Then: The common Hebrew conjunction here is translated “So” in Good News Translation since the connection seems to be more logical than temporal. It was because the Moabite king failed in his attempt to break out of the siege that he resorted to the sacrifice of his son.

He took his eldest son who was to reign in his stead: His eldest son is literally “his firstborn son.” It is unclear whether this son of the Moabite king was already an adult or still a child; but he was clearly the king’s oldest son and therefore the one who should eventually become king under normal rules of succession. Some interpreters think that his eldest son refers to the eldest son of the king of Edom rather than the son of the king of Moab. That is, since the king of Moab could not get through to capture the king of Edom, he captured the son of the king of Edom instead and sacrificed him. This interpretation, however, is not widely accepted. For who was to reign in his stead, see the comments on 1 Kgs 11.43.

Offered him for a burnt offering: The king apparently thought that the Moabite god, called Chemosh, would be appeased by this human sacrifice and that the war would turn in his favor. In a burnt offering the entire animal was burned (see the comments on 1 Kgs 3.4).

Upon the wall: For the architecture of walled cities, see the comments at 1 Kgs 3.1. There would have been more than enough room on top of the wall of a large city to make a burnt offering.

There came great wrath upon Israel: It is not clear whether the wrath was directed against the Israelites or was the response of the Israelites themselves. The sacrifice was performed in full view of the attackers, who suddenly became afraid and ran away. Either they were afraid of what the Moabite god Chemosh would do to them, or they feared that Yahweh might punish them for provoking such a desperate deed. Since the expression “there was great wrath upon” is a common phrase in the Old Testament with God as the one who is angry, the second interpretation seems more likely than the first. NET Bible makes this meaning clear with “There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel.”

Another possible interpretation of this very difficult text is “So there was great anger against the Israelites” (New Century Version). That is, the Moabites who witnessed the sacrifice of the child that was to be their king became so angry that they lashed out against the Israelites, and because of this, the Israelites decided to abandon the battle and go home. New American Bible, for example, reads “The wrath against Israel was so great that….” This is the interpretation adopted by New International Version and New Living Translation also.

As mentioned above, the wrath may also be the response of the Israelites themselves. This seems to be the basis for the translation in La Bible du Semeur: “At this sight, the Israelites were so indignant [or, furious/offended] that….” Contemporary English Version is similar with “The Israelite troops were so horrified that…,” and so is Revised English Bible with “There was such great consternation among the Israelites that….”

They withdrew from him; that is, they pulled back from the King of Moab, who represented all the Moabites and their city, which was under attack. It is therefore quite acceptable to translate “they withdrew from the battle” or “they left the city they had been attacking.”

To their own land is literally “to the land,” but the use of the definite article clearly implies the land of Israel. So it is legitimate to translate this as in Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and most other modern versions. Even King James Version includes the words their own in italics.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .