Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: November 7
Today is: Saturday, April 20th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of November: (Show All Months)
1Ki_16:23-29
This incident had the effect of removing the metropolis to a more central and desirable situation. Instead of rebuilding the consumed palace, Omri concluded to build not only a new palace, but a new town elsewhere. It is much to the credit of his judgment and taste, that he perceived the advantages which the hill of Samaria offered for the seat of a royal city. There is probably not a finer or more desirable situation in Palestine; and many travellers have expressed a conviction, that the spot was in most respects much preferable to that of Jerusalem, although the special objects contemplated in the Divine wisdom, rendered it expedient that the ecclesiastical metropolis of the Hebrew nation should be established there.
The verdant valley which breaks through the mountains westward between Ebal and Gerizim, spreads out often three or four miles into a broad circular basin, five or six miles in diameter, and bounded on every side by beautiful mountains. From the rich plains of this glorious amphitheatre of mountains, near to the western side, rises a very high and steep hill, affording a position of impregnable strength, and of almost unapproachable loveliness. About midway up the ascent, the hill is surrounded by a narrow terrace of level ground, like a belt, below which the roots of the hill spread off more gradually into the valleys. This was the hill which belonged to one Shemer, and which Omri bought of him for about seven hundred pounds. Here he established the royal seat of his kingdom, and had the good taste to call the new town not by his own name, but by that of the previous owner of the land, in the form of Shimron—better known to us in the softened shape of Samaria, which it assumed in the Greek language. We are not sure, however, that the credit of this peaceful course is due to the spontaneous generosity of Omri. Considering how reluctant the Hebrews were to alienate any lands belonging to them, and that the kings had no power to compel such alienation, it is quite possible that Shemer could only be induced to part with the hill on the condition that his name at least should stand there as a memorial that it once belonged to him. This, which occurs to us at the moment of writing, seems a very probable explanation of this remarkable fact, and consonant to the known feelings of the Hebrew landholders. Without it, there does not after all appear any adequate reason why Omri should give the name of Shemer to a place which had become his by the payment of what was no doubt regarded as an adequate, if not liberal compensation.
Of Omri it is said, that, in the eyes of the Lord, his conduct on the throne was worse than that of all the kings before him. The particulars are not in the history directly stated, further than that he carried out with vigor the fatal and ruinous policy of Jeroboam. But if we reflect upon the incidental facts and statements connected with his name and proceedings, we may be able to realize some clearer idea of his character and offences. If we refer to the prophecy of Micah (Mic_6:16), we find this remarkable verse—“For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab.” Taking this in connection with the character which the historian ascribes to him, we cannot doubt 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 of perpetuating, perhaps of increasing, their idolatrous practices. His indifference to the evils of idolatry at least, if not his desire to encourage it, as tending to render the separation between the two kingdoms more complete, is incidentally confirmed by the fact, that he brought about a marriage between Ahab, his son and heir, and Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal king of Tyre. Note: In the text he is called “king of the Zidonians:” but it appears from Josephus that he was also king of Tyre. The dominion included both cities, and the people, collectively are called “Zidonians” in Scripture. The territorial title in Scripture, is king of Tyre; the gentile title, “king of the Zidonians.” The Tyrians were devoted to the worship of Baal; and the reigning family seem to have carried an ardor of proselytism into this worship not often witnessed in the ancient idolatries. Knowing this, and knowing, as he must have known, that the feeble character of his son would be sure to bring him entirely under the control and influence of a strong-minded woman, especially as the kings of Israel confined themselves to one wife—we cannot acquit Omri of a culpable disregard of the duty of maintaining the interests of the true religion among his people, even if he had not the sagacity to foresee, nor the wickedness to design, the consequences which actually occurred from this connection.
The circumstance is historically interesting, as showing that it fell to the kings of Israel, and not to the descendants of David in Judah, to maintain the connection with Tyre which David and Solomon had established. The house of David, separated now by the kingdom of Israel from Tyre, had no longer any interest in maintaining a political connection with Tyre, though it did not forfeit or relinquish the accustomed advantages of finding there, in common with Israel, a mart for its surplus agricultural produce. This interesting fact we learn from Ezekiel (Eze_27:17), where, speaking of Tyre, the prophet says—“Judah and the land of Israel, they were thy merchants, and traded in thy markets wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm.”
With Israel the connection gradually became more close, closer than it even had been in the time of Solomon. There was not, indeed, the same interest in commercial enterprises. But even a stronger tie of common interest had at this time grown up between the nations. The active, ambitious, and encroaching power which had grown up in Damascene-Syria, could not have been regarded without uneasiness even by Tyre, which must have felt an interest in sustaining, by its alliance, the kings of Israel in possession of that portion of northern territory, which alone separated its own dominion from so dangerous a neighbor. That neighbor was about this time very active, and had made alarming advances towards Phoenicia, by wresting from Omri a considerable portion of the intervening territory. The natural tendency of this was to draw the two courts of Tyre and Israel more closely to each other for mutual support—the friendship of each being desirable to the other—Omri needing the alliance of Tyre to strengthen himself against the encroachments of Syria; and Tyre clearly perceiving that to strengthen Israel, was a measure of defence for itself. We thus behold an adequate reason—in such human policy as was now alone considered in Israel—for the closer connection which was by this marriage sought between the two kingdoms, and which, in its remoter consequences, might be expected to place on the throne of Israel a king equally related in blood to both the royal houses. It was, we know, the duty of the king of Israel to entrust the defence of his kingdom and the safety of his people to the Lord who had given that land to them, and who had promised to maintain them in it, so long as they walked worthy of the high vocation to which they had been called. But this was a pitch of duty to which these kings could not reach. It was too high for them. They could not attain unto it.