In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign.
Parallel Translations
-
In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign.
-
In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign.
-
In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign.
Cross-references (7)
Passages linked to 2 Kings 15:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- 2 Kings 14:21 All the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah.
- 2 Kings 15:13 Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah, and he reigned for a month in Samaria.
- 2 Chronicles 26:1 All the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah.
- 2 Chronicles 26:3-4 Uzziah was sixteen years old when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jechiliah, of Jerusalem. He did that which was right in Yahweh’s eyes, according to all that his father Amaziah had done.
- 2 Kings 14:16-17 Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his place. Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years.
- 2 Kings 15:8 In the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah the son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months.
- 2 Kings 15:30-38 Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, attacked him, killed him, and reigned in his place, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah. Now the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jerusha the daughter of Zadok. He did that which was right in Yahweh’s eyes. He did according to all that his father Uzziah had done. However the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burned incense in the high places. He built the upper gate of Yahweh’s house. Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? In those days, Yahweh began to send Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah against Judah. Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in his father David’s city, and Ahaz his son reigned in his place.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (22 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Hebrew, in the twentieth year and seventh year.
Hebrew, in the twentieth year and seventh year.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 2Ki 15:1 In the twenty and seventh year of…
2Ki 15:1 In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign.
Ver. 1. Began Azariah … to reign,] i.e., To reign alone, after the death of his father, with whom he had reigned twelve or thirteen years before: or else there must be granted an interregnum, a vacancy in the royal seat of Judah, for so many years.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Quest. How can this be true, seeing Amaziah, the…
Quest. How can this be true, seeing Amaziah, the father of this Azariah, lived only till the fifteenth year of Jeroboam’s reign, 2Ki 14:2,23?
Answ. This might be either, first, Because Jeroboam was made king by and reigned with his father eleven or twelve years, and afterwards reigned alone; and so there is a twofold beginning of his kingdom; by the former this was his twenty-seventh year, and by the latter his fifteenth year. Or, secondly, Because there was an interreign for eleven or twelve years in the kingdom of Judah; either through the prevalency of that faction which cut off Amaziah the father, and kept the son out of his kingdom; or because Azariah was very young when his father was slain, and the people were not agreed to restore him to his right till his sixteenth year, 2Ki 14:21; 2Ch 26:1. And yet these eleven or twelve years of interreign, in which he was excluded from the exercise of his regal office, some think to be included in those fifty-two years which are here ascribed to Azariah’s reign, 2Ki 15:2, which may well be doubted. Azariah, called also Uzziah here, 2Ki 15:13,30. Began Azariah to reign; solely and fully to exercise his regal power.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain This is a short account of the reign of…
This is a short account of the reign of Azariah. 1. Most of it is general, and the same that has been given of others; he began young and reigned long (Kg2 15:2), did, for the most part, that which was right, Kg2 15:3 (it was happy for the kingdom that a good reign was a long one), only he had not zeal and courage enough to take away the high places, Kg2 15:4. 2. That which is peculiar, Kg2 15:5 (that God smote him with a leprosy) is more largely related, with the occasion of it, Ch2 26:16, etc., where we have also a fuller account of the glories of the former part of his reign, as well as of the disgraces of the latter part of it. He did that which was right, as Amaziah had done; like him, he began well, but failed before he finished. Here we are told, (1.) That he was a leper. The greatest of men are not only subject to the common calamities, but also to the common infirmities, of human nature; and, if they be guilty of any heinous sin, they lie as open as the meanest to the most grievous strokes of divine vengeance. (2.) God smote him with this leprosy, to chastise him for his presumptuous invasion of the priests' office. If great men be proud men, some way or other God will humble them, and make them know he is both above them and against them, for he resisteth the proud. (3.) That he was a leper to the day of his death. Though we have reason to think he repented and the sin was pardoned, yet, for warning to others, he was continued under this mark of God's displeasure as long as he lived, and perhaps it was for the good of his soul that he was so. (4.) That he dwelt in a separate house, as being made ceremonially unclean by the law, to the discipline of which, though a king, he must submit. He that presumptuously intruded into God's temple, and pretended to be a priest, was justly shut out from his own palace, and shut up as a prisoner or recluse, ever after. We suppose that his separate house was made as convenient and agreeable as might be. Some translate it a free house, where he had liberty to take his pleasure. However, it was a great mortification to one that had been so much a man of honour, and a man of business, as he had been, to be cut off from society and dwell always in a separate house: it would almost make life itself a burden, even to kings, though they have never any to converse with but their inferiors; the most contemplative men would soon be weary of it. (5.) That his son was his viceroy in the affairs both of his court (for he was over the house) and of his kingdom (for he was judging the people of the land); and it was both a comfort to him and a blessing to his kingdom that he had such a son to fill up his room.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain In the twenty amd seventh year of Jeroboam king…
In the twenty amd seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah the son on Amaziah king of Judah to reign. Now Amaziah lived only to the fifteenth year of Jeroboam, Kg2 14:2 in which year, and not in his twenty seventh, it might be thought Azariah his son began to reign. There are various ways taken to remove this difficulty, not to take notice of a corruption of numbers, "twenty seven for seventeen", which some insist on. Ben Gersom and Abarbinel are of opinion, that those twenty seven years of Jeroboam's reign are not to be understood of what were past, but of what were to come before the family of Jehu was extinct; and that he reigned twenty six years, and his son six months, which made twenty seven imperfect years. Others suppose that Jeroboam reigned with his father eleven or twelve years before his death; and, reckoning from the different periods of his reign, this was either the twenty seventh year, or the fifteenth or sixteenth: and others, that the reign of Azariah may be differently reckoned, either from the time his father fled to Lachish, where he might remain eleven or twelve years, or from his death, and so may be said to begin to reign either in the fifteenth or twenty seventh of Jeroboam; or there was an interregnum of eleven or twelve years after the death of his father, he being a minor of about four years of age, which was the fifteenth of Jeroboam, during which time the government was in the hands of the princes and great men of the nation; and it was not till Azariah was sixteen years of age, and when it was the twenty seventh of Jeroboam's reign, that the people agreed to make him king, see Kg2 14:21 and which seems to be the best way of accounting for it.
and which seems to be the best way of accounting for it.
Read full note →
2 Kings 15:2
kg2 15:2
kg2 15:2
kg2 15:2Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign,.... By the consent of the people and princes of Judah, Kg2 14:21.
and he reigned fifty and two years in Jerusalem: exclusive of the eleven or twelve years of his minority, from his father's death:
and his mother's name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem; of whom there is no further account any where.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain The reign of Azariah, ver. 1-7. Of Zachariah, ver.…
The reign of Azariah, ver. 1-7. Of Zachariah, ver. 8-12. Of Shallum, ver. 13-15. Of Menahem, ver. 16-22. Of Pekahiah, ver. 23-26. Of Pekah, ver. 27-31. Of Jotham, ver. 32-38.
To reign - Solely and fully to exercise his regal power.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Azariah begins to reign over Judah, and acts well,…
CHAPTER XV
Azariah begins to reign over Judah, and acts well, but does not
Read full note →
remove the high places, 1-4.
He becomes leprous, and dies, after having reigned fifty-two
years; and Jotham, his son, reigns in his stead, 5-7.
Zachariah reigns over Israel, and acts wickedly; and Shallum
conspires against him and slays him, after he had reigned six
months, 8-12.
Shallum reigns one month, and is slain by Menahem, 13-15.
Menahem's wicked and oppressive reign; he subsidizes the king
of Assyria, and dies, after having reigned ten years, 16-22.
Pekahiah, his son, reigns in his stead; does wickedly; Pekah,
one of his captains, conspires against and kills him, after he
had reigned two years, 23-26.
Pekah reigns in his stead, and acts wickedly, 27-28.
Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, carries into captivity the
inhabitants of many cities, 29.
Hoshea conspires against and slays Pekah, after he had reigned
twenty years; and reigns in his stead, 30, 31.
Jotham beans to reign over Judah; he reigns well; dies after a
reign of sixteen years, and is succeeded by his son Ahaz,
32-38.
NOTES ON CHAP. XV
Verse 1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam] Dr. Kennicott complains loudly here, because of "the corruption in the name of this king of Judah, who is expressed by four different names in this chapter: Ozriah, Oziah, Ozrihu, and Ozihu. Our oldest Hebrew MS. relieves us here by reading truly, in 2Kg 15:1; 2Kg 15:6-7, עזיהו Uzziah, where the printed text is differently corrupted. This reading is called true,
1. Because it is supported by the Syriac and Arabic versions in these three verses.
2. Because the printed text itself has it so in 2Kg 15:32; 2Kg 15:34 of this very chapter.
3. Because it is so expressed in the parallel place in Chronicles; and,
4. Because it is not αζαριας, Azariah, but οζιας, Oziah, (Uzziah,) in St. Matthew's genealogy."
There are insuperable difficulties in the chronology of this place. The marginal note says, "This is the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam's partnership in the kingdom with his father, who made him consort at his going to the Syrian wars. It is the sixteenth year of Jeroboam's monarchy." Dr. Lightfoot endeavours to reconcile this place with 2Kgs 14:16-17, thus: "At the death of Amaziah, his son and heir Uzziah was but four years old, for he was about sixteen in Jeroboam's twenty-seventh year; therefore, the throne must have been empty eleven years, and the government administered by protectors while Uzziah was in his minority." Learned men are not agreed concerning the mode of reconciling these differences; there is probably some mistake in the numbers. I must say to all the contending chronologers: -
Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites.
When such men disagree, I can't decide.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain 2Ki 15:1. In the twenty and seventh year of…
2Ki 15:1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam — After an interregnum of twelve years in the kingdom of Judah, either through the prevalency of the faction which cut off Amaziah the father, and kept the son out of his kingdom; or, rather, because Azariah was very young, it is thought only four years of age, when his father was slain, and the people were not agreed to restore him till he was in his sixteenth year: see on 2Ki 14:21. Began Azariah to reign — Solely and fully to exercise his regal power.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Twentieth. Houbigant endeavours to shew it should be, "the…
Twentieth. Houbigant endeavours to shew it should be, "the 14th;" Capellus says, the 17th; (Haydock) and others have suspected that the number is incorrectly printed. (Grotius, &c.) --- But this expedient ought only to be adopted when no other can give satisfaction; and this difficulty may be obviated by saying, that Jeroboam’s reign with his father continued six years, and that after he had held the septre nineteen years alone, Azarias commenced; (Calmet; Usher) or, that there was an interregnum of eleven years, which is not probable. (Capel) --- Azarias; otherwise called Ozias; (Challoner) and this was his real name. (Grotius) See chap. xiv. 21. (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain The Monarchy Under Azariah (uzziah) And Jotham In Judah,…
THIRD SECTION
The Monarchy Under Azariah (uzziah) And Jotham In Judah, And Under Zachariah And Others Until Hoshea, In Israel
Read full note →
(2 Kings 15-17)
A.—The reigns of Azariah and Jotham in Judah, and of Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, and Pekah in Israel
2Ki_15:1-38. (2 Chronicles 26, 27)
1In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel [,] began [omit began] Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign [became king]. 2Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign [became king], and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. 3And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according 4[like] to all that his father Amaziah had done; save that the high places were not removed; the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places. 5And the Lord smote [touched] the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house [house of sickness]1. And Jotham the king’s son was over the house, judging the people of the land. 6And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 7So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.
8In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria six months. 9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his fathers had done: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 10And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and smote him before the people2, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. 11And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. 12This was the word of the Lord which he spake unto Jehu, saying, Thy sons shall sit on the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation. And so it came to pass.
13Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign [became king] in the nine and thirtieth 14year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria. For [And] Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. 15And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. 16Then Menahem [starting from Tirzah] smote3 Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts [environs] thereof from Tirzah [omit from Tirzah]: because they opened not to him4, therefore he smote it; and all the women5 therein that were with child he ripped up.
17In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah king of Judah began [omit began] Menahem the son of Gadi to reign [became king] over Israel, and reigned ten years in Samaria. 18And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not all his days [omit all his days] from the sins of Jeroboam the son 19of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. And [In his days—omit And] Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. 20And Menahem exacted [imposed] the money of [upon] Israel, even of [upon—omit even of] all the mighty men of wealth, of [upon] each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land. 21And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 22And Menahem slept with his fathers; and Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead. 23In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign [became king] over Israel in Samaria, and reigned two years. 24And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 25But Pekah the son of Remaliah, a captain of his, conspired against him, and smote him in Samaria, in the palace [citadel] of the king’s house, [together] with Argob and Arieh, and with him [i.e. Pekah there were] fifty men of the Gileadites: and he killed him, and reigned in his room. 26And the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.
27In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign [became king] over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years. 28And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 29In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee,6 all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria. 30And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned [became king] in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah. 31And the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.
32In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began [omit began] Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign [became king]. 33Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign [became king], sand he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. 34And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: he did according [like] to all that his father Uzziah had done. 35Howbeit the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burned incense still in the high places. He built the higher [upper] gate of the house of the Lord. 36Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 37In those days the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah. 38And Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki_15:1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam. This chronological statement, although it appears in all the versions and in the massoretic text, is inconsistent with 2Ki_14:2; 2Ki_14:17; 2Ki_14:23. Amaziah the father of Uzziah ruled in all 29 years (2Ki_14:2), 14 years contemporaneously with Joash of Israel, and 15 years contemporaneously with his successor, Jeroboam II. (2Ki_14:17; 2Ki_14:23). Amaziah therefore died, and his son Uzziah succeeded him, in the 15th year of the reign of Jeroboam II., not in the 27th. In order to retain the number 27, it has been assumed that there was an interregnum of 11 or 12 years, although there is no mention of any such thing in the history. According to 2Ki_14:20-21, Uzziah succeeded immediately upon the death of his father, and moreover, if this supposition were to be adopted, we should have to alter all the other chronological statements in chaps. 14 and 15 Cf. the Excursus on the Chronology, below, after chap. 17. Evidently there has been an interchange of the numerical signs here, כז, 27, has been put for טו, 15, as Capellus and Grotius supposed, and as all the expositors, even including Keil and Von Gerlach, now assume. [Thenius, adopting this solution of the difficulty, calls attention to the testimony which it bears to the antiquity of the use of טו, instead of יה, to represent 15. The latter being the abbreviation for יהוה, was avoided, as is well known, when it should have occurred in the list of numerals to represent fifteen. If טו ever stood there, of course the inference is good, that, even at a very early time, the superstitious reverence for the name והוה had gone so far as to produce this change in the mode of writing the number. In fact, however, the change here from 27 to 15 is purely arbitrary. It must be defended by considerations drawn from the context. Any argument in its favor which is deduced from the greater or less resemblance of כז to טו is of little value. Other letters would have as great or greater resemblance. We ought to understand that, when we abandon the text as it stands, we make arbitrary changes, and we must justify them by critical grounds. We only deceive ourselves when we imagine that there is a resemblance between the numerals in the text and those we want to put there, and so persuade ourselves that we have found further support for our conjecture. That number must be put in the place of 27, which the best critical combinations require. The expositors almost all agree in reading 51 (53) for 41 as the duration of Jeroboam’s reign, and then in reading 15 for 27 here, because Zachariah succeeded in Uzziah’s 38th. See, however, the bracketed note on 2Ki_14:22, and the Appendix on the Chronology.—W. G. S.] Azariah, or Uzziah, was devoted to the worship of Jehovah, as Amaziah was at the commencement of his reign; like him, however, he still permitted the worship upon the high places. See notes on 2Ki_14:3-4. The chronicler says that he sought Jehovah so long as the prophet Zachariah lived (2Ch_26:5). [The chronicler does not charge him with idolatry at all. He accounts for his leprosy by telling how he trespassed upon the function of the priests. This he did from pride; nevertheless, it was rather too great zeal in the service of Jehovah than too little.—W. G. S.]
2Ki_15:5. And the Lord touched the king, &c. This did not take place until after Uzziah had accomplished what is narrated in 2Ch_26:6-15. The ground which is there given (2Ki_15:16) for the punishment with leprosy is, that he, being puffed up in consequence of his victories and of his powerful position, usurped priestly functions contrary to the law (Num_18:3; Num_18:7), and thereby violated the sanctuary. It is. hardly possible that he can have become a leper earlier than the last years of his long reign. His son Jotham, who ruled in his stead during his sickness, was only 25 years old when he became king in his own right by his father’s death (2Ki_15:33).—בֵּית הַחָֽפְשִׂית does not mean: sick-house, or pest-house, as it is now generally translated, for חפשׁ means to be loose, free, that is, separated (Lev_19:20). Neither does it mean house of freedom, or manumission (Hengstenberg, Keil), but house of separation, i. e., a house which stands in the open country, by itself, separate from others. Vulg: in domo libera seorsum. [See Grammatical note on the verse.] According to the Law (Lev_13:46), the lepers had to dwell apart (בדד), outside of the city or the camp (2Ki_7:3). Probably the house in which the leprous king lived was especially built for him.—And Jotham the king’s son was over the house, i.e., he filled one of the highest offices of the court (cf. 1Ki_4:6; 1Ki_18:3; 2Ki_18:18)—judging the people of the land (cf. 1Sa_8:6; 1Sa_8:20; 1Ki_3:9), i. e., Vicarius erat regis, qui a populo segregatus fungi regiam potestatem non poterat (Grotius). As was said above (Pt. II., pp. 88 and 89), this passage bears strongly against the supposition that there occurred, in the Hebrew history, joint-regencies which are not specifically mentioned. Uzziah remained king until his death; up to that event, Jotham was not co-regent, but only the representative of his father.—In the city of David, 2Ki_15:7. Instead of this the chronicler says (2Ch_26:23): “In the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper.” Bertheau remarks on this: “He was buried, according to this, near to the royal tombs (with his fathers), because they did not dare to put a king who had died of leprosy in the royal sepulchres, lest they should make them unclean.”
2Ki_15:8. In the thirty and eighth year, &c. In regard to the correctness of this statement, see note on 2Ki_14:23. The assassinations of kings which had been perpetrated before this, had taken place in secret, but this one was carried out in public, that is to say, boldly and without fear. The people saw it perpetrated without opposing it. The Sept. translate quite incorrectly: καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ἐν Κεβλαὰμ. Ewald considers קָבָל־עָם a proper name, because עָם has not the article [and because קָבָל does not “occur elsewhere in prose,” and because the Sept. take it as a proper name]. He believes it to be the name of the “third king during that month” [see Zec_11:8]. He translates: “And Kobolam slew him.” Not to speak of any other objection to this, we should then expect to be told whose son he was, as in the similar cases, 2Ki_15:14; 2Ki_15:25; 2Ki_15:30. [Stanley is the only scholar who has followed Ewald in this invention. The facts referred to in support of it are not by any means without weight, but the invention of another king is too ponderous a solution for them. Yet it is remarkable to notice that a form from the root קבל forms a part of certain Assyrian proper names. (See the list of Assyrian kings at the end of vol. I. of Lenormant’s Manual of the History of the East, with foot-note thereon.) However, to take קָבָל־עָם as a proper name in the place before us renders the passage awkward and unnatural.—W. G. S.] Thenius arbitrarily pronounces 2Ki_15:12 to be an addition by the “redactor.” It refers back very significantly to 2Ki_10:30. Zachariah was the fourth and last descendant of Jehu upon the throne of Israel.
2Ki_15:13. Shallum the son of Jabesh, &c. As the one month, during which Shallum reigned, falls in the thirty-ninth year of the reign of Uzziah, the six months, during which Zachariah was king (2Ki_15:8), must be placed in the last part of the 38th year of Uzziah’s reign; probably some of them fall even in the beginning of the 39th. According to Josephus, Shallum was a friend (φίλος) of Zachariah, and put him to death by taking advantage of this relation. When Menahem, ὁ στρατηγός (i.e., the commander-in-chief), who was then in Tirzah, heard this, he started up with his entire force, and marched to Samaria, καὶ σνμβαλὼν εἰς μάχην ἀναιρεῖ τὸν Σέλλουμον; after he had made himself king, ἐκεῖνεν εἰς θαψὰν παραγίνεται πόλιν. Tirzah lay in the neighborhood of Samaria. See above, note on 1Ki_14:17.—Then Menahem, 2Ki_15:16, i.e., after he had made himself master of the throne. The verse contains a further continuation of 2Ki_15:14, and tells more definitely what Menahem did, after he had killed Shallum, in order to become ruler of the country. This event does not belong to the reign of Menahem, for the story of that does not begin until the 17th verse, but it belongs to the incidents connected with his taking possession of the throne. It follows that Tiphsah is not the celebrated Thapsacus on the Euphrates (as it is in 1Ki_5:4; see note thereon), as has often been supposed, and as Keil [and Rawlinson] yet maintain. Menahem could not, at any time, have undertaken an expedition against this far distant city, which formed the utmost limit of the kingdom of Solomon; least of all could he have undertaken this just after ascending the throne. He had enough to do to establish his usurped authority on a firm basis. Most commentators, therefore, correctly judge that Tiphsah was a city near Tirzah, of which, as of so many others which are mentioned but once, nothing further is known. The name תִּפְסַח, trajectus, ford, “may, in view of its appellative force, have been applied to many towns which lay near to fords” (Winer). There is not sufficient reason for believing that “תפסח is an error for תַּפּוּחַ,” a town on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh, Jos_17:7-8 (Thenius).—מִתִּרְצָה cannot be translated otherwise than as in 2Ki_15:14. It does not therefore mean: “from Tirzah on,” i.e., to Tiphsah, but: “starting out from Tirzah,” and it is to be joined with יַכֶּה, not with גְּבוּלֶיהָ. The meaning of the passage is, therefore, this: When Menahem heard of the events which had happened in Samaria, he marched from Tirzah with his army, or a part of it, to Samaria, and there slew Shallum. Then he went back to Tirzah and marched out with his entire force to reduce the country to obedience to himself. In Tiphsah he met with obstinate resistance, but took the city by storm (Josephus: κατὰ κράτος), and chastised it and the surrounding territory in a horrible manner (Josephus: ὠμότητος ὑπερβολὴν οὐκαταλιπῶν οὐδὲ ἀγριότητος). He thereby frightened any others who might have been intending to resist, and so established himself on the throne. We have mention of a similar cruelty towards pregnant women in 2Ki_8:12; Hos_14:1 [E. V. xiii. 16]; Amo_1:13. If newspaper reports may be believed, a guerilla captain in Michoacan, Mexico, did the same thing in the year 1861.
2Ki_15:17. In the nine and thirtieth year, &c. On the duration of Menahem’s reign, see note on 2Ki_15:23. The closing words of 2Ki_15:18 : כָּל־יָמָיו are nowhere else added to the stereotyped formula which recurs in that verse, although they would hold just as true of any of the other kings of Israel as of Menahem. The Sept. join the words to the following verse, and translate: ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἀνέβη Φούλ. They therefore read בימיו, and Thenius and Keil, referring also to 2Ki_15:29, agree in regarding this as the original reading of the text. By this change בָּא, at the commencement of 2Ki_15:19, comes into a good connection of sense, and is not left abrupt; also there is no need for Hitzig’s emendation וּבָא.—Pul. (2Ki_15:19) is the first Assyrian king who is mentioned in the Old Testament. In fact this is the first reference to the Assyrians in the history of the Israelites. Since they had to come through Syria in order to reach Palestine, it follows that they must have reduced that country to subjection, and extended their power on this side of the Euphrates; i. e., Assyria must have commenced to take the position of a great world-monarchy. [Assyria had begun to take the position of a world-monarchy, but it must be understood that these expeditions were raids rather than complete conquests. Tribute was imposed and then the defeated nation was left intact. It refused the tribute as soon as it dared and then a new expedition was made against it. It was only after a long period of this vassal relationship that a conquered country was incorporated as a province of the empire. Accordingly very few were ever thus treated at all. The expression for incorporation used in the inscriptions is to “treat them like the Assyrians.”—W. G. S.] Hosea (2Ki_8:10) calls the king of Assyria “The king of princes.” [“King of kings” is a standing epithet of the Assyrian monarchs upon their monuments.] It has often been inferred from Hos_5:13; Hos_7:11; Hos_8:9 that Menahem invited the Assyrians to support him against other aspirants to the crown (Thenius), and that Pul came “to help the king to restore order” (Ewald). This notion is controverted by the expression בָּא עַל־הָאַרֶץ, which is used of a hostile coming and attack, Gen_34:25; Jdg_18:21; Isa_10:28; Job_2:11. In 1Ch_5:26, Pul’s coming is distinctly referred to as a hostile attack. Menahem induced the mighty enemy to withdraw from the country by a large sum of money, and then secured his alliance against internal and external foes. This last is what Hosea calls Israel’s going to Assyria. A thousand talents of silver are about two or two and a half million thalers [$1,440,000 or $1,800,000. The value of the talent is not surely and definitely known.] Menahem imposed this sum as a tax (יֹצֵא, he made the money go out) upon the “able ones” in Israel. גִבּוֹרֵי הַחַיִל are not here the mighty men of the army, but those who were strong in wealth (Job_20:15; Rth_2:1). Either there were no treasuries then in Israel, or, if there were any, they were empty. Menahem did not include the poor in this tax, in order that he might not excite discontent, and might not have to use force to collect it. Each man fifty shekels of silver. As a talent contained 3,000 shekels, there must have been 60,000 “mighty men of wealth.” The interpretation, that Menahem paid to Pul 50 shekels for every soldier in his army (Richter), is incorrect. It is often inferred, though incorrectly, from 1Ch_5:26, that Pul, on his departure, took away Reuben and Gad and the half of Manasseh. This deed is ascribed there, as here, to Tiglath Pileser (see Bertheau on that passage). The assertion of the. Calw. Bibel that “this entire occurrence was prophesied in Amo_7:1-3,” has little or no foundation.
2Ki_15:23. In the fiftieth year of Azariah, &c. As Menahem became king, according to 2Ki_15:17, in the 39th of Uzziah, and ruled 10 years, we expect here the 49th year. Keil assumes that “some months passed between the death of Menahem and the accession of Pekahiah; probably because of the disorder which prevailed at the time, and which made this accession difficult.” We prefer to suppose that Menahem became king in the last months of the 39th year of Uzziah, and reigned for a month or two into his 50th, i.e., a few months over ten years. [This changes the form of the difficulty, but does not do away with it at all. If the facts had been as is here supposed, the Jewish mode of reckoning would have made Menahem’s reign 11 or 12 years in duration. There is a discrepancy which we cannot explain. We must either change the text, or pass it over, taking 10 years as the length of the reign and neglecting the other statement. The attempted explanations are futile.—W. G. S.] On שָׁלִישׁ, 2Ki_15:25, see Exeg. note on 1Ki_9:22. It is not apposition to Remaliah (as Luther took it), but to Pekah. The citadel of the king’s house is not the harem (Ewald). It is the fortified part of the palace into which Pekahiah fled when the conspirators approached (cf. 1Ki_16:18). [So far as we know there was no part of the Oriental palaces which was, in any proper sense, fortified. The Assyrian palaces which have been exhumed consist of three independent yet connected buildings, a hall of audience or business, a servants’ house, and the harem. The last was the most strictly enclosed and carefully guarded, and was the strongest for defence. It was connected by an enclosed cloister with the first mentioned building. If we may judge from this of the arrangement of a Samaritan palace, the ארמון was the harem or included it.—W. G. S.] Josephus gives as the reason for his short reign of two years: τῇ τοῦ πατρός κατακολουθήσας ὠμότητι. Argob and Arieh were no doubt high officials, and influential friends of the king, whose opposition was to be feared, and whom Pekah, therefore, put to death together with (אֶת) the king. The following עִמּוֹ shows that they were not fellow-conspirators of Pekah (as many have supposed) who, with him, murdered the king. The fifty Gileadites probably belonged to the body-guard which was under the command of Pekah. The Gileadites, who were stout soldiers (1Ch_12:8; 1Ch_26:31; Jos_17:1), were employed in this department of the service.
2Ki_15:27. In the two and fiftieth year, &c. On the chronological data in 2Ki_15:27; 2Ki_15:30, see below, after chap. 17. The following may suffice here: Pekah is said (2Ki_15:27) to have reigned only 20 years. But, according to 2Ki_15:32, he reigned two years before Jotham. The latter reigned 16 years. According to 2Ki_17:1, Pekah’s successor, Hoshea, came to the throne in the 12th year of Jotham’s successor Ahaz. But 2 + 16 + 12 = 30. We are therefore compelled to conclude that the time from the accession of Pekah to that of Hoshea was thirty years. All the commentators agree in this. Then, either Pekah ruled 30 instead of 20 years, or he reigned 20 years and there was an interval of 10 years before the accession of his successor, Hoshea, during which there was no king in Israel, and, as those who adopt this view agree, there was anarchy. 2Ki_15:30, however, contradicts this latter hypothesis, for it is there said that Hoshea slew Pekah and reigned in his stead, not after an interval of 10 years, but as soon as he had killed him. The history does not hint at any period of strife or anarchy, although such a period must have presented incidents worth recording We do not hesitate, therefore, to assume here, as in 2Ki_15:1, that an error in copying has been made. The error here, in writing ב, 20, for ל, 30, is one which could take place more easily than the one we discovered there (Thenius). All the other chronological data are consistent with 30 in this place, as we shall see below, on chap. 17. [See the translator’s addition below at the end of this Exeg. section.]
2Ki_15:29. In the days of Pekah… came Tiglath Pileser. This Assyrian king was the successor of Pul. To which of the Assyrian dynasties he belonged, and whether he was the last of the dynasty of the Dercetadæ, are questions which do not interest us hero [?] (Keil on the passage). The signification of the name Tiglath-pileser (or, as the chronicler writes it, Tilgath-pilneser) is uncertain. According to Gesenius, Tiglath is equivalent to Diglath, the Tigris river, and pileser means lord: “Lord of the Tigris river.” According to Fürst, Tiglath means acer, fortis.—[This is the etymological meaning of Diglath, applied to the Tigris from its swiftness. See the dictionaries on חִדֶּקֶל.]—פִּל, arcere, and אֶסֶר, prince; together: “The chief, as mighty defender.” According to others, Diglath is the name for the goddess Derceto, or Atargatis. [The name is transcribed from the cuneiform by Lenormant: Tuklat-pal-ashir; by Smith: Tukulti-pal-zara; by Rawlinson: Tiglat-pal-zira. Rawlinson (Five Great Monarchies, II. 539) gives the etymology thus: Tiglat is worship, or adoration (Chald. תְּכַל, to trust in); pal is son (of this there is no doubt; it occurs in scores of names); zira is obscure; Sir. H. Rawlinson thinks that it means lord, “as Zirat certainly means lady.” However this last may be, Pal-zira, as a compound, was an epithet of the god Nin (= Hercules), and the king’s name would mean: “Worship to Hercules.” This is the only explanation yet offered which is anything more than a guess.—W. G. S.] On Ijon and Abel-beth-maachah, see notes on 1Ki_15:20. Janoah cannot be the town on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh, which is mentioned Jos_16:6 sq., for all the cities here mentioned were in the northern part of Palestine; it probably lay near those which have been mentioned. Kedesh was a free, levitical city in the tribe of Naphtali (Jos_19:37; Jos_20:7; Jos_21:32); on the western bank of the sea of Merom (Robinson, Palest. III. 355). On Hazor see note on 1Ki_9:15. Gilead with the article is not a city but the territory east of the Jordan which Jeroboam II. had recovered to Israel (2Ki_14:25). On Galilee, or Galilah, see note on 1Ki_9:11. All the land of Naphtali is an explanatory apposition to Galilah. The places are mentioned in the order in which they were conquered. The incident which is here narrated coincides with that in 2Ki_16:9 (see Maurer on that verse) and belongs to the last years of Pekah’s reign. Perhaps it gave occasion to Hosea’s conspiracy against him. The chronological statement in 2Ki_15:30 : in the twentieth year of Jotham, cannot be correct, for Jotham only reigned 16 years. See further, notes on chap. 17.
2Ki_15:32. In the second year of Pekah, &c. On the section 2Ki_15:32-38 see the parallel narrative in 2Ch_27:1-9, which contributes further information in regard to Jotham. To the words: He did like to all that his father Uzziah had done, the Chronicler adds: “howbeit he entered not into the temple of the Lord,” i.e., into the inner sanctuary, by which it is meant to say that he did not usurp priestly functions as Uzziah had done (2Ch_26:16). He did not abolish the worship on the heights (2Ki_15:4 and 2Ki_14:4). He built the upper gate, i.e., he restored it, he rebuilt it more splendidly, for it could not well be meant to assert that he built it at this time, and that there had been none before. הַעֶלְיוֹן is not the highest gate, nor the chief gate, but “the upper one,” perhaps because it was toward the north, towards that part of the temple rock, which, as compared with the south side, was higher. (Bertheau, on 2Ch_17:3). [“King Solomon’s palace was evidently at a lower level than the temple, and therefore (2Ch_27:3) king Jotham may still have built much upon the wall.” (Jerusalem Restored, p. 222).] According to Eze_40:38 sq., the sacrifices were slain at this gate. (Cf. Eze_9:2; Eze_8:5) This is probably the reason why Jotham made it especially beautiful. In Jer_20:2 it is called the gate of Benjamin. It must not be confused with the gate סוּר, 2Ki_11:6, for this was adjoining the palace (see Exeg. note on that ver.).—In those days (2Ki_15:37), i.e., towards the end of Jotham’s reign, Jehovah began to send against Judah the confederated Israelites and Syrians, i.e., he brought this chastisement upon Judah (Lev_26:22; Amo_8:11). Rezin; “the name of the founder of the dynasty (1Ki_11:23) [rather of the founder of the monarchy. There had been more than one dynasty.] appears again, slightly altered, in him who was to close it” (Thenius). The attacks were begun under Jotham; under his successor Ahaz (chap. 16) they first became threatening to the kingdom. As the Assyrians had already once penetrated into Palestine (2Ki_15:19), and as Ahaz once more called on them for aid against Rezin and Pekah (2Ki_16:7), we must suppose that the Syrians had, in the mean time, freed themselves once more from the Assyrian yoke (see notes on 2Ki_15:19). This had probably become possible for them because the Assyrians, on account of the revolt of the Medes and Babylonians, were prevented for a time from maintaining their authority. Tiglath Pileser reconquered Damascus (2Ki_16:9).
[Supplementary Note on the references to Assyrian history contained in chap. 15.—The references to contemporaneous history which occur in the text are of the highest value for the solution of the chronological difficulties, and for the elucidation of the history. Every such reference, therefore, requires our most careful attention. In the three years since the German edition of this volume was published most important contributions have been made to our knowledge, especially of Assyrian history. It is difficult to understand how the German author could lay aside all notice of the results which had been attained, even at that time, and refuse to take notice of them. The time has now certainly come when biblical scholars must give them attention, and a summary of the information we possess is given in a series of notes at the end of the Exegetical sections on the next few chapters. 7
Pul (2Ki_15:19) is the first king of Assyria who is mentioned in the Book of Kings, though we know from the monuments and inscriptions that Ahab and Jehu both came in contact with the Assyrian world-monarchy. (See notes 5 and 12 on the Chronological Table, and p. 114 of Part II.) No such king is mentioned in any inscription which has yet been found, and no such one is named in the Canon (See Appendix on the Chronology, § 4). Rawlinson (Five Great Monarchies, II., p. 385 sq.) thinks that the identification with certain known kings of Assyria, which has been attempted, is unsatisfactory, but does not dispose definitely of the question. In the Manual, Pul is not mentioned among the kings of Assyria though he is mentioned in the section on “Judsæa.” Oppert offers a solution of the difficulty. He gives credit to the story of the “first destruction of Nineveh” by the Chaldeans and Medes. According to his identification of the eclipse mentioned in the Canon (App. on the Chron., § 4.), the date of this would be 789. The accession of Tiglath Pileser II. in 747–5 is beyond dispute. The gap between 789 and 747 is filled by inserting Pul, a Chaldean (the name is not Assyrian in form), who is supposed to have remained in Assyria after the destruction of Nineveh as ruler of the country. This, such as it is, is the best conjecture to account for the king mentioned in 2Ki_15:19.
Tiglath Pileser II. (2Ki_15:29) was, according to Rawlinson, a usurper, according to Lenormant, a descendant of the ancient Assyrian dynasty. His reign dates from 745–4, but he may have been engaged for two or three years before that time in securing the throne. He reigned until 727. He is said in the text to have come into Syria and Samaria in the reign of Pekah. This is the first instance we find of that policy of deportation which the Assyrians and Babylonians afterwards practised so much. It was not generally, or certainly had not been up to this time, the policy of the Assyrians to destroy the nationality of the nations which they subdued. (See bracketed note on 2Ki_15:19.) They made expeditions against certain nations which they plundered and made tributary, but which they then left undisturbed so long as the tribute was paid. It was only after long vassalage, and repeated revolts and reconquests, that nations were incorporated as provinces in the Assyrian empire.
We are now promised from the Assyrian inscriptions a solution of one of the most perplexing discrepancies in the chronological statements of the text, and one which, if correct, at the same time supplies an omission in the historical narrative. It is said that Pekah reigned for 20 years (2Ki_15:27), but it is stated also that he came to the throne in the 52d of Azariah, who reigned for 52 years. In 2Ki_17:1, it is said that Hoshea (Pekah’s successor) came to the throne in the 12th of Ahaz. In the mean time Jotham reigned for 16 years. But 1 + 16 + 12 = 29 or 28 years interval for Pekah’s reign. This difficulty has never been solved; it has only been put aside by the assumption of an interregnum after the death of Pekah.
Oppert claims to have discovered the explanation in certain statements of the inscriptions. Lenormant adopts his results, but Rawlinson does not. “It is found that the reign of Pekah was interrupted for more than 7 years; that about 742 he was deposed by a second Menahem, probably a son of Pekahiah, who was placed on the throne by Tiglath Pileser II., king of Assyria, to whom he paid tribute as vassal. In 733 a new revolution dethroned him and restored Pekah. The latter, openly hostile to the Assyrians, whose vassal he had dethroned, made an alliance with Rezin, king of Damascus. These two princes, even in the time of Pekah’s first reign, had formed the design of overturning the throne of the House of David, and installing as king in Jerusalem a certain son of Tabeel (his own name is given in the inscription—Ashariah), a creature of their own (see 2Ki_15:37, where they seem to have formed the plan before Jotham’s death, and Isa_7:1-6), in order, probably, to oppose a more compact force to the Assyrians.” (Lenormant, I. 172; cf. also 389.) See note 15 on the Chron. Table. In the last column of the table the chronology of the events of this period is given according to this scheme. In the second alliance and revolt of Rezin and Pekah, in 733, they resumed the plan of attacking Judah. Ahaz called for Tiglath Pileser’s aid (see note after Exeg. on chap. 16), and that monarch marched into Damascus. He put Rezin to death, made Damascus a province, forced many of the chief inhabitants of Syria, northern, and trans-Jordanic Israel to emigrate into Armenia, and, though he left Pekah on the throne, reduced the kingdom of Israel to the district of Samaria. Pekah was present as a vassal at Tiglath Pileser’s court in Damascus in 730.
“Towards the end of 730, Muthon, king of Tyre, made an alliance with Pekah, king of Israel, and they both refused their tribute to the Assyrians. Tiglath Pileser did not consider this revolt of sufficient importance to require his own presence. He contented himself with sending an army into Palestine. On the approach of this force a conspiracy was formed in Samaria, headed by Hoshea, who, after killing Pekah, possessed himself of the crown. The Assyrian king confirmed him in this position, and Muthon, finding himself without an ally, attempted no resistance, and quickly submitted to pay his tribute.” (Lenormant, I. 391.)—For continuation see Supp. Note after the Exeg. section on chap. 16—W. G. S.]
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. This chapter contains rather a succinct review of several reigns than a detailed account of them. Although we have very little specific information in regard to the character and conduct of the kings mentioned, yet we have a statement about each one in respect to his attitude towards the fundamental law, or constitution, of Israel, that is, towards the covenant of Jehovah. This is always stated in a stereotyped formula. Hence we see that this point was the most important one, in the eyes of the author, in regard to any king, and that, in reviewing or estimating his reign, he laid most stress on this inquiry: How did he stand towards the covenant with Jehovah—the constitution of Israel? After the death of Jeroboam II. the decline of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes went on without interruption. From the reign of Zachariah on, the kingdom was in the progress of dissolution. The author therefore hastens more rapidly over the period of these kings, of whom three, indeed, only reigned for a very short time, and gives only those facts in regard to them which bear either upon the chief question mentioned above, or upon the approaching catastrophe. For everything beyond this he refers to the original authorities. It is true that he follows the same course in regard to Uzziah and Jotham, who belonged, according to the Chronicler, to the number of energetic and efficient rulers, but this is to be explained, first, by the fact that he treats the history of Judah with less detail from the time of the division of the kingdom on, and, secondly, by the character of the activity of these two kings, which was directed almost exclusively to the external and political prosperity of the nation, not to the restoration and complete realization of the theocracy, which was, for this author, the matter of chief interest. From what the Chronicler gives in addition, we cannot see that the religious and moral life took any new élan under their rule, or reached any more vigorous development. Both were, it is true, favorable to the worship of Jehovah, but they lacked decided zeal for it, for “the people still sacrificed and offered incense upon the heights; “i.e., they did nothing to abolish a form of worship which could so easily lead to error. The external prosperity which they produced and fostered caused carelessness, luxury, forgetfulness of God, and immorality of every kind, just as the same causes had produced these vices in Israel under Jeroboam II. This we see from the descriptions of the prophets (see Isaiah 2-5). A slow corruption and demoralization was making its way in Judah. It became evident, and bore fruit under the next king, Ahaz. His successor, Hezekiah, was the first to bring the Mosaic constitution into full and efficient working, hence the author narrates in detail the reign of this genuine theocratic king (cf. chaps. 18, 19, and 20).
[Ewald (Gesch. III. s. 634) thus describes the state of Judah under Uzziah: At this time the people turned their attention to money-getting “not so much, as had formerly been the case, in particular provinces and districts, but throughout the country, even in Judah, and not so much because a single king like Solomon favored commercial undertakings, as because the love of trade and gain, and the desire for the easy enjoyment of the greatest possible amount of wealth, had taken possession of all classes. All the scorn poured out by the prophets upon this haste to be rich, and all their rebukes of the tendency to cheat, which was one of the fruits of it, no longer availed to restore the ancient simplicity and contentment (Hos_12:8; Isa_2:7). The long and fortunate reign of Uzziah in Judah was very favorable to the growth of this love of gain and enjoyment. The quick interchange of money in the lower classes, and the fierce struggle for gain which gradually absorbed the entire people, stimulated the upper classes to similar attempts. Many were the complaints in Judah of the injustice of the judges, and of the oppression of the helpless (Amo_3:1; Amo_6:1; Hos_5:10; cf. also Psalms 12). There was a perverse and mocking disposition prevalent which led men to throw doubt upon everything and to raise objections to everything (Amo_6:3; Amo_9:10; Hos_4:4). It made them treat with harsh contempt the rebukes and exhortations of the best prophets, as we feel distinctly from the whole tone of the writings of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. It led them to desire to know heathen religions, and to introduce foreign divinities, even when the king himself held aloof from any such movement (Amo_2:4; Hos_4:15; Hos_6:11; Hos_12:1; Isa_2:8). It became more and more difficult to restrain these tendencies.”]
2. The only incident which is mentioned during the long reign of Uzziah is that God touched him (נגע), and that he was a leper until his death. It follows that this fact must have seemed to the author to be important before all others. Leprosy is not, for him, an accidental disease, but a divine judgment for guilt, as it is often described (Num_12:10; Deu_24:8-9; 2Sa_3:29; 2Ki_5:27). He does not tell more particularly what the sin of the king was, perhaps because it was baleful to the king alone and personally, and not to the whole people, like the sin of Jeroboam. He rests with a simple reference to the original documents. [The author of the Book of Kings regards Uzziah’s sickness as a visitation of Providence, just as he regards any other affliction, or any piece of good fortune, as something sent by God. He does not know of any guilt on the part of Uzziah for which this was a judgment. He simply mentions it as a matter of interest in itself, and in its connection with the fact, otherwise unparalleled in the history of the monarchy (unless Uzziah was made king while his father was a captive), that the king’s son exercised royal functions during his father’s life-time. He does not hint at any belief on his part that this was a proof that the king had been guilty of some sin, and it does not behoove us to draw any such inference.—W. G. S.] On the contrary, the Chronicler (2Ch_26:16 sq.) gives a detailed explanation of the cause of this visitation. According to him the king, who had become arrogant and puffed up by his prosperity and by the power he had attained, was no longer contented with the royal authority, but. sought, as an absolute ruler, to combine with it the highest priestly authority and functions, as the heathen kings did. The institution of the levitical priesthood, however, formed an essential part of the theocratic constitution, and the monarchy, which was, moreover, not established until much later, was not justified in attempting to absorb the priestly office and to overthrow its independence. Uzziah’s guilt, therefore, did not consist in a single illegal action, but in an assault upon the constitution. A principle was at stake, whose violation would have opened a cleft in the theocratic constitution. According to Josephus, Uzziah went into the sanctuary (holy-place), on a great feast-day, before the entire people, ἐνδὺς ἱερατικὴν στολήν, and offered incense there upon the golden altar. [Thenius calls attention to the remarkable detail in the account of this incident in Josephus. Josephus says that the earthquake which is mentioned in Amo_1:1, and Zec_14:5, as having occurred during Uzziah’s reign, took place at the moment of his quarrel with the priests; that it broke the roof of the temple, and that a ray of sun-light penetrated this, fell upon the head of the king, and produced the leprosy.] No former king had ventured to make such an assault upon the independent authority of the priesthood. Thenius says: “It is most probable that the powerful king desired to reassume the high-priest’s functions which had been executed by David and Solomon,” but this is decidedly false, for there is no hint anywhere that David and Solomon executed priestly functions in the holy place, or in the holy of holies; in fact, there is nothing in the whole Old Testament about any “chief-priestly authority of the kings.” (See notes on the passage 1Ki_9:25.) It was not, therefore, “any improper self-assertion on the part of the priests against the king” (Ewald). They did right to resist him. On the other hand, it was a usurpation on the part of the king to attempt any such violence upon the rights and functions of the priesthood which God had appointed. It was as much the right as it was the duty of the priests not to allow any such invasion of their prerogatives, and if they resisted the powerful and revered monarch, their courage deserves to be honored. Moreover, it was not they, but Jehovah, who smote the king with leprosy, and he was now compelled to abandon not only the priestly, but also the royal functions.
3. Witsius (Decaphyl. p. 320) says of the five kings who followed Zachariah: non tam reges fuere quam fures, latrones ac tyranni, augusto regum nomine indigni; qui tyrannidem male partam neque melius habitam fœde amistrunt. They all persevered in the sin of Jeroboam, which was, from the very commencement of the kingdom, the germ of its ruin. It is to them that the prophet’s words apply: “They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes and I knew it not” (Hos_8:4). Only one of them died a natural death and left the succession to his son, who, in his turn, could only retain the sceptre for a short time. Of the others, each one killed his predecessor in order to gain the crown, the authority of which was, in the mean time, shattered by these commotions. One of the most important factors in the history of this period is the conflict with the rising Assyrian monarchy, which came to assist the internal dissension in hurrying the nation to its downfall. Assyria was destined, in the purpose of God, to be the instrument for inflicting the long-threatened judgment. Invited, probably, by the internal weakness and distraction which commenced under Zachariah, Pul made the first invasion during the reign of Menahem; he could only be bribed to withdraw by a heavy tribute. The second Assyrian, Tiglath Pileser, came during Pekah’s reign; he could not be satisfied with money, but carried off a large portion of the inhabitants into captivity. The third, Shalmaneser, came during Hoshea’s reign, captured Samaria, and put an end to the kingdom forever (2Ki_17:6). [See the bracketed addition at the end of the Exegetical section, above.]
4. Not a single event of the reign of Zachariah, which, in fact, only lasted for six months, is mentioned. It is, however, stated expressly that with him the house of Jehu expired, according to the word of the prophet, 2Ki_10:30, and not by dying out, but in a violent and bloody way (Hos_1:4; Amo_7:9). This was also an actual confirmation of the declaration in the fundamental law of Israel, that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exo_20:5; Exo_34:7; Deu_5:9); that is, the sin against the first and chief commandment: “Thou shalt have none other Gods before me, and shalt not make to thyself any graven image” [the first commandment, according to the Lutheran division]. This commandment was the foundation of the covenant with Israel and the centre of the Israelitish nationality. The meaning is, therefore, that the “sin of Jeroboam” will not be permitted by God to run on beyond the third or fourth generation (cf. Menken, Schriften, v. s. 35). No dynasty in Israel which followed the sin of Jeroboam lasted for more than three or four generations. The house of Jeroboam, like that of Baesha and Menahem, perished with its first member; the house of Omri with its third, and the house of Jehu with its fourth. Zimri, Shallum, Pekah, and Hoshea died without successors, while the house of David remained without [long] interruption upon the throne. Although single kings in the line were guilty of apostasy, yet the sin was never continued until the second generation. [On the physical calamities which marked the last years of Jehu’s dynasty, and on the death of Zachariah, see Stanley, II. 400–403.]
5. Shallum, the king of a month, had no historical importance further than this, that he murdered and was murdered. Both these facts go to show, what the author desires to show, the state in which the kingdom then was. The history makes special mention of only two events in the history of Menahem, although he reigned for ten years, but these two events are characteristic of him and of the state of the kingdom. The first is his campaign against Tiphsah, the city which would not admit him, that is, would not recognize him as king. We see from this that he was not at all beloved, and that the land was already distracted by parties. The fact that he there perpetrated a great massacre, and did not even spare the infant in its mother’s womb, and so raged against his own countrymen after the manner of the most savage foreign foes, shows that he was a bloody tyrant, who desired from the outset to fill all his opponents with terror. Machiavelli’s words (De principe, 8) apply to him: “He who violently and without just right usurps a crown, must use cruelty, if cruelty becomes necessary, once for all, in order that he may not find it necessary to recommence the use of it daily.” The second fact mentioned in regard to this reign, one which had decisive influence upon the fate of the whole nation, is the contact with Assyria. Menahem pressed from his subjects a large sum of money, in order not only to bribe the Assyrian king to leave his territory, but also to purchase his support and assistance against his subjects themselves. He was the first king of Israel who, in order to hold his people in subjection and establish his own authority, purchased the assistance of a foreign power. “In order to establish his authority, at the price of the independence of his people, he founded his power upon the Assyrian support” (Duncker). It was against this course that the prophet Hosea pronounced his intense denunciations (2Ki_5:13; 2Ki_7:11; 2Ki_10:6). Instead of establishing the kingdom securely by these means, the king only hastened its ruin, for “it has always been thus in the history of the world; the protection of mighty nations has only been the first step towards oppression by them. Such protection has often been, as it was here for Israel, a punishment for those who sought it” (Calw. Bibel). Starke’s observation: “Menahem acts prudently here, not only in purchasing the departure of the invader with money, but also in laying the tribute as a tax upon his wealthy subjects,” entirely misses the historical connection. Ewald says: “Menahem seemed at first to be inspired with better principles, and it seemed as if the nation would take new life, under his rule, after three incapable rulers had been killed in a single month.” The fact of the three kings is asserted on the strength of Zec_11:4-8, where “three shepherds” are mentioned, but it falls at once as destitute of foundation. “Kobolam” is a pure fiction (see Exeget. on 2Ki_15:10). There is no hint in the text of any better principles at the beginning of Menahem’s reign; his conduct at Tiphsah rather bears testimony to the contrary. Also all the rest which Ewald brings together in regard to Menahem’s reign (Gesch. III. s. 599 sq. [3d Ed. s. 644]) rests upon passages in the prophets Zachariah, Isaiah, and Hosea, which do not contain any history. Winer justly characterizes it as: “a very ill-founded combination.”
6. The author does not mention a single event in the reign of Pekahiah. He only speaks of the end of it, which was significant in two respects. Menahem had bought at a heavy price the assistance of Assyria to confirm his royal authority, and to found a dynasty. As long as he lived he maintained himself on the throne. Hardly had his son succeeded him, however, before the vanity of the Assyrian support became apparent. In the second year it was all over with the new dynasty; it was not destined to last. Pekahiah was murdered, not by foreign foes, but by one of his familiar attendants with the help of a portion of the bodyguard which should have protected him. Such crimes can be perpetrated only where all the bonds of discipline and order, of fidelity and obedience, are loosed; hence the contemporary prophet Hosea says: “The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land,” &c. (Hos_4:1-2).
7. In regard to Pekah again, we are not informed of a single act of his. The author tells us, however, that, during his reign, Tiglath-pileser conquered a large portion of the country and carried off the inhabitants. This was the upshot of Pekah’s long reign. This was the great event of the time, in comparison with which all else that occurred was insignificant. The reference to this event is meant to show us that with Pekah’s reign comes the beginning of the end. The war which Pekah carried on against Judah in alliance with Rezin, contributed to the same general result, as is shown in chap. 16 It is at any rate a proof of unusual and irrepressible energy that Pekah, in spite of the internal decay and decline of the kingdom, was able to maintain himself so long upon the throne. He had energy and a soldier’s courage. The manner in which he attained to the throne shows that he was a violent, ambitious, and perfidious man, who cared not for God or divine things. Isaiah never calls him by his name, but only refers to him contemptuously as the “son of Remaliah” (Isa_7:4-5; Isa_7:9), probably because he was a man of vulgar origin. We can only guess what passages in the prophets apply especially to Pekah, since we have no historical data in the book before us upon which to attach them. The interpretation of Zec_11:16 sq.; 2Ki_13:7; cf. 2Ki_10:3, as applying to Pekah, which Ewald proposes so confidently (Propheten des A. B. I. s. 319 sq. Geschichte III. s. 602 [3d ed. s. 648]), is arbitrary and forced. Schmieder’s opinion (in Von Gerlach’s Bibelwerk) that Hos_7:4-7 refers to Pekah’s conspiracy against Pekahiah, although it is much more probable than Ewald’s notion mentioned above, is not by any means above serious doubts.
8. In the history of king Jotham of Judah no details are given aside from the regular data, except that he built the upper gate of the temple (on the north side of the outer court), and that, about the end of his reign, the attacks of Rezin and Pekah upon Judah began. The first of these has direct reference to the statement that the people still sacrificed on the high places, or, as the Chronicler expresses it, that “the people did yet corruptly” (2Ch_27:2). In order to put a stop to this “corruption,” to which the people was so much accustomed, Jotham “built” the gate, through which the sacrifices were brought in, anew; he desired thereby to induce the people to bring their sacrifices hither and not to the forbidden “high places.” This was at least an act inspired by loyalty to the theocracy. This king thereby confessed himself a servant of Jehovah, and the act is therefore especially mentioned. The second fact recorded had, as appears in chap. 16, more important consequences for Judah than anything else which happened during Jotham’s reign. Hence it deserved to be especially mentioned. It was not so much a chastisement for Jotham himself as for the people, who, under the prosperous reigns of Uzziah and Jotham, still continued to act “corruptly,” and inclined strongly to idolatry.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki_15:1-7. (Compare 2 Chronicles 16) King Uzziah. (a) His prosperous reign of 50 years. (b) His unfortunate end.—It is the greatest blessing for a nation, when a God-fearing king lives long to rule over it. Hence we pray for those in authority.
2Ki_15:4. How hard it is to abolish and do away with bad customs which have been handed down from generation to generation!
2Ki_15:5. Uzziah’s guilt and punishment. Starke: We should not be over-bold to undertake duties which do not devolve upon us. He who covets more than he has any right to have loses even what he has.—Let each one remain in his own calling to which he is called, and not invade the functions of another calling, even if he has strength and opportunity to do so. We cannot break over the bounds which God has set without incurring punishment.—Calw. Bibel: This is a warning example for those who behave as if they are capable of being all in all, whereas each one has his own gifts and his own calling. The might of kings does not reach into the sanctuary.—Think no man blessed until thou hast seen his end. The most fortunate, rich, and mighty king learned that “all flesh is grass,” and that “the world passeth away,” &c., 1Jn_2:17.—Pfaff. Bibel: God chastises often the great in this world with heavy misfortunes, in order to remind them of their own nothingness, and to humble them.—Separation from the world and from the current of affairs, and residence in solitude, may become a great blessing to him who recognizes in them a divine dispensation.—Cramer: Children must take care of their sick and weak and aged parents; must take their places as far as they can, and honor them in word and deed (Sir_3:9; Sir_3:14). [The history of king Uzziah presents warning and instructive lessons especially for a time of prosperity, when greed of gain, love of luxury and ease, respect for wealth, with all the attendant vices of prosperity, are the characteristics of society. See the bracketed addition to Hist. § 1.—W. G. S.]
2Ki_15:8-31. See Historical and Ethical. The last kings of the northern kingdom, or the monarchy in its decay, (a) The monarchy as the highest civil authority is ordained by God (Pro_8:16); it is God’s ordinance. If it does not consider itself as such it cannot endure. The last kings of Israel were not chosen and instituted by God, nor even by the people; they raised themselves by force through robbery and murder (Hos_8:4). They ruled, not by the grace of God, but by His wrath (Hos_13:11). The monarchy in Israel had lost its foothold on the divine ordinance. All its kings persevered in the sin of Jeroboam, therefore it had no endurance. No dynasty endured beyond the third or fourth generation, some only to the second, the last ones not even to the first; while the house of David, in Judah, did not perish in spite of storms. Where one dynasty overthrows another, there the true, divinely instituted monarchy comes to an end, and people and kingdom perish with it. (b) The monarchy is the “minister of God to them for good” (Rom_13:4); it is its calling to work out the welfare of the people. The last kings of Israel did not care for this, they only cared for power and dominion. Hence the people and the kingdom sank continually lower and lower. When kings only rule for their own sakes and not for the sake of their people, then they cease to be shepherds of their people (Jer_23:1-4), and the monarchy decays (Pro_20:28; Pro_25:5). Rulers who seized power by force and violence, have never been the deliverers and protectors of their people, but rather tyrants, who have led it down to its ruin. “In one demagogue,” says Luther, “there are hidden ten tyrants.”—As is the master, so is the servant; as is the head, so are the members. A succession of rulers, who attained to the throne by conspiracy, revolt, perjury, and murder, is the surest sign, not only that there is something rotten in the State, but also that there is nothing sound in the nation, from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head (Isa_1:6; Hos_4:1 sq.). The corruption in Israel extended, in the first place, from the head downwards. Jeroboam made Israel to sin. Then, however, it came from below upwards. The rebels and murderers who came to the throne came from the people. These kings were so hostile that the one killed the other, but they were of one accord in abandoning Jehovah, and persevering in the sin of Jeroboam. This was the cause of their ruin. When there is no fear of God in the heart, then the door is open to every sin and vice.
2Ki_15:8-12. The end of the house of Jehu is a clear testimony to the fulfilment of the threats of the divine law (Exo_20:5).—Before the people. It is a sign of general demoralization and corruption when sins and crimes can be perpetrated in public without causing horror and incurring condemnation.
2Ki_15:13-15. As a rule, one successful revolt is only the prelude to another. A throne which is founded on sin, cannot sustain the attacks of storms.—Würt. Summ.: We see in the case of Shallum, the murderer, who reigned but a month, how God, the just judge, exercises His retribution upon tyrants.
2Ki_15:14-22. In the eyes of a domineering man there is no greater crime than that any one should refuse obedience to his will. Love of command is the vice which makes a man inhuman, and more cruel than a wild animal.—It is the way of all tyrants, great and small, that they are cruel and fierce to those over whom they have authority, but tremble and cringe before any who are greater than themselves.—Menahem, instead of turning to God as his protector and helper (Psa_111:1-2), seeks help from the enemies of Israel. He buys this help with money forced from his subjects, but thereby prepares the ruin of his kingdom and people. Cf. Jer_17:5 and Hos_13:8 seq. A friendship which is bought with money will not last.
2Ki_15:23-26. A prince who is not faithful to his God cannot expect his servants to be faithful to him, but a king who, like David, is a man after God’s own heart, can say: “Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land,” &c. (Psa_101:6-7).—Osiander: Princes ought not to trust too implicitly to their servants—those whose duty it is to protect them may be the first to strike them.
2Ki_15:27-31. To the “son of Remaliah” the words apply: “He that exalteth himself shall be abased” (Mat_23:12).—Osiander: Tyrants generally rise very high that they may fall only so much the farther (Isa_26:4-6).
2Ki_15:32-38 (cf. 2 Chronicles 27).—Pfaff. Bibel: How beautiful it is to see children walk in the footsteps of their fathers when these were righteous. It is a glorious thing for a prince, instead of beautifying his palaces, and building ivory houses (Amo_3:15), to restore the temple gates, and so says to his people: “Enter into his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise” (Psa_100:4).
2Ki_15:37-38 Calw. Bibel: We have here a distinct proof that neither the good conduct of a prince by itself, nor the good conduct of the people by itself, can make a nation happy. Prince and people must together serve the Lord, if the land is to prosper.—Osiander: When God wishes to punish the sins of a nation, he is wont to remove pious princes by death before the judgment begins.
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki_15:5.—[חָפְשִׁית, for which 2Ch_26:21 has חָפְשׁוּת, is an abstract noun, “sickness.” Cf. Ew. § 165, a and b. בֵית הַהָפְשִׁית therefore means house of sickness, hospital. So Gesen., Thenius, Bunsen, and others. Hengstenberg and Keil understand it to mean, “house of freedom,” i.e., in which those dwell who are freed or released from human obligation. It is clear how artificial and forced such an explanation is. Bähr (see Exeg. on the verse) takes it as the English translators did, “separate,” but חפשׁ, although it means free, comes to that idea from another side. Its primary meaning is to be loosened, lax, and so free from bonds. Hence, by a connection of thought which is often found, it means, when applied to the body, having the natural conserving forces weakened and relaxed, i. e., to be weak, diseased, sick. There is here a certain sense of “free,” but not the one which is akin to separate. It is of the utmost importance, in following out the developments of the radical signification of a Hebrew root, not to depart from the true line of its development. The ramifications of different roots approach one another very often, at many points. It is all the more necessary not to pass over from one to the other. בית החפשׁית means “house of sickness,” a house belonging to the king, standing by itself, no doubt, as a matter of fact, and set apart as his residence under the circumstances of his disease.—W. G. S.]
[2]2Ki_15:10.—Before witnesses, or, in public. קָבָל [lengthened from קֳבָל, (which form Ges. gives in the H.-W.-B., and pronounces Quǒbâl) is to be pronounced Quobol (Böttcher, Ewald), and] is equivalent to the Chaldee קֳדָם, Dan_2:31; Dan_3:3,—Bähr.
[3]2Ki_15:16.—[Note the imperfect יַכֶּה after אז. Like the historical present it is used for graphic force, to follow dramatically the succession of events as they arose or came to pass. Ew. § 134, b.
[4]2Ki_15:16.—[פתח is impersonal, “because it was not opened,” or. “because no opening was made,” i.e. because the people did not open the gates for him.
[5]2Ki_15:16.—[The art. with the suff. is very rare. See, however, Lev_27:23; Jos_7:21; Jos_8:33,—Ew. § 290. d.e.
[6]2Ki_15:29.—[ הַגָּלִֽילָה—Elsewhere in the O. T. it is always called הַגָּלִיל. It is not regarded as a fem. and hence the ultima is not accented, though the plural has the form גְּלִילוֹת,—Ew. § 173, h, 2 and 3, note 1. Böttcher sees in it a peculiarity of the “Ephraimitic” dialect (§ 34). In form הגלילה is a perfect feminine, but, as the other form was Judaic, that is, classical, the punctuators did not accent this as a feminine. Lehrb. § 616, 3.—W. G. S.]
[7]Of works which are available to the English student for acquiring a more detailed acquaintance with history contemporaneous to that of the Israelitish monarchy, we may mention the following: a) Prof. Geo. Rawlinson’s Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient World. (4 Vols. Murray; London, 1864. 2d ed. 1871.) This work is based on the investigations and opinions of Sir H. Rawlinson. The first edition has been already to some extent superseded by later discoveries. b) Manual of Ancient History, by the same (Harpers, reprint, 1871). This is a small and convenient work. A large part of it is taken up with the history of Greece and Rome, and the history of the Oriental nations is so much epitomized that it is hardly available for any who are not already familiar with the history from other sources. It is not consistent in its chronology. It adopts the “short period” for Assyrian history, but has not ventured to depart from the received chronology for the Israelitish monarchy in order to bring them into accord. (See notes 5 and 15 on the Chronological Table at the end of this volume and the Appendix on the Chronology. Both these works are marked by a certain timidity and want of independence, c) Lenormant’s Manual of the Ancient History of the East; English edition edited by Chevallier (Asher: London, 2 vols.; Vol. I., 1869; Vol. II., 1870. This is the edition to which the references in this volume apply. Reprint by Lippincott). The French edition (Levy: Paris, 1869) is accompanied by an excellent historical atlas. This work is based chiefly upon the researches of Oppert, but contains also original investigations and independent judgment. It presents a very satisfactory statement of the present state of our knowledge, and is in style and method very available as a student’s manual. The caution needs to be borne in mind, however, in using it that assured facts and hypothetical conjecture are sometimes combined to produce a smooth narrative, and that the reader has little warning as to which is which. It is very conservative in its religious and theological attitude, and the English edition follows the E. V. sometimes even where it is certainly incorrect.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain REIGN OF AZARIAH, [UZZIAH,] KING OF JUDAH, 2Ki_15:1-7.
REIGN OF AZARIAH, [UZZIAH,] KING OF JUDAH, 2Ki_15:1-7.
1. The twenty and seventh year — This is probably an error in the text. For if Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, (2Ki_14:2,) and outlived Jeroboam’s father fifteen years, (2Ki_14:17,) he must have reigned fourteen years before Jeroboam attained the throne. Hence it appears that Azariah began… to reign in the fifteenth or sixteenth, instead of the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. Some, however, understand that these twenty-seven years of Jeroboam include twelve years of partnership with his father Joash, as expressed in the margin. Others suppose an interregnum of eleven years between Amaziah’s death and Azariah’s succession. But neither of these suppositions are satisfactory. Keil plausibly suggests that the error in the text originated with some ancient copyist, who mistook שׂו, (15,) for כז, (27.) The name Azariah is variously written Azariahu, (Hebrews, 2Ki_15:6-7;) Uzziah, (2Ki_15:13; 2Ki_15:30;) Uzziahu, (Hebrews, 2Ki_15:32.) Some of these changes, if not all, have doubtless arisen, as Gesenius supposes, from the error of copyists. Uzziah is the more common form.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Ch. 2Ki_15:1-7. Reign of Azariah king of Judah. He…
Ch. 2Ki_15:1-7. Reign of Azariah king of Judah. He is smitten with leprosy and lives apart. His death (2Ch_24:1-23)
1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam … began Azariah] This statement cannot be made to accord with the numbers given in the previous chapters. In 2Ki_14:1 it is said that Amaziah the father of Azariah began to reign in the second year of Joash king of Israel. Now Joash (2Ki_13:10) reigned sixteen years. Therefore he lived fourteen years contemporary with Amaziah. And the latter lived (2Ki_14:17) after Joash’s death fifteen years more. Hence his whole reign was twenty-nine years. Again in the fifteenth year of Amaziah, Jeroboam II. began to reign (2Ki_14:23). Hence Amaziah must have died and Azariah ascended the throne of Judah in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of Jeroboam, and not in the twenty-seventh as here stated. The explanation given in the margin of A.V. that the twenty-seven years are made up of the time when Jeroboam reigned alone, and several years in which he was consort with his father in the kingdom while Joash was engaged in the Syrian wars has nothing in Scripture to warrant it. Nor does it seem to have been the custom for a king to make his son partner in the sovereignty. If in any case such a plan had been resorted to, it would surely have been adopted when this king Azariah became a leper. But while it is expressly stated, in verse 5 below, that the king’s son Jotham was set over the household and judged the people of the land, there is no mention of a co-regency. The numbers in the verse before us present a difficulty which has not yet been solved.
Read full note →
Azariah] In verses 13, 30, 32 and 34 of this chapter called Uzziah. On this change cf. 2Ki_14:21 note.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1-7) THE REIGN OF AZARIAH (Uzziah), KING OF JUDAH.…
XV.
(1-7) THE REIGN OF AZARIAH (Uzziah), KING OF JUDAH. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 26)
Read full note →
(1) In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam.—An error of transcription for the fifteenth year (שץ 15, מ, 27). The error is clear from 2Ki_14:2; 2Ki_14:17; 2Ki_14:23. Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years (2Ki_14:2), fourteen concurrently with Joash, and fifteen with Jeroboam. It was, therefore, in the fifteenth of Jeroboam that Uzziah succeeded his father.
Azariah.—An Azriyâhu (.Az-ri-ya-a-u), king of Judah, is mentioned in two fragmentary inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser II. (B.C. 745-727). The most important statement runs: “19 districts of the city of Hamath (Hammatti) with the cities of their circuit, on the coast of the sea of the setting of the sun (i.e., the Mediterranean), which in their transgression had revolted to Azariah, to the border of Assyria I restored, my prefects my governors over them I appointed.” The Eponym list records a three years’ campaign of Tiglath Pileser against the Syrian state of Arpad in B.C. 742-740. Schrader supposes that Azariah and Hamath were concerned in this campaign. (This conflicts with the ordinary chronology, which fixes 758 B.C. as the year of Azariah’s death.)
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Vers. 1-38. REIGNS OF AZARIAH AND JOTHAM OVER JUDAH;…
Vers. 1-38. REIGNS OF AZARIAH AND JOTHAM OVER JUDAH; AND OF ZACHARIAH, SHALLUM, MENAHEM, PEKAHIAH, AND PEKAH OVER ISRAEL.
Vers. 1-7. THE REIGN OF AZARIAH OVER JUDAS. The writer now more and more compresses his narrative. Into a single chapter he crowds the events of seven reigns, covering the space of nearly seventy years. He is consequently compelled to omit several most important historical events, which are however, fortunately supplied by the writer of Chronicles. Azariah"s reign, which here occupies only seven verses, in Chronicles fills an entire chapter (twenty-three verses). (see 2Ch_26:1-23)
Read full note →
In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam King of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah King of Judah to reign. In 2Ki_14:23 it is distinctly stated that Jeroboam"s reign of forty-one years commenced in the fifteenth of Amaziah, who from that time lived only fifteen years. (2Ki_14:17) Either, therefore, Azariah must have begun to reign in the fifteenth year of Jeroboam, or there must have been an interregnum of twelve years between the death of Amaziah and the accession of Azariah. As this last hypothesis is pre-eluded by the narrative 2Ch_26:1 and 2Ki_14:20, 2Ki_14:21, we must correct the, twenty-seventh year" of this verse into the "fifteenth." If we do this, corresponding changes will have to be made in vers. 8, 13, 23, and 27.
Vers. 1-7. The leper-king a pattern and a warning.
I IN HIS EARLIER YEARS AZARIAH WAS A PATTERN KING. He "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord" (ver. 3); he "sought; (2Ch_26:5) he consorted with "Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of God;" and the result was that "God made him to prosper," "God helped him against the Philistines and the Arabians and the Mehunim", (2Ch_26:7) and he "was marvelously helped". (2Ch_26:15) So far, he is a pattern to us, the model of a good king, of one who is at once religiously minded and full of practical zeal and energy, who serves God without ceasing to serve man, "not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord". (Rom_12:11) But there is a reverse to the picture.
II IN HIS LATER YEARS AZARIAH WAS A WARNING TO KINGS AND GREAT MEN GENERALLY. Azariah, like his father, (2Ki_14:10) became "lifted up". (2Ch_26:16) He was not content with his kingly power and greatness, his secular dignity and majesty; he would be first everywhere, and invaded the priestly office. (2Ch_26:16-19) It had pleased God, in the theocratic polity, which he had set up, to draw the sharpest possible line between the sacerdotal order and the rest of the community. None were allowed to sacrifice, or to burn incense, or even to enter into the sanctuary, but "the priests the sons of Aaron the lineal descendants of the first and greatest of the high priests. Kings had their functions great and high and (in a certain sense) sacred functions to rule, to judge, to determine on peace or war; to lead armies, if it sopleased them; to direct the whole policy of the nation. But one thing they might not do, and that was to assume the duties, which had been assigned to the priests and Levites, who had been appointed God"s special ministers, to minister to him in the congregation. The exclusive right of the priests to their functions had been vindicated in a most terrible and awful way, when, soon after the institution of the Levitical priesthood, its honors were coveted by great men who did not belong to the privileged body. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with their company, were swallowed up, and "went down quick into hell," because they claimed to be as "holy" as the priests, (Num_16:3) and to offer incense before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, each from his own censer. The lesson taught by the miracle had been taken deeply to heart; and even such mighty monarchs as David and Solomon had carefully abstained from setting aside the privileges of the priests, or infringing upon them in any way. But Azariah despised the teaching of the past, and the example set him by his predecessors. See him as Josephus depicts him! On a great festival day, when the people had all come together in crowds to keep the feast, he robed himself in priestly garments, and entering into the sacred enclosure declared his intention of going within the temple building, and himself offering incense on the golden altar that was before the veil. In vain did the eighty priests in attendance, headed by the high priest, resist him, and exhort him to lay aside his design and retire; Azariah, hot with passion, refused, and threatened them with death if they made more ado. Then, Josephus declares, the ground suddenly rocked with an earthquake. (comp. Amo_1:1; Zec_14:5) and the roof of the temple gaped, and a sunbeam entering smote upon the head of the king, and at once leprosy spread over his face, and, overwhelmed with grief and shame, he departed ("Ant. Jud:," 9:10. Here Azariah is a warning to kings
(1) that they attempt not to minister the Word and sacraments; and
(2) that they in no way trench upon the rights of the priests or other ministers; and further, he is a warning to great men, or such as think themselves great, in less exalted positions, that they rest content with the performance of their own proper duties and do not invade the office of others; either
(1) by dictating to ministers what doctrine they shall preach; or
(2) by undue interference with schools, teachers, etc.; or
(3) by any other form of arrogant and overbearing conduct.
Punishment will assuredly fall upon those who so act. They will lose men"s respect and God"s approval. Failure will overtake them at the moment when they look to have their efforts crowned with complete success. Well for them if it be simply failure, and not an utter downfall. It often happens that he who covets more than he has any right or claim to have, loses that which was lawfully in his possession.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN. Vers. 1-7. Prosperity and its dangers.
The contrast between the opening and the close of Uzziah"s reign here so sharply set before us has few parallels in history. There is, indeed, no lack of monarchs who have risen to proud positions of authority and power, and then suddenly have fallen ignominiously from their pinnacle of pride. Memory at once recalls such names as Nebuchadnezzar, one day surveying with pride great Babylon that he had made, and the next dwelling among the beasts of the field, his body wet with the dew of heaven; or Napoleon, one day with all Europe at his feet, and but a few days after, like a caged lion, a baffled, helpless prisoner on the lonely island of St. Helena. But Uzziah"s early career was different from that of most monarchs who have fallen. To all appearance he promised well. He did right in the sight of the Lord. He did indeed continue that dangerous compromise of which Amaziah, his father, had been guilty, of permitting the high places to remain. But still he worshipped the true God. He sought God"s help and guidance. He honored God"s prophet. Moreover, he used his power well, not as a tyrant, but for the good of his people and for the prosperity and strengthening of the nation. And God prospered him in his efforts, as he will prosper all those who seek his help and blessing. (2Ch_26:5-15) But in an evil hour Uzziah (he is also called Azariah in this chapter) forgot that, though he was a king, he owed allegiance to a greater King. His prosperity turned his head. He forgot how much he owed to God. There was an old command of God, given after the rebellion of Korah and his sons, that none but the sons of Aaron the priestly family were to offer incense before the Lord. The obvious lesson was thatspecial fitness, special holiness, was required of those who would stand as representatives of the people before God. But Uzziah disregards both the letter and the spirit of the command. He poor weak mortal! dares to defy the living God, and enters into the sanctuary to burn incense. It is another case of compromise and its consequences. He had been so accustomed to the violation of God"s command in the matter of the high places, that now he thinks very little of this flagrant act of high-handed defiance. The priests remonstrated, but in vain. The proud king seizes the censer, and thrusts the priests aside with gestures of impatience and anger. But stay! What means that growing whiteness in his forehead? Ah! the symptoms are too well known. The hand of God is upon him. He is a leper. The censer falls from his hand. He can resist no longer. The priests thrust him forth from the holy place, and beyond the very precincts of the temple. Henceforth he is a king and yet an outcast, separated and secluded from the haunts and enjoyments of men. (see 2Ch_26:16-21)
I PROSPERITY AND ITS UPWARD PATH. For a long time the career of Uzziah was an upward path. His motto would seem to have been, as the motto of every young person, of every one of us, ought to be, "Excelsior!" There were three elements in his progress, three sources of his prosperity, three steps in his upward path. Along these three steps every one of us may fairly and with advantage follow Uzziah.
1. First of all, there was the fear of God. As a young man, unquestionably he had the fear of God before his eyes. We read of him in 2 Chronicles that "he sought the Lord." This implies that he honored God"s worship. He honored God"s house. He honored God"s Word, and sought guidance from the Divine Law. And what was the consequence? Just what the consequence of a God-fearing life will always be. "As long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper." It is so still. God keeps his word. He has never yet broken that promise, "Them that honor me I will honor." This was the starting-point in Uzziah"s prosperity, and, so long as he prospered, the secret of it was that he sought the Lord. Godliness is the best foundation of all true and lasting prosperity. Men like the late Samuel Morley, or the late Sir William McArthur, were not less successful because they were God-fearing men, and their business did not suffer because of the large amount of time and attention and money they devoted to religious work. To seek God"s guidance in everything, God"s blessing on every undertaking and every event of life that is the secret of true prosperity and success.
2. The second step in Uzziah"s prosperity was a good mans influence. We read in 2 Chronicles that "he sought the Lord in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of God." While the Word of God and our own conscience are to be our chief guides, there are many details and plans of daily life in which we shall be greatly the better for the experience and advice of others. To what kind of men do you go for your advice or guidance? Go by all means to those who have best experience of the business or subject in question. But if you are to choose between the advice of a practical Christian man and that of a practical worldly man, surely for a Christian the Christian man"s advice will carry most weight. Some one has well said, "You can never rise above the level of your companionship." Cultivate the society, seek the advice, look for the sympathy, of good men and good women.
3. The third step in Uzziah"s prosperity was his diligence in business. Uzziah was no idler. He realized the responsibility of life. He realized the responsibilities of his high position. So we find him improving the defenses of Jerusalem and building towers; improving also the condition of the country and digging wells, so useful to the traveler and the husbandman in the East; and, as it was a time of warfare, providing suitable equipments for his soldiers, and encouraging new inventions of military engines and weapons. No success is won without hard work. Whatsoever our hand findeth to do, we should do it with our might. By these three methods, then, Uzziah attained to great prosperity. "He was marvelously helped, till he was strong," are the words of the writer in 2 Chronicles. His name and fame became well known. If you want to attain to prosperity and success in your business and it is a desirable thing to see wealth, honorably earned and wisely spent, in the hands of Christian men then, with the strong arm of a vigorous resolution, cut these three steps in your upward path, and plant your feet firmly in them the fear of God, the influence of good men, and diligence in business. This is prosperity and its upward path. But we have reached the summit of Uzziah"s career. Hitherto all has been progress upward. Hitherto all has been bright as the path of the just. But the scene changes. The shadows gather. The footsteps that pointed upwards now are turned downwards. We must look now at the other side of the picture, at
II PROSPERITY AND ITS DOWNWARD PATH. We may gain prosperity by rightful means, but sometimes the difficulty is to keep our prosperity and our religion at the same time. Riches bring with them their own temptations and dangers. We see in Uzziah"s case the way to prosperity, which we should follow; we also see the dangers of prosperity, which we should avoid.
1. Prosperity leads to pride. We read of Uzziah in 2 Chronicles: "But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction." He became filled up with ideas of his own importance, and, instead of giving God the glory, reflected with complacency on all the great deeds that he had done, and all the benefits he had conferred upon the nation. When he was younger, and in the beginning of his career, he was humbler. He was very glad then to seek God"s guidance, to have the help and influence of Zechariah. But now he has got beyond all that. His whole character is completely changed.
For lowliness is young ambition"s ladder, Whereto the climber upward turns his face; But, when he once have gained the topmost round, He then unto the ladder turns his back, Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees By which he did ascend.
Pride of riches, pride of rank, how vain, how foolish they are! Riches may bring with them bodily comforts and enjoyments. But if health goes or troubles come, what comfort can they bring us? Can they give us any satisfaction or peace of mind? Can they banish care or sickness? Can they arrest the skinny hand of Death? Yet this is a common danger to those who are prosperous in worldly things to be puffed up with this empty and unreasonable pride. How much we all need, in any time of prosperity, to pray for humility! If our business prospers, let us ask God to keep us humble. If our Church prospers, let our sincere utterance ever be "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name be all the praise.
2. Prosperity leads to presumption. It is a step further than pride. Uzziah"s pride was bad enough, but when it led him to trample on the Law of God and to violate the sacredness of God"s holy place, his presumption was a bad example to others. Yet how many there are whose prosperity or whose wealth leads them to violate the laws of God! They think anything becomes them. They have become inflated with success, and the Law of God is a very small matter indeed in their eyes. Look at Claverhouse, inflated with his triumphs over the Scottish Covenanters, as with his dragoons he surrounded the cottage of John Brown of Priesthill. Touched by the prayers of John Brown, and the sight of his wife and helpless children gathered round him, the dragoons, with moistened eyes, refused to do their deadly work. Snatching a pistol from his belt, Claverhouse himself shot the good man through the head. Turning to the wife whom he had widowed, he said, "What do you think of your husband now?" "I always thought much of him, sir," replied the brave woman; "but never so much as I do this day. But how are you to answer for this morning"s work? To men," he replied, "I can be answerable, and as for God, I will take him in my own hands." Four years afterwards, in the Pass of Killiecrankie, Claverhouse died by an unknown hand. How many think as Claverhouse did! Because they have rank, or wealth, or power, therefore they imagine they can trample on God"s laws, or trample on morality. Napoleon the Great thought that when he divorced his innocent and faithful wife; and be afterwards testified that that false and guilty step was the beginning of his downfall and disgrace. Because, by their wealth or their position, men think they can defy public opinion, therefore they imagine they can also disregard the commands of God. But it is a great mistake. No prosperity, no riches, no position in life, can ever lift us above the Law of God.
In the corrupted currents of this world, Offences gilded hand may shove by justice, And oft "tis seen the wicked prize itself Buys out the law. But "tis not so above. There is no shuffling; there the action lies In his true nature; and we ourselves compelled, Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults, To give in evidence.
Ah! yes; that is the one message for rich and poor alike. "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Such, then, are the dangers which prosperity brings with it. There is a strong temptation to presumption and to pride. If we have much prosperity, then we need to be much in prayer. If riches increase, the responsibility to use them well increases also. If we look at worldly prosperity in relation to eternity, on the one hand it will seem very poor and insignificant. What are all the riches of this world compared with the "inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, that fadeth not away"? What are all the honors and privileges that worldly rank and prosperity bring with them, compared to the privilege of being one of God"s children? What is all the society of earth in comparison with the fellowship of Jesus? If you are making worldly prosperity the be-all and end-all of your existence, sacrificing for it, as many do, health and conscience and your spiritual life, pause and think! Is it worth it? Put the two worlds in the balance. To an unsaved soul, with a dark and hopeless eternity, earthly prosperity is only a mockery. But, on the other hand, worldly prosperity, won by Christian efforts, guided by a Christian heart, and used by a Christian hand, what a blessing it may become! Let Jesus be in your heart first. Let him abide there his love your motive power, his Word your guide and then there will be no danger in prosperity. C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS Vers. 1-38. Some lessons from the history of kings.
the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam," etc. The mighty Governor of the universe is represented as saying to the Jewish nation, "I gave thee a king in mine anger". (Hos_13:2) And truly, with a certain number of exceptions here and there through the ages, kings have proved malific scourges of the race. In this chapter there are mentioned no less than seven of those men who are called kings, but who, instead of having one grain of moral royalty in their souls, were contemptible serfs to the last degree, slaves to their passions of sensuality and greed. How many conventional kings in all ages are moral paupers and vassals of Satan! Glance for a moment at each of the kings before us. Here is Azariah, elsewhere called Uzziah, who was the son and successor of Amaziah. Here is Zachariah, the son and successor of Jeroboam II King of Israel, who reigned only six months, and then fell by the hand of Shallum. Here is Shallum, the fifteenth King of Israel, and the murderer of Zachariah, and who in his turn was murdered. Here is Menahem, the son of Gadi, who, having slain Shallum, reigned in his stead ten years a reign characterized by ruthless cruelty and tyrannic oppression. Here is Pekahiah, the son and successor of Menahem, who reigned two years over Israel, and then was assassinated by Pekah. Here is Pekah, who was a general of the Israelitish army, and assassinated King Pekahiah in his palace, and usurped the government, reigning, according to the existing text, twenty years. Here is Jotham, the son and successor of Uzziah, the eleventh King of Judah, who reigned for sixteen years. He, perhaps, was the least wicked of all these princes. The whole chapter reminds us of several things worth note.
I THE EXISTENCE OF RETRIBUTION IN THIS LIFE. Here we discover retribution in the leprosy of Azariah, and in the fate of the other kings. Of Azariah it is said, "The Lord smote the king, so that be was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house" Of all physical afflictions, perhaps that of leprosy is the most painful and revolting. It eats out the life of a man and dooms him to solitude. Disease strikes princes as well as paupers. Then see how the other wicked doers fared. The murderer is murdered, the slayer is slain; Shallum strikes down Zachariah; Menahem strikes down Shallum; and Pul, the King of Assyria, strikes Menahem with a terrible blow of humiliation and oppression; Pekah smites Pekahiah, and reigns twenty years when he is himself struck down by the blow of an assassin. Truly, even in this life," with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again." Though retribution here may not be complete and adequate, still it is at work everywhere in human society: It comes as a pledge and a prophecy of that realm beyond the grave, where every man shall be dealt with according to his works.
II THE MIGHTINESS OF RELIGIOUS ERROR. In this chapter there is the record of long periods and of great changes. Battles are fought, revolutions are effected, monarch succeeds monarch, and the years come and go; but one thing remains, that is, idolatry" The high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places" (vers. 4 and 34). Among the many evil tendencies of man there is none so mighty and influential as the pseudo-religious. Two facts will account for this.
1. The strength of the religious element in man. Burke and others of the wisest of the race have designated man as a religious animal. Religion with man is not a faculty, but the substratum in which all the faculties inhere; it is the core and the root of his nature. Hence, wherever man is found, if he has no home, he has a shrine; if he has no friend, he has a god.
2. The might of selfishness in man. What man needs most presents the greatest motives to human avarice and ambition. Hence the creation of bodies of priests to bolster up false religions, and derive position and wealth from them. Corruptio optimi pessima. It is most sad when men seek to" make a gain of godliness.
III THE CRAVEN-HEARTEDNESS OF ENSLAVED PEOPLES. Had the peoples of Judah and Israel been really men worthy of their humanity, would they have tolerated for a day such monsters as we have in this chapter? The existence of tyrants is the fault of the people. D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR Vers. 1-7. Another king beginning well, ending ill.
It is remarkable that three kings of Judah in succession exhibited this characteristic. They begin well, serve God for a time and prosper, yet stumble and fail at last. We have seen the fates of Joash and Amaziah; and Azariah furnishes a third example.
I AZARIAH"S REIGN.
1. His righteous rule. Azariah began to reign when only sixteen years of age; he reigned long fifty-two years, and during the greater part of his reign he signalized himself as a king that did right. Save that the high places were unremoved, the praise given to him is unqualified. He was an able, energetic ruler, much more so than either his father or grandfather. The virtue of his reign is traced in Chronicles to the influence of a good man, Zechariah, "who had understanding in the visions of God" (2Ch_26:5) another example of the power for good exercised by prophets in the political history of Judah (cf. 2Ch_24:2, 17 25:7)
2. His prosperity. On this the Book of Chronicles dilates. So long as Azariah (or Uzziah) sought the Lord, God made him to prosper. Everything he touched went well with him. It was long since Judah had so enlightened, so enterprising, and so able a king. He subjugated the Philistines, the Arabians of Gur-baal, and the Ammonites; he greatly strengthened the defenses of Jerusalem; he developed the resources of the country, and fostered agriculture; he brought the organization and equipment of the army to a high pitch of perfection. As it is stated, "His name spread far abroad; for he was marvelously helped, tin he was strong". (2Ch_26:15) It was as if God wished, by the abundance of his blessings, to teach Azariah and his people that assuredly their true advantage lay in his service. The previous reigns had given examples of this; but here was a new proof, still more undeniable than the preceding. Yet it was ineffectual to restrain from sin.
II AZARIAH"S LEPROSY.
1. The worm at the root. Azariah had scarcely reached the acme of his power, when, as in the case of his predecessors, declension began. Unwarned by the past, he allowed his heart to grow proud and haughty. He was head of the state; why should he not also be bead of the Church? His prophetic adviser was by this time removed, and he was left to the bent of his own will. In his arrogance, he insisted on going into the holy place of the temple to burn incense to the Lord. It was there his doom fell upon him. We are again reminded of the subtle temptations that lie in prosperity. When men wax fat, they kick; and their hearts are apt to be lifted up to their destruction. (Deu_8:11-14 Deu_32:15) Once let pride enter the heart, and deterioration is rapid. Its beginnings may be unseen, but it by-and-by reveals itself in. overt acts.
2. The stroke from heaven. It was Heaven"s laws that Azariah was defying, and it was from heaven the blow came which struck his pride low. While yet he stood at God"s altar, offering unhallowed incense, the leprous spot began to burn in his forehead, and in presence of the priests, whose protestations he despised, he felt himself a leper. The priests, in horror, thrust him out from the holy place. But it needed not their violence: "Yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him". (2Ch_26:20) How quickly God can bring the haughtiness of men low! He is a jealous God, and what touches the honor of his sanctuary and worship is of special concern to him. We are warned against will-worship in God"s service (Col_2:23; cf. Num_10:1, Num_10:2) The leprosy was but the outward token of the invisible sin of pride; yet how little shame the reality of sin occasions, as compared with that caused by an outward symbol of it like this! We may believe that in the end inward character will somehow stamp itself upon the outward appearance, and then men will see sin in its real loathsomeness.
3. Jotham as vicegerent. We are told that from this time Azariah took no more part in public business. He dwelt apart "in a several house a living evidence of the weakness of man in contending with God, of the dishonor which is the Nemesis of presumptuous sin, of the isolation-which they bring upon themselves who refuse the bounds which God"s Law prescribes. During this period, Jotham, the king"s son, acted as his deputy. It would appear, from comparison with the Israelitish reigns, and with Assyrian chronology, that Jotham"s sixteen regal years include this period when "he was over the house, judging the people of the land." Sin is a living death. Azariah was king in name, but morally, physically, legally, he was dead; for leprosy in the body is simply a process of decay and death. When, in fact, he did die, he was buried in Jerusalem, but in a "several" tomb, as during life he had dwelt in a "several" house. (2Ch_26:23) J.O.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain
AZARIAH-UZZIAH
B.C. 783 (?)- 737
Read full note →
JOTHAM
B.C. 737-735
2Ki_15:1-7; 2Ki_15:32-38
"This is vanity, and it is a sore sickness."
- Ecc_6:2.
BEFORE we watch the last "glimmerings and decays" of the Northern Kingdom, we must once more revert to the fortunes of the House of David. Judah partook of the better fortunes of Israel. She, too, enjoyed the respite caused by the crippling of the power of Syria, and the cessation from aggression of the Assyrian kings, who, for a century, were either unambitious monarchs like Assurdan, or were engaged in fighting on their own northern and eastern frontiers. Judah, too, like Israel, was happy in the long and wise governance of a faithful king.
This king was Azariah ("My strength is Jehovah"), the son of Amaziah. He is called Uzziah by the Chronicles, and in some verses of the brief references to his long reign in the Book of Kings. It is not certain that he was the eldest son of Amaziah; but he was so distinctly the ablest, that, at the age of sixteen, he was chosen king by "all the people." His official title to the world must have been Azariah, for in that form his name occurs in the Assyrian records. Uzziah seems to have been the more familiar title which he bore among his people. There seems to be an allusion to both names-Jehovah-his-helper, and Jehovah-his-strength-in the Chronicles: "God helped him, and made him to prosper; and his name spread far abroad, and he was marvelously helped, till he was strong."
The Book of Kings only devotes a few verses to him; but from the Chronicler we learn much more about his prosperous activity. His first achievement was to recover and fortify the port of Elath, on the Red Sea, {2Ch_26:2-15} and to reduce the Edomites to the position they had held in the earlier days of his fathers reign. This gave security to his commerce, and at once "his name spread far abroad, even to the entering in of Egypt."
He next subdued the Philistines; took Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod; dismantled their fortifications, filled them with Hebrew colonists, and "smote all Palestine with a rod."
He then chastised the roving Arabs of the Negeb or south country in Gur-Baal and Maon, and suppressed their plundering incursions.
His next achievement was to reduce the Ammonite Emirs to the position of tributaries, and to enforce from them rights of pasturage for the large flocks, not only in the low country (shephelah), but in the southern wilderness (midbar), and in the carmels or fertile grounds among the Trans-Jordanic hills.
Having thus subdued his enemies on all sides, he turned his attention to home affairs-built towers, strengthened the walls of Jerusalem at its most assailable points, provided catapults and other instruments of war, and rendered a permanent benefit to Jerusalem by irrigation and the storing of rain-water in tanks.
All these improvements so greatly increased his wealth and importance that he was able to renew Davids old force of heroes (Gibborim), and to increase their number from six hundred to two thousand six hundred, whom he carefully enrolled, equipped with armor, and trained in the use of engines of war. And he not only extended his boundaries southwards and eastwards, but appears to have been strong enough, after the death of Jeroboam II, to make an expedition northwards, and to have headed a Syrian coalition against Tiglath-Pileser III, in B.C. 738. He is mentioned in two notable fragments of the annals of the eighth year of this Assyrian king. He is there called Azrijahu, and both his forces and those of Hamath seem to have suffered a defeat.
It is distressing to find that a King so good and so great ended his days in overwhelming and irretrievable misfortune. The glorious reign had a ghastly conclusion. All that the historian tells us is that "the Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper, and dwelt in a several [i.e., a separate] house." The word rendered "a several house" may perhaps mean (as in the margin of the A.V) "a lazar house," like the Belt el Massakin or "house of the unfortunate," the hospital or abode of lepers, outside the walls of Jerusalem. The rendering is uncertain, but it is by no means impossible that the prevalence of the affliction had, even in those early days, created a retreat for those thus smitten, especially as they formed a numerous class. Obviously the king could no more fulfill his royal duties. A leper becomes a horrible object, and no one would have been more anxious than the unhappy Azariah himself to conceal his aspect from the eyes of his people. His son Jotham was set over the household; and though he is not called a regent or joint-king-for this institution does not seem to have existed among the ancient Hebrews-he acted as judge over the people of the land.
We are told that Isaiah wrote the annals of this kings reign, but we do not know whether it was from Isaiahs biography that the Chronicler took the story of the manner in which Uzziah was smitten with leprosy. The Chronicler says that his heart was puffed up with his successes and his prosperity, and that he was consequently led to thrust himself into the priests office by burning incense in the Temple. Solomon appears to have done the same without the least question of opposition; but now the times were changed, and Azariah, the high priest, and eighty of his colleagues went in a body to prevent Uzziah, to rebuke him, and to order him out of the Holy Place. The opposition kindled him into the fiercest anger, and at this moment of hot altercation the red spot of leprosy suddenly rose and burned upon his forehead. The priests looked with horror on the fatal sign; and the stricken king, himself horrified at this awful visitation of God, ceased to resist the priests, and rushed forth to relieve the Temple of his unclean presence, and to linger out the sad remnant of his days in the living death of that most dishonoring disease. Surely no man was ever smitten down from the summits of splendor to a lower abyss of unspeakable calamity! We can but trust that the misery only laid waste the few last years of his reign; for Jotham was twenty-five when he began to reign, and he must have been more than a mere boy when he was set to perform his fathers duties.
So the glory of Uzziah faded into dust and darkness. At the age of sixty-eight death came as the welcome release from his miseries, and "they buried him with his fathers in the City of David." The Levitically scrupulous Chronicler adds that he was not laid in the actual sepulcher of his fathers, but in a field of burial which belonged to them-"for they said, He is a leper." The general outline of his reign resembled that of his fathers. It began well; it fell by pride; it closed in misery.
The annals of his son Jotham were not eventful, and he died at the age of forty-one or earlier. He is said to have reigned sixteen years, but there are insuperable difficulties about the chronology of his reign, which can only be solved by hazardous conjectures. He was a good king, "howbeit the high places were not removed." The Chronicler speaks of him chiefly as a builder. He built or restored the northern gate of the Temple, and defended Judah with fortresses and towns. But the glory and strength of his fathers reign faded away under his rule. He did indeed suppress a revolt of the Ammonites, and exacted from them a heavy indemnity; but shortly afterwards the inaction of Assyria led to an alliance between Pekah, King of Israel, and Rezin, King of Damascus; and these kings harassed Jotham-perhaps because he refused to become a member of their coalition. The good king must also have been pained by the signs of moral degeneracy all around him in the customs of his own people. It was in the year that King Uzziah died that Isaiah saw his first vision, and he gives us a deplorable picture of contemporary laxity. Whatever the king may have been, the princes were no better than "rulers of Sodom," and the people were "people of Gomorrah." There was abundance of lip-worship, but little security; plentiful religionism, but no godliness. Superstition went hand in hand with formalism, and the scrupulosity of outward service was "made a substitute for righteousness and true holiness. This was the deadliest characteristic of this epoch, as we find it portrayed in the first chapter of Isaiah. The faithful city had become a harlot-but not in outward semblance. She "reflected heaven on her surface, and hid Gomorrah in her heart." Righteousness had dwelt in her-but now murderers; but the murderers wore phylacteries, and for a pretence made long prayers. It was this deep-seated hypocrisy, this pretence of religion without the reality, which called forth the loudest crashes of Isaiahs thunder. There is more hope for a country avowedly guilty and irreligious than for one which makes its scrupulous ceremonialism a cloak of maliciousness. And thus there lay at the heart of Isaiahs message that protest for bare morality, as constituting the end and the essence of religion, which we find in all the earliest and greatest prophets:-
"Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; Give ear unto the Law of our God, ye people Of Gomorrah! To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; And I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to see My face, who hath required this at your hands, to trample My courts? Bring no more vain oblations! Incense is an abomination unto Me: New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies-I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting Wash you! make you clean!" {Isa_1:10-17}
Of Jotham we hear nothing more. He died a natural death at an early age. If the years of his reign are counted from the time when his fathers affliction developed on him the responsibilities of office, it is probable that he did not long survive the illustrious leper, but was buried soon after him in the City of David his father.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain 2Ki_15:1.—Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah—This king is…
AZARIAH AND JOTHAM IN JUDAH, AND THE LAST SIX KINGS IN ISRAEL
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.—
Read full note →
2Ki_15:1.—Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah—This king is the Uzziah of 2 Chronicles 26. See there the more extended explanation of his leprosy. His act was the assumption of sacerdotal functions, which the Lord had restricted to the Levitical priesthood. He arrogated the office of Sovereign Pontiff, and God rebuked his arrogance and impiety. His heart was lifted up to his destruction (2Ch_26:16).
2Ki_15:5. Leper unto the day of his death—In his pride he aspired to be more than king, usurped the functions of God’s consecrated priests; would have seized “the holy crown” of the high priesthood, and added that to his own royal crown. Therefore God took away what was rightly his, and might have enjoyed till his death, debased him to a leper, and thus he died. So covetousness beggars, not ennobles men, and profanity ensures overthrow and contempt. Dwelt in a several house—An array of authorities regard בֵית הַחָפְשִׁית as meaning house of sickness, a hospital, from חָפַשׁ, which (without any Scriptural analogy in the use of the word) they render to be prostrate, weak, or sick. The natural meaning of the verb is to be loosed, set free, as (in Pual form) Lev_19:20, the release of a slave. A separate house, therefore, is the best rendering, and fulfils the law of Lev_13:46, that lepers should dwell apart, outside the camp or city. He was thus an outcast Even in burial (2Ki_15:7) he was only interred in the “field of the burial” of the kings (2Ch_26:23), not in the royal vaults, as being a leper. As the record stands, it marks God’s displeasure against presumption, for “the Lord smote the king;” and this Divine judgment denotes guilt. Even though his rushing to the altar might have been through “too much zeal rather than too little,” as is suggested, zeal must not violate law. To go beyond God’s direction is guilty as to fall behind. To “add to” what is written is denounced equally as to “take from” (Rev_22:18-19).
2Ki_15:37. The Lord began to send against Judah, &c.—This was the beginning of a confederacy by the Israelites with the Syrians against Judah, an alliance which shows, for the first time in the history of the divided kingdoms, that hostility had grown so intense between Israel and Judah that a foreign force was called in to make violent attack upon Judah’s borders. So, when such fellowship and affection as are hallowed and Divinely sanctioned are violated, evil confederacies are sure to be sought, and antagonism grows rife where unity and love should have ruled.—W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki_15:1-7; 2Ki_15:32-38
THE BIBLICAL ESTIMATE OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS
THE reigns of Azariah and Jotham, here referred to with such marked brevity, covered a most eventful period in the history of Judah and Israel, extending over nearly seventy years. The prophets Hosea, Amos, Joel, Jonah, and the sublime Isaiah, flourished during the period, and uttered their faithful protest against the national apostacy. Under the vigorous administration of Azariah and Jotham the kingdom of Judah was placed in a condition of great strength and prosperity. The success of Azariah in all departments seemed to correspond to his double name: Azariah, the strength of Jehovah, and Uzziah, the help of Jehovah. But prosperity, as in other periods and nations, was not without its baleful effects. With the increase of wealth, the nobles of Judah rose into importance, and their luxury, indolence, drunkenness, and oppressive exactions, were in a high degree scandalous: “They skinned the poor to the very quick, they picked their bones and ground them to powder.” The haughty ladies of Zion, decked in gayest apparel and covered with tinkling ornaments, forgot the modesty of their sex as they mincingly tripped along the streets. The licentiousness and irreligion of the times were interrupted and perhaps punished by two great calamities—the awful, dearthful visitation of locusts, who found a garden of Eden, and left it an empty, desolate wilderness; and the ever-memorable earthquake which shook the solid building of the Temple, and moved through the land like a mighty wave of the sea (vide Joe_2:1-20; Amo_4:6-9; Amo_1:1-2; Zec_14:5). The paragraph before us is a suggestive illustration of the Biblical estimate of national affairs.
I. It views the nation in its relation to the claims of Jehovah.
1. Commands obedience to the Divine purpose (2Ki_15:34). So far as Azariah and Jotham imitated the theocratic kings, they had the approbation of all lovers of Zion. The highest exercise of kingly power is to use it in furthering the ends of Divine government.
2. Is careful to record the monarch’s interest in the House of God (2Ki_15:33; 2Ki_15:35). The history emphasises the fact that the name of Jotham’s mother was “Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok,” who was probably a priest, and would thus show the close association of the king with the religious order. Special reference is also made to his building “the higher gate of the House of the Lord.” He the sought to induce the worshippers to bring their offerings to the temple of the true Jehovah, and forsake the forbidden “high places” where many were accustomed to sacrifice. The king does himself honour in all he does for the house of God.
3. Exposes the defects of religious duty (2Ki_15:4; 2Ki_15:35). Both Azariah and Jotham were favourable to the worship of Jehovah, but they showed no great zeal in it. Their government was not remarkable for any decided religious reform, or the quickening of new religious life. The false worship was allowed to exist side by side with the true. The word of God notices this, and while it commends what is good, it faithfully denounces the evil.
II. It takes note of any signal instance of Divine judgment. “And the Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper” (2Ki_15:5). The writer of Kings is silent as to the circumstances under which the king was thus afflicted. He simply records the fact, and regards it as a judgment of Jehovah. (For particulars read 2Ch_26:16-21). The Bible abounds in examples of Divine judgments on nations and individuals (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrha, Genesis 19; Egyptians, Exodus 9; Amalek, 1 Samuel 15; Cain, Genesis 4; Saul, 1 Samuel 28; Jezebel, 2 Kings 9; Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5). These examples might be multiplied indefinitely. “Every story,” says Feltham, “is a chronicle of this truth, and the whole world but the practice. We live not long enough to observe how the judgments of God walk their rounds in striking. Neither always are we able. Some of God’s corrections are in the night, and closeted. Every offence meets not with a market lash.”
Accuse not heaven’s delay; if loth to strike,
Its judgments, like the thunder-gathered storm,
Are but the greater.
Webster.
III. It dismisses with briefest notice the public acts of a great and victorious monarch (2Ki_15:6). The successful wars of the king, his elaborate defences, his public buildings, his encouragement of agriculture and commerce—all these are passed over with the brief formula—“the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did.” The sacred writer was more concerned to show how the king served God and exalted His worship than how he aggrandized himself and his people. External prosperity is delusive and evanescent: growth in piety is a permanent blessing to the nation.
IV. It reveals the combination of powers by which Jehovah would punish the nation for its sins (2Ki_15:37). When the Arctic voyager penetrates the northern seas, the first indication of his approach to the great ice region is a white streak of light seen in the stratum of air nearest the horizon called “the ice-blink.” He then observes loose pieces of ice floating on both sides of his vessel—the modest vanguard of the terrible army of ice-giants with which the stout-timbered ship has to do battle, and by which it is ultimately crushed and vanquished. So this alliance of Rezin and Pekah was the beginning of a series of attacks on Judah which ended in its utter overthrow. Thus Jehovah punished the nation for its idolatry. It is a mercy when the first signs of coming calamity are noted, and its severities avoided by timely repentance and reform. Jehovah can disconcert and scatter the most potent combinations of men, or use them as his instruments for avenging wrong.
LESSONS:—
1. The sacred writers are more careful to depict the moral condition than the external magnificence of the nation.
2. We learn that the great object of revelation is to give prominence, not to merely historical details, but to the development of the Divine purpose in redeeming the race.
3. The fidelity and impartiality of the sacred writings should command our reverence and belief.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki_15:1-7; 2Ki_15:32-38. At this time the people turned their attention to money-getting not so much, as had formerly been the case, in particular provinces and districts, but throughout the country, even in Judah; and not so much because a single king like Solomon favoured commercial undertakings, as because the love of trade and gain, and the desire for the easy enjoyment of the greatest possible amount of wealth, had taken possession of all classes. All the scorn poured out by the prophets upon this haste to be rich, and all the rebuke of their tendency to cheat, which was one of the fruits of it, no longer availed to restore the ancient simplicity and contentment (Hos_12:8; Isa_2:7). The long and fortunate reign of Uzziah in Judah was very favourable to the growth of this love of gain and enjoyment. Many were the complaints in Judah of the injustice of the judges and of the oppression of the helpless (Amo_3:1; Amo_6:1; Hos_5:10). There was a perverse and mocking disposition prevalent which led men to throw doubt upon everything, and to raise objections to everything (Amo_6:3; Amo_9:10; Hos_4:4). It made them treat with harsh contempt the rebukes and exhortations of the best prophets, as we feel distinctly from the tone of the writings of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. It led them to desire to know heathen religions and to introduce foreign divinities, even when the king himself held aloof from any such movement (Amo_2:4; Hos_4:15; Hos_6:11; Hos_12:1; Isa_2:8).—Ewald.
2Ki_15:3. Azariah not only maintained the worship of Jehovah, but was a good and religious monarch during the greater portions of his reign. See 2Ch_26:4-5. Becoming puffed up, however, with his military successes, he attempted to invade the high priest’s office, and forfeited God’s favour for this sin.—Speaker’s Comm.
2Ki_15:5. The Judgment of God.—I. Is never inflicted but on the gross violation of His law (comp. 2Ch_26:16-21). II. Knows no distinction of person or rank—“The Lord smote the king.” III. Involves terrible suffering—“He was a leper unto the day of his death.” IV. Isolates the sufferer from all he loved and prized—“He dwelt in a several house.”
—The only incident which is mentioned during the long reign of Uzziah is that God touched him, and that he was a leper until his death. It follows that this fact must have seemed to the author to be important before all others. Leprosy is not for him an accidental disease, but a Divine judgment for guilt, as it is often described (Num_12:10; Deu_24:8-9; 2Sa_3:29; 2Ki_5:27). He does not tell more particularly what the sin of the king was; perhaps it was hateful to the king alone, and personally, and not to the whole people, like the sin of Jeroboam.—Lange.
—We should not be over bold to undertake duties which do not devolve upon us. He who covets more than he has any right to have, loses even what he has. We cannot break over the bounds which God has set, without incurring punishment. Think no man blessed until thou hast seen his end.—Ibid.
2Ki_15:6. These acts were recorded by Isaiah, and have come down to us in Chronicles. They comprised, besides the re-establishment of Elath—
1. Successful wars (a) with the Philistines, which resulted in the capture and dismantling of Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod, and in the planting of a number of Jewish colonies in the Philistine country; (b) with the Arabians of Gur-baal; and (c) with the Mehunim or Maonites.
2. Extension of the power of Judah over Ammon.
3. Fortification of Jerusalem.
4. Extension of pasture and of agriculture towards the East and South, and protection of the agricultural and pastoral population by means of towers.
5. Reorganisation of the army. And
6. Construction of numerous engines for the attack and defence of towns (see 2Ch_26:6-15). Compare for the flourishing condition of Judea at this time, Isa_2:7-16.—Speaker’s Comm.
2Ki_15:7 compared with Isa_6:1-3. Isaiah’s vision of the majesty and glory of Jehovah.—Special work needs special training. This is a principle recognized in all God’s dealings. He prepares His servants for special work by a special course of training and discipline, and by special and striking displays of His glory. As Moses was prepared for his work by his Egyptian experience and by splendid revelations of Jehovah; as the disciples were prepared for their mission by the teachings of Christ and the extraordinary endowments of the Spirit, so Isaiah was qualified for his work by the teachings of this glorious vision. His commission as a prophet was renewed, his faith confirmed, his religious fervour intensified, and his soul braced up for the important duties before him. I. This vision was a revelation of the universal government of Jehovah. “In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne.” The throne of God is the centre and source of universal government, including in its conception the two leading ideas of dominion and power.
1. Dominion. This extends over the whole universe of existing things—great and small—reaching and acting upon the most distant with the same ease and comprehensiveness as is shown in the management of those nearest the central throne.
2. Power. It is by the exercise of this attribute that Jehovah makes His dominion felt, and accomplishes His gracious and righteous purposes. That power is infinite and absolute, but its exercise is ever limited by His will, and controlled and regulated by His wisdom: it is constantly operating for our good, both in the material and spiritual realms. II. This vision was a revelation of the adorable holiness of Jehovah. “And one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.” The holiness of God is the beauty and glory of all other perfections. If it were possible for one attribute to have any excellency over another, that preeminency must be given to His holiness. Power is the hand or arm of God, Omniscience His eye, Mercy His heart, Eternity His duration, but holiness is His beauty. He is called “the Holy One,” the “Holy One of Israel,” and is said to be “glorious in holiness.” This glimpse of the surpassing holiness of Jehovah overwhelmed the prophet. He was smitten with the sense of his own vileness, and cried, “Woe is me, because I am a man of unclean lips!” It was a picture of conscious sin, cowed and shrinking before the presence of infinite purity. ’Tis ever so. Nothing humbles us more than the contrast of our own insignificence and sin with the majesty and ineffable perfections of God. III. This vision was a revelation of the higher order of beings engaged in the service and worship of Jehovah.
1. Observe their exalted station. “Above, or around the throne stood the seraphim.” This indicates their superiority over the heavenly hosts. Jehovah has legions of angels, varying in ability and rank; highest in the innumerable grades stand the seraphim.
2. Observe their extraordinary endowments. “Each one had six rings; with twain he covered his face”—a token of deep reverence and adoring awe, as though unable to bear the insufferable blaze of the Divine glory, or to fathom the incomprehensible mysteries of the Divine nature. “With twain he covered his feet”—a token of profound respect and humility, as if he would fain hide the humblest instrumentalities by which he might accomplish the Divine purposes. “With twain he did fly”—an emblem of the willingness and speed with which he would execute the Divine commands.
3. Observe their delightful employment. “One cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.” They chant in responsive strains the praises of Jehovah. What a lofty example of worship and service have we here! Burning with holy and unquenchable love, we may well strive to emulate the adoration of the glowing seraphim.
The church of to-day has special work to do, and to do it successfully needs special help and instruction. The age in which we live demands the exercise of every kind of power the church can legitimately wield. To meet the multiform aspects of the active thought of our time, to sympathise with all that is true, and denounce wisely and boldly all that is false and misleading; to soothe the world’s deep sorrow and lessen its distracting woes; to conduct the troubled heart of humanity to the satisfying rest for which it daily groans—this is a work demanding superhuman aid. We never feel so weak as when we come to grapple with the difficulties of earnest Christian work. It is then we touch the furthermost point of human limitation, and, conscious of our powerlessness, we cry out, like one of old—“I beseech thee, show me thy glory.” And as the vision dawns and pours its splendours on our stricken spirits, we feel the throb of a new ecstatic life, and, with the glow of an intenser love, and sustained by an invincible resolution, we press on to grander achievements!
—We have been hearing of a vision. Does that word sound as if it belonged to times which we have left far behind, as if it pointed to something fantastical and incredible? Oh! if there were no such visions, what an utterly dark and weary and unintelligible place this world would be! How completely we should be given up to the emptiest phantoms, to the base worship of phantoms! What mere shows and mockeries would the state and ceremonial of kings, the debates of legislators, the yearnings and struggles of people become! How truly would the earth be what it seemed to the worn-out misanthropical libertine—“A stage, and all the men and women merely players.” A thousand times we have been all tempted to think it so. The same painted scenery, the same shifting pageants, the same unreal words spoken through different masks by counterfeit voices, the same plots which seem never to be unravelled, what does it all mean? How do men endure the ceaseless change, the dull monotony? Satirists and keen observers of the world’s follies have asked this question again and again. The best man may often doubt what he should reply. But he hears a voice saying to him, “Try to be true to thyself; resist the powers which are tempting thee to go through thy acts, common or sacred, as if thou wert a mere machine; hold fast thy faith that God is, and is working when thou seest least of His working, and when the world seems most to be going on without Him; assure thyself that there is an order in the universe when all its movements seem most disorderly. So will the things around thee by degrees acquire a meaning and a purpose. And when Divine love has kindled thy flagging and perishing thoughts and hopes, thou mayest learn that God can use thee to bearing the tidings of His love and righteousness to a sense-bound land that is bowing to silver and gold, to horses and chariots. And if there should come a convulsion in that land, such as neither thou nor thy fathers have known, be sure that it signifies the removal of such things as can be shaken, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.”—Maurice.
2Ki_15:34. Josephus gives Jotham a very high character, that he was pious towards God, just towards men, and laid himself out for the public good; that whatever was amiss he took care to have it rectified; and, in short, wanted no virtue that became a good prince.
2Ki_15:35. “He built the higher gate of the house of the Lord.” The love of Divine worship.—I. Shown in reverence for God’s house. II. In cheerful sacrifice and labour for the improvement of that house. III. In making the house and worship of God attractive to others.
—It is a glorious thing for a prince, instead of beautifying his palaces and building ivory houses (Amo_3:15), to restore the temple gates, and so say to his people, “Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise.”
2Ki_15:37. It appears by this that the alliance between Pekah and Rezin was made in the reign of Jotham. It had for its object in all probability the consolidation of a power in Syria which might be strong enough to resist the further progress of the Assyrian arms. The recent invasions of Pul and Ziglath-Pileser had effectually alarmed the two northern monarchs, and had induced them to put aside the traditional jealousies which naturally kept them apart, and to make a league offensive and defensive. Into this league they were anxious that Judea should enter; but they distrusted the house of David, which had been so long hostile both to Damascus and to Samaria. They consequently formed the design of transferring the Jewish crown to a certain Ben-Tabeal (Isa_7:6), probably a Jewish noble, perhaps a refugee at one of their courts, whom they could trust to join heartily in their schemes. Hostilities apparently broke out before the death of Jotham; but nothing of importance was effected until the first year of his successor—Speaker’s Comm.
—National troubles—I. Cast their shadows before as a warning to prepare. II. Are sent to rectify the abuse of prosperity. III. Are aggravated by the active opposition of envious neighbours.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain Sundry brief Annals
Sundry brief Annals
This chapter relates the reigns of Azariah and Jotham of Judah, and of Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, and Pekah of Israel.
Read full note →
1. In the twenty and seventh year] Since Jeroboam came to the throne in the fifteenth year of Amaziah (2Ki_14:23), and Amaziah only reigned 29 years (2Ki_14:2), his son must have succeeded him in Jeroboam's fifteenth year. Azariah in 2Ki_15:13, 2Ki_15:30 is called Uzziah.
5. The Lord smote the king] For the reason see 2Ch_26:16-20. A several house] RM 'a lazar house,' in which he was secluded in accordance with the principle laid down in Lev_13:46. Was over the house] He held the same office as that alluded to in 1Ki_4:6. Judging the people] i.e. acting as regent for his father.
6. The rest of the acts of Azariah] For details see 2Ch_26:1-15. It was in the last year of Azariah (Uzziah) that the prophet Isaiah entered upon his ministry (Isaiah 6).
12. This was the word of the Lord] In spite of the ability and success of Jeroboam II the corruption of the people (which Amos and Hosea attest) bore its natural fruit, and the nation became the prey of faction, resulting in the downfall of Jehu's dynasty.
13. Uzziah] For the two names Uzziah and Azariah applied to the same individual see 1Ch_6:24, 1Ch_6:36 and the interchange of Azareel and Uzziel in 1Ch_25:18; 1Ch_25:4 mg.; 14. Tirzah] see on 1Ki_14:17. Though it had ceased to be the capital, it was doubtless still an important place.
16. Tiphsah] not the Tiphsah of 1Ki_4:24, which represents Thapsacus, a far distant town on the Euphrates, but some unknown place in Israel itself. Some suggest that it is a mistake for Tappuah (Jos_17:8).
19. Pul] usually identified with the Tiglathpileser named in 2Ki_15:29, who was the successor, though not the son, of Asshur-nirari, his reign lasting from 745 to 728 b.c. The Assyrians had come in contact with Israel previous to this (see on 2Ki_10:34); but it was only under Tiglath-pileser that they began seriously to endanger the independence of the northern kingdom, and the invasion here described is the first recorded of their many attacks upon the Hebrew states. Menahem gave Pul] cp. Hos_5:13. Tiglath-pileser himself in his inscriptions records that he received tribute from 'Menahem of Samaria.'
20. Exacted the money] The sovereigns of Judah usually bribed their foreign allies, or bought off foreign invaders by drawing upon the treasures stored in the Temple (1Ki_15:18; 2Ki_12:18; 2Ki_16:8; 2Ki_18:15); though Jehoiakim followed the same course as Menahem, and taxed his subjects (2Ki_23:35).
25. Pekah] Menahem and his son Pekahiah had depended for support upon the protection of Assyria; but Pekah belonged to a faction which was opposed to Assyrian influences.
Palace] RV 'castle': cp. 1Ki_16:18.
27. Twenty years] The Assyrian inscriptions show that no more than four years separated the close of Pekah's reign from that of Menahem, so that the latter here must be over-estimated.
29. Tiglath-pileser] see on 2Ki_15:19. The invasion here described was connected with the attack made by Pekah and his ally Rezin of Damascus, upon Ahaz of Judah (2Ki_16:5.). Of the places taken by Tiglath-pileser Ijon and Abelbeth-Maachah were near the sources of the Jordan, N. of Lake Merom; Kedesh and Hazor lay to the W. of the same lake; the site of Janoah is uncertain. Carried them captive] This deportation took place in 734 b.c. It is recorded by Tiglath-pileser himself in his own inscriptions, though he says exaggeratedly that he deported 'the whole of the inhabitants.' The purpose of such wholesale removals of the population of a conquered country was to destroy national sentiment and traditions, and so prevent all attempts to recover independence by killing the aspiration for it.
30. Hoshea.. conspiracy] Hoshea pursued a different policy to Pekah and sought Assyrian support by paying tribute (2Ki_17:3). In the twentieth year] According to 2Ki_15:33 Jotham reigned only 16 years, and Pekah's reign was contemporary with part of that of Ahaz (2Ki_17:1).
35. He built, etc.] Other allusions to his buildings occur in 2Ch_27:3.
36. The rest.. Jotham] see 2Ch_27:2-8. The prosperity which Judah enjoyed during Uzziah's reign continued through that of his successor (if Isaiah 2 may be taken as descriptive of it); but the accumulation of wealth was accompanied by religious corruption: see Isa_2:6-8.
37. Rezin.. Pekah] The war which broke out in the reign of Ahaz was threatening during the reign of Jotham (see on 2Ki_16:5).
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain After an interregnum of 11 years. 2Ki 15:8.
Zachariah
After an interregnum of 11 years. 2Ki 15:8.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 1. Reign and death of Azariah (Uzziah) (2Ki 15:1-2;…
CHAPTER 15
1. Reign and death of Azariah (Uzziah) (2Ki 15:1-2; 2 Chron. 26).
Read full note →
2. Reign and death of Zachariah (2Ki 15:8-12)
3. Reign and death of Shallum (2Ki 15:13-15)
4. Menahem, King of Israel (2Ki 15:16-18)
5. Pul of Assyria and Menahem (2Ki 15:19-20; 1Ch 5:26)
6. Death of Menahem (2Ki 15:21-22)
7. Pekahiah and his death (2Ki 15:23-26)
8. Pekah and his death. Hoshea (2Ki 15:27-31)
9. Jotham, King of Judah (2Ki 15:32-38; 2 Chron. 27)
Eight kings are mentioned in this chapter. Of five it is said they did evil in the sight of the Lord. One was a leper; four were murdered; one committed unspeakable cruelties.
Azariah is first mentioned. In 2 Chronicles his name is Uzziah; but he is also called by this name in the present chapter (verses 13, 30, 32 and 34). Different explanations of the use of this double name have been given. We insert here the one advanced by Edersheim as the most satisfactory.
“The usual explanation either of a clerical error through the confusion of similar letters, or that he bore two names seem equally unsatisfactory. Nor is the meaning of the two names precisely the same--Azariah being ‘Jehovah helps,’ Uzziah, ‘My strength is Jehovah.’ May it not be that Azariah was his real name, and that when after his daring intrusion into the sanctuary (2Ch 26:16-20), he was smitten with lifelong leprosy, his name was significantly altered into the cognate Uzziah--’My strength is Jehovah’--in order to mark that the ‘help’ which he had received had been dependent on his relation to the LORD. This would accord with the persistent use of the latter name in 2 Chronicles--considering the view-point of the writer--and with its occurrence in the prophetic writings (Hos 1:1; Amo 1:1; Isa 1:1; Isa 6:1; Isa 7:11). And the explanation just suggested seems confirmed by the circumstance that although this king is always called Uzziah in 2 Chronicles, yet the Hebrew word for ‘help,’ which forms the first part of the name Azariah, recurs with marked emphasis in the account of the divine help accorded in his expeditions (2Ch 26:7; 2Ch 26:13; 2Ch 26:15).”
As his intrusion into the priestly office and his punishment for it is found in full in the second book of Chronicles, we shall follow it there.
Then follows the brief record of Zachariah (The LORD remembers), King of Israel. He became king of Israel in the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah, King of Judah. He was the son of Jeroboam II and the fourth and last ruler of the dynasty of Jehu. Thus was literally fulfilled the Word of The LORD (2Ki 10:30). His reign lasted only six months. Shallum. assassinated him in public. The murderer occupied the throne only one month. Shallum means “requital.” As he did to Zachariah so Menahem did to him. All was now lawlessness in apostate Israel. Departure from God and the true worship came first and that opened the way for moral corruption and lawlessness. The same is true of this present Christian age. It also ends in apostasy, moral corruption and lawlessness. Hosea testified faithfully to these conditions. “And the revolters are profound to make slaughter, though I have been a rebuker of them all”--”They will not frame their doings to turn unto their God, for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them and they have not known the LORD. And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face; therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity, Judah also shall fall with them” (Hos 5:2-5).
Josephus here informs us that Menahem was the military leader of Zachariah, the murdered King. When Tiphsah refused his authority he executed a terrible, barbaric punishment. “All the women therein that were with child be ripped up.” And God in His eternal justice permitted the same punishment to fall upon Samaria (Hos 13:16; Amo 1:13).
And now for the first time the Assyrian is mentioned, the power used by God to execute judgment upon the Kingdom of Israel. The meaning of the Assyrian in prophecy we shall point out later. Pul, King of Assyria, came against the land. In verse 29 Tiglath-pileser is mentioned as king of Assyria. Are these two different kings or are they the same person under different names? The identity of Pul with Tiglath-pileser II has been proved, after the most painstaking research, beyond the possibility of a doubt. The Assyrian monuments bear witness to this fact. (Assyrian Echoes of the Word by Laurie and Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments by Prof Sayce, are helpful books on these and other questions.) In the annals of Tiglath-pileser the record is found that he received tribute from “Minikhimmi Samirina”--this is Menahem the Samaritan. Pul was evidently one name of the Assyrian ruler and later he assumed the title of Tiglath-pileser II. This does not clash at all with the statement in 1Ch 5:26. Through paying an immense amount of tribute (almost two million dollars) the Assyrian was kept back. Menahem’s son, Pekahiah, after his father’s death, ruled two years in Israel. He also was assassinated. Pekah headed the conspiracy and killed him. Under his reign, doing evil in the sight of the Lord, Tiglath-pileser came again and devastated a part of the land “and carried them captive to Assyria.” This marks the beginning of the end. This invasion took place after his wicked attack upon Jerusalem with Rezin of Damascus during the reign of Ahaz, King of Judah. He tried to overthrow the house of David (2Ki 16:1-8; 2 Chron. 28; Isa 7:4-8). Wicked Pekah, who had killed so many Jews (2Ch 28:6) was murdered by Hoshea, who reigned in his stead. His death had been predicted by Isaiah (Isa 7:16).
The full record of Jotham, King of Israel, is given in the book of Chronicles. It was “in those days that the LORD began to send against Judah Rezin, the King of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah.” Judah, like Israel, was degenerating fast and the LORD chastised them by judgments.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Azariah in Judah
Azariah in Judah
v. 1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam, king of Israel, began Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah, to reign, he at this time became sole regent over Judah.
Read full note →
v. 2. Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, when he took up the reins of the kingdom alone, and he reigned, all told, two and fifty years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem.
v. 3. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah had done, being devoted through his entire life to the worship of Jehovah,
v. 4. save that the high places were not removed; the people sacrificed and burned incense still on the high places, against the will of God, although it was done in honor of Jehovah.
v. 5. And the Lord smote the king, touching him with sickness for overstepping his authority and trespassing upon the function of the priests, 2Ch 26:16-20, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, apart from other people, since lepers were unclean and excluded from the society of men, Lev 13:46. And Jotham, the king’s son, was over the house, he was regent, he had charge of the administration, judging the people of the land, the representative of his father in the most important office in the land.
v. 6. And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? Cf 2 Chronicles 26.
v. 7. So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David, in the royal tomb; and Jotham, his son, reigned in his stead. The happy reign of Azariah, or Uzziah, was an admonition of the Lord to the people of the land, which was to cause them to turn back to the old ways, just as He now sends His blessings to lead men to return to His mercy.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam
In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam
It can be stated clearly that this is the twenty-seventh year of his reign. AT: "In year 27 of the reign of Jeroboam" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information and Numbers)
Read full note →
Azariah
This king is better known today by the name "Uzziah."
Jekoliah
This is the name of Azariah's mother. (See: How to Translate Names)
He did what was right
"Azariah did what was right"
what was right in the eyes of Yahweh
The eyes represent seeing, and seeing represents thoughts or judgment. AT: "what was right in Yahweh's judgment" or "what Yahweh considers to be right" (See: Metaphor)
translationWords
Jeroboam
king
kingdom of Israel
reign
Uzziah
Amaziah
kingdom of Judah
Jerusalem
Yahweh
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 15:1-3 The name Uzziah means Yahweh is my strength.…
15:1-3 The name Uzziah means Yahweh is my strength. • fifty-two years: The length of Uzziah’s reign (792–740 BC) reflects changed conditions in the early 700s BC. Assyria was in decline and relations between Israel and Judah were cordial. Uzziah’s spiritual convictions earned God’s blessing so that Judah enjoyed its greatest prosperity since the days of Solomon (2 Chr 26:9-10).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.