The Pulpit Commentary
Then the word of the Lord came to Jehu, the son of Hanani [Hanani is mentioned in 2Ch_16:7-10 as having admonished Asa, and as having been thrown into prison for so doing. Both he and his son would seem to have belonged to the kingdom of Judah. We find the latter in 2Ch_19:2 a resident in Jerusalem, and protesting against the alliance between Jehoshaphat, whose historian he became, and whom, consequently, he must have survived (2Ch_20:34), and Ahab. He is mentioned in the verse last cited as "made to ascend on the book of the kings of Israel" His prophetic career must have extended over at least half a century] against Baasha, saying,

The Pulpit Commentary
Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust [cf. 1Ki_14:7; 2Sa_7:8; Psa_78:70. These words assuredly point to a lowly origin. He may well have risen from the ranks], and made thee prince [The original word is used of leaders of various degrees, comprehending even the king: 1Ki_1:35; 1Sa_9:16; 1Sa_10:1; cf. Dan_9:25] over my people Israel [There is no approval implied here of the means by which Baasha had raised himself to the throne. All that is said is that he had been an instrument in God's hands, and owed his throne to God's sanction and ordering. Even his conspiracy and cruelties had been overruled to the furtherance of the Divine purpose], and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger [better vex, one word] with their sins;

The Pulpit Commentary
Behold, I will take away [Heb. exterminate; same word as in 1Ki_14:10 (where see note); 1Ki_21:21; 1Ki_22:47, etc.] the posterity of [Heb. after] Baasha, and the posterity of [after] his house, and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. [Cf. 1Ki_15:29; 1Ki_21:22, etc.]

The Pulpit Commentary
Him that dieth of [Heb. to; see note on 1Ki_14:11] Baasha in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth of his in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat. [It may be these words, like those of the next two verses, were almost a formula, but if so, it is noticeable that precisely the same formula was used of Jeroboam a few years before, and Baasha knew well how it had been accomplished. "All the prophets in succession have the same message from God for the same sins" (Wordsworth).]

The Pulpit Commentary
Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might [as to which see 1Ki_15:17-21. He could hardly have given a stronger proof of his might than by fortifying a post but five miles distant from Jerusalem. Keil, however, would interpret the word, both here and in 1Ki_15:23, of his energy and strength in government. Better Bähr, tapfere Thaten. Ewald hence infers that Baasha was "a man of distinguished bravery"], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

The Pulpit Commentary
So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tizrzah [cf. 1Ki_15:21, 1Ki_15:33. This place is twice mentioned as his residence], and Elah his son reigned in his stead. [It is perhaps more than a mere coincidence that this uncommon name, Elah ("terebinth," see note on 1Ki_13:14), is also the name of the great valley (1Sa_17:2, 1Sa_17:19; 1Sa_21:9) near to Gibbethon, where Baasha was proclaimed king.]

The Pulpit Commentary
And also by the hand of the prophet Jehu, the son of Hanani, came the word of the Lord against Baasha [This does not refer, as some have thought, to a second prophecy on Jehu's part, but is rather explicative of 1Ki_16:2. Rawlinson thinks the object of the historian herein was to point out that Baasha was punished for the "murder of Jeroboam [?] and his family," as well as for the calf worship. Keil and Bähr hold that it is designed to guard against a perversion of 1Ki_16:2, "I made thee prince," etc; from which it might be inferred that he was commissioned of God to murder Nadab. But it is simpler to suppose that his primary idea was to convey, by this repetition, which no doubt is derived from a different source from the statement of 1Ki_16:2, that Baasha was visited by God for his various sins. It was no chance that happened to him. The excision of his house, like that of Jeroboam, was distinctly foretold], and against his house, even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord, in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands [1Ki_16:2; note the coincidence with 1Ki_15:30, in connexion with the next words. Bähr explains "the works of his hands "as idols, Dii factitii, after Deu_4:28, but this appears somewhat far fetched], in being like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him [i.e; Nadab].

The Reign of Elah.

The Pulpit Commentary
In the twenty and sixth year of Asa, king of Judah, began Elah, son of Baasha, to reign over Israel, two years [cf. 1Ki_15:1-34. and see note on 1Ki_15:28].

The Pulpit Commentary
And his servant [Not only "subject," as Rawlinson, but officer. The same word is used of Jeroboam; 1Ki_11:26, note. We may almost trace here a lex talionis. Baasha was Nadab's "servant," as Jeroboam was Solomon's] Zimri [From the occurrence of this name among those of the descendants of Jonathan (1Ch_8:36), it has been supposed (Stanley) that this was a last effort of the house of Saul to regain the throne], captain of half his chariots [רֶכֶב as in 1Ki_9:19; 1Ki_10:26. The violation of the law of Deu_17:16 brings its own retribution], conspired against him [precisely as Elah's father had "conspired "(1Ki_15:27) against Nadab], as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, steward of [Heb. which was over; cf. 1Ki_4:6; 1Ki_18:3; 2Ki_10:5; 2Ki_18:37] his house in Tirzah. [Several points present themselves for notice here.

(1) the example of Jeroboam has clearly had its full influence on the nation. "The Lord's anointed "is no longer had in reverence, as in the days of David (1Sa_24:6, 1Sa_24:10; 1Sa_26:9, 1Sa_26:16; 2Sa_1:14), nor is it accounted a sin to grasp at the crown.

(2) Zimri only does what Baasha had done before him. That prince was "hoist with his own petard."

(3) Elah would seem to have been a dissolute and pusillanimous prince. His place was clearly with his army at Gibbethon (2Ki_18:15; cf. Jos_8:1-35.12. 4). And as clearly it was not in the house of one of his subjects, even the intendant of his palace. "An Oriental monarch … is precluded by etiquette from accepting the hospitality of his subjects"—Rawlinson, who further remarks that the low tastes which we here find Elah indulging" had probably been formed before his father was exalted out of the dust." As probably they were inherited direct from his father. Anyhow, they led to his destruction. It is clear that Elah's want of character, like Nadab's, suggested the conspiracy of Zimri.

(4) It is extremely probable, though not absolutely certain, as Bähr affirms, that Arza was one of the conspirators, and that the wretched prince had been decoyed to his house and made drunk, with a view to his murder there.]

The Pulpit Commentary
And Zimri went in [cf. Jdg_3:20; 2Sa_4:7] and smote him and killed him in the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his stead. [Cf. 1Ki_15:28 and 2Ki_15:1-38 :93. It is curious how it happened three times in the history of Israel that "the only powerful prince in a new dynasty was its founder, and after his son and successor reigned two years, the power passed into other hands" (Ewald).]

The Reign of Zimri.

The Pulpit Commentary
And it came to pass when he began to reign, as soon as he sate on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha [see note on 1Ki_15:29. The LXX. Vat. omits the rest of this verse and the first clause of 1Ki_15:12]: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall [i.e; not a boy. See 1Ki_14:10 note], neither of [Heb. and] his kinsfolks [The גֹּאֵל is strictly the person to whom

(1) the right of redemption (Le 25:26; Ruth, passim) and

(2) the duty of avenging blood (Num_35:19) belonged.

And this being the next of kin (Rth_2:12, Rth_2:13), the word came to mean near relative, kinsman, as here; cf. Rth_2:20. All the same, it discloses to us Zimri's object, which was to destroy the avenger of blood. And it shows (in connexion with Rth_2:16) that none of Baasha's children, if he had other children, had gone to the war], nor of his friends. [Zimri went a step farther than Baasha had gone. He was not content with extirpating the royal family, but put to death the partizans of the house, all who would be likely to sympathize with Elah or to resent his murder.]

The Pulpit Commentary
Thus did Zimri destroy an the house of Baasha, according to the word of the Lord which he spake against Baasha, by [Heb. in the hand of] Jehu the prophet [Verses 1, 7; cf. 1Ki_15:29. The analogy is now complete],

The Pulpit Commentary
For [אֶל corresponds with the עַל of 1Ki_16:7 = propter; cf. 1Ki_14:5; 1Ki_21:22] all the sins of Baasha, and the sins of Elah his son, by which they sinned, and by which they made Israel to sin, in provoking the Lord God of Israel to anger [the formula of 1Ki_15:30, etc.] with their vanities. [The calves, not idols, are referred to here. Cf. Deu_32:21; 1Co_8:4. The same idea is embodied in the word Bethaven; Hos_4:15; Hos_5:8.]

The Pulpit Commentary
Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

The Pulpit Commentary
In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign [The same word elsewhere translated in A.V. began to reign. It is really an aorist = succeeded to the throne] seven days in Tirzah. And the people were encamped [Heb. encamping] against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Phistines. [It has at first sight a suspicious look that two kings of Israel, within an interval of about twenty-five years, should have been slain by conspirators during a siege of this place. But when the narrative is examined, its probability and consistency become at once apparent. Stanley assumes that the siege lasted over the whole of this period, but it is more likely that when Baasha found himself king, he discovered that he had domestic matters enough upon his hands, without a foreign war, and so he raised the siege. It is very probable that he feared opposition such as Zimri and Omri subsequently experienced. And his wars with Asa and with Syria may well have prevented his renewing the undertaking. On the accession of Elah, however, with the usual ambition and impetuosity of youth, it was decided to recommence the siege and to win this city back for Israel. But the fate of Nadab, and the consequent ill omen attaching to the place would not be forgotten, and this, as well as his voluptuous habits, may have deterred the fainéant Elah from besieging it in person, while the conspiracy which marked the former siege may at the same time have suggested to Zimri and others the thought of conspiring against Elah.]

The Pulpit Commentary
And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel [obviously, all the army. Cf. 1Ki_12:1, 1Ki_12:16, 1Ki_12:18] made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp. It was hardly likely they would submit to the usurpation of Zimri. Not only had he occupied a subordinate position, but his murder of all Elah's friends must have made him a host of enemies in the camp. It was the natural thing for them, therefore, to turn to Omri. He had the advantage of being in possession. The captain of the host stood next to the king (2Ki_4:13; 2Sa_5:8; 2Sa_19:13; 2Sa_20:23), and twice stepped into his place (2Ki_9:5). This history has many parallels in that of the Roman empire.]

The Pulpit Commentary
And Omri went up from Gibbethon ["The expression, 'went up,' accurately marks the ascent of the army from the Shephelah, where Gibbethon was situated, to the hill country of Israel, on the edge of which Tirzah stood" (Rawlinson)], and all Israel [see on 1Ki_16:16] with him, and they besieged Tirzah. [It is probable that they arrived before the city on the sixth or seventh day after the assassination of Elah. This period would just allow sufficient time for the news of the conspiracy to travel to Gibbethon and for the march of the army.]

The Pulpit Commentary
And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken [the meaning is probably that which Josephus gives: "When he saw that the city had none to defend it," or possibly, "when he saw that a breach was made"], that he went into the palace [אַרְמוֹן citadel, fortress, from אָרַם altus fuit. So Gesen; Keil, Bight, al. The palace, no doubt, consisted of a string of buildings (1Ki_7:2-9) of which this was the highest and strongest part. Ewald thinks that the harem—a word which has almost the same radicals―or women's apartment, is meant—the most secluded portion of the great palace (Josephus understands it to mean "the inmost part"), and hence infers, as also from 2Ki_9:31, that the women of the palace had willingly submitted to the effeminate murderer of their lord, and that even the queen-mother had made advances towards him. But, as Bight remarks there is nothing of this in the text, and Zimri's desperate act rather shows daring and contempt of death than effeminacy or sensuality. And 2Ki_15:25 (cf. Psa_122:7) seems to point to a stronghold rather than a seraglio] of the king's house, and burnt the king's house [probably the palace which Jereboam had built. Ewald thinks it was this structure gave Tirzah its reputation for beauty; Son_6:4] over him with fire [According to the Syriac, the besiegers set fire to the palace. Similarly Jarchi. But the text is decisive. The parallel deed of Sardanapalus will occur to all readers. Rawlinson also refers to Herod. 1:176, and 7:107], and died. [This word is intimately connected with the verse following. But there is no need to rearrange the verses. The text, as it stands, conveys clearly enough that Zimri's tragical death was a retribution for his sins. Bähr remarks that of Elah and Zimri we learn nothing, apart from the fact that they held to the sin of Jeroboam, except how they died.]

The Pulpit Commentary
For his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the Lord, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin. [It is quite clear that in his reign of one week Zimri cannot have done much to show his complicity in the schism of Jeroboam, and it is probable that the sacred writer means that his character and antecedents were such as to prove that all his sympathies were with the irreligious party. Bähr thinks that he had "formerly displayed much partiality for the calf worship." But it is quite as likely that the idea in the historian's mind was that all these events were the bitter fruits of Jeroboam's misguided and impious policy, into the spirit of which, Zimri, like his predecessors, had been baptized. It is interesting to remember here the aspect these repeated revolutions and assassinations would wear to the kingdom of Judah, then enjoying quietness and prosperity under Asa. We cannot doubt for a moment that they were regarded as so many manifestations of the righteous judgment of God, and as the outcomes of that spirit of insubordination and impiety which, in their eyes, had brought about both the division of the kingdom and the schism in the church.]

The Pulpit Commentary
Now the rest of the acts of Zimri [We see here the tendency of the historian to express himself in formulae. He checks himself, however, and does not add "and all that he did," etc.], and his treason that he wrought [Heb. his conspiracy which he conspired. Though this was all there was to tell of him, yet no doubt it would be recorded at greater length by the historians of the day. We can hardly suppose that the "books of the words of the days" would dismiss so striking an event in a few sentences], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

The Interregnum.

The Pulpit Commentary
Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: halt of the people followed [lit; was after. Same expression 2Sa_2:10; cf. 1Ki_1:7] Tibni the son of Ginath [Who he was, or why he was set up in opposition to Omri, it is impossible to say. It has been supposed that the army was divided in its preferences, and that part of the soldiery wished to make Tibni king, and this is perhaps the most probable conjecture. It is to be considered that the entire army was not encamped before Gibbethon. Nor are 1Ki_1:16, 1Ki_1:17 fatal to this view, as Bähr maintains, because "all Israel" there clearly means all the army under the command of Omri. It is hardly likely that Tibni was set up by the people of Tirzah, after the death of Zimri, to continue the struggle. The only thing that is certain is that,the hereditary principle being overthrown, the crown appeared to be the legitimate prize of the strongest; and Tibni, who may have occupied a position of importance, or have had, somehow, a considerable following, resolved that Omri should not wear it without a fierce contest], to make him king [Omri had been already made king, i.e; anointed, 1Ki_1:16]; and half renewed Omri.

The Pulpit Commentary
But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath [It appears, however, from the following verse that the struggle lasted four years]: so Tibni died [According to Jos; Ant. 8.12. § 5, he was slain by the conqueror. The LXX. has here a curious and probably genuine addition. "And Thabni died, and Joram his brother at that time], and Omri reigned. [The jingle of the Hebrew words is probably designed.]

The Reign of Omri.

The Pulpit Commentary
In the thirty and first year of Asa, king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years [As Omri was proclaimed king in the twenty-seventh and died in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (cf. 1Ki_16:15, 1Ki_16:29), he cannot in any case have reigned twelve full years; whereas if his reign is to be dated, as it is here, from the thirty-first year of Asa, it is obvious that he would only have reigned seven, or, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, eight years. Rawlinson proposes to get over the difficulty by rearranging the text. He would attach the first clause of this verse to 1Ki_16:22, and read, "And Omri reigned in the thirty-first," etc. But to this there are two serious objections. First, that 1Ki_16:23, as it now stands, only follows the usual formula with which a new reign is announced (cf. 1Ki_16:8, 1Ki_16:15, 1Ki_16:29); and, second, it is extremely doubtful whether any prose sentence in the Hebrew ever begins as 1Ki_16:23 would then do, "Reigned Omri over Israel twelve years." Such a sentence would certainly be quite alien to the usus loquendi of our author. We are therefore reduced to the conclusion either

(1) that the text here, as in some other instances (1Ki_6:1; 2Ki_1:17; cf. 2Ki_3:1; 2Ki_13:1, 2Ki_13:10, etc.), has suffered at the hands of a reviser, or

(2) that the numbers have been corrupted in transcription; or

(3) that the historian expresses himself in a somewhat confused way.

Of these suppositions perhaps

(1) is the most likely. Anyhow, it is clear that the twelve years of Omri's reign are to be counted not from the thirty-first, but from the twenty-seventh year of Asa, i.e; from the date of Zimri's death (see 1Ki_16:10, 1Ki_16:15, 1Ki_16:29). The confusion has arisen from the fact that it was not until Tibni was slain, after four years of conflict, that Omri became sole ruler]: six years reigned he in Tirzah.

The Pulpit Commentary
And he bought [i.e; after the six years just mentioned. During the four years of anarchy Omri would seem to have retained possession of the capital which he had taken (1Ki_16:18) on Zimri's death. But the palace being burnt and the defences perhaps weakened by the siege, he determined, rather than rebuild it, to found a capital elsewhere] the hill Samaria [Heb. Shomeron, called by Herod Sebaste, whence its modern name Sebustieh. In his selection of Samaria for the seat of government, Omri acted with singular judgment. It has been said that "Shechem is the natural capital of Palestine," and no doubt it enjoys a commanding position and great advantages, but Samaria has even superior recommendations. It is a site with which no traveller can fail to be deeply impressed. Even Van de Velde, who says, "I do not agree with Dr. Robinson and other writers who follow him that the mountain of Samaria presents so admirable a combination of strength, fertility, and beauty, that the like is hardly to be found in Palestine", nevertheless readily allows its superiority to Tirzah, and remarks on the strength of its position. "Many travellers have expressed a conviction that the spot was in most respects much preferable to the site of Jerusalem" (Kitto). It is a large oval or oblong mound, with a level surface, adapted for buildings, with steep sides to make its position impregnable, and surrounded by an amphitheatre of hills. "Samaria is in a position of great strength; and must before the invention of gunpowder have been almost impregnable. It stands some 400 feet above the valley, the sides of the hill being steep and terraced in every direction for cultivation, or perhaps for defensive purposes.. broad and open valleys stretch north and south, and the hill is thus almost isolated," Conder, p. 47, who adds, "Strategical reasons may be supposed to have dictated the choice of the capital of Omri, for on the north the hill commands the main road to Jezreel over a steep pass, on the west it dominates the road to the coast, and on the east that to the Jordan". Grove speaks of "the singular beauty of the spot," and Stanley justly sees in the selection of this spot a proof of Omri's sagacity. But perhaps the best proof is that which the subsequent history supplies. Shechem and Tirzah had each been tried, and each in turn had been abandoned. But Samaria continued to be the capital so long as the kingdom lasted] of Shemer for two talents of silver [variously estimated at £500 and £800. This purchase, obviously of the freehold, i.e; in perpetuity, was in contravention of the law of Le 25:23. David had bought the threshing floor of Ornan, but that was

(1) from a Jebusite, and

(2) for a high religious purpose (2Sa_24:24).

It has been suggested that this purchase may have inspired Ahab with the idea of buying the vineyard of Naboth], and built on [Heb. built] the hill and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria. [It is not improbable that the vendor bargained that the land should retain his name (cf. Psa_49:11). The reluctance of the Israelite to part with his patrimony, even to the king, is brought out very strikingly in ch. 21. Shemer, in selling his choice parcel of land for a capital, might well wish to connect his name with it. The fact that שֹׁמְרוֹן means watch mountain (Gesen.), and that we should have expected a name formed from Shemer to take the form Shimron—Shomeron would strictly imply an original Shomer—is not by any means a proof that our historian is at fault in his derivation. For, in the first place, the names Shomer and Shemer are used of the same person in 1Ch_7:32, 1Ch_7:34. And secondly, nothing would be more in accordance with Jewish ideas than that Omri, in naming the hill after its owner, should give a turn to the word which would also express at the same time its characteristic feature. A pun, or play upon word, was the form which wit assumed amongst the Semitic races, and the form Shomeron would at once perpetuate the memory of Shemer, and express the hope and purpose of Omri. It is a curious fact that the later Samaritans did play upon this very word, representing themselves as guardians (שֹּׁמְרִים) of the law (Ewald). The Greek form of the name, Σαμάρεια, would seem to have been derived through the Chaldee שִׁמְרָיִן as found in Ezr_4:10, Ezr_4:17.]

The Pulpit Commentary
But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the Lord, and did worse than all that were before him. [It has been thought that Mic_6:16 ("the statutes of Omri, etc.") points to a fresh departure from the Jewish faith; to the organization of the calf worship into a regular formal system, or to "measures for more competely isolating the people of Israel from the services of the house of the Lord at Jerusalem" (Kitto).

The Pulpit Commentary
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 God of Israel to anger with their vanities.

The Pulpit Commentary
Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he showed [Not only in the war with Tibni, but certainly in the subjugation of the Moabites, of which mention is made in the recently discovered Moabite stone. He may well have had other wars, which, like this, have escaped notice in Scripture. If the king of Syria spoke truly (1Ki_20:34), the war with that power had been extremely disastrous. Yet the Assyrian inscriptions prove that Omri's name was more widely and permanently known in the East than those of his predecessors or successors. Samaria, for example, down to the time of Tiglath-Pileser, appears as Beth Khumri, the "house of Omri;" Athaliah,the daughter of Ahab, is called a daughter of Omri; and Jehu appears in the Black Obelisk Inscription as "the son of Omri". It is perhaps an evidence of "his might" that his dynasty retained the throne to the third generation], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? [1Ki_16:26, 1Ki_16:27 are an exact repetition, mutatis mutandis, of 1Ki_13:14; cf. 15:80.]

The Pulpit Commentary
So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria [After the example of earlier kings, he found a grave in his capital city; cf. 1Ki_2:10; 1Ki_11:43; 1Ki_14:31; 1Ki_16:16]: and Ahab his son reigned In his stead.

THE REIGN OF AHAB.—With the accession of Ahab a new main section of our history begins—the section which has its close in the destruction of the house of Omri by Jehu, as related in 2Ki_10:1-36. And this reign is recorded at unusual length; in fact, it occupies nearly all the remaining portion of this volume, whereas the reigns of preceding kings have in several instances been dismissed in a few verses. It owes this distinction to the ministry of the great prophet Elijah by which it was marked, and, indeed, was profoundly influenced; but this ministry, it must be remembered, was necessitated by the critical circumstances of the time. It may be that "every age thinks itself a crisis," but no one can fail to see that this was one of the veritable turning points of Jewish history. One of the real "decisive battles of the world"—that between the Lord and Baal—was then fought out. No wonder that our historian felt constrained to chronicle at length the transactions of a reign so pregnant both with good and evil for the people of the Lord and for the faith with which they had been put in trust. Indeed, the same guiding principle which led him to devote so many of his pages to the reign of Solomon, when the theocratic kingdom was at its highest, impelled him to linger over the reign of Ahab when religion was at its lowest ebb. The secular historian, too often like the sundial which "counts no hours save those serene," draws a veil over the time of his country's decadence, or touches its misfortunes with a light hand. It is only in the inspired records that we have an impartial register both of the glory and shame of a common. wealth.

The Pulpit Commentary
And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah [see notes on 1Ki_16:23] began Ahab ["Father's brother." The name is apposite. He was Omri's alter ego in impiety] the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years.

The Pulpit Commentary
And Ahab the son of Omri [The repetition is noticeable. It is possible that the preceding verse has been revised by a chronologer. The LXX. text is much more condensed] did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him. [The same words are used of his father in 1Ki_16:25. It is not difficult to see in what way Ahab's rule was worse even than Omri's. The latter had gone beyond his predecessors in the matter of the calf worship. See note on 1Ki_16:25. But the calf worship, however it may have deteriorated in process of time—and it is the tendency of such systems to wax worse and worse—was nevertheless a cult, though a corrupt, and unauthorized, and illicit cultus, of the one true God. Under Ahab, however, positive idolatry was established and fostered the worship of foreign and shameful deities.]

The Pulpit Commentary
And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him [Heb. as marg. was it a light thing? Ewald explains this to mean "because it was." But it seems better to understand, "was it such a light thing… that he must needs also?" etc.] to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat [i.e; the sins of heresy and schism], that he took to wife Jezebel [= "Without cohabitation," "chaste," Gesenius, who compares it with Agnes. It is hardly the original of Isabella] the daughter of Ethbaal [= "With Baal." The Greek form Ἰθόβαλος or Εἰθώβαλος, found in Jos; Ant. 8.13.1; cf. Contr. Ap. 1.18, suggests as its original אִתּוֹ בַּעַל i.e; "with him is Baal." In either case the name well became him, for, according to Menander (apud Jos. l.c.), he was the priest of Astarte, who gained for himself the throne of the Zidonians by the assassination of Pheles. He is further said to have reigned thirty-two years, and to have lived sixty-eight years. He would therefore be thirty-six years old at the time of his accession. It does not appear that (Keil) he was the brother of Pheles. Pheles, however, was certainly a fratricide. (Rawlinson reminds us that Jezebel was great-aunt to Pygmalion and Dido.) This statement helps to explain Jezebel's fierce and sanguinary character, and at the same time accounts for her great devotion to the gods of her country, and for her determined efforts to establish their impure rites in her husband's kingdom. It was only what one would expect from the child of such a parent] king of the Zidonians [This alliance, it is extremely probable, was made for purely political reasons, as a counterpoise against the active, ambitious, and encroaching power which had arisen in Damascene Syria. The army which had already humbled Omri (ch. 20:34) could not fail to be a source of danger to Tyre], and went and served Baal [Heb. the Baal, i.e; the lord or master; cf. ὁ κύριος. The name appears among the Babylonians as Bel (Isa_46:1)—Greek βῆλος. Reference has already been made to the frequent recurrence of the word in different compound names, and in different parts of Palestine, as showing how widespread must have been his worship at an earlier age. We are also familiar with the word in the names Hannibal, Hasdrubal, etc. Baal was the supreme male god of the Canaanitish races, as Ashtoreth was their great female divinity. The former was regarded, not only as the possessor, but as the generator, of all], worshipped him

The Pulpit Commentary
And he reared up an altar for Baal in [Heb. omits in; cf. 1Ki_15:15, etc.] the house of Baal [A temple, we can hardly doubt, of considerable splendour. Jezebel would not be satisfied with less], which he had built in Samaria [According to 2Ki_3:2, 2Ki_10:27, he also raised a pillar (A.V. image) in the house of Baal. We learn from Dius and Menander that Hiram had raised a golden pillar to Baal in Tyre. Perhaps Ahab may have copied this. But it is probable that this image, which represented the generative powers of nature, was an essential part of the impure worship of Baal. The house and its contents alike were destroyed by Jehu (2Ki_10:27).

The Pulpit Commentary
And Ahab made a grove [Heb. an Asherah, i.e; image of Astarte, a female figure corresponding to the male effigy just described. See note on 1Ki_14:23]; and Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.

The Pulpit Commentary
In his days did Hiel the Bethelite [Observe the form בֵּית הָאֱלִי, and see note on 1Ki_2:8. It is noticeable that it was reserved for a man of Bethel to commit this act of impiety. It was to such results the worship of the calves contributed] build [i.e; rebuild, fortify, as in 1Ki_12:25; cf. 1Ki_9:17. It is clear from Jdg_3:13 and 2Sa_10:5 that it had not been entirely uninhabited. But the Arab village was now converted into a town with gates and bars] Jericho [We learn from Jos_18:21 that Jericho then belonged to Benjamin. It had evidently passed, however, at this date into the possession of Israel. It has been suggested that the transference took place in the reign of Baasha (Rawlinson). But it would seem that from the very first, parts of Benjamin (notably Bethel, Jos_18:13) belonged to the northern kingdom. See Ewald, "Hist. Israel," Jos_4:2, Jos_4:3. It is not quite clear whether the rebuilding of Jericho is mentioned as a proof of the daring impiety of that age and of the utter contempt with which the warnings of the law were treated, or as showing the ignorance and consequent disregard of law which prevailed. But, on the whole, it seems to be implied that Hiel knew of the threatening of Joshua, and treated it with defiance. It has been suggested that the rebuilding had really been instigated by Ahab, and for his own purposes, hoping thereby to "secure to himself the passage across the Jordan" (Keil), but the text affords but slight warrant for this conjecture]: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn [i.e; at the cost of, in the life of, Abiram], and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord [Jos_6:26], which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun. [The exact fulfilment of the prophecy is mentioned, as showing that even in those dark and troublous times God did not leave Himself without witness, and that law could never be violated with impunity.]