15 20<\/strong>. Zimri king of Israel. Omri proclaimed king by the army (Not in Chronicles)<\/p>\n 15<\/strong>. In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah<\/em> ] The chronological note is omitted by the LXX.<\/p>\n And<\/em> [R.V. Now<\/strong> ] the people<\/em> were encamped against Gibbethon<\/em> ] The LXX. explains ‘the people’ by = the camp. It was, of course, only the army and camp-followers who were away in the land of the Philistines. Apparently the attempt to wrest Gibbethon from the Philistines had continued from the time of Nadab. But the vicissitudes of the northern kingdom had been many, and such as to hinder the prosecution of any campaign.<\/p>\n Verse 15<\/span>. The people were encamped against Gibbethon<\/B><\/I>] It appears that, at this time, the Israelites had war with the Philistines, and were now besieging Gibbethon, one of their cities. This army, hearing that Zimri had rebelled and killed Elah, made Omri, their general, king, who immediately raised the siege of Gibbethon, and went to attack Zimri in the royal city of Tirzah; who, finding his affairs desperate, chose rather to consume himself in his palace than to fall into the hands of his enemies.<\/P> <\/p>\n Which had been besieged before, 1Ki 15:27<\/span>, but, it seems, was then relieved, or afterwards recovered by the Philistines, taking the advantage of the disorders and contentions which were among their enemies. <\/P> <\/p>\n 15-18. did Zimri reign sevendays<\/B>The news of his conspiracy soon spread, and the armyhaving proclaimed their general, Omri, king, that officer immediatelyraised the siege at Gibbethon and marched directly against thecapital in which the usurper had established himself. Zimri soon sawthat he was not in circumstances to hold out against all the forcesof the kingdom; so, shutting himself up in the palace, he set it onfire, and, like Sardanapalus, chose to perish himself and reduce allto ruin, rather than that the palace and royal treasures should fallinto the hands of his successful rival. The seven days’ reign mayrefer either to the brief duration of his royal authority, or theperiod in which he enjoyed unmolested tranquillity in the palace.<\/P><\/p>\n In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah<\/strong>, c] Until the army under Omri came and took the palace, and destroyed him:<\/p>\n and the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belongeth to the Philistines<\/strong> it was besieged in Nadab’s time, but upon his death, by Baasha, the siege was raised; or however, if then taken, it was recovered by the Philistines, and now besieged again by the Israelites, see 1Ki 15:27<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Reign of Zimri lasted only seven days. As soon as the people of war ( ), who were besieging Gibbethon (see at 1Ki 15:27<\/span>), heard of his conspiracy, his usurpation of the throne, and his murderous deeds, they proclaimed Omri<\/em> king in the camp of the military commanders, and he at once, with all Israel, i.e., all the army, raised the siege of Gibbethon, to lay siege to Thirza. Now when Zimri saw that the city was taken, he went into the castle of the royal palace and burned the king’s house over his own head, as Sardanapalus did, according to Justin ( Hist<\/em>. i. 3). does not mean harem (Ewald), but the high castle (from , to be high); here and in 2Ki 15:25<\/span>, the citadel of the royal palace, which consisted of several buildings.<\/p>\n Zimri’s Death; Reign of Omri.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 929.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 15 In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah. And the people were<\/I> encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged<\/I> to the Philistines. 16 And the people that were<\/I> encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp. 17 And Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah. 18 And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the palace of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over him with fire, and died, 19 For his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the LORD<\/B>, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin. 20 Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are<\/I> they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? 21 Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri. 22 But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned. 23 In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah. 24 And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria. 25 But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the LORD<\/B>, and did worse than all that were<\/I> before him. 26 For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin, to provoke the LORD<\/B> God of Israel to anger with their vanities. 27 Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he showed, are<\/I> they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? 28 So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead.<\/P> Solomon observes (Prov. xxviii. 2<\/span>) that for the transgression of a land many were the princes thereof<\/I> (so it was here in Israel), but by a man of understanding the state thereof shall be prolonged<\/I>–so it was with Judah at the same time under Asa. When men forsake God they are out of the way of rest and establishment. Zimri, and Tibni, and Omri, are here striving for the crown. Proud aspiring men ruin one another, and involve others in the ruin. These confusions end in the settlement of Omri; we must therefore take him along with us through this part of the story.<\/P> I. How he was chosen, as the Roman emperors often were, by the army in the field, now encamped before Gibbethon. Notice was soon brought thither that Zimri had slain their king (v.<\/I><\/span> 16<\/span>) and set up himself in Tirzah, the royal city, whereupon they chose Omri king in the camp, that they might without delay avenge the death of Elah upon Zimri. Though he was idle and intemperate, yet he was their king, and they would not tamely submit to his murderer, nor let the treason go unpunished. They did not attempt to avenge the death of Nadab upon Baasha, perhaps because the house of Baasha had ruled with more gentleness than the house of Jeroboam; but Zimri shall feel the resentments of the provoked army. The siege of Gibbethon is quitted (Philistines are sure to gain when Israelites quarrel) and Zimri is prosecuted.<\/P> II. How he conquered Zimri, who is said to have reigned seven days (v.<\/I><\/span> 15<\/span>), so long before Omri was proclaimed king and himself proclaimed traitor; but we may suppose it was a longer time before he died, for he continued long enough to show his inclination to the way of Jeroboam, and to make himself obnoxious to the justice of God by supporting his idolatry, v.<\/I><\/span> 19<\/span>. Tirzah was a beautiful city, but not fortified, so that Omri soon made himself master of it (v.<\/I><\/span> 17<\/span>), forced Zimri into the palace, which being unable to defend, and yet unwilling to surrender, he burnt, and himself in it, v.<\/I><\/span> 18<\/span>. Unwilling that his rival should ever enjoy that sumptuous palace, he burnt it; and fearing that if he fell into the hands of the army, either alive or dead, he should be ignominiously treated, he burnt himself in it. See what desperate practices men’s wickedness sometimes brings them to, and how it hurries them into their own ruin; see the disposition of incendiaries, who set palaces and kingdoms on fire, though they are themselves in danger of perishing in the flame.<\/P> III. How he struggled with Tibni, and at length got clear of him: Half of the people followed this Tibni<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 21<\/span>), probably those who were in Zimri’s interest, with whom others joined, who would not have a king chosen in the camp (lest he should rule by the sword and a standing army), but in a convention of the states. The contest between these two lasted some years, and, it is likely, cost a great deal of blood on both sides, for it was in the twenty-seventh year of Asa that Omri was first elected (v.<\/I><\/span> 15<\/span>) and thence the twelve years of his reign are to be dated; but it was not till the thirty-first year of Asa that he began to reign without a rival; then Tibni died, it is likely in battle, and Omri reigned,<\/I> v.<\/span> 22<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Sir Walter Raleigh, in his History of the World (2.19.6), enquires here why it was that in all these confusions and revolutions of the kingdom of Israel they never thought of returning to the house of David, and uniting themselves again to Judah, for then it was better with them than now;<\/I> and he thinks the reason was because the kings of Judah assumed a more absolute, arbitrary, and despotic power than the kings of Israel. It was the heaviness of the yoke that they complained of when they first revolted from the house of David, and the dread of that made them ever after averse to it, and attached to kings of their own, who ruled more by law and the rules of a limited monarchy.<\/P> IV. How he reigned when he was at length settled on the throne. 1. He made himself famous by building Samaria, which, ever after, was the royal city of the kings of Israel (the palace at Tirzah being burnt), and in process of time grew so considerable that it gave name to the middle part of Canaan (which lay between Galilee on the north and Judea on the south) and to the inhabitants of that country, who were called Samaritans.<\/I> He bought the ground for two talents of silver,<\/I> somewhat more than 700l.<\/I> of our money, for a talent was 353l.<\/I> 11s.<\/I> 10 1\/2d.<\/I> Perhaps Shemer, who sold him the ground, let him have it considerably the cheaper upon condition that the city should be called after his name, for otherwise it would have borne the name of the purchaser; it was called Samaria,<\/I> or Shemeren<\/I> (as it is in the Hebrew), from Shemer, the former owner, v.<\/I><\/span> 24<\/span>. The kings of Israel changed their royal seats, Shechem first, then Tirzah, now Samaria; but the kings of Judah were constant to Jerusalem, the city of God. Those that cleave to the Lord fix, but those that leave him ever wander. 2. He made himself infamous by his wickedness; for he did worse than all that were before him,<\/I> v.<\/span> 25<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Though he was brought to the throne with much difficulty, and Providence had remarkably favoured him in his advancement, yet he was more profane, or more superstitious, and a greater persecutor, than either of the houses of Jeroboam or Baasha. He went further than they had done in establishing iniquity by a law,<\/I> and forcing his subjects to comply with him in it; for we read of the statutes of Omri, the keeping of which made Israel a desolation,<\/I> Mic. vi. 16<\/I><\/span>. Jeroboam caused Israel to sin by temptation, example, and allurement; but Omri did it by compulsion.<\/P> V. How he ended his reign, v.<\/I><\/span> 27, 28<\/span>. He was in some repute for the might which he showed. Many a bad man has been a stout man. He died in his bed, as did Jeroboam and Baasha themselves; but, like them, left it to his posterity to fill up the measure, and then pay off the scores, of his iniquity.<\/P> <\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:15<\/span>. Did Zimri reign seven days<\/strong>A brief possession of a throne won by such criminal deeds! The Israelites repudiated the villainous usurper. <\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:18<\/span>. Into the palace of the kings house<\/strong> means the highest<\/em> place in the kings house; the fortress of the palace, the securest and inmost place; for the royal palace contained a great number of buildings (Gesenius<\/em>). Burnt the kings house over him<\/strong>The Syriac says, the besiegers<\/em> fired the royal house over his head. <\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:19<\/span>. For his sins and in walking in the way of Jeroboam<\/strong>As he only reigned seven days, this must refer to his previous career, although the sins which he sinned<\/em> well describe his sanguinary deeds in seizing the throne. <\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:22<\/span>. So Tibni died, and Omri reigned<\/strong>According to Josephus (Antiq<\/em>. viii. 12, 5), Tibni was slain; which seems the necessary termination of the struggle. The phrase, So<\/em> he died, does not allow of the thought of a natural death, whereby Tibni conveniently left the position unchallenged to Omri; but a forced conclusion of the rivalry by the death of Tibni. However, does not definitely indicate a violent death. <\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:24<\/span>. Bought the hill Samaria of Shemer<\/strong>The two talents of silver purchase price equal less than 700. Thus this hill became the site of the royal residences of the kings of Israel, and Samaria the capital of the kingdom of Israel, until Israel was dispersed and the kingdom ceased. Stanley<\/em> says of this site: In the centre of a wide amphitheatre of mountains, about six miles from Shechem, rises an oblong hill, with steep yet accessible sides, and a long flat top extending east and west, and rising 500 or 600 feet above the valley. Knobel<\/em> says: It was a beautiful round mountain, covered with splendid trees, commanding a lorious prospect of the fruitful valley and the heights and villages surrounding it. Layard<\/em> tells us a tablet was dug from the ruins of Nineveh relating to Samaria, thereon called Beth-Khumri<\/em>, the house of Omri. <\/p>\n HOMILETICS OF <\/em>1Ki. 16:15-28<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n SIN THE PROLIFIC SOURCE OF NATIONAL CALAMITIES<\/p>\n I. It degrades the throne and vitiates its authority<\/strong> (1Ki. 16:15-20<\/span>). It places the crown at the disposal of ambitious adventurers. At this period in the history of Israel there is a remarkable resemblance to the events which led to the accession of the Flavian dynasty at Rome; and the character and career of the Roman Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian bear a curious similarity to the Israelitish Elah, Zimri, Tibni, and Omri. Whoever could best succeed in bribing the army was sure to gain the crown; and the monarch for the time being used his exalted position and power for purposes of personal indulgence and debauchery. It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness; for the throne is established by righteousness (Pro. 16:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n Hes a king,<\/p>\n A true, right king, that dare do aught save wrong; But where sin is triumphant, and justice and righteousness are disregarded, no throne can be stable. The very army which has elevated the monarch may be the instrument of his fall and ruin. Sin tarnishes the crown, breaks the sceptre of authority, and weakens the whole nation. The usurper is often the dupe of his own wickedness. You smile when you see a child trying to grasp its own shadow; but how many have been grasping shadows all their lives, and will continue to reach out and grasp as long as breath and eyesight last!<\/p>\n II. It divides the people, and introduces all the horrors of civil war<\/strong> (1Ki. 16:21-22<\/span>). For four years the rival claimants of the crown carried on the fratricidal contest, and in all probability Tibni suffered a violent death. As soon as ZimriSardanapalus-likecame to such a suicidal end, it would appear that the authorities at Tirzah, disliking a military despotism, elected Tibni as king, and as the army had already elected Omri, the nation was plunged into all the miseries of civil war, which was terminated by Omri gaining the supremacy. Bitterly do the seceding tribes reap the fruits of evil sowing; for not only are they given up to idolatry, but are half swallowed up in anarchy. Both Tibni and Omri would have done well to refuse these proffered honours, considering what had befallen the kings that had gone before them. Macro, captain of the guard, and Laco, knight of the watch, Romans who had been active in ruining Sejanus, had great honours bestowed upon them by the Senate. But they refused them; and Dion attributed the reason of their refusal to the terrors of an example so fresh in their memories. The nation from whose heart rectitude is gone, in whose soul vice runs riot, has its throne built on moral gunpowder.<\/p>\n III. It encourages the ruling power to perpetrate acts of unexampled wickedness<\/strong> (1Ki. 16:25-26<\/span>). Omri did worse than all that were before him. Worse than Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, and Elah. He was an idolater in principle and in practice. He led the people to idolatry by precept and example; and he went beyond all his predecessors in legalising and enforcing idolatry upon his subjects by statutes, for we read in Mic. 6:16<\/span>, of the statutes of Omri, the keeping of which made Israel a desolation. Taking this in connection with the character which the historian ascribes to him, we cannot doubt, remarks Kitto, that these statutes of Omri, which were but too well maintained by his successors and observed by the subjects of his kingdom, were measures adopted for more completely isolating the people of Israel from the services of the House of the Lord at Jerusalem, and for perpetuating, perhaps increasing, their idolatrous practices. Jeroboam made Israel to sin by temptation, example, and allurement; but Omri did it by compulsion. Thus when a people forsake God, they go from worse to worse, till destruction comes upon them to the uttermost.<\/p>\n LESSONS:<\/p>\n 1. The frequent end of ambitious projectors is to perish in the flames they have themselves kindled<\/em>. <\/p>\n 2. Envy and revenge, even in death, forsake not the wicked<\/em>. <\/p>\n 3. Of all inflictions on a nation, none are more terrible than civil wars<\/em>.<\/p>\n GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES<\/em><\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:15-20<\/span>. The vanity of an ill-gotten success<\/strong>. I. An ill-gotten success is evanescent in its character (1Ki. 16:15<\/span>). II. Creates numerous enemies (1Ki. 16:16<\/span>). III. Has to contend with violent opposition (1Ki. 16:17<\/span>). IV. Drives to acts of desperation (1Ki. 16:18<\/span>). V. Brings its own inevitable punishment (1Ki. 16:19<\/span>). VI. Acquires an unenviable notoriety (1Ki. 16:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:18<\/span>. Despair<\/strong>. I. Often the result of baffled ambition. II. Is one of the sharpest stings of a guilty conscience. III. Is associated with the bitterest feelings of hatred and revenge. IV. Frequently ends in suicide.<\/p>\n The doom of despair is the end of a life given over to sin, which has lost sight of the living God, and can never again find Him. Frequently what the world regards as heroism and contempt of death is simply cowardice and crime in the sight of God. The Lord has no pleasure, &c. (Eze. 18:23<\/span>). It requires more courage and bravery to bear the merited punishment of ones sins than to escape from it by suicide.<\/p>\n Zimris desperate act has been repeated more than once in the worlds history. That the last king of Assyria, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, thus destroyed himself, is almost the only fact<\/em> which we know concerning him. Herodotus gives a similar account of a contemporary of his, a certain Boges, a Persian general left by Xerxes to defend Eon when he retired from Europe after Salamis. He also relates that the Xanthians, when pressed by Harpagus, burnt their wives, their children, and their slaves in the Acropolis, and then threw themselves on the Persian swords.<\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:21-22<\/span>. Anarchy<\/strong>. I. The inevitable consequence of national irreligion. II. Is fomented and sustained by incompetent and unscrupulous rulers. III. Is not suppressed without much cruelty and suffering.<\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:23-28<\/span>. The power of a wicked life<\/strong>. I. Is the more dangerous when associated with material prosperity (1Ki. 16:24<\/span>). II. Transforms a king into a tyrant (1Ki. 16:25-26<\/span>). III. Is the less excusable in a man of valour and capacity (1Ki. 16:27<\/span>). IV. Is transmitted to succeeding generations (1Ki. 16:28<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Ki. 16:24-26<\/span>. Omri built Samaria, making it the strong centre of the kingdom; but he walked in all the sins of Jeroboam, and did worse than all who went before him. It is not said in what respect he was worse, but it certainly implies that he maintained the anti-theocratic institutions of Jeroboam with great zeal and decision. It appears that he stood well as captain of the army, for it was in the camp that he was elected to the throne. Yet, however valiant he may have been as a warrior, in the chief thingnamely, in his relation to Jehovah and the theocratic fundamental lawhe stood worse than any of his predecessors, and was furthest from being what was especially required of a theocratic king, that is, a servant of Jehovah. A man may be skilful and useful to himself and others in all material and worldly things, whilst in spiritual and divine things he works only mischief and destruction. What, without religion, is so-called civilization?Lange<\/em>.<\/p>\n D. THE SEVEN-DAY REIGN OF ZIMRI 16:1520<\/p>\n TRANSLATION<\/strong><\/p>\n (15) In the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah, Zimri reigned seven days in Tirzah. Now the people were on an expedi tion against Gibbethon which belonged to the Philistines. (16) And the people who were on the expedition heard, saying, Zimri has conspired, and also he has smitten the king, And all Israel proclaimed Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel in that day in the camp. (17) And Omri went up and all Israel with him from Gibbethon, and they besieged Tirzah. (18) And it came to pass when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the palace of the kings house, and he set fire to the kings house over him, and he died, (19) because of his sins which he had committed, to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, and to walk in the way of Jeroboam and in his sin with which he made Israel to sin. (20) And the rest of the deeds of Zimri and the conspiracy which he made, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?<\/strong><\/p>\n Fifth King of Israel 1Ki. 16:9-20<\/span><\/p>\n Synchronism Whoso walks uprightly shall be saved; but be that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once. Pro. 28:18<\/span><\/p>\n COMMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n Zimri was only able to hold the throne of Israel for one week. The army was involved in another campaign to recover Gibbethon[394] at the time Zimri assassinated Elah (1Ki. 16:15<\/span>). When the army in the field heard the report that Zimri had slain the king, the troops immediately declared their general to be king (1Ki. 16:16<\/span>). It is not at all surprising that the army refused to recognize Zimris authority. First, he was an inferior officer who was not even present on the great campaign at Gibbethon. Furthermore, when Zimri murdered Elahs friends, he doubtlessly made many enemies throughout the army. It is, therefore, natural that the troops turned to the popular general Omri.[395]<\/p>\n [394] This same city had been besieged by the armies of Israel some twenty-four years earlier (see on 1Ki. 15:27<\/span>). It is not known whether it had changed hands during this period, or whether the siege was continuous or intermittent.<\/p>\n [395] The fact that the lineage of Omri is omitted has been taken to mean that the general was of Canaanite extraction or that he was a foreign mercenary. See Gray, OTL, pp. 36465. It is highly unlikely, however, that in either case he could have gained sufficient support to make good his bid for the throne.<\/p>\n Omri was not hesitant about accepting the office thrust upon him by his troops. He immediately broke off the siege of Gibbethon and led the army back up through the mountain passes to Tirzah the capital. In a show of force he deployed his troops about the capital and no doubt ordered Zimri to surrender (1Ki. 16:17<\/span>). Seeing that his position was hopeless, Zimri went into the fortress of the palaceone of the innermost roomsand committed suicide by setting the place afire (1Ki. 16:18<\/span>). Even though Zimri died by his own hand, yet the historian regards his death as being the result of divine retribution. It is obvious that in his brief reign Zimri could not have done much to show his sympathy for the calf worship in the North. Perhaps before he became king he had indicated his zeal for the counterfeit religion introduced by Jeroboam.[396] But it is more likely that the historian in 1Ki. 16:19<\/span> is trying to drive home the point that all the anarchy in the North was the bitter fruit of Jeroboams apostasy. Further information about the conspiracy of Zimri and other events of his action packed week of rule were recorded in the prophetic annals of the Northern Kingdom (1Ki. 16:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n [396] It is possible that the condemnation applies also to the period when he was captain of the kings chariots. On the other hand, the author may mean no more than that there was no correlation between Zimris revolt and a desire to repudiate the previous religious policy.<\/p>\n ZIMRI’S REIGN, 1Ki 16:15-20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 15<\/strong>. <\/strong> Zimri seven days <\/strong> This is the shortest reign on record. Short lived are the glories bought by bloody hands. In this case divine vengeance followed so speedily that there needed no prophet to utter it in word. <\/p>\n The people encamped against Gibbethon <\/strong> This siege, begun by Nadab, was continued still. Compare 1Ki 15:27<\/span>. Evidently the possession of that city was much desired by the kings of Israel.<\/p>\n The Reign Of Zimri King Of Israel c. 884 BC ( 1Ki 16:15-20<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n As we have already seen Zimri’s reign was short and brief, but it was found in the annals of the kings of Israel and so it is included. His excessive bloodbath may have been what enraged the army against him, or they may have considered that he was too junior in command to be allowed to be king. Thus while still in their camp they immediately appointed their own representative to be king, Omri, who was commander of the hosts of Israel. <\/p>\n Omri then went and besieged Zimri in Tirzah, and when Zimri saw that the city was quickly taken he went into the king’s own house and burnt it around him, dying as a result. It was a fitting end for a fiery man. And it was the end that he earned because of the support that he had throughout his adult life given for the false worship of Jeroboam, and which he had intended to continue, and for all his sins. The point here was that his rebellion had had nothing to do with seeking to re-establish the true worship of YHWH. He had only had himself in mind. <\/p>\n Analysis. <\/p>\n a <\/strong> In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah (1Ki 16:15<\/span> a). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> Now the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines. And the people who were encamped heard it said that, “Zimri has conspired, and has also smitten the king” (1Ki 16:15-16<\/span> a). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> For which reason all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp, and Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah (1Ki 1:16-17<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And it came about, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the castle of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over him with fire, and died, for his sins which he sinned in doing that which was evil in the sight of YHWH, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin (1Ki 16:18-19<\/span>). <\/p>\n a <\/strong> Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1Ki 16:20<\/span>). <\/p>\n Note that in ‘a’ we learn of Zimri’s reign and in the parallel are referred for details to the annals of the kings of Israel. In ‘b’ news came to the camp that Zimri had conspired and slain the king, and in the parallel we are informed of what the consequences were for him in that he then slew himself. Centrally in ‘c’ we learn of the armies reaction in making Omri king and besieging Zimri in Tirzah. <\/p>\n 1Ki 16:15<\/span> a ‘In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah.’ <\/p>\n It is noteworthy here that it does not say that he reigned ‘over Israel’. The validity of his claim to kingship is not acknowledged. And his reign only lasted for seven days. The name ‘Zimri’ is probably Aramaean (compare Zimri-lim of Mari) and he may well not have been a true Israelite, but a mercenary commander over half Israel’s chariot force. We are not informed about his antecedents. <\/p>\n 1Ki 16:15<\/span> b ‘Now the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines.’ <\/p>\n It was when he was encamped before the same Gibbethon that Nadab the son of Jeroboam had been assassinated by Baasha (1Ki 15:27<\/span>). But unlike Elah at least Nadab had been there with his men, not enjoying drunken frivolities in his capital city while others fought on his behalf. <\/p>\n 1Ki 16:16<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And the people who were encamped heard it said that, “Zimri has conspired, and has also smitten the king,” for which reason all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp.’ <\/p>\n News reached the camp of what Zimri had done in Tirzah. And as soon as they heard that Elah was dead, and that Zimri was playing the king, they appointed their own commander-in-chief as king, in the camp that very day. <\/p>\n 1Ki 16:17<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah.’ <\/p>\n Omri then left the siege at Gibbethon along with his troops (‘all Israel’ is not to be taken too literally. It meant all Israel who were with him. In other words he had unanimous support from his men) and besieged Tirzah. <\/p>\n 1Ki 16:18-19<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And it came about, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the castle of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over him with fire, and died, for his sins which he sinned in doing that which was evil in the sight of YHWH, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin.’ <\/p>\n It is doubtful how much support Zimri had in Tirzah, apart from his own charioteers, with the result that the city would easily be taken (a fact not lost on Omri as we subsequently discover in his building of Samaria). Consequently when he realised that he was doomed, Zimri went into the most palatial part of the king’s house (one last dream?) and burned it around him, perishing in the flames. And we are told that this was because his rebellion had not been to do with the restoration of the true worship of YHWH. In his short reign he had carried on, and had intended to carry on, the false worship of Jeroboam. Thus he shared in his sins, doing what was evil in the eyes of YHWH. <\/p>\n “The castle of the king”<\/strong> s house.’ The word translated ‘castle’ is usually translated ‘palace’. It may signify the palace strongpoint, or the most palatial part of the palace. <\/p>\n 1Ki 16:20<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fears nothing mortal but to be unjust:
Who is not blown up with flattering puffs
Of spongy sycophants; who stands unmoved
Despite the jostling of opinion.<\/p>\nFuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
ZIMRI
826 B.C.
(Courageous, mighty)<\/p>\n
Zimri = Asa 26<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n