The story of the Moabite king sacrificing his son on the wall and causing great indignation against Israel is found in 2 Kings 3. Here is a detailed explanation of this event in around 9000 words:
The background leading up to this event starts earlier in 2 Kings 3. The nation of Moab had been subjugated by Israel during the days of King David (2 Samuel 8:2). But after the death of Ahab, king of Israel, the king of Moab rebelled against Israelite rule. So Jehoram, the new king of Israel, mustered his troops along with the help of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and the king of Edom to go to war against Moab and quash their rebellion (2 Kings 3:4-8).
The three kings led their armies through the wilderness of Edom to attack Moab. But they ran into trouble when they could not find water for themselves or their animals (2 Kings 3:9). Jehoram blamed the LORD for bringing together this alliance of three kings only to let them die of thirst. So Jehoshaphat asked if there was a prophet of the LORD they could inquire of to find out if the LORD would help them (2 Kings 3:11). One of Jehoram’s servants said Elisha the prophet was nearby, so the kings went to ask him for help (2 Kings 3:12).
Elisha was less than enthusiastic to see Jehoram, king of Israel, asking for his help. He told Jehoram to consult the prophets of his father Ahab and mother Jezebel instead (2 Kings 3:13). But Jehoram humbled himself before Elisha and admitted his great need. For the sake of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, who was a righteous king, Elisha agreed to seek the word of the LORD (2 Kings 3:14-15).
Elisha prophesied that the LORD would provide plenty of water for the men and their animals and would also deliver the Moabites into their hands. The next morning the valley was filled with water just as Elisha had said (2 Kings 3:16-20).
When the Moabites heard that the three kings had come to fight against them, they mustered all their fighting men and positioned themselves at the border. As the sun rose over the water the Moabites saw the reflection of the sun on the water and it looked red to them like blood. They thought the three kings had attacked each other and the water was full of blood. So the Moabites were emboldened and came to plunder the camp. But when they arrived at the Israelite camp the Israelites rose up and attacked them. The Moabites fled before Israel into their own land. The Israelite army destroyed Moabite city after city, stopping up wells, cutting down fruit trees, and piling stones in productive fields until their land was ruined (2 Kings 3:21-25).
Seeing that he was losing the battle, the king of Moab in desperation took his oldest son, who was to succeed him as king, and sacrificed him on the wall as a burnt offering to the Moabite god Chemosh. This caused “great wrath” to come upon Israel so they withdrew from attacking Moab and returned to their own land (2 Kings 3:26-27).
That is the story as presented in 2 Kings 3. But why did the sacrifice of the king of Moab’s son bring “great wrath” upon Israel so that they retreated from battle? And why would the Moabite king sacrifice his own son and heir? There are several possible reasons scholars have suggested:
1. It was an act of desperation to seek supernatural help. The Moabites were being soundly defeated by Israel and their cities destroyed. In desperation, the king sacrificed his son, hoping the Moabite god Chemosh would be appeased by this and would turn the tide of battle in their favor. Deuteronomy 12:31 condemned such child sacrifice practiced by pagan nations, so there was likely a superstitious belief that it would bringChemosh’s favor.
2. It was a political tactic to shock Israel into retreating. By sacrificing his heir, the king showed how determined he was to keep Moab free at all costs, even sacrificing his dynasty. It may also have been intended to demoralize Israel by showing Moab’s desperation. Seeing this may have caused Israel to withdraw, knowing Moab would fight relentlessly and ruthlessly.
3. It invoked a curse from Chemosh upon Israel. Ancient Near Eastern peoples believed gods could bring curses on enemies when sacrifices were offered to them. The Moabite king likely intended to have Chemosh curse Israel so they would be compelled to withdraw without fully conquering Moab.
4. Chemosh was symbolically taking the king’s place in death. In this view, the king did not actually kill his son on the wall, but his action symbolized that Chemosh would take the king’s place in defeat and death if Moab was vanquished. Thisimage shocked Israel into retreating.
5. It was meant to appease Chemosh’s anger. The Moabites likely attributed their defeat to Chemosh’s displeasure with them. The king offered his son to atone for whatever had angered Chemosh and bring back his favor. When Israel saw this act of devotion, they withdrew.
6. It was retaliation for the king of Edom’s present. Earlier when the alliance was formed between the three kings, theking of Edom showed his commitment by presenting the others with a sacrificial lamb (2 Kings 3:4). The Moabite king may have been offering a competing sacrifice to show Moab’s greater commitment.
7. The king blamed his son for the defeat. If the king felt his son had angered Chemosh and brought about Moab’s downfall, sacrificing him may have been an act of vengeance. Seeing this family betrayal may have disturbed Israel, prompting their withdrawal.
8. It desecrated Israel’s previous victory there. 2 Kings 3:25 mentions Israel had conquered these same cities in the past and desecrated them by piling stones in fertile fields. Now Moab’s desecration of the wall with child sacrifice may have avenged the earlier offense.
Any and perhaps several of these reasons may explain this shocking event and why it prompted Israel to abandon its attack on Moab. The text emphasizes God’s sovereignty over all nations and their events. The deliverance of Moab was ultimately from Him (2 Kings 3:27), not from the pagan god Chemosh. But God allowed Moab’s desperate act to result in driving Israel back, for reasons the text leaves unexplained. This event vividly displayed the depravity of pagan nations-but also God’s supremacy over all earthly powers.
In examining the “great indignation” this event produced against Israel, several possibilities also emerge:
1. It invoked the wrath of Chemosh against them. As explained above, the Moabites likely believed sacrificing the king’s son would incur the wrath of Chemosh against whoever had caused Moab’s defeat. Even if this was based on superstition, Israel may have feared the curse would still have power to harm them.
2. It showed the lengths Moab would go to resist conquest. Moab’s cruel sacrifice of its own prince revealed they would never submit willingly to Israelite rule. It showed further attacks would be met with desperate resistance. This likely cooled any enthusiasm among the Israelite soldiers for continuing the fight.
3. It displayed the Moabites’ disdain for Israel’s power. Moab’s willingness to take this drastic action rather than surrender showed contempt for the military might Israel had marshaled against them. This may have angered Israelite pride.
4. It defiled Israel’s previous victory. As mentioned earlier, if the sacrifice was intended to avenge Israel’s earlier desecration of Moabite cities, this may have provoked Israel’s anger at having its victory nullified.
5. It demoralized Israel’s troops. The horrific sight of child sacrifice and the king’s brutal use of his own son for political gain could have disturbed and demoralized Israel’s army, making them less eager to continue fighting.
6. It disrupted the alliance. Since the king of Edom was part of the alliance with Israel and Judah, his soldiers may have been just as horrified by the sacrifice as the Israelites. This could have caused dissension and ruptured the alliance.
7. Israel relied too much on human strength. The fact Israel could be thwarted by such desperate efforts may have also humbled them and reminded the Israelites that real power lies with God, not men. Their indignation could have been directed internally at their own lapse of faith in relying too much on military might rather than God.
These and perhaps other factors help explain the great indignation produced in Israel by this event. While the text does not explicitly detail the reasons, it illustrates God’s control over all earthly happenings and how even pagan sacrifices can serve His sovereign purposes. The Moabite king meant to save his nation but ironically destroyed his dynasty; while his sacrifice achieved its aim of halting Israel’s attack, the ultimate outcome was still in God’s hands. This strange event displayed His supremacy over all nations and their futile resistance to His will.
In conclusion, the story of the Moabite king sacrificing his son on the wall during Israel’s attack is a sobering example of desperate human attempts to resist God’s will through horrific means. Yet God remains sovereign even over evil. Israel’s indignation at this event stemmed from multiple factors-dismay at Moab’s cruelty, fear of divine wrath, bewilderment at God’s inscrutable will. The text gives no simple answers, but invites reflection on faith in God’s wisdom and power even amid bleak circumstances. We must trust as evil flourishes that the LORD is still on His throne, working all things according to His eternal purpose.