2 Kings 3:27

[anime4christ]

And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country. And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kirharaseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it. And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land. - 2 Kings 3:24-27

The thing I don't get is why there would be indignation against Israel if the king of Moab offered up his son to a pagan god? And from who would it be? And why would that make the Israelites leave Moab alone without being stopped by force?

I've read this passage in the Russian Synodal Bible for many years and it seems to make much more sense. Here's how verse 27 is translated in the RST:

And he took his firstborn son, who would have reigned in his stead, and offered him up for a burnt offering upon the wall. This caused great indignation in the Israelites, and they stepped away from him and returned to their own land.

Wouldn't it make more sense that the Israelites would be so disgusted by what the Moabite king did that they would then leave him alone in disgust as the RST suggests rather than the Moabite king's offering up his son making indignation burn against Israel and then them leaving without being forced to?

[John81]

The wording is different and can be difficult to grasp today but the meaning is the same. The indignation was "against" Israel in that it was Israel which felt the indignation, they felt the abomination of what had been done as "against" them.

What the RST says is in agreement with what the KJB says.

[anime4christ]

OK, that makes sense and I would agree. However, I looked at a lot of commentaries, and most of them try to explain it as either God or Moab or Edom and Judah being indignant towards Israel for many different reasons, which doesn't seem to fit the text at all. I think it was Israel who felt indignant towards what the king of Moab did as we both see it.

[John81]

That's one of the dangers of commentaries and why we have to study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Even the best of commentaries have some aspects we must beware of or question. Sadly, many folks latch onto whatever commentary they happen to have, found or were given and treat the commentary as if it is the Word of God itself; taking everything as fact. I've been in Bible studies with some of these folks and they will side with the commentary over Scripture! :o

[anime4christ]

Agreed :)

[Jedidiah]

This is actually a topic that led me to this forum: though commenting on it by a margin of months from the last update. i wish to share this with us:::


John 81 rightly pointed out: The indignation was "against" Israel in that it was Israel which felt the indignation. however the indignation did not originate from them.


If it was an attach it was directed on them; if it was an antagonism, an intolerance or opposition it was channelled against the Israelites. IT DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM THE ISRAELITES. IT WAS DIRECTED UPON THEM!



Who then is this that 'withstood' the israelites from smiting the Moabites further?


Paul clearly wrote " what say i then? That the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrificed to idol is any thing? But i say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and i would not that you should fellowship with devils".


God has already said to the children of israel that he was taking them into the promised land to utterely wipe out the people of the lands for their wickedness and evil in the sight of the Lord....part of which was displayed in the story above.


We should here note that the 'great indignation' arose up 'against' the children of israel as a result of what was performed. It was not their own doing. to say they were appalled by what they saw and then left the scene was totally out of the expression of verse 27 of the second Kings 3.


It is worthy of note that there was no manner of method of such sacrifice performed then which the children of Israel had not themselves utilized in that same battle in smiting the Moabites: is it Burning? By sword? By stoning? By hanging? ....name them. All these are part of the battle experience already on. So the idea that the children of israel were disgusted at such a sacrifice which many sites and commentaries were suggesting were not following. Besides the were already aware that such things happen and for that reason they were brought up to wipe them out.


the devils which the Moabites offered to (If they have any such power at all to bring such mentioned decided opposition) had already been subdued and taken care of by God Almighty Himself according to 2 kings 3 : 17 - 19.

We now have two possible persons that now stand in the position to say to the children of Israel 'no, it is enough!'

1. God Almighty Himself
2. King of Edom.


The King of Edom does not have the covenant which the Israelites have with God. They also are idol worshippers. Alliance with neighbouring nations has always been likened to a peck in the eyes of Israelites as God fore-warned them.
The Edomites believed that such a sacrifice at such a time is the highest form of sacrifice a man can make. Already King of Moab had unsuccessfully tried to break through to his kinsman, The King of Edom, for possibilities of negotiation. When the King of Edom saw the sacrifice the Moabite King made he considered it sacrilege to make any more advance against this king. He was moved:

This king did not take any other fellow. He did not take a bundle of soldiers. But his own son. His son prepared for the throne. His son whom he loved and imagined what future lay ahead for!!!


it was a human sacrifice quite alright. Understand that what he did was the best he knew to do: and the best very few kings can dare to do. Kings can even easily give up an entire army for their sons. Even David for the love he has for his son acted as though if his rebellioud son's life had been spared at the expense of his entire army, it would have been good; until he was by Joab rebuked with a threathening. 2 samuel 18 and 19.


This man proved himself to be a true leader. One who loved His people. One who believed in welfare of his nation at his own sacrifice.


The king of Edom saw it a costly sacrifice that cant be ignored, he believed in that sacrifice and was possibly the one that withstood the Israel from further assult.


The First Person: God was to be considered two. Dont be surprised at this second instance: read the passages clearly. The instruction did not include 'utterly destroy the Moabites'. Had that been there, prophet Elisha could have met them to ask why they carried out the instruction incompletely.......as was the case with Saul and Samuel, Ehab and the prophet that covered his face (1 kings 20).