Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 15:1
In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign.
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.
Azariah ] In verses 13, 30, 32 and 34 of this chapter called Uzziah. On this change cf. 2Ki 14:21 note.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CHAPTER XV
Azariah begins to reign over Judah, and acts well, but does not
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, 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 , Azariah, but , 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Quest. How can this be true, seeing Amaziah, the father of this Azariah, lived only till the fifteenth year of Jeroboams 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 Azariahs 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-7. In the twenty and seventh yearof JeroboamIt is thought that the throne of Judah continuedvacant eleven or twelve years, between the death of Amaziah and theinauguration of his son Azariah. Being a child only four years oldwhen his father was murdered, a regency was appointed duringAzariah’s minority.
began Azariah . . . toreignThe character of his reign is described by the briefformula employed by the inspired historian, in recording thereligious policy of the later kings. But his reign was a very activeas well as eventful one, and is fully related (2Ch26:1-23). Elated by the possession of great power, andpresumptuously arrogating to himself, as did the heathen kings, thefunctions both of the real and sacerdotal offices, he was punishedwith leprosy, which, as the offense was capital (Nu8:7), was equivalent to death, for this disease excluded him fromall society. While Jotham, his son, as his viceroy, administered theaffairs of the kingdombeing about fifteen years of age (compare2Ki 15:33) he had to dwellin a place apart by himself (see on 2Ki7:3). After a long reign he died, and was buried in the royalburying-field, though not in the royal cemetery of “the city ofDavid” (2Ch 26:23).
2Ki15:8-16. ZECHARIAH’SREIGN OVER ISRAEL.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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, 2Ki 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 2Ki 14:21 and which seems to be the best way of accounting for it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Reign of Azariah (Uzziah) or Judah (cf. 2 Chron 26). – The statement that “in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam Azariah began to reign” is at variance with 2Ki 14:2, 2Ki 14:16-17, and 2Ki 14:23. If, for example, Azariah ascended the throne in the fifteenth year of Joash of Israel, and with his twenty-nine years’ reign outlived Joash fifteen years (2Ki 14:2, 2Ki 14:17); if, moreover, Jeroboam followed his father Joash in the fifteenth year of Amaziah (2Ki 14:23), and Amaziah died in the fifteenth year of Jeroboam; Azariah (Uzziah) must have become king in the fifteenth year of Jeroboam, since, according to 2Ki 14:21, the people made him king after the murder of his father, which precludes the supposition of an interregnum. Consequently the datum “in the twenty-seventh year” can only have crept into the text through the confounding of the numerals (15) with (27), and we must therefore read “in the fifteenth year.”
2Ki 15:2-6 Beside the general characteristics of Uzziah’s fifty-two years’ reign, which are given in the standing formula, not a single special act is mentioned, although, according to 2 Chron 26, he raised his kingdom to great earthly power and prosperity; probably for no other reason than because his enterprises had exerted no permanent influence upon the development of the kingdom of Judah, but all the useful fruits of his reign were destroyed again by the ungodly Ahaz. Uzziah did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as his father Amaziah had done. For as the latter was unfaithful to the Lord in the closing years of his reign, so did Uzziah seek God only so long as Zechariah, who was experienced in divine visions, remained alive, and God gave success to his enterprises, so that during this time he carried on successful wars against the Philistines and Arabians, fortified the walls of Jerusalem with strong towers, built watch-towers in the desert, and constructed cisterns for the protection and supply of his numerous flocks, promoted agriculture and vine-growing, and organized a numerous and well-furnished army (2Ch 26:5-15). But the great power to which he thereby attained produced such haughtiness, that he wanted to make himself high priest in his kingdom after the manner of the heathen kings, and usurping the sacred functions, which belonged according to the law to the Levitical priests alone, to offer incense in the temple, for which he was punished with leprosy upon the spot (2Ki 15:5 compared with 2Ch 26:16.). The king’s leprosy is described in our account also as a punishment from God. : Jehovah smote him, and he became leprous. This presupposes an act of guilt, and confirms the fuller account of this guilt given in the Chronicles, which Thenius, following the example of De Wette and Winer, could only call in question on the erroneous assumption “that the powerful king wanted to restore the regal high-priesthood exercised by David and Solomon” Oehler (Herzog’s Cycl.) has already shown that such an opinion is perfectly “groundless,” since it is nowhere stated that David and Solomon performed with their own hands the functions assigned in the law to the priests in connection with the offering of sacrifice, as the co-operation of the priests is not precluded in connection with the sacrifices presented by these kings (2Sa 6:17, and 1Ki 3:4, etc.). – Uzziah being afflicted with leprosy, was obliged to live in a separate house, and appoint his son Jotham as president of the royal house to judge the people, i.e., to conduct the administration of the kingdom. – The time when this event occurred is not stated either in our account or in the Chronicles. But this punishment from God cannot have fallen upon him before the last ten years of his fifty-two years’ reign, because his son, who was only twenty-five years old when his father died (2Ki 15:33, and 2Ch 27:1), undertook the administration of the affairs of the kingdom at once, and therefore must have been at least fifteen years old. is taken by Winer, Gesenius, and others, after the example of Iken, to signify nosocomium , an infirmary or lazar-house, in accordance with the verb Arab. xfs , fecit, II debilis, imbecillis fuit. But this meaning cannot be traced in Hebrew, where is used in no other sense than free, set at liberty, manumissus . Consequently the rendering adopted by Aquila is correct, ; and the explanation given by Kimchi of this epithet is, that the persons who lived there were those who were sent away from human society, or perhaps more correctly, those who were released from the world and its privileges and duties, or cut off from intercourse with God and man.
2Ki 15:7 When Uzziah died, he was buried with his fathers in the city of David, but because he died of leprosy, not in the royal family tomb, but, as the Chronicles (2Ki 15:23) add to complete the account, “in the burial-field of the kings;” so that he was probably buried in the earth according to our mode. His son Jotham did not become king till after Uzziah’s death, as he had not been regent, but only the administrator of the affairs of the kingdom during his father’s leprosy.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Reign of Azariah. | B. C. 798. |
1 In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign. 2 Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done; 4 Save that the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places. 5 And the LORD smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house. And Jotham the king’s son was over the house, judging the people of the land. 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? 7 So 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.
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 (v. 2), did, for the most part, that which was right, v. 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, v. 4. 2. That which is peculiar, v. 5 (that God smote him with a leprosy) is more largely related, with the occasion of it, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, c., 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.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 15 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 26
Uzziah Reigns in Judah; Commentary on 2Ki 15:1-4 AND 2Ch 26:15
The closing verses accounting of Amaziah’s reign in Second Kings (2Ki 14:21-22) are parallel to the opening verses of 2 Chronicles 26 (see comments above). Like his father, Uzziah (Azariah in Kings) was only sixteen years of age when he was anointed. His reign extended for fifty-two years, the longest reign save one of any king of Israel or Judah. His commendation, that he did what was right in the Lord’s sight as had Amaziah his father is a somewhat questionable endorsement. Amaziah fell under the wrath and judgment of the Lord for his worship of the Edomite idols. Therefore, it probably means that Uzziah patterned his government after that of his late father. And it will be found in the course of his reign that he also aroused the wrath of God against him.
It is noted that Uzziah allowed the continuation of worship on the high places, which the law had strictly condemned. Nevertheless, though the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah were quite similar, there is indication of a vast difference in their heart condition. Amaziah’s heart was imperfect before the Lord, but Uzziah sought the Lord in his life. He was influenced by a man named Zechariah, about whom nothing certain is known. He cannot be identified with any of the other twenty-seven Zechariahs in the Old Testament. He was probably not a priest, though he may have been a prophet. That he was a counselor of the king is apparent. He was an influence for good on Uzziah, who sought the Lord by Zechariah’s influence and enjoyed prosperity as long as he followed the Lord. Doubtless he has a great reward from the Lord (2Ti 2:19).
2Ch 26:6
Uzziah’s Prosperity – 2Ch 26:6-15
Only Chronicles gives details of the good reign of Uzziah. He set out to restore respect for Judah among the surrounding nations, particularly the Philistines. In his successful war against them he tore down the walls of their capital city, Gath, and also of Jabneh and Ashdod. Jabneh was a smaller city, also called Jabneel, but it was often wrested by the Philistines from the Danites to which tribe it was alloted. Later in Jewish history it was called Jamnia. Uzziah built cities or settled places around Ashdod, among the Philistines, with people from Judah.
The Arabians of the desert were also subdued with the capture of their stronghold of Gur-baal. The Mehunim were the people of Maon, from the desert area of Edom, or Mount Seir. Nothing is said of war with Ammon, but the Ammonites paid tribute to Uzziah anyway. The young king made himself a prestigious name in all the southern lands, to the entrance of Egypt.
Uzziah also engaged in building projects to strengthen Jerusalem, the city wall having been laid waste for some distance by the devastation of Joash of Israel when he defeated Amaziah. Towers were built at the corner gate and the valley gate, as well as on the corner of the wall, possibly the place where Joash’s destruction stopped. He also built strong defensive towers in the desert, for such would be needed to keep those tribes he had conquered subdued.
On the domestic side Uzziah was also active. Many wells were dug to supply water for the herds and flocks, of which the king himself had many. He pastured his cattle in both the valleys and the plains. Uzziah seems to have enjoyed the pastoral life, for he was fond of husbandry. He employed husbandmen and vinedressers for his farms and vineyards in the mountains and in Carmel of the southland.
The army was well organized, under the scribe Jeiel, who kept their account; their ruler, Maaseiah; the captain Hananiah, who led them in battle. They seem to have gone out in rotation to keep the peace in the subject countries. This army had 2,600 officers and consisted of 307,500 fighting men, said to have been a mighty power against their enemies. They were well equipped with shields, spears, helmets, habergeons (armored vests), bows, and slings. Uzziah also encouraged the invention and development of artillery. These were engines made to mount on the wall and in the towers, capable of hurling arrows and great stones at a besieging enemy. And so the fame of Uzziah spread far beyond his own country. The Scriptures record that he was marvelously helped until he became quite strong. For the Lord was with the king in those early days when he sought him through the influence of the mysterious Zechariah. It was during his reign that God sent out some of the leading preachers of the Old Testament times, including Isaiah, whom some call the prince of the prophets. During all this prosperity Uzziah needed to be reminded of the Lord’s warning through Moses in his farewell words to Israel before his death (De 32:15).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
AZARIAH AND JOTHAM IN JUDAH, AND THE LAST SIX KINGS IN ISRAEL
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 15:1.Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of JudahThis 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 deathIn his pride he aspired to be more than king, usurped the functions of Gods 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 houseAn array of authorities regard as meaning house of sickness, a hospital, from , 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Judahs 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 calamitiesthe 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 monarchs interest in the House of God (2Ki. 15:33; 2Ki. 15:35). The history emphasises the fact that the name of Jothams 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 Gods corrections are in the night, and closeted. Every offence meets not with a market lash.
Accuse not heavens 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 commerceall these are passed over with the brief formulathe 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 vesselthe 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 priests office, and forfeited Gods favour for this sin.Speakers 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 rankThe Lord smote the king. III. Involves terrible sufferingHe was a leper unto the day of his death. IV. Isolates the sufferer from all he loved and prizedHe 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.Speakers Comm.
2Ki. 15:7 compared with Isa. 6:1-3. Isaiahs vision of the majesty and glory of Jehovah.Special work needs special training. This is a principle recognized in all Gods 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 thingsgreat and smallreaching 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 facea 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 feeta 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 flyan 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 worlds deep sorrow and lessen its distracting woes; to conduct the troubled heart of humanity to the satisfying rest for which it daily groansthis 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 oldI 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 libertineA 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 worlds 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 Gods 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 successorSpeakers Comm.
National troublesI. 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.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
B. THE REIGN OF AZARIAH (UZZIAH) IN JUDAH 15:17
TRANSLATION
(1) In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah the son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign. (2) He was sixteen years old when he began to reign and fifty-two years he reigned in Jerusalem; and the name of his mother was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. (3) And he did that which was upright in the eyes of the LORD according to all which Amaziah his father had done. (4) Only he did not remove the high places. (5) But the LORD smote the king and he became a leper until the day of his death, and lived in the house of separation; and Jotham the son of the king was over the house, judging the people of the land. (6) And the rest of the acts of Azariah and all which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (7) And Azariah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David; and Jotham his son reigned in his place.
COMMENTS
Azariahs reign, which in Kings occupies only seven verses, in Chronicles fills an entire chapter of twenty-three verses (2 Chronicles 26). Uzziah began his independent reign over Judah in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam of Israel, i.e., 767 B.C. (2Ki. 15:1). He had reigned as coregent with his father from the time he was sixteen years old and had already served in this capacity for some twenty-three years before the death of his father. The total length of his reign was fifty-two years, and thus Azariah (Uzziah) died in 739 B.C. at the age of sixty-eight (2Ki. 15:2). The author of Kings rates Azariah as a good king (v, 3) with the one exception that he failed to confine the worship of Yahweh to the place which the Lord had designated (2Ki. 15:4). The Chronicler (2Ch. 26:5) mentions the positive influence of a prophet by the name of Zechariah upon his life.
Eighth King of Judah
UZZIAH (AZARIAII)
767739 B.C.*
2Ki. 15:1-7; 2 Chronicles 26
Synchronism
Uzziah 1 = Jeroboam 27
Contemporary Prophets
Zechariah (2Ch. 26:5);
Isaiah; Hosea; Amos
Mother: Jecholiah
Appraisal: Good
He (the LORD) shall cut off the spirit of princes: He is terrible to kings of the earth. Psa. 76:12
*coregent from 790 B.C.
The Chronicler provides the details which explain why the Lord smote King Azariah (Uzziah). The marvelous prosperity which this king enjoyed caused him to be filled with pride. Azariah (Uzziah) attempted to usurp the position and prerogatives of the priesthood. He took a censer, entered into the Temple, and proceeded to burn incense on the golden altar before the veil (2Ch. 26:16-18). A number of priests tried to persuade the king to turn back, but he persisted in this proud act of defiance of the Law of Moses. It was then that God smote him with leprosy. Due to this dread disease, the king was forced to spend the final years of his reign in a house of separation isolated and alone. Probably this house was built especially for the king out in the open country apart from other houses. His son Jotham then assumed the royal functions of administrating the affairs of the palace and judging the people (2Ki. 15:5). According to the best authorities, Azariahs sin and the beginning of Jothams coregency took place in 750 B.C.
With these brief notices the author of Kings closes his account of the mighty King Uzziah. The Chronicler relates further information about him: that he recovered Elath from the Edomites (2Ch. 26:2); that he waged successful war with the Philistines and took from them Gath, Jabneh and Ashdod and dismantled them (2Ch. 26:6); that he defeated the Arabians and the Maonites (2Ch. 26:7); that he forced the Ammonites to pay him tribute and caused his power to be known and feared far and wide (2Ch. 26:8); that he had a standing army which numbered 307,500 men and which was well-trained and well-armed (2Ch. 26:12-14). Upon his death, Azariah (Uzziah) was buried with his fathers, i.e., in the same sepulchre (2Ch. 26:23). No doubt it was because of his leprosy that he was buried apart from the other kings. Naturally Jotham, who had for about eleven years been serving as coregent, succeeded his father as king of Judah (2Ki. 15:7).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XV.
(1-7) THE REIGN OF AZARIAH (Uzziah), KING OF JUDAH. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 26)
(1) In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam.An error of transcription for the fifteenth year ( 15, , 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 Azriyhu (.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 Azariahs death.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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 , (15,) for , (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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Reign Of Azariah (Uzziah) King of Judah c. 767-740/39 BC. Co-regent from 791/90 BC.
The reign of Azariah (Uzziah) can be paralleled with that of Jeroboam, with similar expansion and the same strictures to some extent applying. It introduced a period of prosperity unparalleled in Judah since the time of Solomon, and for similar reasons. As a result of keeping on friendly terms with each other and the exercise of military power both countries were able to expand and take advantage of the trade routes. But we learn nothing of this from the prophetic author (for a much fuller description see 2 Chronicles 26). Apart from the fact that Azariah followed the Yahwistic policies of his fathers all we learn about him from the prophetic author was that he became ‘skin-diseased’. This was the author’s way of expressing disfavour with his reign. That this was so is confirmed by the fact that we learn in Chronicles that the reason why Azariah was smitten was because he tried to arrogate to himself the priestly right to offer incense (2Ch 26:16-21). But the author of Kings does not go into such details. He leaves us to discern his displeasure from the scant information that he gives us. As far as he was concerned religiously speaking Azariah was a failure. Indeed, Amos’s verdict on Judah at this stage was that they ‘have rejected the Law of YHWH and have not kept His statutes, and their lies have caused them to err after the way which their fathers walked’ (Amo 2:4).
We have, of course, learned in 2Ki 14:22 that he took and rebuilt Elath, but that was deliberately mentioned then so that the author could present Azariah’s reign as he now has, as something of little or no value. The marked silence is deliberate.
There is in this a reminder to us that God judges us in the light of what we accomplish, or otherwise, for Him. All that we might think of as our accomplishments will in the future be seen as nothing. ‘Only one life, ‘twill soon be past, only what’s done for Christ will last.’ The description of Azariah’s reign in Kings is a vivid reminder of that fact.
Analysis.
a
b And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, according to all that his father Amaziah had done. However, the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places (2Ki 15:3-4).
c And YHWH smote the king, so that he was skin-diseased to the day of his death, and dwelt in a separate house. And Jotham the king’s son was over the household, judging the people of the land (2Ki 15:5).
b Now 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? (2Ki 15:6).
a And Azariah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David, and Jotham his son reigned instead of him (2Ki 15:7).
Note that in ‘a’ he commenced his reign and in the parallel he ceased his reign. In ‘b’ he in general did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, and in the parallel the remainder of his acts can be found in the official annals of the kings of Judah. Centrally in ‘c’ he was struck by YHWH with skin-disease and his son took over the main running of the kingdom. To the prophetic author this was the central and most important fact of his reign.
2Ki 15:1
‘In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign.’
This dating refers to the date when Azariah (Uzziah) became sole king (767 BC). It was in the twenty seventh year of Jeroboam. But he had been reigning with his father as co-regent almost as long as Jeroboam (since 791 BC). Elsewhere Azariah’s name is given as Uzziah, which is in fact a recognised variant (compare how Azare-el becomes Uzzi-el in 1Ch 25:4; 1Ch 25:18). The usages may be listed as follows: Azariah ( 2Ki 15:1 ; 2Ki 15:6; 2Ki 15:8; 2Ki 15:17 ; 2Ki 15:23; 2Ki 15:27; 1Ch 3:12). Uzziah (2Ki 15:13; 2Ki 15:30 ; 2Ki 15:32; 2Ki 15:34; 2Ch 26:1 ; 2Ch 26:3; 2Ch 26:11; 2Ch 26:14, etc; Isa 1:1; Isa 6:1; Hos 1:1; Amo 1:1; Zec 14:5).
2Ki 15:2
‘Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jecoliah of Jerusalem.’
The ‘sixteen years old’ refers to when he became co-regent, and the fifty two years refers to his reign including that co-regency. The new queen mother was named Jecoliah and was born in Jerusalem
2Ki 15:3-4
‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, according to all that his father Amaziah had done. However, the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places.’
Like his father, and indeed most of his fathers, he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH. In other words he continued in the true worship of YHWH and honoured the covenant. But in a similar way to them he failed to carry out the reforms that would have resulted in the cessation of the many high places at which the people still sacrificed and burned incense, aping Canaanite ritual and Canaanite ways. In other words he failed to demand a full and wholehearted response to YHWH’s demands and covenant by the whole people.
2Ki 15:5
‘And YHWH smote the king, so that he was skin-diseased to the day of his death, and dwelt in a separate house. And Jotham the king’s son was over the household, judging the people of the land.’
His reign is summed up in terms of his wrong attitude towards YHWH, as is evidenced by the fact that YHWH smote him with skin disease. As with Naaman this was not true leprosy (Naaman had been able to continue serving the king and even to be present in the house of Rimmon), and it only happened in the latter years of his reign. He was not totally excluded from society. But it was sufficient to exclude him from entering the Temple of YHWH, and from taking his part in the worship there, and thus from fulfilling all his functions as the king. It also resulted in his living apart from the palace in his own separate house, because his presence in the palace, which was connected with the Temple, would have rendered the palace ritually ‘unclean’ and have tainted the Temple. (Compare how the skin-diseased had to live outside the camp in Lev 13:46). And his son Jotham took over the king’s household (in other words the court and its authority) and the general rulership of the ‘people of the land’. At Ugarit where we have evidence of a language similar to Hebrew recorded around 13th century BC the words for ‘judging’ and ‘ruling’ were used synonymously. Thus Jotham was co-regent par excellence. Note the interesting distinction, although not to be overpressed, between the king’s household and the ‘people of the land’.
2Ki 15:6
‘Now 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?’
For the remainder of the acts of Azariah and all that he did (which was considerable) we are as so often referred to the official annals of the kings of Judah. It was of interest politically but not religiously. It is interesting that he does not refer to ‘his might’ as he has with previous kings and with Jeroboam, although the significance of that is lessened by the fact that apart from in the case of Hezekiah the phase is in future quietly dropped.
2Ki 15:7
‘And Azariah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David, and Jotham his son reigned instead of him.’
Like his fathers Azariah was buried in the City of David as a recognised Davidide (although not specifically in the tomb of the kings) and Jotham his son reigned instead of him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Reigns of Jeroboam King of Israel and Azariah (Uzziah) King of Judah ( 2Ki 14:23 to 2Ki 15:7 ).
The next fourteen verses very much bring out the method and aims of the prophetic author of the Book of Kings. They describe the magnificent reigns of two of the most successful and long lived kings of Israel and Judah, Jeroboam II of Israel and Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah, kings in whose reigns Israel enjoyed wealth, power and prestige which were surpassed only in the days of David and Solomon. And yet they are dealt with summarily in only fourteen verses. Indeed almost the only thing that he tells us about Azariah (Uzziah) is that he was skin-diseased. Had it not been for the prophets Hosea and Amos, and 2 Chronicles 26, we would have known little about their reigns. Why then was this? It was because, having depicted the follies of Solomon, the prophetic author laid no great store in power and glory. In his view Solomon had demonstrated the foolishness of such things. What he was interested in was the activity of YHWH in history, and the obedience or otherwise of YHWH’s people to His covenant, combining that with a recognition of the downward trend of both nations, a trend which was leading them to disaster in spite of YHWH’s continuing efforts to bring them back to Himself. As he looked back he was out to explain what it was that had brought the people of God to such a low ebb. (But he also knew that the last word had not been said, for had not Jehoiachin the son of David been restored to favour in Babylon? (2Ki 25:27-30). Thus the house of David was not yet dead. His lamp was still burning).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 15:1-7 The Reign of Azariah Over Judah (792-740 B.C.) (see 2Ch 26:1-23 ) 2Ki 15:1-7 records the story of the reign of Azariah over Judah.
2Ki 15:1 Comments – Azariah “`Azaryah” ( , ) (H5838) is called by the name Uzziah ( , ) in 2 Chronicles.
2Ki 15:8-12 The Reign of Zechariah Over Israel (753 B.C.) 2Ki 15:8-12 records the story of the reign of Zechariah over Israel.
2Ki 15:12 This 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.
2Ki 15:12
2Ki 10:30, “And the LORD said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.”
2Ki 15:13-16 The Reign of Shallum Over Israel (752 B.C.) 2Ki 15:13-16 records the story of Shallum’s short reign over Israel.
2Ki 15:17-22 The Reign of Menahem Over Israel (752-742 B.C.) 2Ki 15:17-22 records the account of the reign of Menahem over Israel.
2Ki 15:19 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.
2Ki 15:19
“ It is now practically certain that Pul, who is mentioned as taking tribute from Menahem, is identical with Tiglath-pileser (Schrader, COT, I, 230, 231). In all probability Pul, or Pulu, was a usurper, who as king of Assyria assumed the name of one of his predecessors, Tiglath-pileser I, and reigned as Tiglath-pileser III. This king of Assyria, who reigned, as we learn from his annals, from 745 BC to 727 BC, was one of the greatest of Assyrian monarchs.” ( ISBE) [65]
[65] T. Nicol, “Tiglath-Pileser,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).
The NKJV supports this view in 1Ch 5:26, which reads, “So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria . He carried the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity. He took them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river of Gozan to this day.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
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, v. 2. Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, v. 3. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah had done, v. 4. save that the high places were not removed; the people sacrificed and burned incense still on the high places, v. 5. And the Lord smote the king, 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? 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.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 15:1-38
REIGNS OF AZARIAH AND JOTHAM OVER JUDAH; AND OF ZACHARIAH, SHALLUM, MENAHEM, PEKAHIAH, AND PEKAH OVER ISRAEL.
2Ki 15:1-7
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.)
2Ki 15:1
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-cluded by the narrative of 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 2Ki 14:8, 2Ki 14:13, 2Ki 14:23, and 2Ki 14:27.
2Ki 15:2
Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem. These numbers are confirmed by Chronicles (2Ch 26:1-3) and by Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.10. 4), who says that he reigned fifty-two years, and died at the ago of sixty-eight. And his mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.10. 3) calls her “Achiala.”
2Ki 15:3
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah had done. Josephus uses still stronger expressions. “Azariah was,” he says (l.s.c.), “a good king, naturally just and high-minded, and indefatigable in his administration of affairs.” According to the author of Chronicles (2Ch 26:5), he “sought God in the days of Zechariah.”
2Ki 15:4
Save that the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places.
2Ki 15:5
And the Lord smote the king. This comes in somewhat strangely, following close upon a statement that the king “did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” We have to go to Chronicles for an explanation. By Chronicles it appears that, in the earlier portion of his reign, Azariah was a good and pious prince, and that God blessed him in all his undertakings. Not only did he recover Eloth (2Ch 26:2), but he carried on a successful war with the Philistinestook Garb, Jabneh (Jamnia), and Ashdod, and dismantled them (2Ch 26:6), defeated the Arabians of Gur-Baal, and the Mehuuim or Maonites (2Ch 26:7), forced the Ammonites to pay him a tribute, and caused his power to be known and feared far and wide (2Ch 26:8). The standing army which he maintained numbered 307,500 men, under 2600 officers, well armed and equipped with shields, spears, helmets, breast-plates, bows, and slings (2Ch 26:12-14). “His name spread far abroad, for he was wonderfully helped” (2Ch 26:15). This marvelous prosperity developed in him a pride equal to that of his father, but one which vented itself differently, Azariab, deeming himself superior to all other men, and exempt from ordinary rules, boldly invaded the priestly office, took a censer, and entered into the temple, and proceeded to burn incense upon the golden altar that was before the veil (2Ch 26:16-18). It was then that “the Lord smote the king.” As, in defiance of the high priest and his attendant train, who sought to prevent the lawless act, Azariah persisted in his endeavors, God struck him with leprosy, his forehead grew white with the unmistakable scaly scab, and in a moment his indomitable pride was quelled. The priests closed in upon him and began to thrust him out, but no violence was necessary. Aware of what had happened, “he himself also hasted to go out, because the Lord had smitten him” (2Ch 26:20). It is not very clear why the writer of Kings passes over these facts; but certainly they are not discredited by his silence. At any rate, those who accept the entire series of conquests, whereof the writer of Kings says nothing, on the sole authority of Chronicles, are logically precluded from rejecting the circumstances accompanying the leprosy, which is acknowledged by the writer of Kings, and viewed as a judgment from God. So that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house. Lepers had to be separated from the congregationto “dwell alone””without the camp” (Le 13:46). Ahaziah’s “several house” is regarded by some as an “infirmary,” or “hospital for lepers” (Ewald, Gesenius, Winer); but there is no reason to believe that hospitals of any kind existed among the Israelites. The lepers mentioned in 2Ki 7:3 are houseless. is best translated “house of separation” and understood of a house standing by itself in the open country, separate from others. “Probably the house in which the leprous king lived was,” as Bahr says, “especially built for him.” And Jotham the Mug’s son was over the housenot over the “several house,” but over the royal palacejudging the people of the land; i.e. executing the royal functions, whereof “judging” was one of the highest. Azariah’s infirmity made a regency necessary, and naturally his eldest son held the office.
2Ki 15:6
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? For Azariah’s principal acts, see the commentary on the first clause of verse 5.
2Ki 15:7
So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. Here again the writer of Chronicles is more exact. Azariah, he tells us (2Ch 26:23), was not buried in the rock-sepulcher which contained the bodies of the other kings, but in another part of the field wherein the sepulcher was situated. This was quite consonant with Jewish feeling with respect to the uncleanness of the leper. And Jotham his son reigned in his stead. Jotham, already for some years prince regent, became king as a matter of course on his father’s demise.
2Ki 15:8-12
REIGN OF ZACHARIA OVER ISRAEL. FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISE MADE JEHU. The writer has nothing to record of Zachariah but his murder by Shallum after a reign of six months. 2Ki 15:8, 2Ki 15:9, and 2Ki 15:11 contain the usual formula. 2Ki 15:10 gives the only event that needed record. 2Ki 15:12 recalls to the reader’s attention a previous passage, in which a prophecy had been mentioned, whereof Zachariah’s reign was the fulfillment.
2Ki 15:8
In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah King of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria. If Azariah began to reign in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam (verse 1), and Jeroboam died in his forty-first or forty-second year (2Ki 14:23), Zachariah must have ascended the throne in the fifteenth or sixteenth year of Azariah. Even if Azariah became king in the fifteenth of Jeroboam, as has been shown to be probable (see the comment on verse 1), Zachariah’s accession cannot have been earlier than Azariah’s twenty-sixth year. An interregnum between the death of Jeroboam and the accession of Zachariah is not to be thought of. Six months. So also Josephus (see ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. 1).
2Ki 15:9
And 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. The customary formula, with nothing to emphasize it. In the short space of barely six months, Zachariah could not do either much good or much evil.
2Ki 15:10
And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him. Josephus calls Shallum Zachariah’s “friend,” but otherwise adds nothing to the present narrative. And smote him before the people. The phrase employed is very unusual, and has justly excited suspicion. It was not understood by the LXX; who translate , which gives no sense. Ewald sought to solve the difficulty by inventing a king, “Zobolam,” but other critics have found this expedient too bold. The rendering of our translators is generally accepted, though qobal, “before,” only occurs here and in Daniel. If we accept this rendering, we must suppose that the act of violence was done openly, like Jehu’s murder of Jehoram. And slew him, and reigned in his stead (comp. verse 13).
2Ki 15:11
And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
2Ki 15:12
This 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. The direct promise was, “Thy house shall hold the throne so long;” the implied prophecy, “They shall not hold it longer.” There had not been wanting other indications of the coming troubles. Hosea had declared that God would avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu (Hos 1:4). Amos had gone further, and had openly proclaimed that God would “rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword“ (Amo 7:9). The threat had been understood as a threat against Jeroboam himself (Amo 7:11), but this was a misinterpretation. The words plainly pointed, to a revolution in the time of his son. And so it came to pass. The house of Jehu ceased to reign in the fourth generation of the descendants of its founder. No considerations of prudence or of gratitude could keep the nation faithful to any dynasty for a longer time than this. In breaking off from the divinely chosen house of David, and choosing to themselves a king, the Israelites had sown the seeds of instability in their state, and put themselves at the mercy of any ambitious pretender. Five dynasties had already borne rule in the two hundred years that the kingdom had lasted; four more were about to hold the throne in the remaining fifty years of its existence. “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel,” though said of Reuben only (Gen 49:4), fairly expressed the character of the entire kingdom, with which Reuben cast in its lot at the time of the separation.
2Ki 15:13-15
SHORT AND UNIMPORTANT REIGN OF SHALLUM. Three verses suffice for the reign of Shallum, the son of Jabesh, who held the throne for only thirty days. Hearing of his conspiracy, Menahem, the son of Gadi”the general,” as Josephus calls him (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.11. 1)marched from Tirzah to Samaria, got Shallum into his power, and put him to death (2Ki 15:14). The writer concludes with the usual formula (2Ki 15:15).
2Ki 15:13
Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah King of Judah. This date follows from that of 2Ki 15:8, and must stand or fall with it. The true accession-year of Shallum was probably the twenty-seventh of Uzziah. And he reigned a fall month in Samaria; literally, a month of days”thirty days” according to Josephus.
2Ki 15:14
For Manahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah. Ewald supposes Tirzah to have been the “native city” of Menahem; but this is not stated. According to Josephus (l.s.c.), he was commander-in-chief, and happened to be in Tirzeh at the time. (On the probable site of Tirzeh, see the comment on 1Ki 14:17.) It was the royal city of the kingdom of the ten tribes from the later part of Jeroboam’s reign to the building of Samaria by Omri (see 1Ki 14:17; 1Ki 16:6, 1Ki 16:8, 1Ki 16:15, 1Ki 16:23). And came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in SamariaJosephus says that there was a battle, in which Shallum was slainand slew him, and reigned in his stead.
2Ki 15:15
And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made (see 2Ki 15:10), behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
2Ki 15:16-22
REIGN OF MENAHEM, AND EXPEDITION OF PUL AGAINST SAMARIA. Two events only of Menahem’s reign receive notice from the writer.
(1) His capture of Tiphsah, and severe treatment of the inhabitants (2Ki 15:16).
(2) The invasion of his land by an Assyrian monarch, called “Pul” or “Phul,” and his submission to that monarch’s authority. Pul’s retirement was bought by a large sum of money, which Menahem collected from his subjects (2Ki 15:19, 2Ki 15:20).
2Ki 15:16
Then Menahem smote Tiphsah. The only town of this name known to history or geography is the famous city on the Euphrates (1Ki 4:24), called by the Greeks Thapsacus. It has been thought that Menahem could not have pushed his conquests so far, and a second Tiphsah has been invented in the Israelite highland, between Tirzah and Samaria, of which there is no other notice anywhere. But “Tiphsah,” which means “passage” or “fordway,” is an unsuitable name for a city in such a situation. The view of Keil is clearly tenablethat Zachariah had intended to carry on his father’s warlike policy, and had collected an army for a great Eastern expedition, which had its head-quarters at the royal city of Tirzah, and was under the command of Menahem. As the expedition was about to start, the news came that Shallum had murdered Zachariah and usurped the throne. Menahem upon this proceeded from Tirzah to Samaria, crushed Shallum, and, returning to his army, carried out without further delay the expedition already resolved upon. The Assyrian records show that, at the probable date of the expedition, Assyria was exceptionally weak, and in no condition to resist an attack, though a little later, under Tiglath-pileser, she recovered herself. And all that were therein, and the coasts thereof, from Tirzah. “From Tirzah” means “starting from Tir-zah,” as in 2Ki 15:14. It is to be connected with “smote,” not with “coasts.” Because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it. Determined resistance on the part of a city summoned to surrender has always been regarded as justifying an extreme severity of treatment. It is not clear that Menahem transgressed the ordinary usages of war in what he did, however much he transgressed the laws of humanity. And all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
2Ki 15:17
In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah King of Judah began Menahem the son of Gadi to reign over Israel (comp. verse 13, and the comment), and reigned ten years in Samaria. So Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. 1).
2Ki 15:18
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. The writer does not seem to regard Menahem as either better or worse than his predecessors. The usual formula suffices to describe the moral and religious aspect of his reign.
2Ki 15:19
And Pul, the King of Assyria came against the land. There is no connective in the Hebrew text, and it has been proposed to supply one; but there can be little doubt that the best emendation is that suggested by Thenius, who changes the of 2Ki 15:18 into , and attaches that word to 2Ki 15:19. 2Ki 15:19 will then read thus: “In his days Pul the King of Assyria came against the laud”and no connective will be wanted. The greatest doubt has been entertained with regard to the identity of Pul, whose name does not appear in the Assyrian Eponym Canon, or in any other purely Assyrian document. But recently discovered Babylonian documents seem to prove that Pul (Pulu) was the Babylonian name for Tiglath-pileser, who reigned under that name in Babylon during his last two years, and appears in the Canon of Ptolemy as “Porus.” Tiglath-pileser, the great founder of the later Assyrian empire, made himself king in B.C. 745, and proceeded to consolidate the Assyrian power on every side, after a period of great weakness and disorganization. He made several expeditions against Babylonia, and several into Syria and Palestine. The expedition in which he came into contact with Menahem is thought to have been that of his eighth year, B.C. 738. And Menahem gave Pal a thousand talents of silver. A vast sum certainly, equal to above a quarter of a million of our money, perhaps to some extent a punishment for the siege and sack of Tiphsah. But not a sum that it would have been impossible to pay. A King of Damascus, about fifty years previously, had bought off an Assyrian attack by the payment of two thousand three hundred talents of silver and twenty talents of gold. That his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand; i.e. that Pal might take him under his protection, accept him as one of his subject-princes, and (by implication) support him against possible rivals.
2Ki 15:20
And Menahem exacted the money of Israel. Either he was not possessed of any accumulated treasure, such as the kings of Judah could commonly draw upon (1Ki 15:18; 2Ki 12:18; 2Ki 16:8; 2Ki 18:15, 2Ki 18:16), or he thought it more prudent to keep his stores untouched, and obtain the money from his subjects. Even of all the mighty men of wealth. The context shows this to be the meaning; and the rendering is justified by Rth 2:1; 1Sa 9:1. “Mighty men of valor“ cannot possibly be intended. Of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the King of Assyria. Fifty shekels was a heavy tax, not less than 5 or 6 of our money. To produce a thousand talents, this tax had to be levied on some sixty thousand persons. Tiglath-pileser mentions his receipt of tribute from “Minikhimmi of Tsammirin” (Menahem of Someron or Samaria), but does not tell us the amount. So the King of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land. Kings of Assyria usually returned home at the end of each campaign, and wintered in their own territory.
2Ki 15:21
And 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? Nothing more is known of Menahem the son of Gadi, since he certainly cannot be identical with the prince of the same name who is mentioned as “Menahem of Samaria” in the inscriptions of Sennacherib. This second Menahem is probably a descendant of the first, who was allowed a sort of titular sovereignty ever the conquered town.
2Ki 15:22
And Menahem slept with his fathersi.e; diedand Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead. So Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. 1), who calls him “Phakeias.”
2Ki 15:23-26
SHORT REIGN OF PEKAHIAH. The short reign of Pekahiah was wholly undistinguished. He held the throne for two years only, or perhaps for parts of two years, and performed no action that any historian has thought worthy of record. Our author has nothing to relate of him but the circumstances of his death (2Ki 15:25), wherewith he combines the usual formulae (2Ki 15:23, 2Ki 15:24, 2Ki 15:26).
2Ki 15:29
In the fiftieth year of Azariah King of Judah; really in the thirty-seventh year (see the comment on verses 1, 8, and 27). Azariah is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser as contending with him in the year in which he took tribute from Menahem, which is thought to have been B.C. 738. Apparently, he too was forced to pay tribute to the Assyrian monarch. Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned two years. So Josephus (l.s.c.).
2Ki 15:24
And 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. Josephus adds that he reigned with the same cruelty as his father ( ), but ‘we cannot be sure that this is more than a conjecture, founded on the shortness of his reign.
2Ki 15:25
But Pekah the son of Remaliah. Remaliah was probably a man of some importance, since Pekah seems to have been almost better known by his patronymic, Ben-Remaliah, “son of Remaliah,” than by his own proper name (see Isa 7:4, Isa 7:5, Isa 7:9; Isa 8:6). A captain of his“captain of a thousand,” according to Josephus (l.s.c.)conspired against him, and smote him in Samaria, in the palace of the king’s house; literally, in the tower (or keep) of the king‘s house, the loftiest part ( is from , to be high)certainly not the harem (Ewald), if Pekahiah was feasting there with his friends ( ), as Josephus says. With Argob and Arieh. These seem to be the “friends” of Josephus, who were with the king and shared his fate, not fellow-conspirators with Pekah. The names are uncommon ones. And with himi.e. Pekahfifty men of the Gileadites; fifty men of “the Four Hundred,” according to the LXX. “The Four Hundred” were probably the royal body-guard, which at this time may have consisted of Gileadites. And he killed him, and reigned in his room. It does not appear that Pekah had any grievance. His crime seems to have been simply prompted by ambition.
2Ki 15:26
And 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.
2Ki 15:27-31
REIGN OF PEKAH. The writer is again exceedingly brief. Pekah’s reign was a remarkable one, and might have furnished much material to the historian. In conjunction with Rezin of Damascus, he made war upon Judaea, defeated Ahaz with great loss (2Ch 28:6), and laid siege to Jerusalem (Isa 7:1). Ahaz called in the aid or’ Assyria, and Tiglath-pileser made two expeditions into Palestinethe one mentioned in 2Ki 15:29, and another some years afterwards. In the latter he seems to have had the assistance of Hoshea, who, with his sanction, slew Pekah, and became king. The scanty notices of our author must be supplemented from 2Ch 28:1-27.; Isa 7:1-9; Isa 8:1-8; and the Assyrian inscriptions.
2Ki 15:27
In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah King of Judah; rather, in the thirty-ninth or thirty-eighth year (see the comment on verse 23). Pekahiah’s “two years” may not have been complete. Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years. The Assyrian records make this number impossible. Tiglath-pileser’s entire reign lasted only eighteen years, yet it more than covered the entire reign of Pekah. When he first invaded the kingdom of Samaria, Menahem was upon the throne; when he last attacked it, probably in B.C. 730two years before his death in B.C. 728he set up Hoshea, or, at any rate, sanctioned his usurpation. Pekah’s entire reign must have come in the interval, which is certainly not more than one of fifteen, probably not more than one of ten years.
2Ki 15:28
And 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. Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 2Ki 9:11. 1) says that Pekah was an irreligious king, and a transgressor of the Law ( ). Isaiah shows how he intrigued with foreigners against his brethren of the sister kingdom (Isa 7:2-6). The writer of Chronicles tells of his fierce anger against the Jews (2Ch 28:9), and of the dreadful carnage which he sanctioned after the great battle.
2Ki 15:29
In the days of Pekah Feng of Israel came Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser’s records are not in the shape of annals, and are, moreover, in a very mutilated condition. He does not date events, like most Assyrian kings, by his regal years. His first expedition into Syria is thought, however, to have been in his third year, B.C. 743, but there is no evidence that, on this occasion, he proceeded further south than Damascus, where he took tribute from Rezin. Some years after thisB.C. 738, according to Mr. G. Smithhe penetrated to Palestine, where his chief enemy was Azariah King of Judah, who had united under his sway most of the tribes as far as Hamath. After chastising Azariah, he extended his dominion over most of the neighboring states and kingdoms; and it was at this time that (as related in verse 19) he took tribute from Menahem. Subsequently he made an expedition for the purpose of conquest, which receives very scant notice, in one inscription only. This is probably the expedition of the present passage. And took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah. These were places in the extreme north of the Israelite territory, in the vicinity of the Lake Merem, such as would naturally be among the first to fall before an Assyrian invader (on their exact position, see the comment on 1Ki 15:20). And Janoah. Janoah is now generally regarded as identical with the modern Hunin, a village close by “an ancient fortress of great strength”, in the hill country northwest of Merom. It is in a direct line between Abel-beth-maa-chah (Abil) and Kedesh (Cades), as we should expect from the present passage. And Kedesh, and Hazor. Kedesh is beyond all doubt the “Kedes” or “Cades,” of todayan important site in the same mountain district, rather more than six miles south of Hunin, and four from the “waters of Merom”. Hazer was in the near neighborhood of Kedesh, towards the south probably. The exact position is disputed. Robinson’s arguments in favor of El-Khu reibch are weighty; but the engineers employed by the Palestine Exploration Fund regard Khurbat-Harrah, between Kedesh and the Lake Merom, as a still more probable situation. And Gilead. “Gilead,” in this connection, can scarcely be “the whole of the land to the east of the Jordan” (Keil, Bahr)the territory of Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh, not of Naphtali. It is more likely to be a small district near Merom, perhaps the eastern coast of the lake (Gesenius), which was afterwards a part of Gaulouitis. The LXX; instead of , have . And Galilee; Hebrew . The inscription of Tiglath-pileser, which appears to allude to this expedition, mentions “Galhi,” and “Abel” (probably Abel-beth-maachah) as conquered at this time, and “added to Assyria.” The places were, it says, on the border of the land of Beth-Omri (Samaria). And carried them captive to Assyria. Deportation of captives was largely practiced by Tiglath-pileser, as appears from the ‘Eponym Canon,’ pp. 118-120, and 122.
2Ki 15:30
And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. By a mutilated notice in the records of Tiglath-pileser, it appears that the revolution here related was the result of another invasion of the Israelite territory by that monarch. “The land of Beth-Croft,” he says, ” the tribe the goods of its people and their furniture I sent to Assyria. Pekah their king [I caused to be put to death?] and Hoshea I appointed to the kingdom ever them; their tribute I received, and [their treasures?] to Assyria I sent”. It is probably this invasion of which the writer of Chronicles speaks (1Ch 5:26) as resulting in the deportation of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. In the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah. This date stands in contradiction with verse 33, where Jotham’s entire reign is reckoned at sixteen years, and apparently must be a corrupt reading.
2Ki 15:31
And the rest of the acts of Pekah and all that he did (see the comment on 2Ki 15:27-31), behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
2Ki 15:32-38
REIGN OF JOTHAM. Once more the writer turns from Israel to Judah, and proceeds to give an account of the reign of Jotham the son of Azariah, or Uzziah, who was appointed regent in his father’s place, when Uzziah was struck with leprosy (verse 5). The account given of the reign is somewhat scanty, and requires to be supplemented from Chronicles (2Ch 27:1-9.).
2Ki 15:32
In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah King of Israel began Jotham the son of Uzziah King of Judah to reign. In the second year of Pekah, Azariah died, and Jotham became actual king; but his joint reign with his father commenced very much earlier. His sole reign was probably a short one.
2Ki 15:33
Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalemi.e. sixteen years from his appointment to be regent, as appears plainly from 2Ch 26:23 and 2Ch 27:1 (comp. Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.10. 4; 12. 1)and his mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. So the author of Chronicles (2Ch 27:1); Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. 2) calls his mother “Jerasa.”
2Ki 15:34
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: he did according to all that his father Uzziah had done. The author of Chronicles says the same, but adds, very pertinently, “Howbeit he entered not into the temple of the Lord”i.e. he did not repeat his father’s act of impiety. Josephus is still warmer in his praises. “This king,” he says (l.s.c.), “was deficient in no manner of virtue; but was at once pious in things pertaining to God, and just in those pertaining to men. He was careful and watchful over the city; whatever needed reparation or adornment, he labored to supply strenuously, as the porticoes in the temple and the gates thereof; and where any part of the wall had gone to ruin, he raised it up again, and built towers of vast size and difficult to capture. And in all other matters pertaining to the kingdom, where there had been neglect, he applied great care and attention.”
2Ki 15:35
Howbeit the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burned incense, still in the high places. He built the higher gate of the house of the Lord. The “higher gate “is thought to be that towards the north, and its fortification implied a fear of attack from that quarter. It must have become amply evident to the kings of Judah, at any rate from the time of the attack on Menahem (2Ki 15:19), that the independence of both kingdoms was menaced by Assyria, and that it was of great importance that their principal fortresses should be placed in a state of efficient defense. Azariah had paid great attention to the fortifying and arming of Jerusalem (2Ch 26:9, 2Ch 26:15), and his son now followed in his footsteps. From 2Ch 27:3 we learn that he not only built the high gate of the temple, but also “on the wall of Ophel built much,” Nor was he content with fortifying the capital. He also “built cities in the mountains of Judah, and in the forests he built castles and towers.” Tiglath-pileser had made war on his father. He felt that any day his own turn might come.
2Ki 15:36
Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did. The principal event of Jotham’s reign was his war with Ammon. The writer of Chronicles says, “He fought also with the king of the Ammonites, and prevailed against them. And the children of Ammon gave him the same year an hundred talents of silver, and ten thousand measures of wheat, and ten thousand of barley. So much did the children of Ammon pay unto him, both the second year, and the third” (2Ch 27:5). Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. 2) gives nearly the same account, but regards the payment as an annual tribute, intended to be permanent. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2Ki 15:37
In those days the Lord began to send against Judah Resin the King of Syria. Rezin’s name occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions early in the reign of Tigiath-pileser, probably in the year B.C. 743. At that time he pays to the Assyrians a heavy tribute, consisting of eighteen talents of gold, three hundred talents of silver, two hundred talents of copper, and twenty talents of spices. Subsequently, about the year B.C. 734, he is found in revolt. His alliance with Pekah, here implied, is directly stated by Isa 7:2. Begun in Jotham’s reign, it continued, and came to a head, in the reign of Ahaz (see 2Ki 16:5 and Isa 7:1-9; Isa 8:6). And Pekah the son of Remaliah. Pekah and Rezin intended to establish on the Jewish throne a certain Ben-Tabeal (Isa 7:6), a creature of their own, with whose aid they thought to offer an effectual resistance to Assyria.
2Ki 15:38
And 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. It may be suspected that the full name of this king was Jehoahaz. Ahaz, “possession,” is a name never assigned to any other Israelite, and it is one not likely to have been given by a religious father like Jotham. In the Assyrian inscriptions the Jewish king contemporary with Rezin and Pekah is called “Yahu-khazi.”
HOMILETICS
2Ki 15:1-7
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” (2Ki 15:3); he “sought God” (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 functionsgreat and high and (in a certain sense) sacred functionsto rule, to judge, to determine on peace or war; to lead armies, if it so pleased 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. 4). 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.
2Ki 15:8-31
Worldly prosperity not infrequently the ruin of kingdoms.
I. EXAMPLE OF SAMARIA. Scarcely ever was there a more prosperous reign than that of Jeroboam II.a reign of forty-one years of continual success, uncheckered by a misfortune-Syria defeated, the old border everywhere recovered, Hamath occupied, Damascus brought into a subject condition. As usual, where there is military success, wealth flowed in, and with wealth, luxury. “Great houses” were built (Amo 3:15), “ivory houses;’ i.e. houses inlaid or paneled with ivory; distinct mansions were inhabited during the summer and during the winter time (Amo 3:15). The children of Israel passed their lives in Samaria, lying “in the corner of a bed,” and in Damascus lounging “upon a couch” (Amo 3:12). “Flagons of wine’ were “loved” (Hos 3:1); “whoredom and wine and new wine took away their heart” (Hos 4:11). And with this softness was blended, on the one hand, the seductive influence of a licentious religionism, on the other, the coarser and ruder vices to which luxury and self-indulgence inevitably lead. Patriotism disappeared, and self-seeking took its place. “Politically all was anarchy or misrule; kings made their way to the throne through the murder of their predecessors, and made way for their successors through their own. Shallum slew Zechariah (2Ki 15:10); Menahem slew Shallum (verse 14); Pekah slew the son of Menahem (verse 25); Hoshea slew Pekah (verse 30). The whole kingdom of Israel was a military despotism, and, as in the Roman empire, those in command came to the throne”. Society was corrupt to the core. The idolatries of the calves, of Baal, and of Moloch worked out their natural results, and bore their bitter fruit. “Creature-worship,” as St. Paul points out (Rom 1:23-32), was the parent of every sort of abomination; and religion having become creature-worship, what God gave as the check to sin became its incentive. Every commandment of God was broken, and that habitually. All was falsehood (Hos 4:1), adultery (Hos 4:11; Amo 2:7), blood shedding (Hos 5:2; Hos 6:8); deceit of God (Hos 4:2) producing faithlessness to man; excess and luxury were supplied by secret or open robbery (Hos 7:1), oppression (Hos 12:7), false dealing (Amo 8:5; Hos 12:7), perversion of justice (Hos 10:4; Amo 2:6), grinding of the poor (Hos 12:7). Blood was shed like water, until one stream met another (Hos 4:2), and overspread the land with one defiling deluge. Adultery was consecrated as an act of religion (Hos 4:14). Those who were first in rank were first in excess. People and king vied in debauchery (Hos 7:5); and the sottish king joined and encouraged the free-thinkers and blasphemers of his court (Hos 7:3). The idolatrous priests loved and shared in the sins of the people (Hos 4:8, Hos 4:9); nay, they seem to have set themselves to intercept those on either side of Jordan, who would go to worship at Jerusalem, laying wait to murder them (Hos 5:1; Hos 6:9). Corruption had spread through the whole land, even the places once sacred through God’s revelations or other mercies to their fore-fathersBethel, Gilgal, Gilead, Mizpah, Shechemwere especial scenes of corruption or of sin (Hos 4:15; Hos 5:1; Hos 6:8, Hos 6:9, etc.). Every holy memory was effaced by present corruption. Could things be worse? There was one aggravation more. Remonstrance was useless (Hos 4:4); the knowledge of God was willfully rejected (Hos 4:6); the people hated rebuke (Amo 5:10); the more they were called, the more they refused (Hos 11:2, Hos 11:7); they forbade their prophets to prophesy (Amo 2:12); and their false prophets hated God greatly (Hos 9:7, Hos 9:9). All attempts to heal all this disease only showed its incurableness”.
II. EXAMPLE OF TYRE. The prosperity of Tyre in the seventh and eighth centuries before our era was extraordinary. She was mistress of her sister cities, Sidon and Gebal and Arvad; she ruled over a hundred colonies; on her island-rock she was safe from Assyria; the trade of the world was in her hands. “Situate at the entry of the sea, a merchant of the people for many isles” (Eze 27:3); full of worldly wisdom, the wisdom that gets increase of riches (Eze 28:3-5); rich beyond all conception in precious metals, and in gems (Eze 28:13), and in spices, and in broidered work (Eze 27:9.2, 24), and in ivory and ebony (Eze 27:15), and in all manner of merchandise; approved, respected, called “the renowned city, strong in the sea” (Eze 26:17);she had reached the acme of her glory, of her wealth, of her greatness. But with what results to her moral tone and temper? Her heart was “lifted up” (Eze 28:5); her pride became excessive; she said in her heart, “I am of perfect beauty” (Eze 27:8)”I am a god; I sit in the seat of God” (Eze 28:2). “Iniquity” of every kind was found in her (Eze 28:15)envp (Eze 26:2), and “violence” (verse 16), and corrupt wisdom (verse 17), and profanation of sanctuaries (verse 18), and even dishonesty in her traffic (verse 18). And with iniquity, as usual, came ruin. Because of her pride, and her envy, and her violence, and her other iniquities, God brought a fire into her midst, which devoured her and reduced her to ashes (Eze 26:18). The Babylonians were made God’s instrument to chastise her, and carry off her wealth, and break down her walls, and destroy her pleasant houses, and slay her people with the sword (Eze 26:11, Eze 26:12), and make her a byword among the nations (Eze 27:32)a desolation, a hissing, and a terror (verse 36).
III. EXAMPLE OF ROME. The ruin of Rome was undoubtedly wrought by that long career of unexampled military success, which began with the closing years of the Second Punic War, and continued till she was the world’s mistress. The wealth of Carthage, Macedonia, and Asia flowing into her coffers, destroyed the antique simplicity and severity of manners, stimulated ambition, provoked inordinate desire, and led to those terrific civil wars, in which the blood of the noblest and the bravest was shed like water, and “Rome fell ruined by her own strength” (Horace). It was not the influx of the barbarians that destroyed Rome; she fell from internal decay. The decline of Roman civilization dates from before the fall of the republic. It was then that population began to diminish, and the pure Roman blood to be mingled with the refuse of every nation. Slaves, freedmen, clients, glided into the tribes and gentes, and were followed by absolute foreigners, Greeks and Egyptians and Syrians, effete races in a state both of physical and moral degradation. “The Orontes flowed into the Tiber.” The very names of those in the highest position became grotesque and strange, such as Cicero and Cato would have pronounced manifestly barbarous. A decay of moral principles followed this admixture. Slavery prevailed, and slavery in ancient as in modern times was “a hotbed of vice and selfish indulgence, enervating the spirit and vital forces of mankind, discouraging legitimate marriage, and enticing to promiscuous and barren concubinage. The fruit of such hateful unions, if fruit there were, engaged little regard from their selfish fathers, and both law and usage continued to sanction the exposure of infants, from which the female sex undoubtedly suffered most. The losses of Italy from this horrid practice were probably the greatest; but the provinces also lost proportionally; the imitation of Roman habits was rife on the remotest frontiers; the conquests of the empire were consolidated by the attractions of Roman indulgence and sensuality; slavery threw discredit on all manual labor, and engendered a false sentiment of honor, which constrained the poorer classes of freemen to dependence and celibacy; vice and idleness went hand-in-hand, and combined to stunt the moral and physical growth of the Roman citizen, leaving his weak and morbid frame exposed in an unequal contest to the fatal influences of his climate”. It was a race which had thus lost its stamina, and become effete and worn out, that succumbed to barbarian inroads which, a few centuries earlier, it would have repulsed without any difficulty.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN
2Ki 15:1-7
Prosperity and its dangers.
The contrast between the opening and the close of Uzziah’s reignhere so sharply set before ushas 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 Aaronthe priestly familywere to offer incense before the Lord. The obvious lesson was that special 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. Hepoor 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 lifethat is the secret of true prosperity and success.
2. The second step in Uzziah’s prosperity was a good man‘s 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 businessand it is a desirable thing to see wealth, honorably earned and wisely spent, in the hands of Christian menthen, with the strong arm of a vigorous resolution, cut these three steps in your upward path, and plant your feet firmly in themthe 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 thingsto 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, there- fore 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 therehis love your motive power, his Word your guideand then there will be no danger in prosperity.C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 15:1-38
Some lessons from the history of kings.
“In 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 yearsa 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” (verses 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
2Ki 15:1-7
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 longfifty-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, 2Ch 24:17; 2Ch 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 housea 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.
2Ki 15:8-22
Anarchy in Israel.
With rapid descent the kingdom of Israel, which had risen to great external prosperity under Jeroboam II; hastened to its fall. The prophets give us vivid pictures of the corruption of the times. The bonds of social life were loosened, oppression was rampant, the fear of God seemed to have died out of the land; there was no confidence, peace, or good will among any classes, in the nation. As a consequence, the throne was a prey to any adventurer who had power to seize it.
I. THE FALL OF JEHU‘S HOUSE.
1. The shadow of doom. With the accession of Zachariah, Jeroboam’s son, the fourth generation of John’s dynasty ascended the throne The shadow of doom may thus be said to have rested On this ill-fated king. A prophet had Spoken it to the founder of the house, “Thy sons shall sit on the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation.” That word had its bright side of reward, but it had also its dark side of penalty, and it is this, which becomes prominent as the predicted term nears its close. Yet, as we can now also see, there is no fate in the matter. The reason why John’s sons were only to sit on the throne till the fourth generation lay in their own character and actions. God’s decrees do not work against, but in harmony with, the existing nature of things, and the established connection of causes and effects. John’s house was about to fall
(1) because John’s sons had been ungodly. None of them had sought God’s glory or taken any pains to promote godliness in the nation. On the contrary, they had continued sowing the wind of disobedience to God’s will, and the nation was now to reap the whirlwind.
(2) Under the rule of these kings, irreligion and immorality had spread fast, and struck their roots deep and wide in the kingdom. This will undermine any dynasty, will overthrow any empire. Rulers make a great mistake when they fix attention solely on external prosperity. If the foundations are rotten, the structure will sooner or later inevitably come down.
(3) Zachariah himself was a feeble king. This is implied even in the brief notice we have of him. It may be he who is referred to by Hosea, “In the day of our king the princes have made him sick with bottles of wine,” etc. (Hos 7:5). In any case, we know that he was not only weak, but wicked”He did evil in the sight of the Lord.”
2. The prophetic word fulfilled. A brief six months of the throne was all that was allowed to Zachariah. He seems to have been held in contempt by the people. His feeble character would appear the more feeble in contrast with that of his energetic and victorious father. We have a similar contrast in English history between Richard Cromwell and his father, Oliver. But Zachariah was more than feeble, he was worthless. Therefore, when the conspirator Shallum smote the king in the light of public day, “before the people,” no hand seems to have been raised in his defense. He perished, and the house of Jehu was extinguished with him. Sinners do not live out half their days (Psa 55:23). In due time the words of God are all fulfilled.
II. THE REIGN OF MENAHEM. We may pass by the brief reign of Shallum, which lasted only a month, and of which no events are recorded. He was slain by Menahem, the son of Gadi, illustrating the truth of which this chapter affords other exemplifications, that they who take the sword shall perish by the sword (Mat 26:52). In respect of Menahem, we notice:
1. His violent usurpation. He too possessed himself of the throne by violent means. He smote Shallum in Samaria, as Shallum had, a few weeks before, smitten Zachariah. The effect of these revolutions on the morals of the people and the administration of law may be imagined. What respect could be felt for royalty established by such methods? Shallum, indeed, was a murderer, but Menahem was no better. Neither by sanction of God nor by election of the people, but solely by brute force, did he set himself upon the throne. His rule was thus, in its inception and essence, a tyranny. To this had Israel come by rejecting their true RulerGod. “They have set up kings,” said God, “but not by me” (Hos 8:4). He who rejects God as his Sovereign must bear a heavier yoke.
2. His sickening cruelties. The fact that Menahem kept the throne for ten years shows him to have been a man of no small natural ability. But his disposition was savagely cruel. Not only did ha smite Shalluma deed which might be pardonedbut in his war with Tiphsah he was guilty of brutal atrocities on those who refused to submit to him (cf. verse 16). In this he showed himself a man of a fierce and unscrupulous character. The people had become fierce, godless, and violent; and God gave them a king after their own image.
3. His league with Assyria. This is not the first contact of Israel with Assyria, but it is the first mention of that contact in the sacred history, The King of Assyria, here named Pul, came against the land, evidently with hostile intent; but Menahem, by the payment of a huge tribute, bought him off, and secured his sanction to his occupancy of the throne. (On the identification of Pul, see the Exposition.) Israel now came under a foreign yoke, and “sorrowed,” as Hosea says, “for the burden of the King of princes” (Hos 8:10). Sin, which is an effort after emancipation from the Law and authority of God, ends in the sinner being reduced to miserable bondage (Luk 15:15, Luk 15:16; Joh 8:34).
4. His oppression of the people. To raise the money for Pul, Menahem was under the necessity of exacting large sums from the men of wealth in the land. From each, we are told, he took fifty shekels of silver. Much of this money had been wrung from the poor, and now it was taken from the rich. In the end, it was probably upon the poor that the burden would come back. Thus the land groaned under tyranny, foreign oppression, robbery, and grinding of class by class. The end was not quite yet, but it was fast approaching. We need not doubt that Menahem’s oppressive reign was hateful to the people. He escaped, however, the penalty of his misdeeds in his own person, and “slept with his fathers.” It was his son Pekahiah who reaped the harvest he had sown.
III. THE REIGN OF PEKAH. Pekahiah’s reign of two years, like that of Shallum, may be passed over. A stronger hand was needed to hold together the warring elements in this distracted kingdom, and such a hand was that of Pekah, the son of Remaliah.
1. Overthrow of the house of Menahem. Menahem had succeeded in handing down the throne to his son, but the latter could not keep it. The bold and ambitious Pekah, one of Pekahiah’s captains, having secured the co-operation of fifty Gileadites, smote the king in his palace, and his attendants with him. Thus another violent revolution took place in Israel. It is stated that Pekah kept the throne for twenty years, but there is great difficulty at this point in adjusting the chronology. It seems impossible, on the side of Judah, to shorten the reign of Ahaz, having regard to his own age, and that of his son Hezekiah, at their respective accessions. To bring the Jewish and Assyrian chronologies into accord, we must apparently either
(1) shorten the reign of Pekah by about ten years, and bring down the reign of Ahaz to a date considerably below that usually given, which involves also the abandonment of the biblical date for the commencement of the reign of Hezekiah (2Ki 18:1), and of the synchronisms of this period generally; or
(2) suppose some break or hiatus of twenty years or so in the Assyrian lists at the epoch of the accession of Tiglath-pileser, i.e. the commencement of the new Assyrian empire. This view has its difficulties, but is not impossible. Pekah’s reign was as evil as that of his predecessors.
2. Invasions of Tiglath-pileser. During this reign began those invasions of the Assyrians, and deportations of the population, which culminated in the fall of Samaria and carrying captive of the whole people, some years later. This expedition, of which mention is made in the Assyrian inscriptions, took place towards the end of Pekah’s period of rule, and was a sequel to the events related in 2Ki 16:5-9. Pekah, in alliance with Rezia of Damascus, had made a plot to depose Ahaz of Judah, and to set a creature of his own upon the throne (Isa 7:1-6). To this proposed attack we owe Isaiah’s magnificent prophecy of the Child Immanuel.
3. Pekah‘s death. This intriguing monarch also, as he had climbed to the throne by assassination, fell a victim to assassination. He was slain by Hoshea, the son of Elah, who succeeded him as the last King of Israel.J.O.
2Ki 15:32-38
A good reign.
In welcome contrast with the character of the reigns we have been considering, stands this of Jotham, who walked in the footsteps of his father in all that was right.
I. JUDAH WELL GOVERNED.
1. Rule in the fear of God. Jotham proved an excellent ruler. He took warning from his father’s example, and “prepared his ways before the Lord his God” (2Ch 27:6). His reign, indeed, was a brief one compared with his father’s, and, had time been given, he might have backslidden as had his predecessors. But, so far as it went, his conduct was blameless, except that the high places were still unremoved. If we assume that Jotham’s years of rule are reckoned from the time when he took his father’s place in the public administration, he cannot have reigned alone for more than five or six years.
2. Religion honored. It is told of him, negatively, that he did not, like his father, enter into the temple of the Lord (2Ch 27:2), and positively, that “he built the higher gate of the house of the Lord.” Whereas a wicked ruler like Athaliah broke down the temple, this good king set himself to adorn and strengthen it. In this he showed a laudable zeal for God’s honor.
3. The kingdom strengthened. Jotham strengthened the kingdom of Judah in many other waysby just administration, by extensive works of building, by subjugation of enemies, etc. (2Ch 27:3-6). If the annals of this reign, “written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah,” could be recovered, they would show Jotham to be one of the best kings Judah ever hada worthy son of a very able father. Such rulers are a blessing to a country. Their loss is to be deplored, for there is no guarantee that their successors will be like them. From Jotham to Ahaz the descent is great.
II. JUDAH THREATENED.
1. A discordant note. It is said in Chronicles that, notwithstanding Jotham’s enlightened and righteous government, “the people did yet corruptly” (2Ch 27:2). It is not easy to purge out evil leaven when once it has got into a community; and the worship of the high places gave opportunity for evil practices to develop themselves away from the center, which was more under the king’s eye. The pictures Isaiah now begins to draw for us show that the corruption was not slight.
2. Threatened invasion. To this inward corruption of the people may be attributed the chastisements which God now saw fit to send on Judah. In Jotham’s reign they but begin, but in the reign of Ahaz they develop to considerable proportions. In the text we are simply told, “In those days the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin the King of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah.” These two kings, as we shall subsequently see, had designs upon the throne of Judah. Chastisement is the more deserved when great privileges are given and fail to be improved.J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
2Ki 15:1. In the twenty and seventh year In the fourteenth year, according to Houbigant. Dr. Lightfoot is of opinion, that the difficulties in the chronology of this place may be settled, by supposing that there was an interregnum, wherein the throne was vacant eleven or twelve years between the death of Amaziah and the inauguration of his son Azariah, who, being left an infant of four years old when his father died, was committed to the guardianship of the grandees of the nation, who, during his minority, took the administration of public affairs upon themselves, and when he was become sixteen devolved it upon him; so that when he became in full possession of the throne it was in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. Azariah in 2Ch 26:1 is called Uzziah; and by St. Matthew, Ozias; words of pretty much the same signification.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
THIRD SECTION
The Monarchy Under Azariah (uzziah) And Jotham In Judah, And Under Zachariah And Others Until Hoshea, In Israel
(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 mothers 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 kings 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 daysomit 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 [uponomit 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 kings 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 mothers 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, , 27, has been put for , 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 , instead of , to represent 15. The latter being the abbreviation for , was avoided, as is well known, when it should have occurred in the list of numerals to represent fifteen. If ever stood there, of course the inference is good, that, even at a very early time, the superstitious reverence for the name 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 to 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 Jeroboams reign, and then in reading 15 for 27 here, because Zachariah succeeded in Uzziahs 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 fathers death (2Ki 15:33). does not mean: sick-house, or pest-house, as it is now generally translated, for 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 (), 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 kings 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: . Ewald considers a proper name, because has not the article [and because 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 forms a part of certain Assyrian proper names. (See the list of Assyrian kings at the end of vol. I. of Lenormants Manual of the History of the East, with foot-note thereon.) However, to take 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 Uzziahs reign; probably some of them fall even in the beginning of the 39th. According to Josephus, Shallum was a friend () of Zachariah, and put him to death by taking advantage of this relation. When Menahem, (i.e., the commander-in-chief), who was then in Tirzah, heard this, he started up with his entire force, and marched to Samaria, ; after he had made himself king, . 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 , 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 is an error for , a town on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh, Jos 17:7-8 (Thenius). 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 , not with . 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: ), and chastised it and the surrounding territory in a horrible manner (Josephus: ). 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 Menahems reign, see note on 2Ki 15:23. The closing words of 2Ki 15:18 : 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: . They therefore read , and Thenius and Keil, referring also to 2Ki 15:29, agree in regarding this as the original reading of the text. By this change , 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 Hitzigs emendation .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 , 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, Puls 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 Israels 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 (, he made the money go out) upon the able ones in Israel. 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 Menahems 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 , 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 kings 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 was the harem or included it.W. G. S.] Josephus gives as the reason for his short reign of two years: . 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 () the king. The following 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, Pekahs successor, Hoshea, came to the throne in the 12th year of Jothams 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 , 20, for , 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 translators 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 Dercetad, 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 Frst, Tiglath means acer, fortis.[This is the etymological meaning of Diglath, applied to the Tigris from its swiftness. See the dictionaries on .], arcere, and , 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. , 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 kings 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 Pekahs reign. Perhaps it gave occasion to Hoseas 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. 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 Solomons 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 , 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 Jothams 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 Judsa. 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 7475 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 7454, 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 (Pekahs 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 Pekahs 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 Pekahs 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 inscriptionAshariah), a creature of their own (see 2Ki 15:37, where they seem to have formed the plan before Jothams 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 Pilesers 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 Pilesers 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. 16W. 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 Jehovahthe 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 lan 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 (), 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 Uzziahs 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 kings son exercised royal functions during his fathers 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. Uzziahs 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, , 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 Uzziahs 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-priests 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 fde 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 prophets 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 Pekahs reign; he could not be satisfied with money, but carried off a large portion of the inhabitants into captivity. The third, Shalmaneser, came during Hosheas 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 Jehus dynasty, and on the death of Zachariah, see Stanley, II. 400403.]
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 mothers 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. Machiavellis 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). Starkes 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 Menahems reign; his conduct at Tiphsah rather bears testimony to the contrary. Also all the rest which Ewald brings together in regard to Menahems 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 Pekahs 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 Pekahs 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 soldiers 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. Schmieders opinion (in Von Gerlachs Bibelwerk) that Hos 7:4-7 refers to Pekahs conspiracy against Pekahiah, although it is much more probable than Ewalds 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 Jothams 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. Uzziahs 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 Gods 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.Wrt. 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 Gods 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 servantsthose 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.[, for which 2Ch 26:21 has , is an abstract noun, sickness. Cf. Ew. 165, a and b. 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. Bhr (see Exeg. on the verse) takes it as the English translators did, separate, but , 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. 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. [lengthened from , (which form Ges. gives in the H.-W.-B., and pronounces Qubl) is to be pronounced Quobol (Bttcher, Ewald), and] is equivalent to the Chaldee , Dan 2:31; Dan 3:3,Bhr.
[3]2Ki 15:16.[Note the imperfect after . 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.[ 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.[ Elsewhere in the O. T. it is always called . It is not regarded as a fem. and hence the ultima is not accented, though the plural has the form ,Ew. 173, h, 2 and 3, note 1. Bttcher sees in it a peculiarity of the Ephraimitic dialect ( 34). In form 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. Rawlinsons 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) Lenormants 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 students 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.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The history of Israel and Judah is carried on through this chapter. And this is the period in which the prophets Hosea and Isaiah exercised their ministry. Here is a succession of several kings both in Israel and Judah.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The review of the parallel history in the 2nd book of the Chronicles, will form the best comment on the history of Azariah. Though it be said he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, it is intended by the expression only to imply that he did not abjure the worship of the Lord God of Israel and set up idols. It should seem that his name was more generally known by that of Uzziah, as he is uniformly called in the Chronicles; and the leprosy with which he was smitten is there more particularly recorded. See 2Ch 26 , throughout.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Ki 15
1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign.
2. Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem.
3. And he did that which was right [Azariah supported the legitimate worship, and lent his countenance to no foreign cultus] in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah had done;
4. Save that the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places.
5. And the Lord smote [struck] the king [because of his usurpation of the priestly functions in the sanctuary], so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house [sickhouse (or hospital) in a royal residence outside Jerusalem (Lev 13:46 ; chap. 2Ki 7:3 ), set apart for such cases]. And Jotham the king’s son was over the house, judging the people of the land [as his father’s representative].
6. And the rest of the acts of Azariah [2Ch 25 ] and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
7. So 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.
8. In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria six months.
9. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his fathers [ i.e., the dynasty of Jehu, of which he was the last member. Like all his predecessors, he upheld the illicit worship established by Jeroboam I.] had done: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.
10. And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and smote him before the people [in public], and slew him, and reigned in his stead.
11. And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
12. This 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.
13. Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah [Mat 1:9 , called Ozias] king of Judah; and he reigned a full month [Heb., a month of days] in Samaria.
14. For Menahem the son of Gadi [or a Gadite] went up from Tirzah [on the news of the murder of Zachariah, Menahem marched to the capital], and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned in his stead.
15. And 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.
16. Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof [literally, her borders (or territories) (comp. Jos 17:8 )] from Tirzah: because they opened not to him [the gates were closed against him], therefore he smote it: and all the women [comp. chap. 2Ki 8:21 ; Hos 13:16 ; Amo 1:13 ] therein that were with child he ripped up.
17. In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah king of Judah began Menahem the son of Gadi to reign over Israel, and reigned ten years in Samaria.
18. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.
19. And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land [occupied it]: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver [about 375,000], that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand.
20. And Menahem exacted [literally, caused to go out] the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels [the talent of silver was worth 3,000 shekels. The payment of 1,000 talents (3,000,000 shekels) therefore implies a total of 60,000 persons able to contribute] of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there [then ( Psa 14:5 )] in the land.
21. And 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?
22. And Menahem slept with his fathers; and Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead.
23. In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned two years.
24. And 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.
25. But Pekah the son of Remaliah, a captain of his, conspired against him, and smote him in Samaria, in the palace of the king’s house [palace: 1Ki 16:18 ], with Argob and Arieh, and with him fifty men of the Gileadites: and he killed him, and reigned in his room [Josephus accounts for the short reign of Pekahiah by the statement that he imitated the cruelty of his father].
26. And 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.
27. In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years.
28. And 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.
29. In 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, all the land of Naphtali [comp. 1Ki 15:20 ] and carried them captive to Assyria.
30. And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.
31. And 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.
32. In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign.
33. Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok.
34. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: he did according to all that his father Uzziah had done.
35. Howbeit the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burned incense still in the high places. He [it was who] built the higher gate of the house of the Lord.
36 Now the rest of the acts of Jotham [some of these are related in 2Ch 27:4-6 ], and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
37. In those days the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah.
38. And 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.
Israel’s Wicked Kings
We have to wander for a little time in the cemetery of kings. Not only so, we have to visit the sepulchres of murdered kings. Verily the field we are about to traverse might be called Aceldama the field of blood. Perhaps we do not always realise how sanguinary were the ages in which the early kings lived. We take up one story after another, but seldom bring them all into one focal view, and therefore we are the less shocked by the awful tragedies which took place in ancient days.
Here is a man called Azariah. In other places he is called Uzziah. His mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. The mothers of the kings of Judah are mentioned: the mothers of the kings of Israel are not referred to. Who cares to know anything about the ancestry of bad men? They were from a certain point in the history all bad. That we have seen in an earlier study. In Judah there were varieties of kingly character. Some of the sovereigns were really good, or to a large extent were excellent men; their mothers’ names are given. We like to know something of the history of sweet flowers, beautiful things, charming lives. But who cares to know much about the ancestry of men who had no good qualities, who lived for themselves, who were base out and out, and who have left behind them records we are almost ashamed to read? Azariah was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem, “and he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord” ( 2Ki 15:3 ). Fifty-two years of right-doing! A record of that kind ought not to be passed over as if it were common writing. It is so easy to forget good living, patient action, constant discharge of domestic or public duty. It is easy to get up a great excitement about wars, revolutions, blood-shedding, on all possible occasions and for all possible reasons; but think of a man going steadily on for fifty-two years doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord, at least in the main keeping at it, praying every day for daily help; whether the times were exciting or tranquil, still doing his duty as best he could. A monument like that ought not to be rushed past, as if it were not worthy of heed and attention and grateful thought. But was it all good? We have said it was good “in the main,” and we had a purpose in putting in that cautionary word. Still, it is something to be good in the main. Surely God who counteth up, and reckoneth with accurate arithmetic, all the days and policies of man, and who numbers the hairs of his head, will also conduct the same scrutiny when he looks over the life that has been lived. Woe unto us, and distress intolerable, if all the good effort, all the strenuous endeavour, all the sobbing and broken-hearted prayers shall go for nothing. But we are in God’s hands. He who numbers up his jewels, and looks carefully into all things, let him be judge. Amen! What then about the reservation? The text explains: “save that” ( 2Ki 15:4 ). Mark these excepting words “save that.” It would seem as if we could not get the devil’s footprint quite rubbed out of the earth. It has been a good deal covered up, and very much has been done towards removing the impression, but there it is! We think that we are ourselves Christians, saved men, at least beginning to be good; and this we account, and justly so, a miracle of grace, but every now and then there is a flash of unholy anger, a knock at the heart-door to a passion that wants to be let loose: then we are thrown back in infinite discouragement, saying, It is useless to attempt to climb the steep of duty, or force our way, even by the help of the triune God, into heavenly purity and peace. But presently we come upon a verse which seems to overturn all the argument which has been outlined. The king has been doing good fifty-two years; the high places which every king has allowed to stand have indeed not been removed; the people have sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places, but that has taken place in all the former histories: now we come upon this word of judgment, and it makes us wonder: “And the Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house” ( 2Ki 15:5 ). Who expected the narrative to take this course? We were prepared to journey with Azariah from height to height until he passed into the skies a good knight a holy, noble soldier, as well as king; and behold he is a leper white as snow. This is surely not the reward of good-doing? Verily this must be an anti-climax; at all events we cannot read this narrative as if it were a sequence; conscience stops and says I cannot go any farther in any book that first tells me a man did that which was right in the sight of the Lord two-and-fifty years and then was smitten with the leprosy. Conscience annotates the Bible. Conscience cannot be beguiled by literal criticism, by far-fetched suggestions respecting etymology and grammar. Conscience boldly says, If the man did right he ought not to have been smitten with leprosy: there is something wanting in the record, and it must be found. That is right. Are we not referred in this very text to the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Where there is a reference we must follow it. Adopting that rational course, we refer to the Second Book of Chronicles, and read:
“But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction; for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men: and they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar” ( 2Ch 26:16-19 ).
He was punished for trespass. He would not only be king, he would be supreme pointiff in Judah. Let us beware how we break through divinely-imposed limitations. Again and again we have had occasion to point out that we have only liberty to obey. How ambition hurts the soul, breaks in upon its piety, drives its holiness in the direction of carnality and selfishness! How it will not allow a man to sleep all night, but will awake him out of his deepest slumbers to hold before him some flashing vision of success and honour which never can be realised! How it will tempt his eyes and heart and his whole appetency by a mirage which fades as he approaches. Let us keep within our own limits; let us know ourselves to be but men: then shall we live quietly, honourably, and usefully, and there shall be no trace of leprosy in the closing days of our life. Trespassers, beware! “Whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.” To keep down ambition is to begin at least to grow in true goodness.
The king is dead. He is sleeping with his fathers in the city of David. We come now upon a very rapid course of history. There are two short reigns, Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months, “and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Certainly! The moment you come upon that old line you come upon evil. How is it that out of some families and lineages you cannot get the devil? Zachariah had reigned only six months; but they were six exciting months: he served the devil with both hands, earnestly, during the whole time. If it was a short reign, he proposed that it should be a merry one; but it ended in blood. Then came Shallum, and he reigned a full month. He slew Zachariah, and afterwards was slain himself. A month’s royalty! And what is any royalty but a month, if it is not a royalty of righteousness and patriotism and faithful discharge of high duty? No man is a sovereign in God’s sight who is not the subject of his own people. Then a cruel man arose, a man with a fiend’s heart; one of the Iscariots that make all the history red with shame. He reigned ten years over Israel. We cannot dwell upon his reign: ten years of the worst kind of evil-doing. Sometimes we come upon a kind of evil that seems at least to be streaked with occasional good; now and then the black becomes a kind of grey, and the grey seems to lighten a little in patches here and there; but in the case of Menahem there was nothing but the blackness of darkness of guilt. He bribed the king of Assyria with a thousand talents of silver, that is to say, he gave the king of Assyria 375,000, that he might confirm the kingdom in his hand. How did Menahem obtain the money? By the old way: “And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria;” so the king of Assyria having appropriated 375,000 of the money of Israel, stayed not in the land. What can you expect of a bad man? He will bribe, he will slay, he will break vows, he will enter into evil compacts and covenants of every kind, because he is bad in heart.
Then came his son Pekahiah, and reigned two years and reigned badly. But why dwell upon the evil reigns of the kings? Because there is a great doctrine underneath the history, an eternal doctrine. These are not anecdotes of ancient Israelitish history: these are all outgrowths of certain moral philosophies. We thought the kings would have been happy men. Why were they evil? Because they had a bad beginning. Always go back if you can to the origin of the appearances which excite your wonder and sometimes perplex both understanding and conscience. We still hear the moan of the old prophet when he said: The people of Israel say I am getting old, and they want a king like the other nations of the world. That is the explanation! Verily God gave them kings enough. He surfeited them with kings. This is a way very noticeable in the developments of providence. God gave them their desire, and sent leanness into their souls. It is a terrible thing to have some prayers answered! Israel desired a king; Israel was ambitious; Israel would not represent any longer an invisible and spiritual theocracy: but Israel would have a throne, a crown, a sceptre, and all the paraphernalia of royalty; and, behold, the prayer was answered. But look at the history. What is it? A river of corruption; a black, broad, deep river rolling on, and swallowing up so much of Israel’s strength and beauty and nobleness. Let us chasten ourselves even in prayer. We are safe only in the utterance of one petition. All other petitions are subject to expansions, contractions, variations, which may be of a most pernicious character; but there is one petition which angel and old man and little child may all utter: Not my will, but thine, be done. When a man has prayed that prayer, he has done with prayer; the next we shall hear of him will be praise: prayer has culminated, prayer has no other eloquence; it has used up all speech; it now must pass into the service of music
Then circumstances are no guarantee of character. What ought the men to be who have bread enough, who live in palaces, who lift up a finger and command multitudes of servants! How happy ought they to be whose fields are loaded with golden fruits of every name; whose word is law and whose smile is the only heaven their servile dependants ever hope to reach! They will be good men; their homes will be churches; they will never leave the altar; their mouths will be filled with praise. Is it so? The book of history is open. It is not for the theologian to pronounce morally upon the question; it is for the historian to testify as to facts. Let him stand up and tell us if a man’s life consists in the abundance of the things which he possesses; let him name the man who was good because he had plenty, who was holy because he ruled the world. Great positions impose great responsibilities. How difficult it is to make the position and responsibility equivalent terms, the one exactly filling and covering the other! We envy men who are in great positions, but really we need not. They have corresponding burdens. Exactions are made upon them from which we are largely free. We cannot tell what secret pain they endure, what continual torture of mind, what anxiety of heart lest the issues of policy and government should be disastrous, and lest things meant for good, should be converted into poison and should minister to the reign of death. But whatever our position, it is one of influence. If we are not kings nominally we may be kings really; or if not kings, we may be under-rulers, inferior, but still influential servants. Every man should reckon upon it that even his word has an effect, and therefore should measure his words, and be careful how he deports himself: some child at least may be looking or listening who will receive an impression from him. Had the kings of Israel and Judah been good men, who can tell what happy influences might have issued from their thrones? Let prayer be made for all men; for kings and for all in authority, that they may be chastened, that they may be sober-minded, that they may be wise, patriotic, and resolute in all knowledge and goodness. When the most influential centres are healthy, pure, true, what may we not justly expect, but that all round the circumference there will palpitate effects corresponding to the quality of what is found at the centre?
Awful is the story who can read it? Shallum conspired against Zachariah, and smote him, and reigned in his stead; Menahem smote Shallum, and slew him, and reigned in his stead; Pekah conspired against Pekahiah, and killed him, and reigned in his stead; Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and smote him, and slew him and reigned in his stead. And these were the kings of old time the men for whom Israel panted in unholy prayer! Here is wickedness let loose. Here we see what wicked men would do if they had their own way: they will leave nothing standing no corn in the field, no fruit in the orchard, no bread in the house. Everything goes down before wickedness. It is a blight, a curse, a hell in action, in locomotion, scorching, blasting wherever it goes. Why then do we trifle with great questions involving moral influence and moral issue? Why do we try to whitewash sin? Is it that we might see what sin really is that these men were permitted to live and to carry out all their riotousness according to their own evil will? Did the Lord look down from heaven and say, Let men see what wickedness is when it can work out its own career, when, apparently at least, all discipline is removed; let them see what it will do: will any home be inviolable; will any altar be protected from sacrilege; will any commandment be kept in its integrity? What wonder that once at least God shook the heavens in the form of fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest, that he might disinfect the earth that had been cursed with iniquity? How he has tried to save the world! He has sent his Son, the true King, to reign over us. Some of us have said, We will not have this man to reign over us, but will we have kings of our own making, or in very deed be our own kings. Why do we not learn from history? We blame men in political life for not learning from the records of the past; we taunt them, and justly, with their stupidity and denseness of mind and selfishness of heart; we say, Think what history has always done in contradiction of such foolish fancies and vain dreamings; and pointing them to historical records, we say, Why not be wise? If this appeal be permitted in other circles, it may be permitted a fortiori with ever accumulating force and strength in the Christian sanctuary. “How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? And the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?” Read the judgment of God in the history of the world upon all men who are evil thinkers and evil doers. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” The bad men’s graves are amongst us: we ought to learn something from their very sepulchres. What is it we ought to be learning? That the way of transgressors is hard; that a man’s thought being against the Lord is also against his fellow-men, and eventually against himself; and wondering at all these things, who would not say: What then is to be done? When that inquiry is propounded, the only answer comes from the gospel of the cross of Christ. God will have no tampering, no daubing of the wall with untempered mortar, no crying Peace, peace, where there is no peace: he will be fundamental, regenerative, vital; he will work a miracle: a man shall be twice born!
Prayer
Almighty God, thou art a Spirit. Thou art the King eternal, immortal, invisible; the only wise God. Thou didst send thy Son to die for us, and rise again, and teach us thy will, and bid us welcome to the feast of thy love. We did scornfully intreat him. We stoned the prophets from the beginning, and thy Son we slew, and hanged on a tree. But we knew not what we did: who can tell what he is doing at any time, or follow out his action to all its issues? Who can follow his own words, and tell where they beat and throb, and where their influence ends? We know not all we do. We bless thee that our ignorance is herein our privilege. May it never deter us from zealous action; but fearlessly, lovingly, with full trust upon the living God, may we go forward to do our duty as we may be able to discharge it, knowing that we do not see all, we cannot measure all, we can follow ourselves but a very little way. We are multiplying ourselves a thousandfold every day so that at last each man may be found to be as a great multitude. This is the way of the Lord; this is the plan of the Most High; thou wilt carry it on, and none can stay thy hand. We will say, therefore, with our whole heart’s love, The will of the Lord be done. But remembering how we multiply ourselves, may we be careful about ourselves lest we multiply that which is evil, and grieve the Spirit of the Most High. Give us understanding of truth, righteousness, and all goodness; and understanding these things may we follow after them, with ever-burning zeal, with religious hopefulness, with completeness of piety and devotion. We bless thee for all thy care of us. Thou dost nurse us as if we were little children: what other are we to thee, Eternal One, but children of yesterday poor, frail, ignorant, dying, yet having on us the seal of divinity? Continue thy care, and train us up into all strength and nobleness, and make us perfect men in Christ Jesus. This is thy purpose concerning us, that we should be men in understanding in comprehension of truth, in loyalty to the throne of God. When our sorrows are many, when our eyes are blinded by tears, when the whole horizon is one frowning cloud, then let the Lord come to us, mighty to save. When heart and flesh do fail, then be thou the strength of our heart, and our portion for ever. Keep us in the enjoyment of a contented spirit. Make us strong in recollection, clear in reminiscence; may no line of gracious interposition fade from our memory, and having full knowledge of what God did yesterday we shall proceed into the mystery of tomorrow with a calm heart and with a rational intrepidity. The Lord hear us, multiply his comforts toward us, make us glad by the nearness of his presence, and when we reel and totter, or show signs of weakness, one touch of thine hand will bring back our strength and settle us in our love and in our purpose. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XV
THE REIGNS OF UZZIAH, JOTHAM, AND THAZ (OF JUDAH) AND ZECHARIAH, SHALLUM, PEKAHIAH, AND PEKA (OF ISRAEL)
2Ki 15:1-16:20
In this chapter we begin with the brief reign of Zechariah who was the last king of the dynasty of Jehu. He was a weakling preceded by four strong men, but himself very inferior to his predecessors. Zechariah reigned only six months, and during that six months we have the same story of sin and corruption repeated as we have had in all the reigns previous to him. He was murdered by a usurper named Shallum, and thus ends the dynasty of Jehu as had been prophesied: that his children to the fourth generation only should sit upon the throne.
Then follows the brief reign of Shallum. The usurper succeeds in removing Zechariah and seizes the throne. His reign is short lived, but during that time we have an even more terrible picture of the condition of the people as described in the book of Hosea, Hosea 4-14. It is during this period and after, that Hosea gives us the bulk of his prophecy. In Hos 10:3 , referring to one of these revolutions when the dynasty was changed, we find this statement: “Surely now shall they say, We have no king; for we fear not the Lord; and the king, what can he do for us?” which indicates that the people felt themselves without a king. They cared not for God nor for the king. The kingdom was without a head) without a central government, the result of such condition of affairs is the anarchy which he describes. In Hos 4:1-2 we have a catalogue of the sins of the people: “Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel; for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land; nought but swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery; they break out, and blood toucheth blood.” So frequent were the murders that the blood of one is not dried up before another one takes place and there is a continuous stream of blood.
Next comes the brief reign of Menahem, who seized the throne through murder, destroyed all the dynasty preceding him, and the brief statement made in regard to his character would indicate that he was a man, barbarous in his ferocity, a murderer and a relentless freebooter.
The record tells us that when Uzziah was exalted, his heart was lifted up with pride, and he assumed to perform the functions of the priesthood. He thrust himself into the Temple to offer the incense which the law placed in other hands. There the priest met him, bravely stood in the way of that offering, and while the spirit of persistence was upon him, God smote him with leprosy, and from the day that leprosy struck him he had to be isolated from the throne and the people and though he lived years afterward a regency was established by his son, Jotham. It is called Uzziah’s reign, but Jotham acted as king until his leprosy killed him.
In 2Ki 15:19-20 and 1Ch 5:26 we find that Pul, king of Assyria, or the great Tiglath-Pileser, approaches the Northern Kingdom, and Menahem had to pay a large tribute in order to maintain his kingdom, a thousand talents of silver: “And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of 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.” Thus he was able to maintain his throne and kingdom by paying Tiglath-Pileser a heavy tribute. Then follows the reign of Pekahiah, the son of Menahem. He was a little improvement upon his father. In a short time he was himself butchered by Pekah who seized the throne and established another dynasty. His character was in line with the other kings of Israel in general: “He departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.”
About this time Uzziah died. It is notable that he was buried “in the field of burial with his fathers, for they said, He was a leper.” Just at this time, Isaiah, the greatest of Old Testament prophets, had his vision, and also the prophetic work of Amos and Hosea of Israel and Micah of Judah falls in this period. From these prophets we get a fine description of the customs and practices of this time.
Upon the death of Uzziah, his son Jotham, reigned in his stead. His mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. His character was ahead of any other king in the period except Hezekiah. He didn’t put down the high places, but he didn’t commit particular sins to aggravate the condition of the people. He carried forward some important building enterprises. He built the upper gate of the Temple, the wall of Ophel, cities in the hill country of Judah and castles and towers in the forest. He was also successful in war with the Ammonites who paid him large tribute.
During the reign of Pekah several things happened. The kingdom was now nearing its end and we read that Pul, the great Assyrian king approached eastern Palestine, conquered it, deported the entire population “and brought them unto Halah, and Habor and Hara, and to the river of Gozan,” and there they remained. Tiglath-Pileser was the first of the great Assyrians that inaugurated the system of deporting a rebellious people, thus rendering them powerless to oppose him. He picked them up, and transported them to other countries, and brought in others to take their places, simply transferred whole nations. Thus all eastern Palestine had gone into exile.
We now come to Ahaz and the whole picture is black. He reigned sixteen years and he crowded into that time as much meanness, vileness, as a man can put into sixteen years. Let us glance at the record itself to see some of the things that he did. In the sketch of his character it is said, “He did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.” There was a confederacy formed against him to which the prophets give particular notice. The king of Israel and the king of Syria entered into an alliance to destroy Judah. Here the prophet Oded comes in and the record says, “Behold, because the Lord, the God of your fathers, was wroth with Judah, he hath delivered them into your hand, and ye have slain them in a rage which hath reached up unto heaven. And now ye purpose to keep the children of Judah and Jerusalem for bondmen and bondwomen unto you: but are there not even with you trespasses of your own against the Lord your God?” You acted as the sword of God against Judah. Ought it not to put you to thinking that God would make some other nation the sword against you? ‘Spurgeon has a great sermon on that text: “Are there not even with you trespasses of your own against the Lord your God?” Spurgeon preached his sermon to those harsh censorious people who with an eye of a buzzard can detect anything fowl, or dead, or decaying in the character of other people, and he made this charge in the sermon: “You that condemn others, you who are so ready to pass a harsh and inexorable judgment upon them, are there not even with you some trespasses against the Lord your God?” Our Lord carried out the thought thus: “What judgment ye mete unto others shall be measured unto you.” Not only was Ahaz smitten by this confederacy from the north, but the Edomites on the south revolted against him; on every side the enemies came in and smote him.
Now we come to his next sin. Instead of turning to God with repentance and asking the Lord to help him he seeks an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, the king of Assyria, and invites him to smite Syria for a consideration: “Now I will foot the bills.” In order to foot the bills he strips the house of God of all of its precious ornaments and with that gold he buys the service of the Assyrian king to smite the Syrians and the Assyrian was ready enough to do the smiting. He had an eye in that direction already and he did smite, but he demanded that Ahaz should come up to Damascus and pay tribute to him.
So we come to the third great sin of Ahaz. When in Damascus he studied the form of the altar of burnt offerings that the idolaters had up there and was very much pleased with it; so before he leaves he sends a plan of it to a certain priest and instructs him to make one just like it, and when he gets home he moves God’s altar off to one side, and puts up this heathen altar that he had copied. He didn’t stop at that; he shut up the holy place, and closed up all the services of the worship of the true God. That gives some idea of his sins.
In 2Ki 15:29 we have the account of another terrible deportation by Tiglath-Pileser. He came “and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maacah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all of the land of Naphtali, and he carried them captive to Assyria.” Thus we see that northern Israel was stripped of all of its land east of the Jordan and of all its land north of the plain of Esdraelon, and only the hill country of Ephraim was left, about one-tenth perhaps of the entire dominion. So the kingdom is going, falling, being stripped of its possessions gradually.
In 2Ki 15:30-31 , we have an account of the death of Pekah, which was the result of a conspiracy of Hoshea, the son of Remaliah. But between Pekah and Hoshea we find, according to good authority,” another interregnum of nine years which is determined by comparing 2Ki 15:27 ; 2Ki 15:30 and 2Ki 17:1 .
QUESTIONS
1. Who succeeded Jeroboam II, and what was his character?
2. How long did he reign, what was the manner of his death, and what promise of Jehovah was fulfilled in him?
3. Who succeeded Zechariah and what was the story of his reign and death?
4. Who succeeded Shallum and what was his character?
5. What was Uzziah’s sin, what was its punishment and what is meant by “several house”?
6. Who became king regent and what was his special work as such?
7. What invasion of Israel just here and what results?
8. Who succeeded Menahem, what was his character and what the manner of his death?
9. Who succeeded Pekahiah and what was his character?
10. What is notable in the death and burial of Uzziah, what great prophet had his vision in the year of Uzziah’s death, and what other prophets came in this period?
11. Who succeeded Uzziah, who his mother and what his character?
12. What was the spiritual condition of his people, what of his building enterprises and what of his conquest and result?
13. What deportation of Israel here, who took them and where, and what the market condition of Judah at this time?
14. Who succeeded Jotham, what was his character, and what horrible thing did he practice?
15. Recite the account of the war between Ahaz and Rezin and Pekah including the account of Isaiah and the work of Oded the prophet.
16. What invasion here of Judah, what was the result and what reason assigned?
17. What distressed condition of Ahaz at this time, to what source did he turn for relief and what result?
18. What second deportation of Israel, who took them and where?
19. Recite the story of Ahaz’s sacrilege and its lessons.
20. What of the interregnum between Pekah and Hoshea and how determined by the author?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
twenty and seventh year. So in 2Ch 26:1-3. Azariah being then sixteen (2Ki 15:2), and therefore only three on the death of his father Arnaziah. Hence, there were thirteen years interregnum (16 – 3 = 13). Arnaziah died in the fourteenth year of Jeroboam. Therefore Azariah began to reign in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam (13 + 14 = 27). This is the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam’s partnership with his father on his going to the Syrian wars. Azariah = Uzziah. See note on 2Ki 14:21.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 15
He was sixteen years old when he began to reign, he reigned for fifty-two years ( 2Ki 15:2 ).
One of the longest reigns.
He did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done; except that he left the high places where the people were sacrificing. And the LORD smote the king with leprosy ( 2Ki 15:3-5 ).
We will get the full story of this when we get to Chronicles.
until the day of his death. [And so his son was sort of a go-between.] Jotham his son was over the house, judging the people [but Uzziah was the king though leprous] ( 2Ki 15:5 ).
Very popular king. A very good king. In fact, during his reign as we get into the Chronicles, it will tell us that the name Uzziah was on the lips of all the people. They were all, he was a powerful, strong leader, good king and the people really came to trust in him and all because he had brought the kingdom into a place of prosperity.
Now the rest of the acts of Azariah ( 2Ki 15:6 ),
We’re going to get when we get to Second Chronicles.
So Azariah slept with his fathers; they buried him in the city of David: and Jotham his son began to reign in his stead. And in the thirty-eighth year of Azariah the king of Judah Zachariah who was the son of Jeroboam began to reign over Israel and he reigned for six months ( 2Ki 15:7-8 ).
Very short reign.
He did evil in the sight of the LORD. And Shallum conspired against him, and killed him and reigned in his stead ( 2Ki 15:9-10 ).
Now, he was the fourth generation from Jehu, so the Lord promised four generations to Jehu. And with the death of Jeroboam that ends the line or the dynasty of Jehu. And thus, the word of the Lord was fulfilled when He promised Jehu four generations.
“Shallum conspired and killed him in order that he might have the throne and he reigned for a full month in Samaria.” Ain’t that the way it goes? You know, you spend your whole life to fulfill an ambition. I’m finally there. Alright, I’ve got it made. And then you get wiped out. So many people, you know, they finally, oh, I finally retired. And in a month they’re gone. I was talking with old railroad man down in Moundsville, Virginia, West Virginia. And he worked for the B & L Railroad. He said, “I’ve been working for them for fifty-seven years.” I said, “When are you going to retire?” And he got angry at me. I said, “Why? I didn’t mean to offend you, what’s wrong?” He said, “When you retire from the railroad, you die.” And he told me all of his friends that have retired and died within the year. So he said, “You ought to just keep going.” So he was still going on the railroad. And but here is one of those things of life, you know, it’s interesting how so often when a person just gets to the place of the achieving of all of his dreams and goals, that it’s sort of…
Remember in the New Testament Jesus told about this guy, successful farmer and all. And he said, “Well, what am I going to do? My barns are full. I know what I’m going to do. I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger and all.” And the Lord said, “Thou fool, tonight your soul’s going to be required of you” ( Luk 12:16-20 ). Life hangs on such a tenuous string. We need to be not laying up store for this life, but laying up store for the life to come, which will never end. We put much too much into this life. An emphasis into this life and much too little emphasis and input into the other life, the eternal life that we have.
And so he reigned for a month in Samaria and he was assassinated.
And the rest of his acts of conspiracy are written in the books of the chronicles of the kings of Israel ( 2Ki 15:15 ).
And Menahem smote… he became the king and he smote the cities of Tiphsah, and all of the area around it, Tirzah, and he smote it and he ripped up all the pregnant women.
In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah the king of Judah began Menahem the son of Gadi to reign over Israel, he reigned for ten years. He did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. And during his reign, Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and he bought him off with a thousand talents of silver, which he exacted from all of the wealthy people in the land ( 2Ki 15:17-20 ).
And his death is recorded in verse twenty-one.
And his acts the rest of them are in the chronicles of the kings of Israel. And in the fiftieth year of Azariah the king of Judah, Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign over Israel, and he reigned for only two years. And did evil in the sight of the LORD. And Pekah who was the son of the captain, conspired against him, and killed him in Samaria ( 2Ki 15:21 , 2Ki 15:23-25 ).
So Pekahiah was killed by Pekah. And that’s why getting into these kings can sometimes get confusing because of the various names, and sometimes they have two names.
Pekah reigned over Israel beginning in the fifty-second year of the last year of king Uzziah, and he reigned for twenty years. He did evil in the sight of the LORD. [And during his reign,] Tiglathpileser the king of Assyria, took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and all of the Galilee and the area of the tribe of Naphtali ( 2Ki 15:27-29 ).
So all of the area around the sea of Galilee and upper Galilee, and he carried captives to Syria. So the southern, or the northern kingdom is falling now more and more to Assyria.
Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah, smote him, and killed him, and he reigned in his stead, and in the twentieth year of Jotham who was the son of Uzziah, he began to reign ( 2Ki 15:30 ).
And now we go back to Judah, the son of Uzziah, Jotham.
In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel Jotham began to reign in Judah. He [reigned he] was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, he reigned for sixteen years. His mother’s name was Jerusha. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD: according to all that his father Uzziah had done. Except he did not remove the high places ( 2Ki 15:32-35 ):
And his acts are told in Second Chronicles, and we’ll learn more about him later. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 15:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The throne of Judah was occupied by Azariah, the Uzziah of Isaiah. In the main, his reign was characterized by obedience to the divine will, yet the people continued in sin, and the king was smitten with leprosy.
Going back to Israel, we find Zechariah succeeded Jeroboam. His life and reign were characterized by sin. Now begins a period the most terrible, in some respects, of all Israel’s history. To the throne of Israel man succeeded man by way of murder. Zechariah was slain by Shallurn, who thus became king. Shallum, after one month’s occupancy of the throne, was slain by Menahem, who, in turn, reigned evilly for ten years.
During this period the Assyrians invaded the land under Pul. Menahem bought them off, and thus became a vassal of Assyria. He was at last succeeded by Pekahiah, his son, who, after reigning for two years in persistent evil, was slain by Pekah. Pekah occupied the throne for twenty years, during which the Assyrians under Tiglathpileser invaded the land, and carried away a section of the people into captivity. At last he was slain by Hoshea.
Can anything be more terrible than this story? What a commentary it is on that first clamor for a king, in which, as Samuel had warned the people, they had rejected God from the place of immediate government. Israel was now practically under a military despotism, downtrodden and oppressed, and yet sinning with high hand against God. The whole situation was terrible in the extreme.
The state of affairs was very little better in Judah than in Israel. Jotham followed Azariah on the throne. Generally, his reign was right, but still evil was permitted in the kingdom. During this time Syria and Israel, under Rezin and Pekah, respectively, made war on Judah. Jotham was followed by Ahaz.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
A Leper until the Day of His Death
2Ki 15:1-12
The reign of Azariah, or Uzziah, in Judah was very splendid. Fifty-two years of almost unbroken prosperity! The story is told in the glowing periods of 2Ch 26:1-23. Here, too, we learn that his sun suffered an eclipse because he persisted in the sacrilegious endeavor to combine the office of king and priest-the exclusive prerogative of Messiah. See Zec 6:13. As a leper he was excluded from all contact with his fellows, and dwelled in a separate house, while his son Jotham acted as his viceroy.
For more than thirty years preceding its dissolution, the Northern Kingdom was terribly distracted. Anarchy, idolatry, high-handed crime, and immorality of a flagrant description swept like a hurricane over all classes. Rent by these evils, and with no strong men like Hezekiah and Isaiah then in Judah to place their hands on the helm, the kingdom drifted to destruction. The sacred books give but brief and disjointed accounts of the last times of the kingdom of Israel, because God has no pleasure in the process of decay. He has no pleasure in the death of individuals or in the nation that dieth, but rather that they should turn unto Him and live.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Uzziah
(Strength of Jehovah)
(2Ki 15:1-7; 2 Chron. 26)
Contemporary Prophets: Zechariah, Of 2Ch 26:5; Isaiah; Hosea; Amos.
He (the Lord) shall cut off the spirit of princes: He is terrible to the kings of the earth.-Psa 76:12.
Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who I was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah. He built Eloth, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers. He is called Azariah {helped by Jehovah) elsewhere: the names were so nearly equivalent in meaning as to be applied interchangeably to him. He seems to have come by the throne, not in the way of ordinary succession, but by the direct choice of the people. The princes had been destroyed by the Syrians toward the close of his grandfather Joashs reign (2Ch 24:23), leaving the people a free hand. For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof, wrote Solomon, more than a century before; and this weeding out was not altogether to be regretted: perhaps, nor entirely unnecessary. If the princes selfishly seek their own things, they are incapable of judging aright; whilst a needy, suffering people instinctively turn to a deliverer. Their choice here of Azariah was a good one, as the sequel proved. His first recorded work, the building, enlargement, or fortification of Eloth (Elath), and its restoration to the crown of Judah, was an early pledge of the great industrial prosperity of his reign. It belonged to Edom, and was lost to Judah during the reign of Joram (2Ki 8:20). It was a seaport on the Red Sea, near Ezion-geber (1Ki 9:26), and must have made a most important mart for the extensive commerce in his administration. It was taken by Rezin king of Syria fifty years later, who expelled the Jews, and occupied it permanently. (See 2Ki 16:6.) Sixteen years old was Uzziah when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty and two years in Jerusalem. His mothers name also was Jecoliah of Jerusalem. His was the longest continuous reign (Manassehs, fifty-five years, was interrupted by his deposition and captivity by the king of Babylon) of any of the kings of Judah. His mothers name, Jah will enable, might indicate that she had pious expectations of her son, by the help of God. And in this she would not be disappointed, for he, it is said, did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah did; that is, during the earlier portion of his reign. And he sought God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of God (in the seeing of God, marg.): and as long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper. Understanding in the visions of God is not equivalent to having prophetical visions from God. LXX, Syr., Targ. Arab., Kimchi, etc., read, who was (his) instructor in the fear of God, which is probably the general sense of the expression. Nothing more is known of this prophet, but his record is on high; and the coming day will declare what else, whether of good or bad, was accomplished by him during his earthly life. So shall it also, reader, in the case of you and me.
From city building for the peaceful purpose of commerce, Uzziah turns to retributive warfare. And he went forth and warred against the Philistines, and brake down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, and built cities about (or, in the country of) Ashdod. And God helped him against the Philistines, and against the Arabians that dwelt in Gurbaal, and the Mehunim. Thus he avenged the Philistine invasion during the reign of Jehoram (2Ch 21:16, 17), and punished their allies. It says, The Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians,etc. This did not excuse them for their wrong-doing. God helped Uzziah against the Philistines, and against the Arabians. They were the unconscious instruments used by God in the chastening of His people. Their motive was entirely of another kind, and after eighty years God metes out to them the punishment their attack on the land of Judah deserved. This is an important principle which must be borne in mind in any study of Gods ways in government, with either men or nations. (See Isa 10:5-19.)
And the Ammonites gave gifts to Uzziah: and his name was spread abroad even to the entering in of Egypt; for he strengthened himself exceedingly. He built towers in Jerusalem, and fortified them. He also built towers in the desert (the steppe-lands west of the Dead Sea), and cut out many cisterns; for he had much cattle, both in the low country (literally, the Shepheleh, the low hills between the mountains and the Mediterranean), and in the plains (east of the Dead Sea). His wealth seems to have been chiefly in stock and agriculture. He had husbandmen also, and vinedressers in the mountains, and in Carmel: for he loved husbandry. He was an earnest and successful agriculturist. He probably gave special attention to the tillage of the soil because of the prophecies of Hosea and Amos (his contemporaries) concerning the scarcity about to come. (See Hos 2:9; 4:3; 9:2; Amo 1:2; 4:6-9; 5:16-19.)
He also gave attention to military matters, and thoroughly organized his army, that made war with mighty power, to help the king against the enemy. He saw too that his army was thoroughly equipped, as we read: And Uzziah prepared for them throughout the host shields, and spears, and helmets, and coats of mail, and bows, and even slinging-stones. And he made in Jerusalem machines invented by skilful men, to be upon the towers and upon the bulwarks, wherewith to shoot arrows and great stones.7 And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvelously helped, till he became strong. (N. Tr.) But alas, what is man! After all this well-doing, Uzziahs heart is lifted up with pride. Then came his act of sacrilege-the dark blot upon the record of this otherwise blameless mans life. But-alas, those buts in so many life-records of Gods saints!-when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense-explicitly forbidden by the law. (See Exo 30:7, 8; Num 16:40; 18:7.) And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men: and they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertained not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honor from the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several [separate] house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord. It was a fearful stroke from God. Death was the actual penalty enjoined by the law for his crime (Num 18:7), and leprosy was really that-a living death, prolonged and intensified. Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed, was said of Miriam, who was smitten with a like judgment, and for a similar offence. God is holy, and must vindicate His word against every transgressor. He is no respecter of persons, and brings to light, sooner or later, every mans work and purposes of heart-not excepting His best servants. (See Num 12:10-12; 1Ti 5:24, 25.)
The actuating motive in this audacious act of king Uzziahs is not made known. It has been suggested that he wished, like the Egyptian kings, to combine in himself both the office of king and high priest, so arrogating to himself the religious as well as the civil power. But whatever the immediate impelling motive, we know the primary cause of his profane deed. It was pride, the really original sin, that hideous parent-sin of all succeeding sins, whether among angels, or among men (1Ti 3:6; Eze 28:2, 17). He was marvelously helped till he was strong. But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction. Strength of Jehovah was the meaning of his name; and happy would it have been for him had he realized that only in His strength is any really strong. My strength, says He who is the Almighty (Rev 1:8), is made perfect in weakness. When I am weak, then am I strong, wrote one who knew his own utter powerlessness and his Lords sufficient strength. Be strong in the Lord, he cautions his fellow-weaklings. Uzziah prospered; and because of his prosperity, his foolish heart was lifted up with pride: and in him was fulfilled his great ancestors proverb, The prosperity of fools shall destroy them: and another-Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall (Pro 1:32; 16:18). Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write. So Uzziah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead. They would not lay his leprous body in their Westminster Abbey, but buried him in a field (in earth, perhaps) adjoining the sepulchres of their kings. He died about the time of the founding of Rome. It was in the year that king Uzziah died that Isaiah entered upon his full prophetic ministry. The moral condition of the nation during the close of Uzziahs reign is revealed in the first five chapters of his prophecy. He was also the historiographer of his reign. It is not known in just what year of Uzziahs reign he was smitten with leprosy. Nor is it certain just when the great earthquake occurred (Amo 1:1; Zec 14:5). From Amo 1:1, compared with other scripture chronological references, it is quite certain that it was not later than seventeen years after Uzziahs accession to the throne, and not when he was smitten with leprosy, as Josephus mistakenly affirms.
7 In these details, by which Uzziahs kingdom was strengthened and his people blessed and enlarged, God would call our attention, surely, to what will strengthen and bless His people now: first, the precious and abundant food of the land we occupy-the precious fruits of His grace appropriated through patient cultivation on our part, by which our souls are richly fed and strengthened; then, that watchful care against inroads of the enemy-uniting and strengthening Gods people against the assaults and wiles of Satan.- [Ed.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
CHAPTER 15
1. Reign and death of Azariah (Uzziah) (2Ki 15:1-2; 2 Chron. 26).
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. Menahems son, Pekahiah, after his fathers 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.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Zachariah
After an interregnum of 11 years. 2Ki 15:8.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
am 3194, bc 810
In the: 2Ki 15:8, 2Ki 14:16, 2Ki 14:17
twenty and seventh: “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.”
Azariah: 2Ki 15:13, 2Ki 15:30-38, 2Ki 14:21, 2Ch 26:1, 2Ch 26:3, 2Ch 26:4, Uzziah
Reciprocal: 2Ki 15:6 – Azariah 2Ki 15:32 – Jotham Hos 1:1 – Uzziah Amo 1:1 – in the Mat 1:8 – Ozias
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY
AZARIAH OF JUDAH (2Ki 15:1-7)
This king is called Uzziah in 2Ki 15:13; 2 Kings 15 :2Ki 15:30, and in 2 Chronicles 26. Read the last-named chapter for an enlargement of his history and an explanation of certain features not given here. Note his long reign, his
generally good character, the cause of his failure, and the circumstance that his son reigned with him jointly for a short period.
ISRAELS NEW ENEMY (2Ki 15:8-31)
Zachariah is the last of the line of Jehu, in whom the prophecy of 2Ki 10:30 is fulfilled (2Ki 15:12). Shallum is a usurper only permitted to reign how long (2Ki 15:15)? Menahem comes into power in the same way as he, although he reigned a reasonably long period (2Ki 15:17). In his time the new enemy of Israel appeared in Assyria, a strong nation of the East reaching for world dominion (2Ki 15:19-20).
His son and successor, Pekahiah, reigns but briefly (2Ki 15:23-26), when another conspiracy costs him his life. Pekahs reign is prolonged for twenty years (2Ki 15:27), but Israels days as a nation are numbered, and Assyria is weakening her on every side. The first deportation of her people takes place in this reign (2Ki 15:29).
JOTHAM AND AHAZ OF JUDAH (2Ki 15:32 to 2Ki 16:20)
Jotham was in the main a good king, but like all his predecessors since Solomon, either unwilling or unable to uproot idolatry (2Ki 15:35) or cause the nation to serve Jehovah with a perfect heart. How ominous in consequence, the words of 2Ki 15:37.
But no king of Judah thus far had the preeminence in wickedness of Jothams successor (2Ki 16:3-4). And yet God bore with him for the sake of His promise to the fathers. For a commentary on 2Ki 16:5-9 read the contemporaneous prophet Isaiah, chapter seven.
Ahaz need not have turned for aid to Assyria had he trusted God; but now that he has done so, that nation has obtained a hold on Judah which practically is never loosed.
Note 2Ki 16:10-18 and Ahazs interest in the idolatry practiced among the Assyrians. This is the first time it comes into view, as it will be recalled that the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth was introduced by Jezebel for the Phoenicians or Zidonians. Something of what it meant may be gathered from the horrible reference in verse three, the actual significance of which it is difficult to determine. Is it possible that children were burned alive as offerings to the gods? There are those who maintain such to have been the case.
THE END OF ISRAEL (2 Kings 17)
The first half of this chapter is a sad review of Israels iniquity and the justification of the divine punishment (v. 6-23). It was surer and safer for their conqueror to carry them away (2Ki 17:6), than to place governors over them in their own land. These latter they might not obey, or they might refuse to pay tribute to them, involving ceaseless war to keep them in subjection. Moreover the policy had the advantage that other conquered peoples could be transplanted to the vacated territory with like results (2Ki 17:24).
With these foreigners in the land of Israel begins the history of the Samaritans, of whom we hear in the gospels (see John 4). Note the character of their religion (2Ki 17:33-41).
It was not promised that Israel, as a separate kingdom would be restored again, and therefore God permitted her cities to be occupied with other peoples, but it was not so with Judah and for a good reason, as we shall see later. Of course when Judah was restored after the Babylonian captivity many Israelites returned with her, but these did not constitute the kingdom of Israel. Finally, in the last days when the Jews shall once more occupy and control Palestine, they will not represent two kingdoms, but one united people (Isa 11:11-16; Hos 1:10-11).
Many of the following lessons deal with Assyria, a great people which it is important to know something about. Any good Bible dictionary will furnish some information, and encyclopedic articles are valuable. Local librarians will give further help.
QUESTIONS
1. By what other name is Azariah known?
2. Why was he smitten with leprosy?
3. Name the wickedest king of Judah thus far.
4. What prophet whose written words have come down to us was contemporaneous with him?
5. What evil religious distinction is associated with his name?
6. How is it shown that the fall of Israel came as a judgment of God?
7. Is it right therefore to measure the history of Israel by the standard of any other ancient people?
8. What was Assyrias object in their deportation?
9. Do you suppose lions were purposely sent in to slay the Samaritans (2Ki 17:25), or may they have increased in number and boldness while the land was for a while desolate?
10. Nevertheless, if the latter be true, was not the circumstance a divine punishment?
11. How does this lesson show that the heathen nations believed in localized gods?
12. From what we know of the worship of Israel before the captivity, what is the probability that any returned priest could teach the Samaritans about the true God (2Ki 17:27)?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 15:1. Azariah; that is, Uzziah, as below, and Isa 6:1. He was a good man under affliction, brought several of the ten tribes under the wings of his defence, extended his empire to the Red sea, and sent a fleet round Africa.
2Ki 15:5. The king was a leper. See on 2Ch 26:21.
2Ki 15:12. The fourth generation. God kept his promise with the house of Jehu, though his sons kept no faith with Him who placed them on the throne.
2Ki 15:14. Menahemsmote Shallum, even as Shallum had killed his master Zachariah. Unhappy is that government when generals dream that they can kill their sovereigns, and then usurp their thrones. Greece had its senate in the Areopagus; the Romans had their senate also; but alas, the Hebrews now had no idea of senates and parliaments.
2Ki 15:19. Pul the king of Assyria. See the list of those kings, Genesis 11. This prince is the first of eight others. 1. Son of Sardan, Pul or Sardanapalus. 2. Tiglath-Pileser. 3. Salmaneser. 4. Sennacherib. 5. Asar- hadan. 6. Berodach. 7. Ben-Berodach. 8. Nebuchadnezzar. This strong kingdom had not much troubled the Jews, except as in Judges 3., when they oppressed them for eight years. From this time God was about to employ them as the rod of his anger. Isa 10:5.
2Ki 15:22. Menahem. In the Jewish writings this is a favourite name of the Messiah, because it designates consolation. Luk 2:25. But this good name was not realized in the life of this king.
2Ki 15:29. Tiglath. He conquered all Gilead east of the Jordan, and all the northern parts of Israel, as stated by Isa 9:1-5.
2Ki 15:32. Jotham, a valiant prince, who, like his father, continued to raise his country. The leprosy of Uzziah did not affect Jotham.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 15:1-7. Reign of Azariah (Uzziah).The long reign of this king passes almost unnoticed in this book. He is called Uzziah elsewhere in Chronicles and Isaiah, except 1Ch 3:12.
2Ki 15:5. Yahweh smote the king with leprosy. The isolation of men thus afflicted was enforced (2Ki 7:3; see Lev 13:46, Num 5:3). It is uncertain what is meant by a several house. The Heb. word means free. Azariah reigned but did not rule during his latter years. If most of the sixteen years of Jothams reign fell within his fathers lifetime, the discrepancy of the totals of the regnal years of Israel and Judah, reckoned from Jehu to the fall of Samaria, is sensibly diminished.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
AZARIAH’S REIGN IN JUDAH
(vv.1-17)
The reign of Azariah began after Jereboam had reigned 27 years in Samaria. We have seen Azariah (Uzziah) was only 16 years old when he began to reign, and reigned 52 years in Jerusalem (v.2). His mother (Jecholiah) must have been a believer, for Uzziah’s reign generally was honouring to the Lord (v.3). It is noted, however, that he did not remove the high places of worship, where the people burned incense (v.4).
Nothing more is said here of Azariah’s reign, though we are told that the Lord struck him with leprosy, so that he was kept in isolation till he died. But 2Ch 26:1-23 tells us he prospered greatly in ruling Judah, but his greatness became an object of pride to him and he dared to assume the place of a priest by entering the temple to burn incense. When resisted by the priests in this action, he became very angry and immediately God struck him with leprosy in his forehead (1Ch 26:16-20). Thus Azariah’s good reign was spoiled by the pride of disobedience to God.
Having leprosy, Azariah was no longer fit to reign over Judah, so that his son Jotham was given this authority. We are not told how long a time Azariah had leprosy, but when he died, Jotham was inaugurated as king (v.7). He did not reign one-third as long as his father did (only 16 years), nor did his reign end as sadly. No doubt it was as well that he died when he did, before he had time to spoil his reign by disobedience.
ZECHARIAH REIGNS IN ISRAEL
(vv.8-12)
Zechariah was the son of the second Jereboam and he reigned only six months in Israel. He was the fourth in the line of Jehu to reign, and the last, as the Lord had told Jehu (ch.10:30). He continued the evil ways of the kings of Israel before him, and nothing is said in his favour before another Israelite, Shallum, conspired against him and killed him publicly (v.10). Thus Shallum seized the throne for himself.
SHALLUM, A USURPER, REIGNS
(vv.13-15)
But if Zechariah’s reign was short (6 months), that of Shallum was much shorter – only one month! Those who grasp after power are very soon left powerless. Menahem, the son of Gadi decided to show Shallum that two could play the game of murdering a king. Menahem went to Samaria, killed Shallum and took the throne of Israel (v.14). Notice, that in both of these cases there was no spiritual power among the elders of Israel to choose a man for a king who might be a capable and faithful ruler, therefore a man of violence could seize power for himself. Of course Israel was in such a state of disobedience to God that they would not even consider asking God who should be king. The Book of Chronicles does not even mention the reign of Shallum, nor in fact the reign of Zechariah in Israel, so that verse 15 does not refer to the scriptural Book of Chronicles, but to another book that is not scripture.
MENAHEM’S WICKED REIGN
(vv.16-22)
Though Israel never possessed all the land on the west side of the Euphrates River, Menahem attacked Tiphsah, on the west bank of the Euphrates, and because the inhabitants did not surrender he treated them with cruel violence. It is specially noted that he ripped open all the pregnant women, evidently causing death to both mother and child. Though the Lord had before ordered the destruction of all the Canaanites, yet He certainly did not suggest any such cruelty as this.
Menahem reigned ten years (v.17). We may wonder why he was allowed this long a reign when he was just as bad a king as Zechariah and Shallum had been. But God does not always explain His reasons for such things, and we are wise to simply give Him credit for knowing well what He is doing. Menahem was guilty of the same evils as the kings before him, still embracing the gross idolatry of the first Jereboam, “who made Israel sin.”
When Pul, the Assyrian king, came against the land at this time, Menahem bribed him with a thousand talents of silver to refrain from attacking Israel. In these histories of the kings, this is the first we read of the king of Assyria but not many years later the King of Assyria, Tiglath Pileser, took some of Israel captive (2Ki 15:29), and a few years later (ch.17:5-6) the rest of Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians.
Menahem’s bribe to the Assyrian king, was of money exacted from the people of Israel, specially from the wealthy, who would no doubt rather give this than to have Assyria reduce the whole nation to poverty. At the death of Menahem, his son Pekahiah became king of Israel (v.22).
THE REIGN OF PEKAHIAH
(vv.23-26)
Pekahiah continued the wearying list of ungodly kings in Israel, reigning only two years and persisting in the idolatry introduced by Jereboam the son of Nebat (vv.23-24). Nothing is recorded as a credit to him, and one of his officers, Pekah the son of Remaliah conspired with others to kill Pekahiah. Two of his accomplices are named, and 50 others, not named, were included in the conspiracy (v.25). Pekah then took the throne of Israel.
Verse 26 announces that the rest of the acts of Pekahiah are recorded in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel, but again it is not the scriptural Book of Chronicles, for Pekahiah is not even mentioned there.
PEKAH’S REIGN IN ISRAEL
(vv.27-31)
Just at the end of Azariah’s reign in Judah, Pekah began to reign in Israel, continuing his reign for 20 years (v.27). His life too was evil, for he clung to the idolatrous worship of Jereboam the son of Nebat. who made Israel sin (v.28). He was not able to resist the attack of Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria, who captured the inhabitants of many Israelite cities and took them to Assyria. Thus Israel was gradually being tom from their land, and Chapter 17:5-6 shows their complete captivity.
Though Pekah was unable to resist Assyria, he did have the more dubious distinction of killing 123,000 men of Judah in one day! (2Ch 27:6). How often it seems we do more damage to our own brethren than we do to the power of our enemies! Thus there was nothing in the reign of Pekah that relieved the picture of dark ignoring of the God of Israel. As he had conspired against Pekahiah, so his servant Hoshea conspired against him and killed him. How sad and tragic is the history of the kings of Israel! Hoshea took the throne of Israel then, and as we shall find in Chapter 17:1, he reigned only nine years before Israel was taken captive by Assyria.
JOTHAM KING IN JUDAH
(vv.32-38)
Jotham stands in refreshing contrast to the kings of Israel. Beginning at age 25 years, he reigned 16 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jerusha, likely a godly woman (v.33), for his reign was consistently good, according to the ways of Uzziah. In verse 35 we are told that, though Jotham failed to remove the high places from Judah, yet he did build the upper Gate of the house of the Lord. Thus, in spite of his lack of faith in getting rid of the high places of worship, he did have serious respect for the house of the Lord, God’s only centre of worship. 2Ch 27:1-9 tells us also that he built extensively on the wall of Ophel – the wall speaking of godly separation, – and he built cities, fortresses and towers. Such building for the Lord is something we too should be concerned about. Also, Jotham defeated the Ammonites (2Ch 27:5). The original king of Ammon was Nahash (2Sa 10:2), which means “a serpent,” so Ammon stands for religion that harbours “doctrines of demons,” which must be totally refused by Christians. In spite of the comparatively good reign of Jotham, the condition of Judah remained low enough that the Lord began to send enemies against Judah, – Rezin king of Syria and Pekah king of Israel, – so that when Ahaz son of Jotham reigned, Pekah killed 120,000 men of Judah in one day. Jotham died at age 41 and was buried in Jerusalem. Ahaz his son then took Judah’s throne.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
8. Azariah’s good reign in Judah 15:1-7
Most Bible students know Azariah by his other name, Uzziah (2Ki 15:13; 2Ki 15:30; 2Ki 15:32; 2Ki 15:34; 2 Chronicles 26; Isa 1:1; Hos 1:1, Amo 1:1; Zec 14:5; et al.). His 52-year reign (790-739 B.C.) was longer than any other king of Judah or Israel so far. King Manasseh reigned the longest in Judah (55 years), and Azariah was second. Azariah reigned while seven of the last eight kings of the Northern Kingdom ruled, all but the last Israelite king, Hoshea. The first 23 years of his reign was a coregency with his father Amaziah, and the last 11 was another coregency with his son Jotham.
Azariah was one of Judah’s most popular, effective, and influential kings. He expanded Judah’s territories, fortified several Judean cities, including Jerusalem, and reorganized the army (2Ki 15:22; cf. 2Ch 26:6-14). The combined territories over which he and Jeroboam II exercised control approximated those of David and Solomon.
Unfortunately he became proud, and in disobedience to the Mosaic Law performed functions that God had restricted to the priests (2Ch 26:16-21). For this sin God punished him with leprosy (2Ki 15:5). History teaches us that few people have been able to maintain spiritual vitality and faithfulness when they attain what the world calls success. As with Solomon, Azariah’s early success proved to be his undoing.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
AZARIAH-UZZIAH
B.C. 783 (?)- 737
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.