26<\/strong>. he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords<\/em> ] R.V. sword<\/strong>. In this phrase the singular is of the more frequent occurrence in A.V. The Moabite king desired to cut his way through the besiegers and so to escape, and he made the attempt in the direction of the king of Edom’s troops, either because that was the weaker side of the allied host, or else because he thought he might be received by the Edomite king, and that they together might turn against the combined forces of Israel and Judah. Josephus suggests the former reason, saying he made his sally where the guard was relaxed. The expression ‘break through unto<\/em> the king of Edom’ seems to hint that he thought to find there an ally.<\/p>\n To break through, even unto the king of Edom – <\/B>Either because he thought that the king of Edom would connive at his escape or to take vengeance on him for having deserted his former allies (2Ki 3:8<\/span> note).<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 26<\/span>. Seven hundred men<\/B><\/I>] These were no doubt the choice<\/I> of all his troops, and being afraid of being hemmed up and perhaps taken by his enemies, whom he found on the eve of gaining possession of the city, he made a desperate sortie in order to regain the open country; and supposing that the quarter of the Edomites was weakest, or less carefully guarded, he endeavoured to make his impression there; but they were so warmly received by the king of Edom that they failed in the attempt, and were driven back into the city. Hence he was led to that desperate act mentioned in the following verse.<\/P> <\/p>\n That being unable to defend the city longer, he might make an escape; which he chose to do on the king of Edoms quarter, because he thought either that his was the weakest side, or that he would more willingly suffer him to escape, because he was not so hearty in the war as the rest, but only forced to it, and he might hereafter have some occasion of the king of Moab to join with him, as before he had, 2Ch 20:22<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him<\/strong>,…. The siege was so close, the slingers or engineers did so much execution, that he saw the city would soon be taken, and he be obliged to deliver it up:<\/p>\n he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords<\/strong>; men expert in war, bold and daring:<\/p>\n to break through even unto the king of Edom<\/strong>; through his quarters, and so escape, he lying nearest to the city, and perhaps the weakest body of men with him; or he might think he was not so hearty in the cause of the kings, and would make but a feeble resistance, and let him pass:<\/p>\n but they could not<\/strong>; break through they met with a greater opposition than was expected perhaps the Edomites remembered how they had lately used them, which made them fight more desperately against them, see<\/p>\n 2Ch 20:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n (26) The battle was too sore for him.<\/strong>The garrison was giving way under the destructive fire of the slingers.<\/p>\n To break through even unto the king of Edom.<\/strong>Because the Edomite contingent seemed to be the most vulnerable point in the allied army, or because he hoped that these unwilling allies of Israel would allow him to escape through their ranks.<\/p>\n 26<\/strong>. <\/strong> To break through unto the king of Edom <\/strong> He probably expected to receive less opposition from the king of Edom than from the other kings, and the Edomite forces were probably the weakest of the three armies that were encamped against the city.<\/p>\n Observe the sad state of an idolatrous mind. Human sacrifices to devils are among the abominations. Thus the great enemy of souls to confound, as he thought, the divine institution of sacrifices in his church, which were all directed with an eye to Christ, tempted to this imitation among his vassals by such dreadful inventions. See an awful device of Satan to corrupt Israel: Num 25:2-3<\/span> .<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through [even] unto the king of Edom: but they could not.<\/p>\n Ver. 26. To break through even unto the king of Edom.<\/strong> ] Either because that quarter was weakest, or because his rage was most against the Edomites for helping the Israelites against him.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:26-27<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:26-27<\/p>\n THE GREAT INDIGNATION THAT CAME AGAINST ISRAEL<\/p>\n “And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew the sword, to break through unto the king of Edom; but they could not. 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.”<\/p>\n The best explanation of what happened here is perhaps that of Honeycutt. “The scene of the king sacrificing his oldest son on the wall, the one destined to succeed him as king, so moved and excited the Moabites that they fell upon the coalition and defeated it.” It is certainly ridiculous to suppose, as Mesha reported it on the Moabite Stone, that his pagan god Chemosh defeated Israel.<\/p>\n “He took seven hundred men … to break through to the king of Edom” (2Ki 3:26). In this maneuver, Mesha, the king of Moab, evidently supposed that the king of Edom, a vassal of Jehoshaphat, might actually change sides and help him, or at least be a less enthusiastic fighter than others of the coalition. Montgomery called this passage a contradiction of the fact of Edom being a part of the coalition. However, he merely misunderstood the thinking of Mesha.<\/p>\n “And there was great wrath against Israel” (2Ki 3:27). The source of this wrath is NOT stated, and scholars have different views of its origin. Keil believed that, “The Israelites brought upon themselves the wrath of God by occasioning the offering of an abominable human sacrifice.” Adam Clarke agreed with that view, writing that, “The Lord was displeased with Israel for driving things to such an extremity.” Jackson declared that, “The great wrath that came upon Israel was from the god of Moab who accepted the human sacrifice of his worshippers.”<\/p>\n We cannot agree with either of these opinions. God would hardly have been angry with Israel for carrying out the same kind of victorious destruction of Moab that God’s prophet had prophesied, as Keil thought. Nor is it possible to suppose that a nonentity like Chemosh, the Moabite’s pagan god, could either have “accepted” or “rejected” anything. However, in this case, it must be admitted that the defeat of Israel following Mesha’s appeal to Chemosh by the sacrifice of his son and heir gave that pagan ruler ample excuse for attributing the victory to his pagan god. In this connection, the words of Dentan are helpful:<\/p>\n “It may seem strange that our Bible would contain a story that can be interpreted as teaching the efficacy of human sacrifice, even such a sacrifice to a heathen god, Chemosh of the Moabites; but this is another striking bit of evidence of basic honesty.”<\/p>\n If there had been any such person as that mythical Deuteronomist so sternly jealous of the honor of the One True God and his unique sanctuary in Jerusalem, why would he have allowed anything like this to appear in the Bible? The existence of it proves that no such person existed!<\/p>\n Another possible explanation of Israel’s repulse here is that of LaSor:<\/p>\n “It is possible that the Israelites believed that human sacrifice was efficacious to Chemosh in his own land, because the popular beliefs of the Israelites were often in opposition to revealed truth, as spoken by the prophets.” If that was the case, it is easy to see how there might have ensued a general panic following the sacrifice of Mesha’s son.<\/p>\n It appears, therefore, that the great wrath that came upon Israel was that of the Moabites who were aroused to a frantic frenzy by their kings abominable sacrifice of his son. At any rate, the campaign ended then and there.<\/p>\n E.M. Zerr:<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:26. This kind of maneuver is called a storm attack. It sometimes obtains an entrance through the enemy’s lines when all other means fail. The attack was a failure in this case and the Moabites were forced to retire. <\/p>\n 2Ki 3:27. This human sacrifice was not with sincere devotion to the idolatrous god of the Moabites, for in that case it would have been done at some proper shrine of the gods. It was done upon the wall, in sight of the Israelites. That created such a sentimental protest among them that the leaders were forced to leave the scene<\/p>\n unto the king of Edom: 2Ki 3:9, Amo 2:1 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Num 24:17 – Moab Jdg 8:10 – fell an hundred Jdg 20:2 – drew sword<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:26. He took with him seven hundred men to break through, &c. He made a sally with seven hundred stout men, upon the quarter of the king of Edom, which he thought the weakest side, hoping to break through and escape. But they were repulsed, and compelled to retreat.<\/p>\n And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through [even] unto the king of Edom: but they could not. 26. he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords ] R.V. sword. In this phrase … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 3:26”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9614\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"