Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 15:13
Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria.
13 15. Shallum king of Israel. He is slain, after a month, by Menahem (Not in Chronicles)
13. a full month ] R.V. the space of a month. The margin of A.V. gives, ‘Heb. a month of days’. The rendering of R.V. corresponds with that of A.V. in Gen 29:7 for the same words. The Hebrew for ‘of days’ is added adverbially, as we use ‘time’ in such phrases as ‘in a month’s time ’ = ‘in a month’ ‘in a year’s time ’ &c.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 13. He reigned a full month] Menahem is supposed to have been one of Zachariah’s generals. Hearing of the death of his master, when he was with the troops at Tirzah, he hastened to Samaria, and slew the murderer, and had himself proclaimed in his stead. But, as the people of Tiphsah did not open their gates to him, he took the place by assault; and as the text tells us, practised the most cruel barbarities, even ripping up the women that were with child!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
13-17. Shallum . . . reigned a fullmonthHe was opposed and slain by Menahem, who, according toJOSEPHUS, was commander ofthe forces, which, on the report of the king’s murder, were besiegingTirzah, a town twelve miles east of Samaria, and formerly a seat ofthe kings of Israel. Raising the siege, he marched directly againstthe usurper, slew him, and reigned in his stead.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah king of Judah,…. The same with Azariah: he is sometimes called by one name, and sometimes by the other, see
2Ki 14:21,
and he reigned a full month in Samaria: and no longer; so soon were the conspiracy against his sovereign, and the murder of him, punished.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Reign of Shallum. – Shallum reigned only a full month ( , as in Deu 21:13; see at Gen 29:14). Menahem the son of Gadi then made war upon him from Tirzah; and by him he was smitten and slain. Menahem must have been a general or the commander-in-chief, as Josephus affirms. As soon as he became king he smote Tiphsach, – i.e., Thapsacus on the Euphrates, which has long since entirely disappeared, probably to be sought for in the neighbourhood of the present Rakka, by the ford of el Hamman, the north-eastern border city of the Israelitish kingdom in the time of Solomon (1Ki 5:4), which came into the possession of the kingdom of Israel again when the ancient boundaries were restored by Jeroboam II (2Ki 14:25 and 2Ki 14:28), but which had probably revolted again during the anarchy which arose after the death of Jeroboam, – “and all that were therein, and the territory thereof, from Tirzah; because they opened not (to him), therefore he smote it, and had them that were with child ripped up.” does not mean that Menahem laid the land or district waste from Tirzah to Tiphsach, but is to be taken in connection with in this sense: he smote Tiphsach proceeding from Tirzah, etc. The position of this notice, namely, immediately after the account of the usurpation of the throne by Menahem and before the history of his reign, is analogous to that concerning Elath in the case of Uzziah (2Ki 14:22), and, like the latter, is to be accounted for from the fact that the expedition of Menahem against Tiphsach formed the commencement of his reign, and, as we may infer from 2Ki 15:19, became very eventful not only for his own reign, but also for the kingdom of Israel generally. The reason why he proceeded from Tirzah against Tiphsach, was no doubt that it was in Tirzah, the present Tallusa, which was only three hours to the east of Samaria (see at 1Ki 14:17), that the army of which Menahem was commander was posted, so that he had probably gone to Samaria with only a small body of men to overthrow Shallum, the murderer of Zachariah and usurper of the throne, and to make himself king. It is possible that the army commanded by Menahem had already been collected in Tirzah to march against the city of Tiphsach, which had revolted from Israel when Shallum seized upon the throne by the murder of Zachariah; so that after Menahem had removed the usurper, he carried out at once the campaign already resolved upon, and having taken Tiphsach, punished it most cruelly for its revolt. On the cruel custom of ripping up the women with child, i.e., of cutting open their wombs, see 2Ki 8:12; Amo 1:13, and Hos 14:1. Tiphsach, Thapsacus, appears to have been a strong fortress; and from its situation on the western bank of the Euphrates, at the termination of the great trade-road from Egypt, Phoenicia, and Syria to Mesopotamia and the kingdoms of Inner Asia (Movers, Phniz. ii. 2, pp. 164,165; and Ritter, Erdkunde, x. pp. 1114-15), the possession of it was of great importance to the kingdom of Israel.
(Note: There is no foundation for the view propounded by Ewald ( Gesch. iii. p. 599), Simson ( Hosea, pp. 20, 21), Thenius, and many others, that Tiphsach was a city between Tirzah and Samaria, which Menahem laid waste on his march from Tirzah to Samaria to dethrone Shallum; for it rests upon nothing more than the perfectly unwarrantable and ungrammatical combination of with , “ its boundaries towards Tirzah ” (Sims.), and upon the two worthless objections: (1) that the great distance of from precludes the rendering “ going out from Tirzah; ” and (2) that Menahem was not the man to be able to conquer Thapsacus on the Euphrates. But there is no foundation for the latter assertion, as we have no standard by which to estimate the strength and bravery of the Israelitish army commanded by Menahem. And the first objection falls to the ground with the correct rendering of , viz., “ proceeding from Tirzah, ” which is preferred even by Ewald and Thenius. With this rendering, the words by no means affirm that Menahem smote Tiphsach from Tirzah on the way to Samaria. This is merely an inference drawn from v. 13, according to which Menahem went from Tirzah to Samaria to overthrow Shallum. But this inference is open to the following objections: (1) that it is very improbable that there was a strong fortress between Tirzah and Samaria, which Menahem was obliged to take on his march before he could overthrow the usurper in the capital of the kingdom; and (2) that the name Tiphsach, trajectus , ford, is by no means a suitable one for a city situated on the mountains between Tirzah and Samaria, and therefore, in order to carry out the hypothesis in question, Thenius proposes to alter Tiphsach into Tappuach, without any critical warrant for so doing.)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
B. THE ONE MONTH REIGN OF SHALLUM 15:1315
TRANSLATION
(13) Shallum the son of Jabesh ruled in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria. (14) And Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned in his place. (15) And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and the conspiracy which he made behold they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
COMMENTS
The thirty-day reign of Shallum receives, as might be expected, scant attention from the author of Kings. Hearing of his conspiracy, Menahem, the general as Josephus calls him, marched from Tirzah to Samaria, got Shallum into his power, and put him to death (2Ki. 15:14). The account of Shallum then concludes with the usual formula (2Ki. 15:15).
Fifteenth King of Israel
SHALLUM BEN JABESH
752 B.C.
(Requital)
2Ki. 15:13-15
Synchronism
Shallum = Uzziah 39
Contemporary Prophet
Hosea
An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him. Pro. 17:11
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(13) A full month.Literally, as margin. Thenius says Shallum cannot have reigned a full month, as Zec. 11:8 obviously refers to the three kings Zachrriah, Shallum, and Menahem.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SHALLUM’S RULE, 2Ki 15:13-15.
13. Shallum reigned a full month Hardly deserving to be called a reign. It was a bold usurpation, and a short and disastrous possession of ill-gotten power.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Reign Of Shallum King of Israel c.752 BC ( 2Ki 15:13-17 ).
It would appear that Tiphsach was Shallum’s power base. Thus when Shallum took the throne after assassinating Zechariah without popular support, not only was he killed by Menahem in his turn but Tiphsach, which refused to yield and surrender to Menahem, was put to the sword, and every man, woman and child killed. Menhem is thus revealed as a man without mercy. The reference to the resistance of Tiphsach may suggest that that was where Shallum’s sons had holed up. But the fact that Menahem received the kingship suggests either that he was acting with the support of the people of the land, or that he was a powerful military commander with great influence in the army, or indeed both. Shallum clearly had little support. He was simply an opportunist. Apart from this we know nothing of either man.
Analysis.
a
b And Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned instead of him (2Ki 15:14).
c Now the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (2Ki 15:15).
b Then Menahem smote Tiphsach, and all who were in it, and its borders, from Tirzah (2Ki 15:16 a).
a Because they did not open to him, therefore he smote it, and all the women in it who were with child he ripped up (2Ki 15:16 b.
From the construction of the passage and the fact that it comes outside the formulae which open and close Menahem’s reign, it is apparent that the smiting of Tiphsach presumably had something to do with Shallum. We may therefore probably see Tiphsach as Shallum’s power base, which would help to explain (but not excuse) Menahem’s unusual ferocity. In destroying the pregnant women he was seeking to ensure that no trace of Shallum’s family survived.
Note that in ‘a’ Shallum began his precarious reign which lasted a month, and in the parallel all trace of his seed was destroyed. In ‘b’ Menaham smote Shallum and in the parallel he smote Tiphsach. Centrally in ‘c’ we can discover all the details of his conspiracy in the official annals of the kings of Israel.
2Ki 15:13
‘Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the thirty ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah, and he reigned the space of a month (a month of days) in Samaria.’
Shallum began to reign in the thirty ninth year of Uzziah (Azariah) calculated from when Uzziah became co-regent with his father. He reigned for a full month (a month of days), presumably while Menahem was organising his forces.
2Ki 15:14
‘And Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned instead of him.’
Menahem was stationed in Tirzah, the former capital city of Israel, which may well therefore have been where the ‘old guard’, the pre-Omride aristocracy, lived. Overlooked by the house of Omri and the house of Jehu they may well have been waiting their time, as the old traditions passed down from father to son, and they resented the passing of power to Samaria. Gadi means ‘my luck’ and may be short for ‘Gadi-yahu’.
2Ki 15:15
‘Now the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.’
Any further information about the acts of Shallum (one month did not give him much time to make his mark) and especially the details of his conspiracy could be found in the official annals of the kings of Israel.
2Ki 15:16
‘Then Menahem smote Tiphsach, and all who were in it, and its borders, from Tirzah. Because they did not open to him, therefore he smote it, and all the women in it who were with child he ripped up.’
Having smitten Shallum Menahem, operating from Tirzah, then smote Tiphsach. This was almost certainly the city where Shallum had his power base and where his sons and family took refuge after Shallum’s assassination. The city was called on to surrender, and once it refused to do so its doom was sealed. By its refusal it was seen as part of the conspiracy. The reference to the fact that all the pregnant women were slaughtered was probably so as to ensure that no rumour could arise of a child of Shallum who had survived the massacre. Shallum’s family, and its connections, would not have been well known and Menahem may well have felt that as the city had supported Shallum’s conspiracy the only safe way to ensure the destruction of his house was by slaughtering every man, woman and child. It was, however, a barbarous act, and went beyond the normally accepted bounds in Israel. It was a sign of his unsuitability to be king.
Nothing is known about Tiphsach, unless it was Thapsacus (‘fording place’) on the west bank of the river Euphrates (1Ki 4:24). Under Jeroboam II Israel’s influence had probably again reached that far, and Shallum may well have come from there. Menahem may thus have seen it as a ‘foreign’ city and treated it as such, his invasion of it being in order to destroy Shallum’s sons. But ripping up women was an Aramaean practise (2Ki 8:12). Compare also Amo 1:13 referring to the half-savage Ammonites and Hos 13:8 referring to the Assyrians. But it was totally against the law of YHWH.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 15:13 Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria.
Ver. 13. And he reigned a full month. ] Heb., A month of days: that is, a month to a day.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Uzziah. See note on 2Ki 14:21.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Buying Temporary Relief
2Ki 15:13-22
The usurping murderer Shallum enjoyed but a very brief reign, occupying the throne for one month only, and then being slain by Menahem, who, according to Josephus, was commander of his forces. Menahem carried his arms as far as Tiphsah, which apparently resisted this red-handed assassin. The ruthless cruelty which he showed toward the hapless citizens attracted the notice of the Assyrian monarch, and led ultimately to that invasion of Israel which terminated in its destruction. God has ever sat as Judge over the nations. His judgments and sentences are exact. With what measure we mete, it shall be measured to us again.
Menahem obtained a temporary respite by the gift of one thousand talents, which secured the alliance of the king of Assyria, turning him from an avenger into a patron. See Hos 5:13. This was the confederacy to which Isaiah probably refers in his chapter, Isa 8:1-22, when he alludes to a confederacy that seemed to bode no good. But on the bosom of this cloud of menace shone, as always, the rainbow of promise which is implied in the name Immanuel.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Shallum
(Requital)
2Ki 15:13-15
Contemporary Prophet: Amos (?).
An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.-Pro 17:11
Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria. For Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. This assassin was not allowed to live long in his ill-gotten power-only for a brief four weeks-and then met the just reward of his crime. His name (a very common one in Israel) means recompense, or retribution; and as he requited his predecessor, so did Menahem his successor recompense him. It is the old principle of governmental just retribution in kind exemplified. This assassination of two rulers, Zachariah and Shallum, within the space of half a year, speaks loudly of the state of anarchy prevailing in the kingdom at the time. It was, as the prophet testified, blood touch-eth blood (Hos 4:2). The great prosperity and ex- pansion under Jeroboam II appears to have corrupted the people and caused them to give free rein to their evil desires and violence. See Hos 4:7. Those in authority, instead of checking this spirit of lawlessness, found pleasure in it. They make the king glad with their wickedness, and the princes with their lies (Hos 7:3). Dissipation to surfeit marked the conduct of these princes, under this monarchy: In the day of our king, the princes made themselves sick with the heat of wine (Hos 7:5, N. Tr.). The demoralized condition of public affairs can scarcely be wondered at, when the king himself encouraged the disdain of the lawless: He stretched out his hand to scorners (Ibid.). Disintegration and bloodshed followed, as a natural consequence. Out of the political chaos and disorder following the death of this, Israels most powerful king, came forth the undesired Zachariah, and his murderer, Shallum. So wickedness brings its own reward, whether it be in a nation, a family, or an individual.
And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Uzziah Mat 1:8; Mat 1:9 called Ozias
2Ki 15:7 called Azariah.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
am 3232, bc 772
Uzziah: 2Ki 15:1, Azariah, Mat 1:8, Mat 1:9, Ozias
a full month: Heb. a month of days, 1Ki 16:15, Job 20:15, Psa 55:23, Pro 28:2, Pro 28:17
Reciprocal: 2Ki 14:21 – Azariah 2Ki 15:17 – nine 2Ki 15:27 – the two 2Ki 15:32 – Jotham
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 15:13-14. He reigned a full month That dominion seldom lasts long that is founded in blood and falsehood. Menahem, either provoked by his crime, or animated by his example, soon served him as he had served his master: he went up from Tirzah A city in the tribe of Ephraim, where Jeroboam first dwelt; and smote Shallum Probably he was general of the army, which then lay encamped at Tirzah, and hearing of Shallums treason and usurpation, he hastened to Samaria to avenge it, as Omri acted, in a like case, with regard to Zimri.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
10. Shallum’s evil reign in Israel 15:13-16
Shallum’s reign was even shorter than Zechariah’s. It lasted only one month (752 B.C.).
Menahem was the commander-in-chief of Jeroboam II’s army. [Note: Josephus, 9:11:1.] He was serving in Tirzah, Israel’s former capital. Menahem regarded Shallum as a usurper to the throne. He evidently believed that as commander of the army he should have succeeded Zechariah. Menahem probably attacked Tiphsah in Israel because its inhabitants refused to acknowledge his claim to the throne. He probably hoped that his violent destruction of that town (2Ki 15:16) would move other Israelite leaders to support him.
As the history of Israel unfolds, the reader cannot help noticing how the kings increasingly behaved as their Gentile neighbors, who had no special regard for God’s Law.