1. about Baasha. The Hebrew preposition could also mean “against” and even “to.” In any case, God’s address in the words of the prophecy is directed to Baasha, not to the prophet.

4. The dogs will eat Baasha’s dead in the town. For the force of this curse, which will recur in connection with Ahab and Jezebel, it should be kept in mind that in ancient Israel dogs were semiferal scavengers, not pets, and thus an apt match for “the fowl of the heavens,” which would be vultures and related aerial scavengers.

7. and because he had struck him down. This clause is a little cryptic. The initial “he” has to be Baasha, and so the person he struck down is Jeroboam. Since the destruction of the house of Jeroboam for the offense of idolatry was announced in a divinely authorized prophecy, one might have thought that there was no sin in Baasha’s killing Jeroboam and all the males of his house. Perhaps the writer means to suggest that ruthless murder, even if it is the enactment of deserved retribution, remains ruthless murder, especially if the motives of the killer are far from noble, as appears to be the case with Baasha. In all these reports, the writer manifestly struggles with putting forth a theological explanation for political upheavals. The history of the kingdom of Judah, whatever its vulnerabilities and cultic derelictions, reflects relative stability: Asa’s reign lasts forty years, while a series of kings in the rival kingdom of Israel are assassinated, with one regnal span as little as two years and another only seven days. One might infer that this instability goes back to the fact that the northern kingdom was established by a usurper, Jeroboam, in contrast to the Davidic dynasty in the south with its claim of divine election and the heroic figure of David as its iconic founder. The writer, however, feels constrained to explain that each murdered monarch perished because of his idolatrous ways.

9. commander of half the chariotry. The inevitable inference is that the royal chariotry was divided into two units, but the “half” here anticipates the hostile division between factions that will occur.

when he was in . . . a drunken stupor. Zimri shrewdly waits for this moment when Elah will be an easy target for attack.

who was appointed over the palace. More literally, “over the house.” Elah is attending a feast at the house of his court official.

11. blood-redeemer. “Blood” is merely implied. The “redeemer” is a relative who in the code of vendetta justice has the obligation to avenge a murdered kinsman. No avenger is left alive by Zimri.

13. for all the offenses of Baasha and the offenses of Elah his son. As noted above, a theological explanation is offered for what appears to be a self-interested act of assassination on the part of a person who wants to seize power.

16. And all Israel. Since Israel is now clearly split into two warring factions, this formulaic phrase must mean all the Israelites present in the military encampment at Gibethon.

made Omri, commander of the army, king. One sees the rapidity with which people rise to, or claim, the throne. What this amounts to in this case is a military coup: the troops, seeing that Zimri has assassinated Elah son of Baasha, who himself assassinated the second monarch of the northern kingdom, decide to proclaim their own commander king. Omri prevails over Zimri because he has a large part of the army behind him.

18. the palace, the king’s house. This is the first time in a narrative book that the term ʾarmon, “palace,” appears. The only other occurrence in a narrative text is in Chronicles, although it is frequently used in poetry. The usual narrative designation for “palace” is “the king’s house,” which here appears as an apposition or perhaps even as a gloss on ʾarmon.

21. half the people followed Tibni son of Ginath. No information is provided about Tibni, so it is unclear whether he is a follower of the dead Zimri or simply an opportunist who seeks to seize the kingship in a moment of political chaos.

22. And the people who followed Omri were stronger. Again, it appears that Omri prevails because he can muster more troops.

24. Shemer . . . Samaria. In Hebrew, the connection between the two names is more transparent because the Hebrew for Samaria is Shomron.

29. Ahab . . . was king over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years. Despite being the most flagrantly idolatrous of all the kings of Israel, he enjoys a relatively long reign, though he will come to an ignominious end.

31. Jezebel, daughter of Ithbaal king of the Sidonians. Her name and lineage proclaim her roots in the world of idolatry. She is a Phoenician (Sidon being a principal Phoenician city); her father’s name contains the pagan theophoric element “Baal”; her name means “Where is the prince.” The Masoretic Text polemically revocalizes the name of the Phoenician god Zebul as zebel, “dung.”

he went and served Baal and bowed down to him. Ahab, outdoing his royal predecessors in Judah and Israel, does not merely tolerate the idolatry of a foreign wife but becomes an active worshipper of Baal, even establishing a temple and altar dedicated to Baal (the next verse) in his capital city.

34. Hiel the Bethelite. He appears to be a royal official.

built up Jericho. Joshua, after the destruction of Jericho, had pronounced a curse (Joshua 6:26) on whoever might presume to rebuild Jericho. The violation of that solemn prohibition by one of Ahab’s people is of a piece with Ahab’s building a site of worship to a pagan god.

At the cost of Abiram his firstborn he laid its foundation. The probable meaning is that according to the terms of Joshua’s curse, his firstborn died when he laid the town’s foundations and his youngest when the gates were put up, marking the completion of the building. But the ghost of the ancient Near Eastern practice of a foundation sacrifice, in which a ruler sacrificed his firstborn to ensure the well-being of the city, flickers through this grim verse.