Melachim II 3:27

כז. וַיִּקַּח אֶת בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִמְלֹךְ תַּחְתָּיו וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ עֹלָה עַל הַחֹמָה וַיְהִי קֶצֶף גָּדוֹל עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּסְעוּ מֵעָלָיו וַיָּשֻׁבוּ לָאָרֶץ׃

And he took his first-born who would reign after him, and brought him up for a burnt-offering on the wall. And there was great wrath upon Israel, and they withdrew from him and returned to the land.

Three questions:
1) Whose wrath was upon Yisrael?
2) Why was wrath upon Yisrael?
3) What was the result? Did they completely defeat Moab?

I've read various answers in various commentaries, but they all seem to make bold assertions without showing their work or proving their claims.

  • It would be better if you phrased your question in regards to a particular commentary and why you feel his explanation is far-fetched. For example, you ask "whose wrath upon Israel?" There are only three possibilities: God, the king of Edom, or the king of Moab. Have you read Rashi, Ralbag, Radak and Metzudat David? They all suggest one or more of the above three possibilities. So why do you find all of them insufficient? – Ephraim Nov 23 '13 at 17:24
  • 1
    @Ephraim Maybe he doesn't know what those commentaries are or where to find them. – Double AA Nov 23 '13 at 23:04
  • @Ephraim, it would help if Niobius told us what commentaries he's read, but it's quite possible he hasn't read all the ones you listed and I don't see that as a barrier to asking. (I'm not saying you do.) – Monica Cellio Nov 23 '13 at 23:32
  • 1
    @Ephraim , I only read one of the ones you mentioned (Rashi). I probably should have clarified: I don't find agree or disagree with any of the three possibilities I mentioned - I simply don't understand why I should believe one possibility over another. I'm not asking for an explanation of a commentary; I'm asking for an explanation of the what the original text means, with arguments from the original text. – Niobius Nov 24 '13 at 18:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .