JORAM SON OF Ahab became king of Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned twelve years. 2He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, but not as his father and mother had done. He got rid of the sacred stone of Baal that his father had made. 3Nevertheless he clung to the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit; he did not turn away from them.
4Now Mesha king of Moab raised sheep, and he had to supply the king of Israel with a hundred thousand lambs and with the wool of a hundred thousand rams. 5But after Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6So at that time King Joram set out from Samaria and mobilized all Israel. 7He also sent this message to Jehoshaphat king of Judah: “The king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you go with me to fight against Moab?”
“I will go with you,” he replied. “I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses.”
8“By what route shall we attack?” he asked.
“Through the Desert of Edom,” he answered.
9So the king of Israel set out with the king of Judah and the king of Edom. After a roundabout march of seven days, the army had no more water for themselves or for the animals with them.
10“What!” exclaimed the king of Israel. “Has the LORD called us three kings together only to hand us over to Moab?”
11But Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there no prophet of the LORD here, that we may inquire of the LORD through him?”
An officer of the king of Israel answered, “Elisha son of Shaphat is here. He used to pour water on the hands of Elijah.”
12Jehoshaphat said, “The word of the LORD is with him.” So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him.
13Elisha said to the king of Israel, “What do we have to do with each other? Go to the prophets of your father and the prophets of your mother.”
“No,” the king of Israel answered, “because it was the LORD who called us three kings together to hand us over to Moab.”
14Elisha said, “As surely as the LORD Almighty lives, whom I serve, if I did not have respect for the presence of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, I would not look at you or even notice you. 15But now bring me a harpist.”
While the harpist was playing, the hand of the LORD came upon Elisha 16and he said, “This is what the LORD says: Make this valley full of ditches. 17For this is what the LORD says: You will see neither wind nor rain, yet this valley will be filled with water, and you, your cattle and your other animals will drink. 18This is an easy thing in the eyes of the LORD; he will also hand Moab over to you. 19You will overthrow every fortified city and every major town. You will cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every good field with stones.”
20The next morning, about the time for offering the sacrifice, there it was—water flowing from the direction of Edom! And the land was filled with water.
21Now all the Moabites had heard that the kings had come to fight against them; so every man, young and old, who could bear arms was called up and stationed on the border. 22When they got up early in the morning, the sun was shining on the water. To the Moabites across the way, the water looked red—like blood. 23“That’s blood!” they said. “Those kings must have fought and slaughtered each other. Now to the plunder, Moab!”
24But when the Moabites came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and fought them until they fled. And the Israelites invaded the land and slaughtered the Moabites. 25They destroyed the towns, and each man threw a stone on every good field until it was covered. They stopped up all the springs and cut down every good tree. Only Kir Hareseth was left with its stones in place, but men armed with slings surrounded it and attacked it as well.
26When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. 27Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.
ELISHA’S CONTINUATION OF Elijah’s work is illustrated in the battle against Moab. It bears obvious similarities to the coalition of Jehoshaphat with Ahab in the battle against Ramoth Gilead (1 Kings 22). In both events there is an alliance between Jehoshaphat, the God-fearing king of Judah, and the apostate northern king following in the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat. Jehoshaphat asks for the assistance of a true prophet of God. The confirmation of the prophetic word and the power of the God of Israel in the covenant are seen in the outcome of the events.
The similarity extends to the phrases used in the solicitation of the alliance (1 Kings 22:4; 2 Kings 3:7) and of the prophet (1 Kings 22:7; 2 Kings 3:11). These stories were a part of prophetic tradition expressed in its own distinct vocabulary and literary style. The war against Moab in prophetic history shows how political events concerning Israelite and Judean relations with surrounding nations accomplishes the work of Yahweh through the word of his prophets.
A minimum of historical information about relations with Moab is provided in the Kings account because of the prophetic interests of the Deuteronomistic History. Not much more can be learned from the Moabite black basalt stone, which is a war report designed to enhance the Moabite king, the loyal servant of the national deity.1 As a royal victory stele it records the heroic deeds of Mesha, king of Moab, through the sanctification of his god Chemosh. It reports a long period of oppression beginning with Omri, because of the wrath of Chemosh. Mesha records a long series of victories in the territory north of the Arnon (the land of Medeba) that had been controlled by the house of Omri for some forty years.2 These extended as far as Nebo, where Mesha claims to have slaughtered seven thousand Israelite citizens in devotion to Chemosh and to have taken sacred vessels from there as booty.
The stele describes events of several decades, confined to victories over Israel. Mesha does not mention the attack of Joram and his allies, since such an event was contrary to his political and religious propaganda. Military victories of the type described in the stele would provide for a revolt for independence as described at the death of Ahab (cf. 2 Kings 3:5). They also explain why the attack needed to come from Edom in the south (v. 8). By the time of Joram the territory north of the Arnon was totally under the control of Moab.
Political and Military Crisis (3:1–12)
THE REGNAL SUMMARY of Joram (3:1–3) is given with a synchronism to the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. A coregency of Jehoshaphat with his son Jehoram is assumed in the Masoretic text. The synchronism for Ahaziah states that Joram came to rule in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat (1:17), and the synchronism for Jehoram is in the fifth year of Joram king of Israel (8:16). According to the chronology of the Masoretic text, both Jehoram and Jehoshaphat were kings in Judah at the time of the battle against Moab.
Joram is credited with removing the memorial pillar (maṣṣēbâ) that Ahab had set up in honor of Baal (3:2). Ahab built a Baal temple and altar in Samaria, along with a sacred pole (1 Kings 16:31–33); his monuments to Baal also included an upright memorial stone. From the Middle Bronze Age onward stones lacking pictures or inscriptions are grouped with one bearing a picture, with a statue, or with other stone memorials. Biblical texts report such standing stones at relatively few sites in Israel. The fundamental intention of such pillars may have been applicable in various dimensions, including the cultic and religious; to this extent the maṣṣēbâ could portray or represent the worshiper and not always (merely) the venerated deity.3
Standing stones were objects of veneration and worship, conventionalized aniconic representations of a deity. Such stones were not symbols of the transcendent being but evoked an actual presence.4 The maṣṣēbâ in the Baal temple in Samaria may have presented the deity, as it was removed but not destroyed. Apparently it was sequestered somewhere in that temple; Jehu had it destroyed in his purge of the Baal cult (10:26–27).5 Joram did not turn from devotion to Baal but may have removed memorials that were specifically erected as a memorial to his father.
Moab had been subservient to Israel from the time of David (2 Sam. 8:2). Solomon had allowed a place of worship for his Moabite wife in Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7). Mesha (“savior”), from the area of Dibon, was a sheep herder. As a vassal of Israel he was required to pay a levy of one hundred thousand lambs and the wool of one hundred thousand rams (NIV), or possibly the wool only of the lambs and rams (NEB). The large numbers are comparable with other reports of booty taken.6 Mesha’s refusal to bring tribute is the result of the weakening military control of Israel.
Joram attempts to regain dominance over Moab by mustering his forces and reinforcing them with assistance from Judah.7 Edom is still subservient to Judah at this time, so Edom’s army is part of the alliance. Edom does not have an independent king until the independent reign of Jehoram in Judah (2 Kings 8:20; cf. 1 Kings 22:48). The king of Edom in the story must refer to the viceroy or ruling representative of Edom.8
The route of attack takes the armies through Edom around the southern end of the Dead Sea. The southern territory of Moab, including the city of Horonaim, had been occupied by the “house of David.” It may be that Horonaim is occupied by the forces of Judah as a logistic base in support of the campaign on the Moabite plateau above.9 The journey around the Dead Sea would have taken considerable time. In typical prophetic style it is described as “a journey of seven days,” the emphasis being on the time-consuming effort of a difficult journey rather than a precise calculation of time. It is an arduous military undertaking, with a large number of burden-bearing animals necessary to carry the supplies. The whole expedition is jeopardized by a lack of water as the armies march through desert land.
Joram realizes that the eminent failure of his armies is a sign of divine judgment on him (3:10). Jehoshaphat comes to the rescue in a nonmilitary fashion by proposing they seek direction from a true prophet (v. 11). Elisha is introduced abruptly through the information of a nameless third party. He is known through Elijah; “pouring water over the hands” was apparently a gesture of respect shown by a servant to his master or a host to his guest. Jehoshaphat recognizes Elisha as a true prophet who can bring them a word from Yahweh (v. 12). Joram has been alienated from Elisha (v. 13) and could not have sought his assistance without the mediation of Jehoshaphat.
The Prophetic Assurance (3:13–20)
WHEN THE KING of Israel appears before Elisha, the prophet confronts him in uncompromising and forceful terms. The king ought to be consistent with his own policy of following in the ways of Jeroboam the son of Nebat (v. 13). Though Joram follows the prophets of his parents in official policy, he also knows that his dire situation is a result of the judgment of the God of Elisha (cf. v. 14).
Joram is logical enough in the context of Canaanite religion. Opposing political and cultic groups each had their own gods, and the success of the group depended on the disposition of their god. As Mesha said in his inscription, “Omri, king of Israel, oppressed Moab many years, for Chemosh was angry with his land.”10 Joram knows that only the God of Elisha can be of assistance. Elisha grants Joram a concession (v. 14); though he regards Joram, the leader of the group, with disdain, Jehoshaphat is worthy of receiving a word from Yahweh.
The procedures for entering the mystic state of prophecy are veiled in tantalizing incidental comments. Elisha calls for music in order that he might experience the power of the Lord. When Saul was anointed king, he encountered a band of prophets at Gibeah, led by a band playing lyres, drums, flutes, and zithers as they prophesied (1 Sam. 10:5–6). When Saul met them, he was empowered by God and exercised the same mystic behavior. The “wind/spirit” (rûaḥ)11 that came on Saul is not different from the “hand” that came on Elisha (2 Kings 3:15). Both are metaphors for describing an invisible force or power that inspires a changed behavior and enables the individual to come into direct communication with God. The use of music is only one means of entering the mystical experience.
The word of Yahweh through Elisha declares that every depression in the dry valley bed will become a receptacle for water. The prophet is not commanding them to make ditches (v. 16);12 the valley itself will become pools. It is common for wadis to become streams after a cloud burst, leaving behind pools of water in the hollows of the valley rift. The storm may occur far enough away that no sound of wind or rain can be heard, but the water gathers and rushes down the valleys, often taking travelers by surprise.13 Though such occurrences are not infrequent, there is nothing natural about the deliverance experienced by the three armies. The water comes according to the word of the prophet.
The mere deliverance of the armies perishing for lack of water would have been a partial victory. The prophetic word assures Joram and his allies that they will be successful in the battle against Moab (v. 19). The ruin described in the victory over Moab is a contradiction to the rules for war provided in the covenant (Deut. 20:19). The object of attack in warfare is enemy soldiers, not the resources of the land that are necessary for civil life. It is true that “war supersedes all wisdom as well as benevolence even in allegedly Christian nations,”14 but the prophetic word is not an order in contradiction to the covenant. Elisha does not order the destruction of trees and arable land but describes the totality of the ruin that will come to Moab in the conflict.
The Military Outcome (3:21–27)
WHEN THE MOABITES realize the coalition is at their boundary, they muster what army they can to stop them at the border (3:21). The border of Moab in the south is probably Nahal Zered (cf. Deut. 2:13). As a newly independent regime the Moabites do not have a highly organized army. Their soldiers are described as “bearing arms,” meaning lightly armed skirmishers or those carrying a sword. In the light of the early morning sun the water gathered in the hollows appears to the Moabites to be red like blood (v. 22). Though this may be regarded as a natural phenomenon caused by the rays of the rising sun reflecting in the waters,15 the event itself is ordained as an act of God as promised by Elisha.
There is a notable wordplay here; while waiting in the red sandstone ground of Edom (ʾedôm), the Moabites mistake water that appears blood red (ʾ adummîm) for actual blood (v. 22). They come to the conclusion that the coalition has turned on itself and the spoil is theirs for the taking (23). This is a fatal error (v. 24); as the Moabite army moves into the Israelite camp, the Israelites continue on the attack against the Moabites. The resulting destruction is exactly as the prophet said (v. 25); the cities are overthrown, every field ruined with stones, the water sources filled, and the trees felled.
The Israelites advance as far as the city of Kir Haresheth. This is usually identified with a southern fortified city described by Isaiah as the “city of Moab” (Isa. 15:1), the modern Kerak. It was situated on a strategic plateau surrounded by steep valleys overlooking the wadi Kerak, which flows into the Dead Sea. The steep approaches to the city may have been a factor in Mesha’s successful resistance to the Israelite attack. Warriors with slings lay siege to the fortification and attack it in an effort to capture the Moabite warriors.
The Moabites attempt to break out of the siege by breaking through the Edomite line, the weak link in the circle of forces that surround the city (v. 26).16 When this fails, the king of Moab sacrifices a young man on the walls of the city in full view of the attacking armies (v. 27). The result is a “great fury” that causes a reversal of the campaign and a withdrawal of the coalition forces. The source of this fury is not explained; it may have been the anger of one of the armies or one of the deities. Rabbinic exegetes took it to be the anger of the king of Edom who turns against Joram and Jehoshaphat because of the sacrifice of his son who has been taken captive by the Moabites when they attempt to break through the Edomite ranks.17 Josephus took it to be the anger and despair of the Moabites that so affects the invading armies they abandon their goals and return (Ant. 9.43).
The most natural reading of the pronouns in verse 26 is that the king of Moab sacrifices his own son under conditions of distress. The offering may have been in the fulfillment of a vow like Jephthah (Judg. 11:30–31) or an attempt to satisfy the anger of Chemosh (referred to in the Moabite Inscription). If the sacrifice is a propitiatory act offered to Chemosh, the nature of the “great fury” is still unexplained. It must be inferred that only the wrath of Yahweh, who grants deliverance, can cause army foes to retreat. In Deuteronomistic theology the cause must be a failure of Israelite faith. The prophetic source gives no indication how the army loses its nerve and retreats. The equivocal wrath is sufficient to explain the retreat and the failure of the campaign to regain control of the territory.
The final outcome of the campaign fails to regain control over the territory and restore the tribute of Moab. Neither the presence of Jehoshaphat nor the word of Elisha can turn the tide of judgment against Israel. In spite of the rout of the Moabites through divine intervention, Joram cannot achieve his goal to subjugate Mesha; rather, he is forced to retreat precipitately.
GOD AS A WARRIOR. During the days of the judges Moab was dominant over Israel and demanded tribute (Judg. 3:12–30). Ehud was commissioned to bring tribute to Eglon at Jericho. The animosity of Israel for Moab can be felt in the telling of the story. The king of Moab was a very fat man, whose name in the story is related to the word “calf” (ʿēgel). After delivery of the tax, Ehud returned with a secret “message from God” (v. 20), delivered in the form of the blow of a knife that buried itself completely into Eglon. Ehud managed to lock the corpse in a room that contained a latrine and exit so the bodyguards of Eglon did not suspect anything.
The smells made these guards think they knew what was going on behind the locked doors, so they waited and waited, not wanting to disturb the king. In the meantime Ehud had sufficient time to rally an army and capture the fleeing Moabite soldiers at the fords of the Jordan. This is the second instance in Judges where God was merciful to a recalcitrant Israel and granted them deliverance through special enablement. The story of Joram is along the same lines, except in this instance it is Moab that fails to pay tribute. The armies survive but do not achieve their desired ends. Moab continues to become an increasingly despised enemy.
The battle against Moab is an indictment against the house of Ahab and demonstrates the irreversible destiny of the nation of Israel. Joram is not like his father and mother, but the distinction carries no significance because he has compromised the covenant just like his predecessors (vv. 2–3).18 The rebellion of the king of Moab is indicative of the political failure that is a result of Israel’s failure to abide by the covenant, which set before them the alternatives of a long stay in the land or quickly perishing from it (Deut. 30:15–18).
The initial crisis is the revolt of Moab (2 Kings 3:4–5), but the attempt of the king of Israel to resolve the situation leads to a potentially much greater disaster (vv. 6–12). The allied armies are in danger of perishing for lack of water. Through the influence of Jehoshaphat Elisha is brought to the scene and gives a promising oracle, not only assuring them that the second crisis will be averted but that victory will be achieved (vv. 13–20). The word of the prophet is fulfilled in the course of battle, but in the end the victory is compromised by the failure of the Israelites (vv. 21–27). The cause of Israelite withdrawal is vague, but the judgment against Israel in its failure to regain control of the territory north of the Arnon is clear.
Remarkable in the story of the battle against Moab in Kings is the claim that Yahweh is the One who instigates the military action (3:10, 13). The initial decision to invade Moab is entirely that of the Israelite king, who musters his troops and seeks the alliance of Jehoshaphat to subdue Moab when they no longer produce tax revenues (vv. 5–8). Divine involvement through the prophet takes place after the kings have become hopelessly entangled in a losing cause. Failed military policy often seeks a scapegoat, and in this instance Joram has the audacity to claim the failure is a result of divine inaction. The king’s capacity for duplicity is astonishing, but in the context of this story it serves to show God’s mercy in spite of misguided actions.
Joram gives no indication of repentance or trust in spite of acknowledging his utter dependence on God. He appears to expect that God is obligated on his behalf. The consequences of his arrogance and presumptuousness are transparent at the end of the story. Joram does not receive deliverance but divine wrath and abject failure, in spite of the mighty action of God on his behalf. Mercy is shown in deference to Jehoshaphat, but the power of God does not reverse the consequences of the power of sin.
The battle against Moab demonstrates the Hebrew belief that Yahweh is a man of war for the deliverance of his people (Ex. 15:3; cf. Isa. 42:13).19 The Exodus experience was a fundamental revelation of God’s character. The revelation of the name Yahweh to Moses assured the Israelites of God’s presence in the covenant at all times (Ex. 3:12–14). “To call God a Warrior is to use anthropomorphic language, the language of immanence.”20 The sign that God was with Moses was the giving of the covenant at Mount Sinai, where Moses had encountered the burning bush. The journey to Mount Sinai was by means of the defeat of the Egyptians. When confronted, Pharaoh challenged Moses and Aaron with a question: “Who is Yahweh that I should obey him?” (5:2). His stubbornness revealed the significance of the name Yahweh to both the Egyptians and the Israelites (e.g., 7:3–5; 10:1–2).
The battle was not between Pharaoh and Moses, but between Pharaoh and Yahweh (7:1). Pharaoh learned that the battle belonged to Yahweh in delivering his people (cf. 17:16). The final lesson to the Egyptians in learning the meaning of the name came when they attempted to capture the Israelites at the Reed Sea (14:4, 18). The only responsibility of the people was to be still and see the salvation of Yahweh (v. 13). The song of Moses and Israel celebrated the meaning of the name Yahweh (15:1–18). The eternal King (v. 18) was the Redeemer of Israel (v. 13) by being the man of war (v. 3) who tossed the chariots of Egypt into the sea.
This significance of the name of Yahweh is celebrated triumphantly in Psalm 24. The gates of the temple are insufficient for the entrance of the King of glory (vv. 6–10). “Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty … mighty in battle” (v. 8)—terminology directly reminiscent of the Redeemer revealed in the Exodus from Egypt. This “King of glory” is “the LORD of hosts” (v. 10, NRSV), a title most often connected with the armies of Israel. The name Yahweh invoked in the worship of the temple signifies that the God of the covenant will fight on behalf of his people in order to redeem them.
The self-revelation of God in the Exodus was not typical of all his participation in Israelite history. If the Israelites were to stand still and see the salvation of Yahweh when the chariots of Pharaoh pursued them, the conquest of the Promised Land revealed a different aspect of God’s actions on behalf of his people. During the Conquest real wars were fought against real enemies, but God granted victory through his participation with them in battle. God determined the outcome of events by acting as warrior through the fighting of his people.
That is why the kings of Israel were instructed not to trust in horses or to seek alliances with other nations; rather, their first priority was to know and keep the terms of the covenant so the kingdom would endure (Deut. 17:16–20). As expressed by the psalmist, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God” (Ps. 20:7). Though Joram follows in the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat, in time of distress he turns to Jehoshaphat and through him to the God of the covenant. Though rejected by the prophet, he claims that Yahweh has led these three kings into battle (2 Kings 3:10, 13) and that it is not Yahweh’s purpose to enter a conflict and then give up his armies to defeat.
If Yahweh is to win the battle, it needs to be initiated by him. Israel is not the one to determine which battles Yahweh will enter on their behalf. It is always necessary to inquire whether a battle is according to the divine will prior to its start. Even faithless Ahab in his desire to restore Ramoth Gilead to Israel cooperated with Jehoshaphat to know the will of Yahweh so that he could be successful in battle (1 Kings 22:5–8). This quest led to the conflict between Micaiah and the prophets loyal to the king. Ahab determined to proceed against the divine will anyway and died in battle, as Micaiah had said (v. 17).
Inquiry before Yahweh is not mentioned in the case of Joram going to war against Moab, but when the armies come to grief in the journey through the barren hills, Yahweh does come to fight on their behalf through the word of the prophet. But the victory is compromised by a failure of trust explained as a “great fury” that comes on Israel (2 Kings 3:27). Such failure is consistent with the theology that victory is possible only through divine initiation of the battle.
The doctrine that God acts as a warrior to silence his enemies is consummated in bringing his kingdom to earth. The victory of the divine warrior is not limited to particular battles but is celebrated as the event by which salvation will come to the world. The “enthronement psalms,” which celebrate Yahweh as King, are examples of God acting as warrior. Psalm 98 is a “new song” praising God for his salvation (vv. 1–3), declaring that “the LORD reigns” (vv. 4–6), and anticipating his future judgment of the earth (vv. 7–9).21 The parallels to the song of Moses at the crossing of the sea (Ex. 15:1–18) are obvious. While Yahweh is extolled as a “man of war” in that particular event, Psalm 98 has no reference to an historical event but describes God as Savior, Ruler, and Judge.
God as a man of war also fought against Israel in bringing about his rule. The prophets recognized that the divine warrior was at work in Babylon’s conquest of the nation of Judah. The prophet Habakkuk found it unfair, but there was no denying God’s war against Israel.
O LORD, are you not from everlasting?
My God, my Holy One, we will not die.
O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment;
O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
you cannot tolerate wrong.
Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves? (Hab. 1:12–13)
The theme of God as the divine warrior may be described as moving through five stages with some overlap.22 In the first stage God fights for Israel; in the second he fights against Israel. The wars in the period of Elijah and Elisha have elements of both. The third stage looks forward to the advent of the divine warrior who will conquer all nations: “In that day the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea” (Isa. 27:1). This third stage acknowledges an underlying motif, namely, that the real battle of the divine warrior is against cosmic forces that disrupt the created order. Fourth, the Gospels and New Testament letters portray Jesus as the conqueror of all the principalities and powers that are arrayed against the kingdom of God (Eph. 1:19–21). Finally, Jesus will come as the divine conqueror over all temporal and spiritual forces: “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war” (Rev. 19:11). This is the New Testament version of the ultimate victory of God as King.
Moab was never a major military power, but it was a vexing neighbor of Israel and Judah and came to be representative of human resistance to God’s purposes. Moab became a recurring subject in Israel’s prophetic oracles against the nations, where Israel expected God’s mighty judgment (Isa. 15–16; Jer. 48; Ezek. 25:8–11; Zeph. 2:8–9). One of the most notable oracles against Moab occurs in a section of Isaiah often referred to as the “Little Apocalypse” (Isa. 24–27). A remarkable characteristic of this passage is that cities and nations remain nameless; Moab is the only exception (25:10). The “city of ruin” (24:12) is mentioned several times but is never named. All suggestions to provide a historical setting for these events fail because of the ambiguities of time and place.
This passage of Isaiah has been considered sui generis, with little connection to the book as a whole. It is significant as a sequel to the judgments against the nations (Isa. 13–23), which deal with the purposes of God in exercising his sovereignty over the nations. The ruler of Babylon who presumed to ascend to the highest heaven found himself instead in the deepest pit (Isa. 14). In the sequel to the judgments against particular nations, the eschatological focus is raised to the ultimate purpose of God, portraying the cosmological judgment of the world and its final glorious restoration. The redemption of Israel is depicted as emerging from the ashes of the polluted and decaying world. Not just a remnant is redeemed, but all peoples share in the celebration of God’s new order in which death is banished forever (25:8).
The announcement of the continuing punishment of Moab in a context of universal judgment and deliverance (Isa. 25:10–12) is frequently deemed highly inappropriate, an example of a late Jewish author’s deep hatred of Moab. Often this short section is regarded as an appendix that could have had no part in the original.23 It is evident that there was a longstanding animosity between Israel and Moab, but the mention of Moab is not singled out for personal spite. Moab becomes the symbol of arrogance and pride that rejects the inclusion of all nations under the rule of the Lord of hosts.24
The mystery of God’s salvation of the world is such that the possibility of rejecting the divine mercy remains. Isaiah 24–27 anticipates the conclusion of Isaiah (Isa. 66:24). The universal restoration of creation does not remove all tension between good and evil. The same offense of the gospel is to be found in the culmination of the world in the New Testament (Rev. 20:14b–15; 21:27). The final conquest of the divine warrior (19:11–18) will not result in a universal inclusivity. In the eschatology of Isaiah, Moab represents those outside of divine salvation in the restoration of all things.
Contemporary Significance
GOD AND CONTEMPORARY WAR. Christians must reconcile the doctrine of the divine warrior with the particular historical wars that are a part of the present order. Just as God was active in human affairs in times past, exercising his rule among human kingdoms and giving them to whomever he willed (Dan. 5:21), so God continues to be at work in human affairs.
When a war seems justified, it is natural for believers to assume that God is with them in battle. Before the Allied Forces landed in Normandy during the World War II, General (later Field Marshall) Montgomery encouraged his troops with a message that concluded with a prayer: “Let us pray that the Lord Mighty in Battle will go forth with our armies, and that his special providence will aid us in the struggle.”25 A second example is the “Soldier’s Prayer” of General George S. Patton, recorded on January 1, 1944: “God of our fathers, who by land and sea has ever led us to victory, please continue your inspiring guidance in this the greatest of our conflicts.… Grant us the victory, Lord.”26 Both these men were Christians who believed that God would fight for them in battle.
Scriptures have a mixed view of the goodness of human government. It is to be respected as ordained by God for the control of evil (1 Peter 2:11–17), but often is a beast that tramples and devours the faithful (Dan. 7:7–8). Christians often must make discomforting compromises in their participation in government and society.
A particularly difficult question for the faithful is how to relate to the government in its legitimate role of the control of violence and the exercise of judgment. Though this is a God-ordained function, it is scarcely possible to point to a government at any time that consistently carried out this function as a legitimate representative of divine authority.27
War is always a matter of fallible human governments making judgments in matters of life and death. At their best they have their share of evil, and at their worst they are the greatest enemy to their own people.
The dilemma of the Christian has an analogy to the alliance of Jehoshaphat with Joram. Joram could claim for himself the right of regaining control over lost territory, though his issues were strictly political. Failures within his regime had resulted in a loss of power and the revolt of a subject territory. He needed the assistance of Jehoshaphat, because Mesha had apparently developed impenetrable fortifications north of the Arnon, or he feared reprisals from the Arameans or the Ammonites.28 The relations between the two countries had become interdependent (3:7); the words of Jehoshaphat indicate they had been formalized in a treaty relationship. The alliance with Edom, a vassal of Judah, was also expedient and necessary from a military point of view.
Nothing in the proceedings bears any relationship to the usual criteria for God entering into war on behalf of his people. All of this was an undertaking motivated by a desire to control resources; the success of the venture depended on carefully calculated military power. The circumstances of the battle with Moab have many parallels with contemporary wars. The leading of the Lord and the furtherance of his kingdom were not an issue. Once engaged in battle, the intervention of the prophet was sought to avoid disaster. A general who believes in his cause can do nothing other than pray that God may honor his goals, as Joram and Jehoshaphat did through Elisha. There was no certain victory, like that of the Israelites in the crossing of the sea. The many factors of intended good and imbedded evil led to a “great fury” that subverted the outcome (2 Kings 3:27).
There is a danger of hypocrisy in seeking divine assistance for national causes. Insincerity in the case of Joram may be observed in the response of Elisha when the king sought his assistance: “Go to the prophets of your father and the prophets of your mother” (3:13). Only the presence of Jehoshaphat provided for any association to the God of Elisha. The self-deception of Joram is apparent in his following the idolatries of Baal condemned by the covenant (v. 3), even while believing that he was somehow following the leading of Yahweh (v. 10).
Jehoshaphat is the one who brings up the matter of actually seeking a prophet of Yahweh (v. 11). Elisha’s first response is to castigate the king of Israel fearlessly and severely for even daring to ask for divine assistance. The king is culpably duplicitous in stating that Yahweh has led them into battle. The enigmatic requirement that music be provided may have had something to do with the circumstances of conflicting interests and compromise, perhaps as an accommodation to Joram. Elisha requires no such assistance in other circumstances.
Modern national causes are most often equally equivocal. Populations can scarcely be said to be in pursuit of Christian values but have no hesitation in turning to prayer for politically expedient purposes. Even Christians within a society may largely live for self-serving values, but assume, like Joram, that they are led of the Lord and that they should expect divine assistance in time of need. This is not to suggest divine assistance is never deserved or that failures of faith disqualify one from petitioning God. It is a reminder that failure to pursue the kingdom of God is not reversed in time of peril. Such peril is an opportunity to examine motives and actions. Joram failed to search his own mind (Ps. 139:23–24); he was spared disaster for his forces but incurred enormous loss for his country.
Truth is the first casualty in war, but perhaps the problem is as much self-deception as simple deception. No rationalization is more readily available than one required to justify national security. Clare Short, secretary of State for International Development under the British Labor government of Tony Blair, is known for her passionate, outspoken commitment to the poor and vulnerable.29 She is a firm believer in just war: The cause must be just, any use of force must be proportionate, and it must be a last resort. She did not believe that Iraq could be ignored; it was right to contemplate the use of force to back up the authority of the United Nations.
Ms. Short resigned her post because she was convinced her prime minister ignored the commitments he had made to her. In her resignation letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, she charged that the Security Council resolution negotiated between the Prime Minister and the foreign secretary contradicted the assurance she was given in the House of Commons and elsewhere about the legal authority of the occupying powers and the need for a United Nations-led process to establish a legitimate Iraqi government. This betrayal made her position impossible. She felt the American and British leaders were saying, “We might have exaggerated a bit, but we couldn’t trust you to be brave enough to take this option, and Saddam Hussein was a bad man.” Her own response was blunt: “If our governments are going to lie to us about matters of life and death, war and peace, then integrity is gone from public life.” Short further indicated that for the first time in American history, most of the Christian churches were united in saying that the conditions for a just war were not fulfilled in this instance.
When a nation engages in conflict for the advancement of its own prosperity, the result is suffering for its people. While Joram considered his ambition justified, his intent being the restoration of wealth to Israel (cf. 2 Kings 3:4), the outcome of the war with Moab was judgment for Israel. The prophetic conclusion was that “the fury against Israel was great” (3:27); war had brought God’s punishment of Israel.30 The failure of the campaign is stated clearly: Kir Hareseth, a major fortification, probably located in southern Moab,31 remained intact (v. 25).
The words of Elisha contain a certain ambiguity; the man of God could not promise success for Joram’s ambition. Though the Israelites did plunder Moab in their attack and struck every city (cf. v. 19), there was one major city they did not overthrow.32 Moab remained independent and was never reconquered by Israel. Joram, following in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat (v. 3), caused his army and his people to suffer. Good that may be intended is compromised when the people and their leader lack integrity; the consequences of such aggression result in an enduring pain.
World War II is an example of a long and agonizing legacy of “a great fury.” One of the great challenges following the war was coming to terms with the Holocaust. More than a generation since that event, Germany has made a remarkable and outstanding effort to deal with the past horror in that country. Jalowiecki notes that efforts to reconciliation have included monetary payments to victims, memorials, and demonstrations of remorse.
After the collapse of Communism and the country’s reunification, Germany began to provide assistance to non-Jewish victims of Nazism in Central and Eastern Europe as well, in particular, hundreds of thousands of former forced laborers. All told, Germany’s voluntary payments for past wrongs amount thus far to more than $55 billion over a period of almost six decades, and are unparalleled in history.
Nor have the Germans limited their efforts to the monetary realm. In 1999, in an act of great symbolic significance, the German parliament voted to establish a “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe.” Designed by the American architect Peter Eisenman and consisting of 2,700 concrete steles arranged in a terror-inspiring maze, the monument will be situated adjacent to Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, that venerable icon of Prussian might, and within eyeshot of the Bundestag. To be completed this year [2004], it is aimed at forcing the memory of Germany’s greatest crime upon all who visit the German capital.
Demonstrations of shame and remorse extend far beyond the political elite. When Germany’s then-chancellor Willy Brandt traveled to Poland in 1970 and knelt before the memorial to the Jewish heroes of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, his gesture struck a chord among the German public at large. Innumerable documentary films recounting the barbarities of the past have been shown regularly on German television to vast audiences. The German language itself has registered the impact of this national impulse to self-recrimination and penitence. When I lived in Munich in the 1980’s, many of my acquaintances regarded the very designation “German” as a reproach; words associated with the Nazi era, like “Sieg” (victory), had virtually disappeared from the spoken and written vocabulary of my German contemporaries.33
Germans themselves suffered enormously during the war and in the aftermath of the war. Yet Germans understandably are not content to be viewed as monsters unlike any other country in history. Historian Martin Broszat has argued that the twelve-year Nazi dictatorship in Germany should no longer be treated as a discrete and exceptional phenomenon, but rather be placed within a larger European context and examined like any other chapter of the Continental past.
Another historian, Ernst Nolte, has asserted that there was nothing exceptional about the Nazi Holocaust. The extermination camps, in Nolte’s judgment, merely mirrored and copied atrocities previously committed on a mass scale by the Bolsheviks under Lenin and Stalin; the incessant harping on the peculiar enormity of Nazi crimes served an unhealthy political agenda, one that amounted to a deliberate attempt to keep Germany from assuming its rightful place among the nations of Europe and the world.
Norman Finkelstein has written The Holocaust Industry (1999), a book widely received in Germany. The book contends that Holocaust reparations were a fraud perpetuated on German taxpayers by avaricious Jewish organizations, out to enrich their coffers and furnish aid to the state of Israel in its campaign to oppress Palestinian Arabs. Jalowiecki queries whether Germany has succeeded in coming to terms with its past in becoming a normal country.
The prophetic judgment at the end of the war against Moab was not malicious refusal to allow an Omride king undiluted victory.34 Neither the actions of Joram nor the Nazis can be justified, nor is it helpful to excuse such conflict in comparison with others. The consequences of such conflict are a pain that endures over generations. Reparations are to be encouraged, insofar as possible, but they cannot be expected to resolve the burden.