LITMIR.BIZ

      Zimri

       Table of Contents

      THE bold soldier, who, imitating Baasha, brought the second Israelite dynasty to an end by the assassination of its second monarch, proceeded to follow up his first success by a further imitation of his model, and was no sooner seated upon the throne than he “destroyed all the house of Baasha” (1 Kings xvi. 11), not sparing any, either of his kinsfolk, or of his close friends. This extreme severity may have rendered him unpopular. At any rate, when the army which was at Gibbethon heard of his insurrection and of the bloody deeds by which he had followed it up, they were so exasperated that they broke out into revolt, refused to acknowledge Zimri as their monarch, and invested Omri, who had been left at Gibbethon in sole command, with the sovereignty. Omri was prompt in action. He did not hesitate for a moment to accept the rank conferred upon him; and he at once took steps to dispossess his rival of the throne. By his orders, the army broke up from before Gibbethon, raised the siege, and marching with all speed to Tiizah, besieged the pretender in his capital (1 Kings xvi. 16, 17). Zimri seems to have had no troops with him on whom he could depend. He did not dare to venture a battle, but remained within the walls and simply stood on the defensive. The siege did not last many days. Within a very short time the defences were forced, the town entered, and the place, for all practical purposes, taken (ver. 18). Zimri, however, was of too stubborn a spirit to submit himself. He had worn the crown, albeit but for seven days (ver. 15), and scorned the idea of descending to a private station. Neither would he trust his future to the tender mercies of the conqueror. Brave, fierce, and obstinate to the last degree, he took a desperate resolve, and throwing himself into the royal palace, which was no doubt a sort of fortress within a fortress, he there stood at bay, and, when further resistance was hopeless, gave orders that the palace should be set on fire, and burnt it over his head. So far, he resembled the traditional Sardanapalus, with whom Ewald has compared him, but there are no grounds for concluding that the resemblance extended any further. We have not the slightest evidence that Zimri was “effeminate” or sunk in luxury. On the contrary, the conception that we naturally form of him from the Scriptural narrative is that of a bold, brave, and reckless desperado, who, thinking that he saw an opportunity for seizing the crown, made his venture, and finding that he had failed, preferred death by his own hand to the chances that might possibly be offered him through the clemency of his conqueror. It would appear that Zimri, even in his short reign of seven days, found occasion to give formal approval to the religious system of Jeroboam, since it is declared of him (1 Kings xvi. 18, 19) that “he died 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 that he did, to make Israel to sin.”