1 Kings 16:21-28

1 Kings 16:21-28

[21] Then were the people  of Israel  divided  into two parts:  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,  and did worse  than all that were before  [26] 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.  [27] Now the rest  of the acts  of Omri  which he did,  and his might  that he shewed,  are 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.

What does 1 Kings 16:21-28 Mean?

Contextual Meaning

Controversy over who should succeed to Israel"s throne raged for six years (885-880 B.C.) in Israel and threatened to consume the nation. Civil war followed Zimri"s death ( 1 Kings 16:21-22). Omri finally overpowered Tibni and probably executed him ( 1 Kings 16:22). One writer argued that Tibni did not necessarily die but simply passed off the scene. [1] The text seems to contradict this view.
For the last six years of his12-year reign (880-874 B.C.), Omri reigned from Samaria. This was the new capital he built on a centrally located and easily defended hilltop12miles west of Tirzah.
Omri was probably the most capable king Israel had enjoyed since the division of the kingdom. Assyrian records refer to Israel as "the land of Omri." [2] His influence extended far. He defeated the Moabites, the record of which constitutes one of the inscriptions on the famous Moabite Stone. He also made a treaty with Ethbaal, king of Tyre and Sidon (887-856 B.C.), that involved the marriage of his Song of Solomon , Ahab, and Ethbaal"s daughter, Jezebel. A granddaughter of Ethbaal, Dido, founded Carthage. [3] Still the writer of Kings did not mention these strengths, only the fact that he was the worst king Israel had had spiritually ( 1 Kings 16:25). He was very bad because he personally followed Jeroboam"s cult and caused the people to sin by allowing it to flourish in Israel.
". . . Omri, the builder of Samaria and a man of high international fame, is dismissed in eight verses ( 1 Kings 16:21-28). Why? Probably because he plays no particularly significant role in Israel"s decline. Again, characterization is based largely on its role in plot development, not on how it will or will not satisfy modern historians." [4]
The first period of antagonism between Israel and Judah ended about874 B.C. when Ahab made a treaty with King Jehoshaphat of Judah.
"Comparing the political histories of the two kingdoms [5], one is struck by the turmoil in Israel and the stability in Judah. There were three violent disruptions of government and a civil war in Israel. In Judah, by contrast, the succession was orderly and routine.
"The reasons for the differences are geographical, political, and theological. Judah was relatively isolated, cut off from the coastal plain by the Philistines and from Transjordan by the Dead Sea. Israel, on the other hand, was neighbor to Syria and Phoenicia, and the major thoroughfares of Palestine passed through its territory, linking Israel to the larger biblical world and making it vulnerable to political developments there. Ethnically and culturally Judah was comparatively homogeneous. Israel with its ten tribes and large Canaanite population ( Judges 3:1-5) had a history of tribal rivalries ( Judges 8:1-3; Judges 12:1-6) and had to contend with differing culture patterns. There were also basic differences in the understanding of kingship." [6]