2 Kings 3:27

Then he took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his stead,.... Not the eldest son of the king of Edom, whom the king of Moab had in his hands before, which made the king of Edom the more

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.

His eldest son; either, first, The king of Edom’ s son; whom in this eruption he took, and then sacrificed. Compare . But, first, That place speaks of the king, not of the king’ s son; and of the burning of his bones, not of the offering of a living man for a burnt-offering. Secondly, This would not have made the besiegers to raise their siege, but to have followed it more warmly to revenge so barbarous an action. Thirdly, The following clause, that should have reigned in his stead, agrees not so well to the Edomites, whose king was only Jehoshaphat’ s viceroy, and therefore his son had no right to succeed him; as it doth to the Moabites, whose king was revolted from Israel, and intended to keep that kingdom to himself and children. Or rather, secondly, his own son; whom he sacrificed, partly to obtain the favour of his god, according to the manner of the Phoenicians and other people in grievous and public calamities; whereof we have manifest testimonies, both in Scripture, as , and in heathen authors, as Porphyrius, Plutarch, and others; and partly to oblige the Israelites to quit the siege out of compassion, or as despairing to conquer (at least without greater loss of men than it was worth) him who was resolved to defend himself and city to the utmost extremity. Offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall, that the besiegers might see it, and be moved by it. Great indignation against Israel, or, great trouble or repentance upon Israel; i.e. the Israelitish king and people (who was the first cause of the war, and had brought the rest into confederacy with him) were greatly afflicted and grieved for this barbarous action, and resolved to prosecute the war no further, and so withdrew their forces, as also did their allies, and returned to their several homes; which they were the more willing to do, because the kingdom and country of Moab were so ruinated, both as to their men, and cities or villages, and lands, that they were all secure of any great annoyance from him.

2 Kings 3:27 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.Ver. 27. Then he took his eldest son.] The king of Edom’ s eldest son, say some, whom he had taken in the late sally, and now spitefully sacrificed. See on Amos 2:1. The king of Moab’ s own son and heir, say others, whom he took and sacrificed to his god Chemos, or the sun, that with so precious a sacrifice he might prevail with him for help in this extremity. The like was usually done by the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, as Diodorus and Q. Curtius report, by an apish and hellish imitation, say some, of Abraham’ s offering up his son Isaac. R. Solomon, and cut of him Lyra, tell us that the king of Moab asked his priests how the Iraelites came to be so gracious with God, and so victorious. They answered, that Abraham their father, in obedience unto him, sacrificed his only son, and that Mosha thereupon took and sacrificed this his son upon the wall. And the like is reported of Sennacherib, as I have elsewhere noted. And there was great indignation,] i.e., Great discontent in the other two confederate kings against the king of Israel for his obstinate spleen, the cause of such an abomination.

(27) Then.—And. His eldest son—i.e., the despairing king of Moab took his own son and heir. Offered him for a burnt offering.—To Chemosh, without doubt, by way of appeasing that wrath of the god which seemed bent on his destruction. (Comp. the words of Mesha’s inscription: “Chemosh was angry with his l¹nd.” Note, 2 Kings 1:1.) There is a reference to such hideous sacrifices in Micah 6:7, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions?” In dark times of national calamity the Hebrews were prone, like their neighbours, to seek help in the same dreadful rites. (Comp. the case of Manasseh, 2 Chronicles 33:6; see also Psalms 106:37-39.) From the cuneiform records we learn that the sacrifice of children was also a Babylonian practice. (Amos 2:1 refers to a totally different event from that recorded in the text.) Upon the wall.—Of Kir-haraseth. This was done that the besiegers might see, and dread the consequences, believing, as they would be likely to do, that the Divine wrath was now appeased. And there was great indignation against Israel.—Or, And great wrath fell upon Israel. This phrase always denotes a visitation of Divine wrath. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 19:10; 2 Chronicles 24:18.) The manifestation of wrath in the present case was apparently a successful sortie of the Moabite garrison, whose faith in this terrible expedient of their king inspired them with new courage, while the besiegers were proportionally disheartened. The result was that “they (i.e., the allied forces) departed from him (raised the siege), and returned to the land” (of Israel). Why did Divine wrath fall upon Israel rather than upon Moab? upon the involuntary cause rather than the voluntary agents in this shocking rite? If the wrath of Jehovah be meant, we cannot tell. But, as the present writer understands the words of the text, they rather indicate that the object of the dreadful expiation was attained, and that the wrath of Chemosh fell upon the Hebrew alliance. It is certain that belief in the supremacy of Jehovah did not hinder ancient Israel from admitting the real existence and potency of foreign deities. (See Note on 1 Chronicles 16:25-26; 1 Chronicles 17:21; and comp. Numbers 21:29; Judges 11:24.) This peculiar conception is a token of the antiquity of the record before us. In the second half of Isaiah the foreign gods are called non. entities. After the events described in this verse we may suppose that Mesha’s successes continued, as described on the stone of Dibon. (See Note on 2 Kings 1:1.)

Verse 27. Took his eldest son] The rabbins account for this horrible sacrifice in the following way:- When the king of Moab found himself so harassed, and the royal city on the point of being taken, he called a council of his servants, and asked them how it was these Israelites could perform such prodigies, and that such miracles were wrought for them? His servants answered, that it was owing to their progenitor Abraham, who, having an only son, was commanded by Jehovah to offer him in sacrifice. Abraham instantly obeyed, and offered his only son for a burnt-offering; and the Israelites being his descendants, through his merits the holy blessed God wrought such miracles in their behalf. The king of Moab answered, I also have an only son, and I will go and offer him to my God. Then he offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. Upon the wall] על החמה al hachamah. Rab. Sol. Jarchi says that the letter ו vau is wanting in this word, as it should be written חומה chomah, to signify a wall; but חמה chammah signifies the sun, and this was the god of the king of Moab: "And he offered his first-born son for a burnt-offering unto the sun." This is not very solid. There was great indignation] The Lord was displeased with them for driving things to such an extremity: or the surrounding nations held them in abomination on the account; and they were so terrified themselves at this most horrid sacrifice, that they immediately raised the siege and departed. In cases of great extremity it was customary in various heathen nations to offer human sacrifices, or to devote to the infernal gods the most precious or excellent thing or person they possessed. This was frequent among the Phoenicians, Romans, and Greeks; and it was the natural fruit of a religious system which had for the objects of its worship cruel and merciless divinities. How different the Christian system! "Wilt thou that we shall bring down fire from heaven and destroy them? Ye know not what manner of spirits ye are of; the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

27. his eldest son] i.e. his own eldest son, not as has been explained by some, the eldest son of the Edomite king. His thought was to offer such a sacrifice as would be most acceptable. Hence he gave what was most precious to him. And the offering was made to his own god, Chemosh (see Numbers 21:29). Among the heathen human sacrifice was not uncommon, and some have thought that from the sight of such offerings Abraham was brought to contemplate the sacrifice of Isaac as required of him to prove that he was not less devoted to Jehovah’s service than the heathen people to their idolatry. upon the wall] This was no doubt done to shew to the Israelites that every means had been taken by him to secure the aid of the local divinity against his assailants. Such a sacrifice they might think could hardly fail of obtaining the help sought by it. And there was great indignation [R.V. wrath] against Israel] The word rendered ‘wrath’ or ‘indignation’ is nearly always used of the wrath of God against offenders. But it appears difficult to take it in that sense here. God’s promise through Elisha was that Israel should conquer, and they were bidden to smite every fenced city and every choice city. Therefore unless we conceive that underlying God’s message there was conceived some point beyond which they were not to go, and that the forcing of the king to offer his son was of this character, it is hard to see how they could be held to blame and worthy of God’s wrath. They were in no position to know what the king intended, nor, when they saw him on the wall, to prevent his sacrifice. It seems better therefore to take ‘wrath’ in this place to signify ‘wrath of men’. The word is found in Ecclesiastes 5:17, ‘All his days he eateth in darkness, and is sore vexed and hath sickness and wrath’ (R.V.). This can be either of what the man feels himself, or of what others feel towards him. Taking the latter sense, the meaning here would be that in the minds of the men of Judah and Edom there rose indignation that they had been brought to partake in an expedition which led to such a dreadful sacrifice. If we apply the word to the feelings of the Israelites themselves, we get the sense that they were grieved and angry at so terrible a result, and so hastened to leave the dreadful scene. The margin of R.V., ‘There came great wrath upon Israel’, alludes to the anger of God, but it seems, as the preposition is ‘against’, to be better to understand that the allies were grieved at having shared in so disastrous a warfare. Josephus says the kings pitied the need which the Moabite monarch had felt when he offered up his child, and so withdrew. and they departed from him] i.e. from the king of Moab.

Compare the marginal reference. Mesha, when his sally failed, took, as a last resource, his first born son, and offered him as a burnt-offering to appease the manifest anger of his god Chemosh, and

27. Took his eldest son — His own son; not, as some have said, the son of the king of Edom.