Wrath upon you in every case I can find is always from God. This wrath wasn't from God, it was from demonic forces. The Moabites getting angry at Israel for their own King sacrificing his son on the wall makes no sense.
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Wrath of Chemosh(?)
Collapse
X
-
"What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View PostIsrael's attack led to the death of their prince — not to mention the destruction of their entire countryside. Of course it makes sense that the Moabites would be angry."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View PostIt doesn't say that there was any wrath "visited" upon anyone. It says:
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostWrath upon you in every case I can find is always from God. This wrath wasn't from God, it was from demonic forces. The Moabites getting angry at Israel for their own King sacrificing his son on the wall makes no sense.
Joshua 6:26
At that time Joshua invoked this solemn oath: “Cursed before the LORD is the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho; at the cost of his firstborn he will lay its foundations; at the cost of his youngest he will set up its gates.”
1 Kings 16.34:
In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho; he laid its foundations with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke by Joshua the son of Nun.
Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 07-19-2018, 08:15 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View PostI see nothing in the text, at any level, to justify reference to “demonic forces”. The use of language like “there was great wrath” rather than “X was wrathful” looks to me like a roundabout way of saying “JHWH was angry”.
The verse echoes the curse upon the site of Jericho in Joshua 6:
Joshua 6:26
At that time Joshua invoked this solemn oath: “Cursed before the LORD is the man who rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho; at the cost of his firstborn he will lay its foundations; at the cost of his youngest he will set up its gates.”
1 Kings 16.34:
In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho; he laid its foundations with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke by Joshua the son of Nun.
Last edited by Littlejoe; 07-19-2018, 09:04 PM."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostSo...your positing that God was angry at Israel and Judah because the Moabite king sacrificed his son to a demonic "god" Chemosh in a burnt offering?
Having said that, it may be worth taking another look at what is said about the reign of Manasseh of Judah, as described in 2 Kings 21.1-9:
1Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah.
2And he did evil in the sight of the LORD by following the abominations of the nations that the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
3For he rebuilt the high places that his father Hezekiah had destroyed, and he raised up altars for Baal. He made an Asherah pole, as King Ahab of Israel had done, and he worshiped and served all the host of heaven.
4Manasseh also built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “In Jerusalem I will put My Name.”
5In both courtyards of the house of the LORD, he built altars to all the host of heaven.
6He sacrificed his own son in the fire,a practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did great evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger.
7Manasseh even took the carved Asherah pole he had made and set it up in the temple, of which the LORD had said to David and his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will establish My Name forever.
8I will never again cause the feet of the Israelites to wander from the land I gave their fathers, if only they are careful to do all I have commanded them—the whole Law that My servant Moses commanded them.”
9But the people did not listen and Manasseh led them astray, so that they did greater evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites.
2 Kings 21: http://biblehub.com/bsb/2_kings/21.htm
2 Chronicles 33: http://biblehub.com/bsb/2_chronicles/33.htm
Verse 5 mentions sacrifice of a son by a king, and Divine anger, with at least an implication that the one incurred the other. The parallel with Mesha’s sacrifice of his son is not exact, since Manasseh is accused of other sins as well; but there are similarities nonetheless. And the passages occur in the same book, so it is a reasonable assumption that they are informed by the same theology.
Sorry, but you'll need to convince me of that one. It makes more sense that the Moabites were empowered by the sacrifice to a demonic power. We see in the N.T. when Jesus cast out the man inhabited by Legion that he was uncontrollable and even chains could not hold him.
The demonology we have in the NT belongs, as far as I can see, to a later period than the Books of Kings. In Kings we have God, we have the angel of JHWH, and we have the “host of heaven”. But no single, individual, satan, in the NT sense of a fallen and malign created spirit responsible for evil. There is nothing in Kings comparable to Babylonian demons like Pazuzu or Namtar or Lilu, or to demonesses like Lamashtu or Lilitu or Ardat Lili. There are superhuman entities like the heavenly army seen by Elisha and his servant in 2 Kings 6 - but no demons or devil. IOW, no demonology. The NT books are apocalyptic in tone, and apocalyptic, being deeply concerned with eschatological opposition to God, is often interested in demonology. But that belongs to a different world of ideas from a book like Kings.
ISTM that, for the author of Kings, good and evil alike came from God. The reason being, that concern for the moral innocence of God was not a concern; what I think was a concern, was to drive home the lesson that all things, including evil things, were subject to God. If this is correct, it may help to explain why, in 1 Kings 22, JHWH is described as sending a “lying spirit” upon Ahab’s court prophets. Later on, vindicating the moral aspect of God’s Holiness becomes an issue. But not here.
For a handful of soldiers left to route an army that has up to now devastated everything obstacle in their path seems far fetched that there wasn't something else going on.
Do you have trouble believing that there was a spiritual battle going on as well?
Remember when King David went up against the Philistines and God told him to wait until he heard the marching in the trees to attack.
Looks to me as if Hiel the Bethelite fulfilled the prophecy not King Mesha of Moab?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Postsnip
It looks as though I led you astray. My point was simply that the two acts of human sacrifice illuminated each other.
In the latter you have someone losing their sons because they broke a commandment of God. Very different circumstances, and the same goes for Manasseh. Manasseh sacrificed his children, and incurred the wrath of God for doing such evil.
Your attempts to compartmentalize the Bible lead you to getting things backwards as is usual for you. All of the books of the Bible come from the same God. They are in agreement with each other, not conflicting each other.
The "principalities" that the NT speaks of are the same kind of beings as the "Prince of Persia" in the OT. The NT just reveals a further detail in that they are all subservient to one specific dark power, called Satan or the devil, rather than just off on their own. Not saying that they have no autonomy, but that there is a hierarchy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View PostI don’t know what exactly caused the “wrath”, or even against whom or what it was directed though IMO the “wrath” could make sense as God’s, against the human sacrifice.
In 1978 a tablet from Ugarita was published in which is found a clear and decisive parallel to 2 Kings 3, as well as to 1 Sam 7 and 13.
The relevant portion of the text reads as follows:
If an enemy force attacks your [city-]gates,
An aggressor, your walls;
You shall lift up your eyes to Baal [and pray]:
“O Baal:
Drive away the [enemy] force from our gates,
The aggressor from our walls.
We shall sacrifice a bull [to thee], O Baal,
A votive-pledge we shall fulfill:
A firstborn,
Baal, we shall sacrifice,
A child
we shall fulfill [as votive-pledge].
A ‘tenth’ [of all our wealth] we shall tithe [thee],
To the temple of Baal we shall go up,
In the footpaths of the House-of-Baal we shall walk.”
Then shall Baal hearken to your prayers,
He shall drive the [enemy] force from your gates,
The aggressor from your walls.
Note that the word translated “firstborn” in the prayer is the Ugaritic bkr, which in Hebrew is bekor. This happens to be the same word used in 2 Kings 3:27. According to Baruch Margalit, this text dates to ca. 1250-1200 BCE, about four centuries before the reign of Mesha of Moab. However, the same practices described in this tablet are documented at least as late as the Roman period. “Mesha’s actions, and the Israelite retreat, fit perfectly within this Canaanite, later Punic (neo-Canaanite), tradition of a thousand years.”2 The following examples are provided by Margalit: Diodorus of Sicily (ca. 50 BCE) writes that “in Sicily the Carthaginians . . . were besieging Syracuse, but in Libya Agathocles had brought the Carthaginians under siege—the Carthaginians betook themselves to every manner of supplication of the divine powers . . . they sent a large sum of money and . . . expensive offerings to Tyre . . . when they . . . saw their enemy encamped before their walls . . . they selected two hundred of the noblest children and sacrificed them publicly.”
Source: http://religionatthemargins.com/2011...d-2-kings-327/
Having said that, it may be worth taking another look at what is said about the reign of Manasseh of Judah, as described in 2 Kings 21.1-9: 1Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2And he did evil in the sight of the LORD by following the abominations of the nations that the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.3For he rebuilt the high places that his father Hezekiah had destroyed, and he raised up altars for Baal. He made an Asherah pole, as King Ahab of Israel had done, and he worshiped and served all the host of heaven. 4Manasseh also built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “In Jerusalem I will put My Name.” 5In both courtyards of the house of the LORD, he built altars to all the host of heaven. 6He sacrificed his own son in the fire,a practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did great evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger.
7Manasseh even took the carved Asherah pole he had made and set it up in the temple, of which the LORD had said to David and his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will establish My Name forever. 8I will never again cause the feet of the Israelites to wander from the land I gave their fathers, if only they are careful to do all I have commanded them—the whole Law that My servant Moses commanded them.” 9But the people did not listen and Manasseh led them astray, so that they did greater evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites.
2 Kings 21: http://biblehub.com/bsb/2_kings/21.htm
2 Chronicles 33: http://biblehub.com/bsb/2_chronicles/33.htm
Verse 5 mentions sacrifice of a son by a king, and Divine anger, with at least an implication that the one incurred the other. The parallel with Mesha’s sacrifice of his son is not exact, since Manasseh is accused of other sins as well; but there are similarities nonetheless. And the passages occur in the same book, so it is a reasonable assumption that they are informed by the same theology.
As I said, I see no hint of demons in this book. And I want to keep to what the text can be ascertained to mean, instead of reading into it concepts and ideas derived from other parts of the Bible - especially much later, NT, parts. The NT has its own distinctive theology, & I don’t want to mix it with that of Kings. Adding “demonic power” to the text runs the risk of importing an alien concept in order to fix a problem that may not even exist. We, being Christians, see a problem with the data in the text - I don’t think the author of the passage would do so.
The demonology we have in the NT belongs, as far as I can see, to a later period than the Books of Kings. In Kings we have God, we have the angel of JHWH, and we have the “host of heaven”. But no single, individual, satan, in the NT sense of a fallen and malign created spirit responsible for evil. There is nothing in Kings comparable to Babylonian demons like Pazuzu or Namtar or Lilu, or to demonesses like Lamashtu or Lilitu or Ardat Lili. There are superhuman entities like the heavenly army seen by Elisha and his servant in 2 Kings 6 - but no demons or devil. IOW, no demonology. The NT books are apocalyptic in tone, and apocalyptic, being deeply concerned with eschatological opposition to God, is often interested in demonology. But that belongs to a different world of ideas from a book like Kings.
ISTM that, for the author of Kings, good and evil alike came from God. The reason being, that concern for the moral innocence of God was not a concern; what I think was a concern, was to drive home the lesson that all things, including evil things, were subject to God. If this is correct, it may help to explain why, in 1 Kings 22, JHWH is described as sending a “lying spirit” upon Ahab’s court prophets. Later on, vindicating the moral aspect of God’s Holiness becomes an issue. But not here. But what was going on, that is not mentioned ? Sometimes, armies, as the saying goes, “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”. Without knowing a great deal more about the battle than we are told, I don’t see that the change in the fortunes of war can’t be explained in natural terms. The “wrath” in verse 27 may even be a theological inference: Israel had no more success than it did, therefore, JHWH must have been angry with Israel. There may be no causal connection between 27a, and 27b. None. But I don’t see how positing one here has any basis in the text. There is no mention of the angel of JHWH fighting for or against Israel, no mention of the host of heaven, not even of the stars fighting in their courses. The only warfare in the text is purely human.
But how does that text, illustrate this one ?
Therefore, when Israel defeated an opponent this was sometimes understood as the YHWH once again defeating evil/cosmic forces of chaos (Isa. 17:12–14). When YHWH freed the children of Israel from Egypt, for example, this was considered his defeat of the raging waters (Hab. 3:12–13, Nah. 1:4). And when he further delivered Israel by parting the Red Sea, this was seen as a new application of Yahweh’s victory over Rahab (Isa. 51:9–10, Ps. 77:16). On the other hand, when Israel was conquered by an enemy this was described as being devoured by the mighty sea serpent (Jere. 51:34). Similarly, David identified the enemies who opposed him as the forces that have opposed God since the beginning of creation (Ps. 93:3–4). Consequently, when his life was threatened he asked the Lord to reenact his primordial victory over sinister cosmic forces on his behalf. He called upon Yahweh to deliver him “from my enemies and from the deep waters. Do not let the flood sweep over me, or the deep swallow me up” (Ps. 69:14–15). And again, “Stretch out your hand…set me free and rescue me from the mighty waters, from the hand of aliens” (144:7).
It looks as though I led you astray. My point was simply that the two acts of human sacrifice illuminated each other."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
4 responses
39 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-16-2024, 03:47 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-27-2024, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
341 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
364 responses
17,323 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-22-2024, 03:12 PM
|
Comment