Wrath of Chemosh(?)

[Littlejoe]

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.

[Obsidian]

[Littlejoe]

The death of their prince by the leader of their nation? Why would they get mad at the Israelites for that? Why wouldn't they be mad at the King? And why then after the sacrifice?

[Cerebrum123]

It 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.

I know the word "visited" isn't in the passage, which is why I didn't put quotes around that word. I was using it to describe the situation that is in the passage.

[Rushing Jaws]

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.

Joshua 6:26
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.

[Littlejoe]

So...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? 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. 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.

The verse echoes the curse upon the site of Jericho in Joshua 6:

Joshua 6:26
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.

Looks to me as if Hiel the Bethelite fulfilled the prophecy not King Mesha of Moab?

[Rushing Jaws]

So...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?

12And 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.
45In 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.
789But 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

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.

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.

But how does that text, illustrate this one ?

Looks to me as if Hiel the Bethelite fulfilled the prophecy not King Mesha of Moab?

It looks as though I led you astray. My point was simply that the two acts of human sacrifice illuminated each other.

[Cerebrum123]

snip

It looks as though I led you astray. My point was simply that the two acts of human sacrifice illuminated each other.

They really don't. In the one you have the Moabite king sacrificing his son to Chemosh and subsequently winning the battle against Israel because of it. God surely wouldn't have been favoring the side performing human sacrifice, but a darker power wouldn't hesitate.

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.

[Littlejoe]

Ummm...it clearly says in the text that "...there came a great wrath against Israel", and this happened immediately after the sacrifice. As to what caused the "wrath" there are many theories I'll grant you...but the one that makes the most sense from the text IMO is demonic wrath of the demonic god Chemosh. This practice was apparently common amongst the Moabites/Canaanite's and others in the ANE world of this time. This article details some of what I'm saying:

A votive-pledge we shall fulfill:
A firstborn,
Baal, we shall sacrifice,
A child
we shall fulfill [as votive-pledge].Then shall Baal hearken to your prayers,
He shall drive the [enemy] force from your gates,
The aggressor from your walls.

(Bolded part is by me for emphasis)
Source: http://religionatthemargins.com/2011...d-2-kings-327/

http://biblehub.com/bsb/2_kings/21.htm

2 Chronicles 33: http://biblehub.com/bsb/2_chronicles/33.htm

As Cerebrum pointed out, the two are not analogous at all. Manasseh was King of Israel. Divine anger from Yahweh against the Israelites In 2 Kings 3 is unwarranted since they did not commit the offense.

Totally disagree with you. NT continues and expands upon the spiritual warfare theology that is all through Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The fact that we see more demonology displayed in the NT is certainly due to a refining/understanding of the apocalyptic world they lived in. But, I believe that understanding was because Satan was gaining more and more influence over the world as he did by Genesis 6 where God wiped out much of the evil. I believe it's why Jesus came during this time as it had reached a "fever pitch". Christ's main purpose for coming was to destroy the works of Satan...as St. John says in 1 John 3:8: "the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil."

It looks as though I led you astray. My point was simply that the two acts of human sacrifice illuminated each other.

When doing proper exegesis, it's often very important to know how the recipients of the text understood it. The ANE readers would have known about the prayer above to Baal. So, I think the author did not get specific because he saw no reason to. This is a common thing in Scripture. the author(s) assume the reader/recipient understands unsaid things because it's "common knowledge". I think that's going on here as well.