text as presented in its equivocal form. We will

also address, where necessary, issues arising from the ancient Near

Eastern background of the text. The net of this method will be to sug-

gest an alternative reading of a long-puzzling text.

Elisha’s Prophecy Succeeds

One’s interpretation of 3:27 depends on one’s reading of previous ma-

terial in the chapter. Did Elisha’s prophecy of Israelite victory over

Moab come to fruition or not? If Elisha’s prophecy has failed, then

one must interpret the events of 3:27 as an impediment to prophetic

fulfillment. However, if Elisha’s prophecy is successful, this sets the

stage for understanding Israel’s waywardness in handling the victory

given to them by Yhwh.

Given the withdrawal of the Israelite army in 3:27 and no explicit

reference to victory over Moab, it appears that Israel has been defeated

after Mesha’s sacrifice.

Indeed, Robert B. Chisholm is correct in cri-

tiquing the interpretations of Iain Provan and Raymond Westbrook,

who argue for a technically-complete prophecy and thus initially-suc-

cessful military campaign, in that they fail to account for any notice of

Moab falling “into the hands” of Israel at the conclusion of the chap-

ter, as Elisha predicts in 3:18. Chisholm argues instead that the proph-

ecy did fail, but that this is no fault of Elisha’s. Rather, Israel has failed

in its contingent responsibility to serve Yhwh. His warrant for this is

Jer 18:10, which is a direct rebuke of Israel’s wantonness and a claim

text, wherever that evidence may lead.” See David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina,

Inductive Bible Study: A Comprehensive Guide to the Practice of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids:

Baker, 2011), 17.

Cf. also a brief reading from ancient Near Eastern background of prophecy

in Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “Prophecy as a Way of Cancelling Prophecy–The Strategic

Uses of Foreknowledge,” ZAW 117 (2005): 345–46.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 11

that divine favor will be withheld from the Northern Kingdom as a

result.

While I agree that Israel is irresponsible in this passage,

Chisholm does not expand upon exactly how Israel fails Yhwh here.

Moreover, Chisholm argues that Jer 18:1–10 evinces the conditional

nature of prophesies, but he does not engage fully with the text of this

latter prophet. In Jer 18:6, Yhwh says that he will change his mind

about a prophecy concerning a nation’s destruction if that nation turns

from evil. Yet 2 Kgs 3 does not indicate that the Moabites, once des-

tined for destruction, ever turned from evil. His argument for a condi-

tional prophecy in 2 Kgs 3 is thin and comes from outside of the Deu-

teronomistic corpus. Instead, I argue that we need to first look within

the Deuteronomistic corpus for the appropriate context of the lan-

guage used in this passage.

One approach is that of Jesse C. Long, who argues that this pas-

sage exhibits another instance of the “lying spirit,” as found earlier in

1 Kgs 22. There, the Judean king Jehoshaphat joins forces with Ahab

and has aided him in battling neighboring Aram. The prophet in ques-

tion, Micaiah, explicitly fools the Israelite king to enter a losing battle

as part of the prophecy (22:15–23). In the same way, Long argues that

Elisha has tricked Jehoram into a losing battle. He notes several parallel

movements between these passages, such as 1) the Northern king ask-

ing the Southern king if he will join him in battle, 2) inquiring the word

of Yhwh, 3) the question “Is there a prophet of Yhwh?” and 4) a battle

report of defeat. The prophecy in 3:19 promises that the Israelites will

“strike/ נכה ” all the fortified and choice cities, while the actual events

in 3:25 show that they only “tore down/ הרס ” the cities and that only

Kir-hareseth was “struck/ נכה .” The notice of “tore down/ הרס ” thus

interrupts the expected flow as the prophecy is fulfilled.

However, Long’s reading comes up short in a few ways. For one,

although the formal and compositional connection between this

Chisholm, “Israel’s Retreat.” As we will see, I also disagree that the prophecy

is unfulfilled due to the lack of recurrence of the phrase “in your hand.” Rather, this

phrase serves as the introduction to the following chiasm.

12 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

passage and 1 Kgs 22 is clear, there is no explicit trickery of the king

by the prophet in 2 Kgs 3:27, as we see in 1 Kgs 22:15–23. Further,

Long has manipulated the technique of chiasm to suit his interests. He

argues that 3:25, as the fulfillment of the prediction in 3:19, reverses

the events to form a chiastic structure of prophecy and fulfillment, but

that the verb “tore down/ הרס ” interrupts this order so that the fulfill-

ment portion of the chiasm is incomplete. But he overlooks the phrase

in 3:18, which functions as the summary and heading of Elisha’s

prophecy, stating plainly that “Yhwh … will hand Moab over to you.”

Elisha’s prophecy cannot be fulfilled if Israel does not defeat Moab.

The remainder of the prophecy enumerates how this will be done (i.e.,

felling good trees, stopping the springs, ruin good fields with stones).

Also, the first clause of 3:25, that they “tore down/ הרס ” the cities, falls

outside of the chiastic structure since it appears before the fulfillment

portion of the chiasm, but Long wishes to include it in the chiasm an-

yway to fit his proposed schema. The notice of the cities having been

“torn down/ הרס ,” merely provides background to the fulfillment por-

tion of the prophecy.

Another recent interpretation of the prophecy has come from

Raymond Westbrook who claims, “The plain fact is that Israel lost the

war.”

However, he argues that Elisha’s prophecy did not fail but in-

stead was “fulfilled to the letter.”

The reason he offers for this is the

use of the verb נכה . When Elisha gives the initial prophecy in 3:19, the

reader and Jehoram are led to believe this verb is being used in its usual

sense, that of “destroy” or “conquer.” However, the text tells us that

Kir-hareseth is “struck” by the slingers, and this does not carry the

connotation of victory for Israel, but rather simply that these infantry-

men innocuously slung rocks at larger stones. Therefore, Israel did not

conquer Kir-hareseth but merely dented a few keystones. This then led

to Mesha’s two last-ditch efforts, the final of which, the sacrifice of his

Westbrook, “True Prophecy,” 530.

Ibid., 531.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 13

son, was successful.

Thus, Westbrook holds that Elisha’s prophecy

was indeed fulfilled since the prophecies of 3:19 occurred, but not in

the manner the reader and Jehoram expected.

Nevertheless, Westbrook’s arguments do not hold up under scru-

tiny. First, the slingers, which Westbrook considers ineffectual, were ac-

tually quite potent in ancient warfare tactics and were known for wreak-

ing an army’s final salvo while conquering a city.

Second, the verb נכה

in both 3:19 and 3:25 must entail the destruction of the city. Of the 269

occurrences of the verb נכה in the Deuteronomistic literature, the text

only refers to striking without death or destruction eight times (2 Sam

24:10; 1 Kgs 20:35, 37; 22:24; 2 Kgs 2:8, 14; 11:12; 13:18). Of these, only

twice in a single passage does it refer to striking with an instrument of

war and not involve annihilation (2 Kgs 2:8, 14).

Among these exam-

ples, the objects of striking are either inanimate objects or a specific body

part, not a city or human life. Third, Westbrook’s scheme does not

reckon with the explicit prophecy from 3:18 that Yhwh will give Moab

into the hands of Israel. Finally, Westbrook does not consider 3:26.

Here, we are told that Mesha attempts to take “with him seven hundred

swordsmen to break through, toward ( אֶל )

the king of Edom, but they

could not.” Why does Mesha attempt to head toward the King of Edom,

and why was he unable? Precisely because he was running away from

Israel and its band of slingers, who were so effective that Mesha’s final

opportunity to claim victory was thwarted.

Ibid., 531–32.

Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands: In the Light of Archaeological

Study (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), 297. Morschauser, on the other hand, argues

that the work of the slingers was an “opening salvo” while engineers and sappers

undermined the bulwarks. Although he is correct that we do not need to read the

assault of the slingers as impotent, neither do I think Morschauser’s reconstruction

is necessary given the information of the text. See Scott Morschauser, “A ‘Diagnostic’

Note on the ‘Great Wrath upon Israel,’” JBL 129 (2010): 300–301.

See also Josh 10:28, 30, 32, 37, 39; 11:10, 11, 12, 14; 19:47; Judg 1:8, 15; 20:37,

48; 21:10; 2 Sam 15:14; 2 Kgs 22:34

The NRSV reads “opposite,” but this is an odd translation of אֶל here, likely

to try to make sense of the passage.

14 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

Taking these arguments into account, nothing in the text suggests

that Israel is unsuccessful in suppressing the Moabite army. Instead,

Elisha’s prophecy is fulfilled as predicted in 3:19, indicated by the exact

unfolding of the events of 3:25 in reverse order. Moreover, the content

of 3:19 is summed up by its heading in 3:18, namely that Moab will be

given into the hand of Israel with Yhwh’s help. So, if we have correctly

observed a closely corresponding chiasm between 3:19 and 3:25, we

must hold that Israel has defeated Moab. This observation is affirmed

by the beginning of 3:26, captured best by the NIV’s translation, “When

the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him ….” In short,

Mesha knew he had lost the war. Consequently, we must consider Me-

sha’s following failed attempt to break through enemy lines with seven

hundred swordsmen as the last-ditch action of a defeated king. Mesha’s

action in 3:26, then, precludes us from viewing his sacrifice of 3:27 as

his final attempt at victory, a topic to which we now turn.

The Meaning of Mesha’s Sacrifice

The dominant interpretation regarding Mesha’s offering in 3:27 is that

the Moabite king immolated his first-born son to appease Chemosh,

the chief Moabite god, and has undertaken the last possible route to

salvation from his enemy, Israel.

This can be seen in the following: Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 47; Richard

D. Nelson, First and Second Kings, IBC (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 169; Lissa M. Wray

Beal, 1 & 2 Kings (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), 315; Marvin A. Sweeney,

I & II Kings, 284; J. B. Burns, “Why Did the Besieging Army Withdraw? (II Reg

3,27),” ZAW 102 (1990): 190; Chisholm, “Israel’s Retreat,” 79; Baruch A. Levine, In

the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden:

Brill, 1974), 25; Patricia Berlyn, “The Wrath of Moab,” JBQ 30 (2002): 224; Christian

Eberhart, Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: Die Signifikanz von Blut und

Verbrennungsriten im Kultischen Rahmen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002), 372;

Jacob Milgrom, “Were the Firstborn Sacrificed to YHWH? To Molek? Popular

Practice or Divine Demand?,” in Sacrifice in Religious Experience, ed. A. I. Baumgarten

(Leiden: Brill, 2002), 53, 55; Julie Faith Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable: Children in the

Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle, BJS (Providence, RI: Brown University, 2013),

103; Kristine Henriksen Garroway, Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household,

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 15

Baruch Margalit distinguishes his interpretation by attempting to

explain Mesha’s wrath by both historical and psychological means. He

notes sacrificial infanticides by city leaders in Ugarit and Carthage

when battles were going against them.

Based on these parallels, he

argues that Mesha sacrificed his son in view of the Israelite army to

evoke disgust from them and influence their retreat.

This reading has

recently come under increased scrutiny and does not hold up. J. B.

Burns contends that both ancient parallels omit the city walls as the

sacrificial location, whereas both parallels assume the performance of

the sacrifices upon an altar. Moreover, to attribute the motivation of

the sacrifice to the provocation of the enemy’s horror is anachronis-

tic.

And, though the Ugaritic text does mention a “first-born” as the

object to be sacrificed (which we expect with a burnt offering) and

Rufus’s account of the Carthaginian practice mentions a free-born

male child (ut ingenuus puer), neither of these cite a prince as the specific

object to be sacrificed.

In addition, neither of these texts designates

these sacrificial actions with a cognate to the technical term used in

3:27, whole burnt offering ( עֹל ָה ). Instead, they cite more general terms

for the sacrifice.

Finally, as I will argue below, to draw these particular

EANEC (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 180. Although he believes, as I do,

that Israel cooperated in this sacrifice, Westbrook also holds the view that Mesha’s

sacrifice was made to Chemosh in particular. See Westbrook, “Law in Kings,” 465.

Garroway contends that this passage belongs in view with 2 Kgs 6:24–30; Deut

28:52–57; and Jer 19:9. However, these examples refer to the consumption of chil-

dren and not in connection with cultic sacrifice, and particularly the burnt offering.

Baruch Margalit, “Why King Mesha of Moab Sacrificed His Oldest Son,”

BAR 12 (1986): 62.

Ibid.

Burns, “Besieging Army,” 188–190.

See A. Abou-I-Faradj Al-Ouche et al., eds., Ugaritica VII (Paris: Mission

Archéologique de Ras Shamra, 1978), 31–39; Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historiae

Alexandri Magni, ed. Edmund Hedicke, Perseus., n.d., sec. 4.3.23.

RS24.266 line 9 indicates that the firstborn shall die by dbh. See Patrick D.

Miller, Jr., “Prayer and Sacrifice in Ugarit and Israel,” in Text and Context: Old Testament

and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham, ed. W. Classen, JSOTSupp 4 (Sheffield, 1988), 145;

Abou-I-Faradj Al-Ouche et al., Ugaritica VII, 32–33. Historia Alexandri Magni 4.23.3

16 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

parallels to 2 Kgs 3:27 is to ignore the shared historical context be-

tween Israel and Moab evident within the biblical text, which consist-

ently reveals proximity between the two nations in their cultic prac-

tices. Indeed, the southern Levant seems to have a particular under-

standing of this act apart from its neighbors to the north. Margalit’s

incorporation of these parallels is evidence too far afield for the writer

of Kings.

Westbrook correctly searches for an understanding of Mesha’s ac-

tion within the biblical text itself. He enumerates a parallel between

this passage and 2 Kgs 18–19, in which Hezekiah renders tribute to the

Neo-Assyrian king, Sennacherib, after a prolonged rebellion. This pas-

sage finds resonance with 2 Kgs 3 in that both detail the rebellion of a

vassal state against its suzerain.

After the suzerain regains control

over the vassal in both instances, the vassal undertakes an act of pro-

pitiation to reconcile with the suzerain. This alternative is better than

the “ultimate punishment” of destruction.

In the case of 2 Kgs 3, this

act of propitiation is the sacrifice of Mesha’s son.

For Westbrook,

Mesha sacrifices his son to Chemosh to atone for breaching his oath

against the vassal state.

This sacrifice parallels Hezekiah’s earlier ac-

tion, who explicitly relays his apologies to Sennacherib and renders

tribute from the Temple treasury accordingly (18:14). In sum, we may

draw the following parallels with Westbrook’s argument:

Parallel Passages

Event

2 Kgs 3:5

2 Kgs 18:7

Vassal rebels against suzerain

uses immolaretur, which is a more general term for sacrifice and from which English

derives the term “immolation.”

This is another point Burns notes against Margalit, as the latter dubs Israel’s

act incorrectly as חֶר ֶם . See Burns, “Besieging Army,” 188.

Westbrook, “Law in Kings,” 465.

Ibid., 465–66.

Ibid., 465.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 17

2 Kgs 3: 21–26

2 Kgs 18:13

Battle account–vassal loses to

suzerain

2 Kgs 3:27

2 Kgs 18:14–15

Vassal attempts to offer propiti-

ation

Westbrook writes, “From these two tendentious accounts, we may

conclude that the rebellion was in fact settled by a compromise: resto-

ration of the rebel king’s vassal status in return for payment of a heavy

tribute.”

Given the reasons we have seen to detract from Margalit’s view

of parallel accounts in the ancient world, Westbrook is right to look

for an explanation of Mesha’s sacrifice within the Bible itself. And a

few more points illustrate that Westbrook’s interpretation is more via-

ble than Margalit’s. For one, it is important to note that Mesha’s sacri-

fice was not a general sacrifice; rather, it was a particular kind, the burnt

offering ( עֹל ָה )—a type of sacrifice Israel shared with its Canaanite

neighbors and was specifically concerned with the contrition of the

offerer.

Milgrom, in particular, notes that the burnt offering often

serves a “propitiatory and expiatory” function in the ancient Near East

and the Bible.

Moreover, the whole burnt offering must be of a “first-

born” (Exod 22:9 and Num 18:17). Mesha’s sacrifice in 3:27 fits the

pattern of a burnt offering. He has been defeated in battle and must

atone for his rebellion or else face death and the annihilation of his

people. He properly exhibits his attempt to atone for his sin by offering

his first-born son.

Westbrook, “Law in Kings,” 466.

See Gary A. Anderson, “Sacrifices and Sacrificial Offerings (Old

Testament),” ABD 5:872–87 and Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation

with Introduction and Commentary, ABC (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 172–76.

Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary,

174. Note also, that other purposes for this sacrifice can be detected. See ibid., 172–

77. Here I argue that the propitiatory and expiatory function is one dimension of

Mesha’s sacrifice.

18 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

Also, similar occurrences appear elsewhere in the Bible. In Judg

20:26, the text indicates the Israelites offered a burnt offering to Yhwh

at Bethel after losing eighteen thousand soldiers in a defeat at the hands

of the Benjaminites. In 1 Sam 7:9, Samuel offers a burnt offering to

Yhwh as they learn their impending doom at the Philistines’ hands.

These examples tie military failures to an act of repentance via the

burnt offering. Nevertheless, the most telling instance is found in 2

Kgs 16. There, Ahaz attempts to strike a tribute deal with Tiglath-Pile-

sar III so that the neo-Assyrian king will help him destroy King Rezin

of Aram. After establishing the alliance through gifts from the house

of Yhwh to Tiglath-Pilesar, Ahaz sends the priest Uriah to construct

an altar based on the model of the altar in Damascus. Ahaz then com-

mands Uriah to offer a burnt offering upon this altar, and the text tells

us that this, along with the giving of other gifts to Tiglath-Pilesar, was

done “before the king of Assyria” (16:8). These examples provide fur-

ther context for Mesha’s motivation to offer the burnt offering. The

burnt offering was commonly sacrificed in a wartime situation by battle

losers to express apology, and it was also done by vassal kings to so-

lidify a relationship with a suzerain king. Both types fit Mesha in 2 Kgs

3, the rebellious vassal wishing to re-establish his relationship with his

suzerain after defeat.

What then is the reason for implicating Israel as a partner with

Mesha in this act? For one, the above-noted instance of Tiglath-Pile-

sar’s presence during the tribute payment and subsequent offering of

an עֹל ָה points to a common pattern in Kings and the ancient world.

Namely, the suzerain is present at the ceremony, which cements the

vassal status. In the case of 2 Kgs 3, the burnt offering re-solidifies this

agreement.

Second, this sacrifice has practical functions. It both expresses

contrition in cultic terms and serves the political purpose of ensuring

that Mesha’s successor would not seek vengeance against the Israelites.

If Mesha’s first-born son is the offering to be destroyed in a sacrifice,

he will not live to seek the rebellious path of his father. In the words

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 19

of Julie Faith Parker, “By sacrificing his son, King Mesha saves his

kingdom from defeat while robbing it of its next ruler.”

Third, the idea of the “first-born” ( הַבְּכוֹר ), is intrinsically con-

nected with the burnt offering and is instructive to revealing the nature

of the burnt offering in this case. The gift for a burnt offering is typi-

cally a first-born male.

With regard to the offering of human children,

Gen 22 provides an instructive example. God commands Abraham to

offer Isaac, the first-born male of Abraham and Sarah, as a burnt of-

fering. However, the angel soon prevents Abraham from following

through, allowing Abraham to offer a ram instead.

A similar idea is

at play in 2 Kgs 3:27, where Mesha’s beloved first-born is offered as a

burnt offering. Yet, in contrast to Abraham, Mesha follows through

with the offering.

One function of the sacrifice of the first-born male is as a substi-

tute for the sacrificer.

This concept is seen not only in cultic contexts

(as in Gen 22) but also in the milieu of military conflicts. It is a prom-

inent theme of the exodus, as Yhwh institutes both the final plague

against the first-born as an ultimate warning against the Egyptians as

well as a consecration of Israelite first-born to Yhwh after victory

(Exod 4:23; 11:5; 12:12, 29; 13:1–15).

The substitutionary function is

Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, 109.

Exod 22:29; Num 18:15, 17. There is some debate concerning whether the

“firstborn” refers to animals or humans. See Karin Finsterbusch, “The First-Born

between Sacrifice and Redemption in the Hebrew Bible,” in Human Sacrifice in the

Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Diethard Römheld, Armin Lange, and Karin

Finsterbusch (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 49–55. See also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 172–177.

Gen 22:14. Another example is Judg 11. In this case, the daughter is sacrificed

since Jephthah had no other children. Therefore, the text goes out of its way to note

that she was his “only child.” (Judg 11:34)

Eberhart, Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer, 188ff. Summarized in Finsterbusch,

“The First-Born between Sacrifice and Redemption in the Hebrew Bible,” 107.

That is, the firstborn Egyptian children die rather than Yhwh inflicting total

death and destruction upon all the Egyptians. This sense is evident in Num 3:11–13,

where the text connects the Levites as the firstborn dedicated to God’s service with

the firstborn of Egypt dedicated to God in death. Thus, the firstborn of Egypt are

seen as a substitute in a similar pattern to that of the Levites. For this idea, I credit

Jim Wilson, who has crafted this argument elsewhere. Jim Wilson, “Help Wanted:

20 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

also behind Joshua’s claim that anyone who rebuilds Jericho will do so

at the cost of his son’s life.

Although not in the context of a military

conflict or overt cultic practice, the death of David’s son with Bath-

sheba, who dies as a result of his father’s sin, similarly functions as a

substitute for the king himself following his contrition (2 Sam 12:14–

19). The incident of David’s son echoes the claim in Deut 5:9 that

Yhwh will attend to the sins of the father upon his children.

Further examples from the OT suggest that, in general, the first-

born is to be considered a substitute.

Similarly, the Moabite crown

prince functions as a substitute for his father’s sin. Regarding this pas-

sage, Jon D. Levenson writes, “This variety of child sacrifice is to be

associated with the ancient notion that, in certain circumstances the king

himself must be offered: the son is here but a substitute for the father,

just as the lamb will become a substitute for the son.…”

Since Mesha

has rebelled against the Israelites, Jehoram and his army have exacted

punishment against Mesha by agreeing to allow his son’s death to func-

tion in place of Mesha’s death and the entire destruction of Moab.

Fourth, intertextual evidence indicates one dimension of the burnt

offering in military contexts is that it functioned as a means of

The Role of ‘The Levites in Your Gates’ in Deuteronomy,” (paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Central States Region of the SBL, St. Louis, 14 March, 2016),

35–36.

Josh 6:26 and paralleled by 1 Kgs 16:34, as Hiel rebuilds Jericho and loses his

firstborn as a result. Joseph Coleson also connects this to the concept of firstfruits,

as does Wilson in the note above. See Joseph Coleson, “Joshua,” in Cornerstone Biblical

Commentary: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, CBC (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2012), 77.

Regarding the Levites as substitutes, see Num 3:12, 41; 8:16–19. For other,

even more general examples, see Job 15:7; 16:13; and Mic 6:7.

Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation

of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993),

27. Levenson builds his argument from the work of Christiano Grottanelli, whom

he quotes on the same page, stating that a sacrifice like this is “to be interpreted as a

substitution for the sacrifice or suicide of the king”: “Through [his first-born son],

the king supplicates the angry gods and pays a great price to ransom his people; but

through him the king also ransoms himself, as he covers the child with the insignia

of his own rank and person.” Of course, I disagree that this instance is necessarily a

supplication of the angry deity, the point of the son as sacrificial substitute holds true.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 21

celebrating success for the victor and as an instrument of contrition

for the loser. The primary example of this is seen after the exodus

event. Moses’s father-in-law, Jethro, confesses the power of Yhwh

over all the deities following the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea in

Exod 18:11. In the following verse, he helps the Israelites celebrate this

victory by offering a burnt offering to Yhwh. Then, after destroying Ai

in Josh 8, Joshua explicitly follows the command of Moses by building

an altar on Mount Ebal and offering a burnt offering to Yhwh (Josh

8:30–31). In an infamous episode of Judges 11, Jephthah vows to offer

a burnt offering to Yhwh should he be able to defeat the Ammonites

and does so by sacrificing his daughter (Judg 11:21–40). Also, after the

ark is returned from the Philistines, the people of Beth-Shemesh offer

a celebratory burnt offering.

These examples point to a common

trope within biblical, and especially in Deuteronomistic literature, that

victorious kings would offer a burnt offering following a successful

military campaign. So, the intertextual evidence reveals to us that burnt

offerings are common following military battles. They were performed

by the loser as an attempt to reconcile either with the deity or enemy,

and the victor often sacrificed burnt offerings to the deity as a means

of celebration.

Another example illustrative of the Bible’s, especially the Deuter-

onomistic History’s presentation of the burnt offering in association

with military campaigns, appears in 1 Sam 13. Here, Saul hides in Gilgal

for seven days while waiting to fight against the Philistines. Meanwhile,

the people of Israel have “slipped away” from Saul, and he begins to

1 Sam 6:14. An extra-biblical assertion of this idea also appears in Moab’s

own literature. Although the debates surrounding this passage are many, including

arguments over the historicity of this very passage, it is worth noting the cultic par-

allels in a Moabite text. Harold Schweizer notes that lines 12/13 of the Mesha stele

include this very practice, as there the Moabites drag the “Davidic hearth” before

Chemosh. See Schweizer, Elischa in den Kriegen: Literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von

2 Kn 3, 6, 8–23, 6, 24–7,20 (München: Ksel, 1974), 100–101. I am aware of the de-

bated translation of ‘r’l dwdh of line 12. Regardless of whether this is a “Davidic”

hearth or the hearth of a beloved, the object remains cultic and the action is pre-

sumed as sacrificial.

22 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

feel his grip of power loosening. In an act of insecurity, he offers burnt

offerings to Yhwh before the battle with the Philistines has begun de-

spite Samuel’s command to wait for his own arrival (1 Sam 13:12).

When Samuel finally arrives, he chides Saul for this act and claims that

Saul will soon be usurped (1 Sam 13:13–14). Not only was this not

Saul’s sacrifice to make, but he undertook this act inappropriately.

The incident in 1 Sam 13 underscores the idea that the burnt offering

was meant to follow a military campaign as either a sign of remorse or

celebration rather than to precede a campaign as a means of influenc-

ing the deity. Such manipulation, however, is what many interpreters

have exactly accused Mesha of doing.

In fact, nowhere in the biblical text do we find the burnt offering

functioning as the means by which one would appropriately provoke

a deity for military victory assistance.

Rather, the burnt offering is

only intended to be undertaken after a battle is complete. If one loses

the battle, the burnt offering has repentant force. If one wins the battle,

the burnt offering has celebratory intentions. The significance attached

to burnt offerings affirms not only the rationale for Mesha’s sacrifice

but also the point of the prior section that the battle at Kir-hareseth

was complete and that Israel had won, fulfilling Elisha’s prophecy.

Although I have attempted in the preceding analysis to further

Westbrook’s argument that Mesha sacrificed his crown prince in ap-

peasement of his military failure, as opposed to summoning his god, I

diverge from Westbrook in his argument that the recipient of Mesha’s

sacrifice was the Moabite god Chemosh.

The text is puzzling in its

opacity here, simply noting that Mesha offered this burnt offering

Indeed, it seems at some points that Samuel had granted Saul some priestly

authority (1 Sam 9:23–24; 10:4), so Saul may have assumed his license to offer this

sacrifice. However, the means by which he undertakes this sacrifice is ultimately in-

appropriate, particularly given the literary and historical context we have surveyed.

Milgrom notes that 3:27 is the only example when a sacrifice of a firstborn

was performed in a crisis. However, I hope that the preceding has shown that Me-

sha’s sacrifice was not unique in this respect. See Milgrom, “Firstborn,” 55.

Westbrook, “Law in Kings,” 465.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 23

without giving notice as to whom he offered it. The text’s ambiguity is

further complicated by confusion over the subject of the “great wrath”

in the following clause. However, I hold that the textual ambiguity here

is purposeful. It functions to indicate that the Israelites were behaving

in a cultically ambiguous, thus inappropriate manner. We have little

idea to whom Mesha, supported by the Israelites, sacrificed. But we do

know it was cultically inappropriate for Yhwh’s people to participate

in it. In Judg 11:24, Chemosh’s effectiveness for his people is noted,

highlighting the Moabite god’s power to save his people. But the au-

thor chose not to name Chemosh or any deity here. In short, the am-

biguous description of the sacrifice is appropriate for exactly the kind

of sacrifice it was.

The rationale for this ambiguity lies in the long history of conver-

gence between Israel and Moab. From its earliest engagements with

the people of Moab, the Israelites struggled to differentiate their iden-

tity and worship from those of the Moabites. In Genesis, the author

proffers the close relationship between Israel and Moab in an etiolog-

ical note which cites the Moabites as descendants of Lot (Gen 19:37).

The two nations were engaged in conflict throughout several periods

of Israel’s history.

But, most importantly for understanding our pas-

sage at hand, Israel was also frequently tempted to intermingle with

Moab in ways deemed cultically inappropriate. The first noted instance

appears in Num 25, in which the text indicates that the Israelites began

to have sexual relations with the women of Moab and sacrificed to

their gods, directly violating the prohibitions against these acts given at

This is reaffirmed in Deut 2:9.

Num 21–24 discusses their relationships during the wilderness wanderings.

In the period of settlement and the judges, we see interaction between the two na-

tions in Josh 24; Judg 3; and Judg 11. During David’s reign, there was also some

fighting against Moab, as noted in 2 Sam 23:20. Ps 60:8; 83:6; 108:9; Isa 15–16; Jer

48 all speak to tension with the Moabites. However, sporadic periods of peace be-

tween them are indicated by 1 Sam 22 and 1 Kgs 11. To this we may add that Ruth

was a Moabite (Ruth 1:1–4).

24 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

Sinai.

Before the Israelites were oppressed by the Ammonites, the

text notes that the Moabites are one of several people groups whose

worship has tempted the people (Judg 10:6). In the postexilic period,

Nehemiah is disgusted with the Jews who intermarried with the

women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab (Neh 13:23). But closest to

our text are two passages from the Deuteronomistic history. First, the

perceived cultic sin of the eastern tribes of Josh 22 has been viewed in

light of Israel’s relationship with Moab.

Second, the Deuteronomistic

Historian gives notice that Solomon’s downfall came about due to his

syncretistic practices involving, among others, the Moabites (1 Kgs

11:33).

These must be read in light of the warnings of Deut 29, which

by no mere coincidence appear on the plains of Moab. It is there that

Moses warns the Israelites of cultic abominations leading to a break of

the covenant with Yhwh, and it is there that many such sins occur in

the unfolding narrative of the OT.

Another instance in the OT pointing to cultic ambivalence that

proves instructive for interpreting 2 Kgs 3:27 is the story of Balaam in

Num 22–24. Here, the Moabite king Balak calls the prophet to curse

Israel and subsequently encounters Yhwh through a series of divine

messages. After these encounters and the subsequent oracles, Balaam

twice orders Balak to offer burnt offerings (Num 23:13, 29–30).

These follow a prior confession of apology (Num 23:13, 29–30). Thus,

we witness the established pattern of a worshipper who is first contrite,

then offers a burnt offering. However, as with Mesha’s sacrifice, the

text never mentions a divine recipient of the sacrifice. In both cases,

Moabites and Israelites have come into conflict, and the character of

For the prohibition against worship of foreign gods which precedes this ep-

isode, see Exod 20:3. The prohibition against marriage first appears in a later text,

Deut 7:3, but is hinted to in Gen 34:14.

See J. Maxwell Miller, “Moab (Place),” ABD 4:882–93.

See also 1 Kgs 11:7.

Balak also offers a sacrifice in 22:40, but this is prior to any oracle and utilizes

the more general verb זבח .

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 25

the resulting burnt offering is mysterious, pointing to the ambiguous

nature of Israelite/Moabite relations, as revealed in the cultic activity.

The close and often ambivalent relationship between the Israelites

and Moabites is clear across several generations. For this reason, Max-

well Miller writes concerning the composition of the stories concern-

ing Moab, “While many will have married non-Israelite wives and wor-

shipped local gods at Moabite shrines, there will have been counter

efforts to maintain ethnic and religious distinctiveness.…”

If I am

correct in agreeing with Westbrook’s argument that Jehoram’s forces

participated in Mesha’s burnt offering, then this action continues the

long-running theme throughout the Old Testament of Israel partici-

pating in syncretistic activities with the Moabites. This means that the

recipient of Mesha’s sacrifice was not strictly Chemosh. Rather, even

if the Moabites and Israelites had their respective gods in mind while

sacrificing, the net result of their deed was a worshipful action directed

to an unknown god. The text reflects this syncretistic situation in its

ambiguity.

The advantage of using evidence from the surrounding biblical

text to investigate Mesha’s burnt offering has been to place this mysti-

fying act in its closest literary and geographical contexts. Margalit’s at-

tempt to use comparative ancient evidence falls short in comparison

with this approach because it locates Mesha’s action farther north than

the southern Levant and with only minimal points of literary connec-

tion. Other approaches have attempted either by analogy or by general

(and vague) understanding of the ancient Near East to project towards

the motivation for Mesha’s sacrifice of his first-born son. The attempt

here has been to investigate Mesha’s sacrifice in the light of the larger

literary context surrounding it, and by extension, the historical context

of the southern Levant.

Miller, “Moab (Place),” 888.

26 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

The “Great Wrath” and Its Intertextual

Counterparts

The greatest point of contention among scholars regarding 2 Kgs 3:27

has been the subject of the “great wrath” ( קֶצֶף־גָּדוֹל ). The text is silent

on this issue, simply noting that great wrath was present “against” ( ﬠַל )

the Israelites. On the one hand, some scholars contend that the wrath

emanated from Chemosh.

Since this was the god to whom Mesha

had sacrificed, this was the same deity who was exacting revenge on

behalf of his worshiper. On the other hand, some have seen it impos-

sible for the Bible to refer to the wrath of a foreign deity as being effi-

cacious against Israel. Therefore, they have posited that the subject of

the wrath is Yhwh.

However, some have taken Driver’s route by

viewing the wrath in its sense from later Hebrew. Thus, קֶצֶף here refers

to the “vexation” or “sorrow” that was upon Israel after viewing Me-

sha’s horrible act.

Others still wish to leave the ambiguity in the text

and not supply a subject for the wrath.

Burns, “Besieging Army,” 192; Chisholm, “Israel’s Retreat,” 79; Levine,

Presence of the Lord, 25; Westbrook, “Law in Kings,” 465; Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2

Kings, NCBC (London: Eerdmans, 1984), 400.

Philip D. Stern, “Of Kings and Moabites : History and Theology in 2 Kings

3 and the Mesha Inscription,” HUCA 64 (1993): 11–13; Long, 1 & 2 Kings, 306;

Wray Beal, 1 & 2 Kings, 316.

For Driver’s original article, again see Driver, “Studies,” 193. For others who

follow this interpretation, see Margalit, “King Mesha,” 63; Montgomery, Book of

Kings, 364; Sweeney, I & II Kings, 284; Terrence Fretheim, First and Second Kings, WC

(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 143. Indeed, Burns concedes that the

LXX µετάµελος used here in this passage appears to carry this effect. But he, as do

I, regards this as a softening of the original Hebrew. See Burns, “Besieging Army,”

192. A similar argument appears in Morschauser, “‘Diagnostic’ Note.“ Here, he ar-

gues that the “wrath” is a tangible plague, as opposed to divine wrath.

Nelson, First and Second Kings, 169; John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary,

OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1963), 490; Berlyn, “The Wrath of

Moab.” I cite Berlyn because she does not appear to land on any particular answer

regarding this question. See especially 225.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 27

The first suggestion must be dismissed. As the scholars holding

the second position have noted, it would be out of character for the

biblical text to attribute such power to a foreign deity. Although I have

mentioned above that Jephthah does acknowledge Chemosh’s abilities

for his own people, this does not indicate that Chemosh holds sway

over the Israelites. To the contrary, the prophetic narratives of Kings

refuse to view any foreign deity as effectual. This view is most evident

in a preceding narrative, 1 Kgs 18:20–40, in which Elijah defeats the

prophets of Baal. The climax of this passage comes in the confession

of the people that “Yhwh is God,” as opposed to Baal (1 Kgs 18:39).

Not only would the author of 2 Kgs 3, who falls in this same prophetic

tradition (if not the same author of both passages), omit Chemosh as

the subject of this passage, but he would never consider Chemosh

powerful enough to influence the Israelite soldiers. Only Yhwh has

this ability for the author of Kings.

Similarly, we must discount Driver’s suggestion of remorse.

Driver’s thesis that the author utilizes the sense of the word seen in

later Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew certainly fits our modern psycho-

logical tastes in response to child sacrifice, but the examples he gives

do not fit the literary context of 2 Kgs 3. Rather, this passage must be

seen in its broader literary light, as I will show. Only in this way will

the meaning of the wrath make sense.

Also, the intimation that we ought not to supply a subject for the

wrath falls short. While this proposition is true to the literary form

presented in the text, it ignores the reader’s ability to supply meaning

for this verse based on surrounding passages and within the corpus of

literature.

As is evident by this point, I argue that Yhwh is the subject of the

wrath in this passage. My approach, however, differs from those who

have posited a similar reading. They have focused on the OT’s insist-

ence of Yhwh’s power over Israel at the exclusion of other deities.

They are certainly correct in this approach, but I wish to add another

factor to it. Scholars have often focused on “wrath” as a concept in

28 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

itself. Yet 2 Kgs 3:27 does not simply list “wrath” as what drove the

Israelites from Moab. Instead, it is “great wrath” ( קֶצֶף־

גָּדוֹל

) that caused

Jehoram’s army to flee. This phrase deserves our attention as the exact

construct the author of this passage utilizes. We must then investigate

the usage of this phrase in other OT texts.

My primary contention here is that this phrase as constructed in 2

Kgs 3:27 has its roots in Deut 29:27 (MT). In this passage from the

blessings and curses of Deuteronomy, Moses hypothesizes a situation

in which the Israelites will be disobedient to Yhwh, disobeying his

commandments, worshiping other gods, and blessing themselves. Un-

der these circumstances, Yhwh will pour out his “great wrath” upon

them, and he will send them to another land. A parallel movement

appears in 2 Kgs 3. Here, the evil ways of Jehoram have been estab-

lished in 3:13–14. Certainly, the reader is aware of the sins of all of the

Omrides to this point as well. The ambivalent cultic action of the Isra-

elites in 3:27 as expressed above, combined with the intimation of Is-

rael’s participation in the abhorrent practice of child sacrifice (Lev 18;

Deut 12:31; Jer 7:31; Ezek 16:20; 20:31; Ps 106:37–39), provides a tip-

ping point for Yhwh. Israel’s God drives away the soldiers of the

Northern Kingdom in accordance with this Deuteronomic command-

ment. Granted, at this point, Israel has not been exiled from their own

land, as they have only been driven from the land that was promised

them in 3:18. But the movement of this passage remains the same.

fact, it functions as an anticipation of the descriptions in 2 Kgs 17 and

18:9–12 of the ultimate exile of the Northern Kingdom in 722.

This trope is reflected in several other passages, all of which deal

with cultic sins that provoke the “great wrath” of Yhwh, ultimately

leading to the flight of the people. Both Jer 21:5 and Zech 7:12 utilize

this exact phrasing ( קֶצֶף־גָּדוֹל ) to describe Yhwh’s reaction to the

Therefore, I contend that this reference functions more at the level of an

“echo” than strictly an “allusion.” For the definitions of “echo” and “allusion,” see

Timothy K. Beal, “Glossary,” in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew

Bible, ed. Diana Nolan Fewell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 21–24.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 29

misappropriations of worship on the part of his people, culminating in

exile. Several other passages present identical understandings of “great

wrath,” albeit with different lexemes for “wrath.” Four times, “great

wrath” is designated with the term אַף (Deut 29:27; 2 Kgs 23:26; Jer

21:5; 32:37). Six times the term חֵמָה is used (Deut 29:27; 2 Kgs 22:13;

2 Chr 34:21; Ps 90:11; Jer 21:5; Zech 8:2). With the exception of Ps

90:11, “wrath” described as “great” ( גָּדוֹל ), unanimously refers to

Yhwh’s anger resulting from the cultic malpractice of Israel and is al-

ways tied with a flight from the land.

While the occurrence of two

other terms for “wrath” might appear to argue against my claim for

this trope, this need not be the case. Instead, the three lexemes used

for “wrath” in association with its modifier גָּדוֹל are interchangeable.

G. Sauer writes regarding the terms for “wrath,” “The etymology does

not permit a differentiation of the nuance of various terms.” Rather,

as Sauer defines these terms, all three indicate “the human expression

of the emotion of anger toward another person.”

The use of קֶצֶף־גָּדוֹל

in 2 Kgs 3:27 thus characterizes God’s wrath towards the army of the

Northern Kingdom.

Thus, the “great wrath” 2 Kgs 3:27 must be seen in light of the

previous discussion. It must come from Yhwh and it must refer to

some cultic sin on the part of Israel. It anticipates the final sending

from the promised land at the hands of the Neo-Assyrians by using

the same movement of the passage and similar lexemes. Such a reading

conforms to the trope of cultic sin on the part of Israel, leading to great

wrath from Yhwh, which in turn necessitates that Yhwh drives his

people from the land. Other interpretations have neglected this biblical

trope in favor of historical comparisons from outside of the southern

Levant or by offering alternatives with less substantial evidence. The

I would argue that the presence of “great wrath” in Ps 90:11 is tendentious

in comparison to the other examples as it appears predicative and refers to two ref-

erents, wrath and fear. Moreover, it is poetry abstracted from historical context and

falls outside of the genre pertinent for our study here.

G. Sauer, “ קֶצֶף ,” TLOT 3:1157.

30 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 7/2:7-31 (Summer 2020)

present approach seeks to give voice to the thought world of the his-

torian by placing the lexeme of קֶצֶף־גָּדוֹל in the biblical context.

Conclusion

In sum, intertextual correspondences of the burnt offering ( עֹל ָה ), the

first-born )בְּכוֹר( , the ambivalent cultic situation existing between the

Israelites and Moabites, and the great wrath ( קֶצֶף־גָּדוֹל ) offer a more

coherent interpretation of this passage conforming to the boundaries

of the biblical text as a whole. Mesha’s burnt offering of his first-born

son echoes Israel’s own participation in similar sacrificial acts and its

cultically ambivalent past with Moabites. The echoes betray Israel’s

participation in this sacrifice. Since this particular burnt offering is con-

sidered unclean by Torah standards, Yhwh drives his people away from

the land he had promised them in 3:18. The manner in which the au-

thor of this passage expresses this, namely by omitting the divine re-

cipient of the burnt offering and the subject of the great wrath, under-

scores the severity of this situation. Israel’s vague and improper cultic

action provokes Israel’s god to distance himself from identification

with them, yet also to act swiftly and decisively in punishment.

Doubtless, the author of Kings wishes to contend for the failings

of the Omrides and that such disobedience cannot go unpunished.

He accomplishes this in this passage while still revealing the effective-

ness of Yhwh’s prophet, Elisha. As demonstrated, Elisha’s prophecy

of victory over the Moabites is fulfilled. The Israelites overcome their

foe, as 3:26 displays. However, it does not take long for Israel to fail in

their responsibilities of this gift, as they soon cooperate in a cultic mis-

deed with their vassal king, Mesha. Thus, the author of Kings holds in

Indeed, I hope this paper provides additional support to a recent argument

on this topic by Rachelle Gilmour, who suggests via a modern literary reading of the

sacrifice in 3:27 that the resulting withdrawal of Israel was due to their disobedience

of a conditional prophecy. See Gilmour, “A Tale of the Unexpected: The Ending of

2 Kings 3 Re-Examined,” ABR 65 (2017): 17–29. See especially pp. 24–25.

An Alternative Approach to the Dilemma of 2 Kgs 3:27 | 31

tension the idea that, on the one hand, Yhwh is powerful to deliver,

but, on the other hand, his people may reject what Yhwh grants them

through his power. No other dynasty exemplifies such disobedience as

the Omrides.

Cogan and Tadmor resolve that “A proper biblical explanation [of

2 Kgs 3:27] would have been to point to some wrongdoing on the part

of Israel which then brought on the divine wrath, but such an act was

not a part of the prophetic tradition in vv. 6–25.”

This paper has

sought to offer such a “biblical explanation” by the incorporation of

various facets of meaning from other OT texts into 3:27. My interpre-

tation fits more suitably with the prophetic tradition of the prior verses

in the immediate context of the pericope and the larger tradition of the

OT itself.

Cogan and Tadmor, 2 Kings, 51–52.