Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
1 Kings 16:15-20
The Reign Of Zimri King Of Israel c. 884 BC (1 Kings 16:15).
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.
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.
Analysis.
a In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah (1 Kings 16:15 a).
b 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” (1 Kings 16:15 a).
c 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 (1 Kings 1:16).
b 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 (1 Kings 16:18).
a 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? (1 Kings 16:20).
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.
1 Kings 16:15 a ‘In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah.'
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.
1 Kings 16:15 b ‘Now the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines.'
It was when he was encamped before the same Gibbethon that Nadab the son of Jeroboam had been assassinated by Baasha (1 Kings 15:27). 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.
‘ 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.'
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.
‘ And Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah.'
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.
‘ 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.'
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.
“The castle of the king” s house.' The word translated ‘castle' is usually translated ‘palace'. It may signify the palace strongpoint, or the most palatial part of the palace.
‘ 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?'
Once more we close with reference to the annals of the kings of Israel. But in this case only we learn that Zimri' behaviour was seen as ‘treasonable'. This in fact is what we would expect to find there, for the record would have been made in the time of Omri and he would have wanted it made clear that he himself had acted honourably, and that Elah's death was not of his conniving. Zimri's treachery in fact became legendary (2 Kings 9:31).
The whole story is a vivid reminder of Paul's words, that whatever a man sows that will he also reap (Galatians 6:7).