II Kings 3:27 · Bible study
2 Kings 3:27 Commentary: The 'Great Wrath' Interpreted
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Examine the great wrath in 2 Kings 3:27, was it God's judgment, human horror, or something else? Commentators disagree, but the withdrawal of Israel is key.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Mesha sacrifices his son on the wall; a great wrath against Israel causes the coalition to withdraw.
- Key words: קֶצֶף (qeṣef) 'wrath/indignation', used elsewhere for both divine and human anger; חוֹמָה (ḥomâ) 'wall' but some read חַמָּה (ḥammâ) 'sun' as the god.
- Main debate: Is the 'great wrath' God's judgment on Israel for provoking the sacrifice, or is it human revulsion/horror at the deed?
- Theological theme: God's abhorrence of child sacrifice; the moral limits of warfare; divine sovereignty over pagan desperation.
- Best use: A sobering case study in the dark results of idolatry and the way God can use even evil acts to accomplish His purposes.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
So he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the city wall. And there was great fury against the Israelites, so they withdrew and returned to their own land.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Then he took his oldest son who would have reigned in his place, and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. There was great wrath against Israel; and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.
KJV King James Version 1769
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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
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 wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and he taketh his son, the first-born who reigneth in his stead, and causeth him to ascend--a burnt-offering on the wall, and there is great wrath against Israel, and they journey from off him, and turn back to the land.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And he took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him up for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel; and they departed from him, and returned to [their own] land.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
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 in Israel, and presently they departed from him, and returned into their own country.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Entonces arrebató á su primogénito que había de reinar en su lugar, y sacrificóle en holocausto sobre el muro. Y hubo grande enojo en Israel; y retiráronse de él, y volviéronse á su tierra.
Então arrebatou a seu primogênito que havia de reinar em seu lugar, e sacrificou-lhe em holocausto sobre o muro. E havia grande ira em Israel; e retiraram-se dele, e voltaram a sua terra.
Il prit alors son fils premier-né, qui devait régner à sa place, et il l’ offrit en holocauste sur la muraille. Et une grande indignation s’ empara d’ Israël, qui s’ éloigna du roi de Moab et retourna dans son pays.
Da nahm er seinen ersten Sohn, der an seiner Statt sollte König werden, und opferte ihn zum Brandopfer auf der Mauer. Da kam ein großer Zorn über Israel, daß sie von ihm abzogen und kehrten wieder in ihr Land.
Toen nam hij zijn eerstgeboren zoon, die in zijn plaats koning zou worden, en offerde hem ten brandoffer op den muur. Daaruit werd een zeer grote toorn in Israel; daarom trokken zij van hem af, en keerden weder in hun land.
Allora prese il suo figliuolo primogenito, che dovea succedergli nel regno, e l’offerse in olocausto sopra le mura. A questa vista, un profondo orrore s’impadronì degli Israeliti, che s’allontanarono dal re di Moab e se ne tornarono al loro paese.
Przetoż pojmawszy syna jego pierworodnego, który miał królować miasto niego, ofiarował go całopaleniem na murze. I stało się zagniewanie wielkie, przeciw Izraelowi, i odciągnęli od niego, a wrócili się do ziemi swej.
И взял он сына своего первенца, которому следовало царствовать вместо него, и вознес его во всесожжение на стене. Это произвело большое негодование в Израильтянах, и они отступили от него и возвратились в свою землю.
便將 那 應當接續他 作王 的長 子，在 城上 獻為 燔祭。 以色列人 遭遇 耶和華的大 怒（或譯：招人痛恨），於是三王離開 摩押王，各回 本國去了。
Then he took his oldest son, who would have been king after him, offering him as a burned offering on the wall. So there was great wrath against Israel; and they went away from him, back to their country.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · II Kings 3:27
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The Moabite king Mesha sacrificed his own firstborn son as a burnt offering on the city wall. Commentators across traditions agree that the victim was Mesha's heir, not the Edomite king's son (Gill refutes that reading; Cambridge Bible also identifies him as Mesha's own). The act mirrored ancient Near Eastern practices of offering what was most precious to a deity in extreme distress (Barnes, Clarke). After the sacrifice, a 'great wrath' came against Israel, and the allied kings withdrew and returned home. Consensus holds that this wrath, whatever its source, directly prompted the withdrawal. But the identity of that wrath is sharply debated.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Divine judgment view: The word קֶצֶף (qeṣef) usually refers to God's wrath, and JFB and Lange argue Israel's siege caused the sacrifice, incurring God's anger and the withdrawal.
- Human horror view: Cambridge Bible and Matthew Henry note that God had promised victory; so divine anger is unlikely. Instead, the human disgust of the allies—especially Judah and Edom—led them to abandon the siege.
- Moabite fury view: Gill suggests the wrath was the desperate fury of Mesha and his people, who now fought even more fiercely, convincing the allies to retreat.
What is clear: Mesha sacrificed his firstborn son on the wall, and after that a great wrath came against Israel, causing the coalition to withdraw and return home.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Who was sacrificed? | The victim was the king of Moab's own firstborn son, his heir. | Some earlier Jewish interpreters (cited by Gill) speculated it was the Edomite king's son, but nearly all modern commentators reject this. |
| What is the 'great wrath'? | It was a wrath that led directly to Israel's withdrawal. | Some (JFB, Lange) see it as divine anger against Israel for causing the human sacrifice. Others (Cambridge Bible, Matthew Henry) read it as human horror, either Israel's own disgust or the indignation of Judah and Edom. A third view (Gill, Clarke) sees it as Moab's fury or the general terror spreading among the allies. |
| Why did Israel withdraw? | The sacrifice triggered the withdrawal; the siege was lifted immediately. | Some say God's judgment made victory impossible. Others argue the human horror made continuing unthinkable. A practical view suggests the Moabites' desperate defense made further assault too costly. |
| Did God accept the sacrifice? | The text does not say God accepted it; in fact, child sacrifice is condemned elsewhere in Scripture. | Some interpreters suggest God allowed the withdrawal to show His anger at such practices. Others argue the pagan act had no divine endorsement at all, it was simply a human horror that ended the siege. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Moab had been a vassal of Israel since David's time, paying an annual tribute of lambs and rams with their wool (2 Ki 3:4). When Ahab died, Mesha rebelled. Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah, and the king of Edom formed a coalition to crush the revolt. After a miraculous water supply and victory in battle, the allies devastated Moab's countryside and besieged the fortress city Kir Hareseth. The siege pressed so hard that Mesha attempted a breakout with 700 swordsmen but failed (v. 26). Cornered, he turned to the ultimate religious act of his culture: sacrificing his son and heir on the wall, visible to the besiegers. Such human sacrifices, though abhorrent to Israel (Deut 12:31), were known among Moab's god Chemosh and other Canaanite deities. The wall setting made the act public, a ritual appeal meant to shock, horrify, or sway the gods. The coalition's sudden departure suggests the sacrifice achieved its purpose, whether through divine anger, human disgust, or both.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants in the Hebrew manuscripts. A rabbinical interpretation (cited by Clarke and Gill) observes that the word for 'wall' (חוֹמָה) is missing the letter vav in some traditions, allowing it to be read as חַמָּה (chammah, 'sun'). This would mean Mesha offered his son to the sun god rather than merely on the city wall. While intriguing, this reading does not arise from manuscript variation but from a midrashic interpretation not adopted by modern critical editions.
Reception History
Jewish exegesis often connected this sacrifice to Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22), but as a dark parody, where Abraham was stopped, Mesha went through with it (Clarke cites rabbinic traditions to this effect). Early Christian commentators used the verse to highlight the horror of pagan religion and the mercy of God in forbidding child sacrifice (Deut 12:31). In the Reformation era, commentators like Matthew Henry focused on the moral: even intended victory can be forfeited when it becomes complicit in evil. Anglican and Protestant scholars of the 19th century debated the 'wrath' extensively, with the Cambridge Bible favoring human indignation and JFB arguing for divine judgment. Today the verse remains a touchstone for discussions about the ethics of warfare and the limits of obedience to prophetic commands.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Desperation drives dark choices. Mesha, trapped, offers what he values most, his son. Sin's logic always escalates. The text holds no sympathy for him, but it exposes what people do when they feel they have nothing left.
- God abhors child sacrifice. Deuteronomy 12:31 explicitly condemns this practice. The passage does not say God accepted the sacrifice; it records the aftermath. The 'great wrath' may be God's own revulsion at what Israel's siege provoked.
- Horror can stop a war. Whether divine judgment or human disgust, the wrath broke the campaign. Sometimes the most powerful force is the shared recognition that something has gone terribly wrong.
Five-point outline
- The siege, victory within reach.
- The king's last move, sacrificing his son.
- The sacrifice on the wall, a public, religious act.
- The great wrath, God's fury or human revulsion.
- The withdrawal, victory abandoned.
Illustration hooks
- A parent watching a child make a destructive choice, feeling powerless, then seeing the child do something unthinkable that changes everything.
- A sports team that wins on a technicality but feels hollow because the victory came through an injury.
- A business deal that succeeds but costs a friendship, you win the battle but lose something more precious.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does God ever allow evil events to accomplish His purposes? How do we reconcile this story with God's goodness?
- Why did Israel withdraw right when they were about to win? Was it fear, guilt, or judgment?
- How should Christians think about ancient child sacrifice? Does this passage have anything to say about modern devaluing of children?
Leading a Discussion
This passage is disturbing. It forces us to ask hard questions about the consequences of war, the desperation of human idolatry, and how God responds when people cross lines they should never cross. As you discuss, avoid quick answers. Let the discomfort do its work.
Discussion questions
- Read 2 Kings 3:26, 27. What stands out to you about Mesha's actions? What do they reveal about his view of the gods?
- Why do you think Israel, Judah and Edom were so determined to conquer Moab? What was at stake for each?
- The 'great wrath against Israel' is ambiguous. List the possible interpretations from the passage and cross-references (Deut 12:31; Judg 11:30, 39).
- If the wrath was divine judgment, what might God have been judging Israel for? (Consider the siege's brutality and the fact they forced Mesha to this extreme.)
- If the wrath was human horror, who felt it? The Israelite soldiers? The other allies? How would that explain their withdrawal?
- How does this story challenge our assumptions about victory and defeat? Can 'winning' still be wrong?
- What does this passage teach us about the value God places on children, especially compared to the surrounding cultures?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 22:2 | He said, “Now take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go into the land of Moriah. Offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you of.” |
| Genesis 22:13 | Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and saw that behind him was a ram caught in the thicket by his horns. Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering instead of his son. |
| Deuteronomy 12:31 | You shall not do so to Yahweh your God; for every abomination to Yahweh, which he hates, they have done to their gods; for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. |
| Judges 11:31 | then it shall be, that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” |
| Judges 11:39 | At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed. She was a virgin. It became a custom in Israel |
| I Samuel 14:36 | Saul said, “Let’s go down after the Philistines by night, and take plunder among them until the morning light. Let’s not leave a man of them.” They said, “Do whatever seems good to you.” Then the priest said, “Let’s draw near here to God.” |
| I Samuel 14:46 | Then Saul went up from following the Philistines; and the Philistines went to their own place. |
| I Kings 20:13 | Behold, a prophet came near to Ahab king of Israel, and said, “Yahweh says, ‘Have you seen all this great multitude? Behold, I will deliver it into your hand today. Then you will know that I am Yahweh.’” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Adam Clarke notes the Moabite king deliberately imitated Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac, offering his own son to win his god's favor. He also examines a textual question: the Hebrew might mean "to the sun" rather than "upon the wall," though he judges that reading unsolid.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes observes that Mesha's sacrifice of his firstborn to Chemosh was a normal act in Moabite religion. The resulting fury against Israel likely came from the Israelites blaming themselves or from Judah and Edom holding Israel responsible for the defiling sacrifice, which ended the siege.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator argues that the "great indignation against Israel" refers not to God's anger but to the horror and anger felt by the allied armies themselves. Shocked at being party to the Moabite king's sacrifice of his own son, they withdrew in revulsion rather than pressing the siege as Elisha had commanded.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Note highlights that Israel withdrew not from military weakness but from horror at the Moabite king's sacrifice of his own son. This desperate act, offered on the city wall, so horrified the Israelites that they feared divine retribution and abandoned the siege, returning home.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill clarifies that the son sacrificed was the king of Moab's own heir, not a captive. The offering on the wall was a desperate pagan religious act, aimed at appeasing his god Chemosh. The great indignation was Moab's hatred of Israel, not Edom's, which led the three kings to break the siege and return home.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB sees the Moabite king's child sacrifice not as a sudden turn in the battle but as a direct cause of divine judgment against Israel. The allied army's siege drove the king to commit an act forbidden by God's law, so Israel incurred God's anger for forcing that horror and quickly withdrew.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange interprets the water supply as a natural flood from a distant rainstorm, not a supernatural miracle, and the Moabites' mistake as a natural optical illusion from red earth. He argues the Israelite army withdrew not because of divine wrath, but from human horror and revulsion at the king of Moab's child sacrifice.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry notes that the water God sent served a double purpose: it revived Israel's thirsty army and also tricked the Moabites, who mistook its red reflection for blood. The same divine gift that strengthened Israel became the very means of the enemy's confusion and defeat.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley highlights that the king sacrificed his own son on the wall for two reasons: to appease his god during a national crisis and to move the Israelite army to pity or despair, making further siege seem futile. The sight caused such grief and repentance among Israel that they resolved to stop the war.