| 6. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with the Hiphil imperfect with vav-consecutive in vehe’evir {וְהֶעֱבִ֤יר | və-hə-ʿə-bîr} ‘and he made pass’, highlighting the severity of child sacrifice. The direct object marker et {אֶת־ | ʾeṯ} precedes beno {בְּנוֹ֙ | bə-nō} ‘his son’, while the prepositional phrase ba’esh {בָּאֵ֔שׁ | bā-ʾēš} ‘in the fire’ indicates the means. A vav-consecutive chain links the Piel participle ve’ōnen {וְעוֹנֵ֣ן | wə-ʿō-nēn} ‘he practiced soothsaying’ and the Piel perfect veniḥēš {וְנִחֵ֔שׁ | wə-ni-ḥēš} ‘he practiced divination’, followed by the Qal perfect ve’āśāh {וְעָ֥שָׂה | wə-‘ā-śāh} ‘he did’, introducing ōw {א֖וֹב | ōw} ‘medium’ and wəyid’ōnîm {וְיִדְּעֹנִ֑ים | wə-yiḏ-‘ō-nîm} ‘spiritists’. The Hifil perfect hirbāh {הִרְבָּ֗ה | hir-bāh} ‘he multiplied’ with la‘ăśōṯ {לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת | la-‘ă-śōṯ} ‘to do’ intensifies the proliferation of hā-rā‘ {הָרַ֛ע | hā-rā‘} ‘the evil’. The idiom bə-‘ênêy Yahweh {בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְהוָ֖ה | bə-‘ê-nêy Yəhōwā(h)} ‘in the eyes of the LORD’ sets up the Hiphil infinitive lə-ḥaḵ-‘îs {לְהַכְעִֽיס | lə-ḥaḵ-‘îs} ‘to provoke’, framing the intentional offense that elicits divine anger. The sequential vav-consecutive structure underscores the cumulative nature of the king’s rebellion. |