Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
2 Kings 3:26-27 reads
26 When the king of Moab realized he was losing the battle, he and 700 swordsmen tried to break through and attack the king of Edom, but they failed. 27 So he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him up as a burnt sacrifice on the wall. There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland. (NET)
If you were to read this naturally, even after vigorous examination of the surrounding texts, it would seem that this passage would creat a huge conundrum from a theological standpoint. What it suggests is that, by sacrificing his son, the king of Moab manages to call down the wrath of a very real god, who then proceeds to invoke his power onto the Israelites in a manner not dissimilar to the way God has supported his followers in previous and following chapters.
It was prophesied that God would hand over the Moabites to them in earlier chapters as well. As far as the rest of the story went before this, it seemed like a sure victory. But this deity actually managed to drive off the Chosen People even as they were being backed up by God to win this battle.
This raises a number of questions, the first and foremost being where in the world this “divine anger” is coming from. Is there really another god out there that we have only just heard of, and if so, shouldn’t an omnipotent and omniscient God surely possess the means to keep him down and allow his people to triumph? And after this seeming defeat at the hands of Chemosh, is Elisha’s prophecy now proven a lie, thus rendering him a false prophet? Scriptural evidence supporting opinions would be preferable.
Dr. Vinny Hudson
The interpretation of 2 Kings 3:26-27 raises some intriguing theological questions, yet it is important to approach the text with an understanding of the historical and cultural context in which it was written. The narrative does not suggest the existence of a competing deity that could thwart God’s will; rather, it reflects the ancient Near Eastern context where sacrifices were common practices meant to appease deities. According to research from Pew Research Center, many societies historically believed in multiple gods, and such acts were often seen as desperate measures in warfare (Pew Research). Furthermore, it’s crucial to note that divine anger does not equate to defeat; instead, it signifies a complex relationship between God and His chosen people that sometimes involves discipline (Christianity.com). Elisha’s prophecy should be understood as God’s overarching plan rather than a simple cause-and-effect prediction. The idea that Chemosh’s actions could undermine God’s sovereignty misinterprets the narrative’s intent. In essence, this text does not present evidence of gnostic theology or heresy but rather invites deeper reflection on the nature of divine interaction within the historical context of Israel’s faith journey.