16–22. Menahem king of Israel. He smites Tiphsah. Pul, king of Assyria, comes against Israel but is bought off. Death of Menahem (Not in Chronicles)

16. Menahem smote Tiphsah] Tiphsah is mentioned 1 Kings 4:24 as at one boundary of the dominion of Solomon. The place there intended is Thapsacus on the west side of the Euphrates, and is famous in classic history as the point at which Cyrus with his 10000 Greeks crossed that river. If that be the place here spoken of, we must understand Menahem to have carried his victorious arms from Samaria to the Euphrates. For a king who had put himself on the throne by force, at a time when Israel was thoroughly disorganised, this seems inconceivable. For this reason most people consider the place here mentioned to have been within the kingdom of Israel. Josephus (Ant. IX. 11. 1) calls it Thapsa, and speaks of it as a place which refused to admit the usurper. If this be so, it is mentioned nowhere else, and this seems to be by far the most natural explanation.

and the coasts [R.V. borders] thereof] That is, all the country round about this offending town.

from Tirzah] Menahem’s proceeding appears to have been this. After the slaughter of Shallum in Samaria, he returned to Tirzah, and, making that his headquarters, went forth thence to reduce the country to subjection.

they opened not to him] Josephus says they closed their gates and barred them against him. At a time when the king was changing every few months the citizens might naturally feel unwilling to admit a new claimant for the rule, till they were certain of what was happening elsewhere.

ript up] This savage conduct is mentioned (2 Kings 8:12) among the enormities which Hazael was likely to perpetrate, and in the prophets (Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13) it is specified as part of the sufferings of Samaria from her invaders, and as inflicted by the Ammonites on the women of Gilead. But nowhere except here do we find such cruelty exercised by an Israelite. It marks the time as one of great degradation and barbarity.

Verses 16-22. - REIGN OF MENAHEM, AND EXPEDITION OF PUL AGAINST SAMARIA. Two events only of Menahem's reign receive notice from the writer.

(1) His capture of Tiphsah, and severe treatment of the inhabitants (ver. 16).

(2) The invasion of his land by an Assyrian monarch, called "Pul" or "Phul," and his submission to that monarch's authority. Pul's retirement was bought by a large sum of money, which Menahem collected from his subjects (vers. 19, 20). Verse 16. - Then Menahem smote Tiphsah. The only town of this name known to history or geography is the famous city on the Euphrates (1 Kings 4:24), called by the Greeks Thapsacus. It has been thought that Menahem could not have pushed his conquests so far, and a second Tiphsah has been invented in the Israelite highland, between Tirzah and Samaria, of which there is no other notice anywhere. But "Tiphsah," which means "passage" or "fordway," is an unsuitable name for a city in such a situation. The view of Keil is clearly tenable - that Zachariah had intended to carry on his father's warlike policy, and had collected an army for a great Eastern expedition, which had its head-quarters at the royal city of Tirzah, and was under the command of Menahem. As the expedition was about to start, the news came that Shallum had murdered Zachariah and usurped the throne. Menahem upon this proceeded from Tirzah to Samaria, crushed Shallum, and, returning to his army, carried out without further delay the expedition already resolved upon. The Assyrian records show that, at the probable date of the expedition, Assyria was exceptionally weak, and in no condition to resist an attack, though a little later, under Tiglath-pileser, she recovered herself. And all that were therein, and the coasts thereof, from Tirzah. "From Tirzah" means "starting from Tir-zah," as in ver. 14. It is to be connected with "smote," not with "coasts." Because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it. Determined resistance on the part of a city summoned to surrender has always been regarded as justifying an extreme severity of treatment. It is not clear that Menahem transgressed the ordinary usages of war in what he did, however much he transgressed the laws of humanity. And all the women therein that were with child he ripped up (comp. 2 Kings 8:12, with the comment; and see also Isaiah 13:18; Hosea 10:14; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13). 2 Kings 15:16Reign of Shallum. - Shallum reigned only a full month (ירח־ימים, as in Deuteronomy 21:13; see at Genesis 29:14). Menahem the son of Gadi then made war upon him from Tirzah; and by him he was smitten and slain. Menahem must have been a general or the commander-in-chief, as Josephus affirms. As soon as he became king he smote Tiphsach, - i.e., Thapsacus on the Euphrates, which has long since entirely disappeared, probably to be sought for in the neighbourhood of the present Rakka, by the ford of el Hamman, the north-eastern border city of the Israelitish kingdom in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 5:4), which came into the possession of the kingdom of Israel again when the ancient boundaries were restored by Jeroboam II((2 Kings 14:25 and 2 Kings 14:28), but which had probably revolted again during the anarchy which arose after the death of Jeroboam, - "and all that were therein, and the territory thereof, from Tirzah; because they opened not (to him), therefore he smote it, and had them that were with child ripped up." מתּרצה does not mean that Menahem laid the land or district waste from Tirzah to Tiphsach, but is to be taken in connection with יכּה in this sense: he smote Tiphsach proceeding from Tirzah, etc. The position of this notice, namely, immediately after the account of the usurpation of the throne by Menahem and before the history of his reign, is analogous to that concerning Elath in the case of Uzziah (2 Kings 14:22), and, like the latter, is to be accounted for from the fact that the expedition of Menahem against Tiphsach formed the commencement of his reign, and, as we may infer from 2 Kings 15:19, became very eventful not only for his own reign, but also for the kingdom of Israel generally. The reason why he proceeded from Tirzah against Tiphsach, was no doubt that it was in Tirzah, the present Tallusa, which was only three hours to the east of Samaria (see at 1 Kings 14:17), that the army of which Menahem was commander was posted, so that he had probably gone to Samaria with only a small body of men to overthrow Shallum, the murderer of Zachariah and usurper of the throne, and to make himself king. It is possible that the army commanded by Menahem had already been collected in Tirzah to march against the city of Tiphsach, which had revolted from Israel when Shallum seized upon the throne by the murder of Zachariah; so that after Menahem had removed the usurper, he carried out at once the campaign already resolved upon, and having taken Tiphsach, punished it most cruelly for its revolt. On the cruel custom of ripping up the women with child, i.e., of cutting open their wombs, see 2 Kings 8:12; Amos 1:13, and Hosea 14:1. Tiphsach, Thapsacus, appears to have been a strong fortress; and from its situation on the western bank of the Euphrates, at the termination of the great trade-road from Egypt, Phoenicia, and Syria to Mesopotamia and the kingdoms of Inner Asia (Movers, Phniz. ii. 2, pp. 164,165; and Ritter, Erdkunde, x. pp. 1114-15), the possession of it was of great importance to the kingdom of Israel.

(Note: There is no foundation for the view propounded by Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 599), Simson (Hosea, pp. 20, 21), Thenius, and many others, that Tiphsach was a city between Tirzah and Samaria, which Menahem laid waste on his march from Tirzah to Samaria to dethrone Shallum; for it rests upon nothing more than the perfectly unwarrantable and ungrammatical combination of מתרצה with את־גבוליה, "its boundaries towards Tirzah" (Sims.), and upon the two worthless objections: (1) that the great distance of מתרצה from יכה precludes the rendering "going out from Tirzah;" and (2) that Menahem was not the man to be able to conquer Thapsacus on the Euphrates. But there is no foundation for the latter assertion, as we have no standard by which to estimate the strength and bravery of the Israelitish army commanded by Menahem. And the first objection falls to the ground with the correct rendering of מתרצה, viz., "proceeding from Tirzah," which is preferred even by Ewald and Thenius. With this rendering, the words by no means affirm that Menahem smote Tiphsach from Tirzah on the way to Samaria. This is merely an inference drawn from v. 13, according to which Menahem went from Tirzah to Samaria to overthrow Shallum. But this inference is open to the following objections: (1) that it is very improbable that there was a strong fortress between Tirzah and Samaria, which Menahem was obliged to take on his march before he could overthrow the usurper in the capital of the kingdom; and (2) that the name Tiphsach, trajectus, ford, is by no means a suitable one for a city situated on the mountains between Tirzah and Samaria, and therefore, in order to carry out the hypothesis in question, Thenius proposes to alter Tiphsach into Tappuach, without any critical warrant for so doing.)

2 Kings 15:16 Interlinear
2 Kings 15:16 Parallel Texts


2 Kings 15:16 NIV
2 Kings 15:16 NLT
2 Kings 15:16 ESV
2 Kings 15:16 NASB
2 Kings 15:16 KJV

2 Kings 15:16 Bible Apps
2 Kings 15:16 Parallel
2 Kings 15:16 Biblia Paralela
2 Kings 15:16 Chinese Bible
2 Kings 15:16 French Bible
2 Kings 15:16 German Bible

Bible Hub