Azariah, also known as Uzziah, began his reign over Judah in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam's reign over Israel. He reigned for 52 years in Jerusalem until God struck him with leprosy as punishment for improperly performing priestly duties. Azariah lived out the rest of his days in isolation while his son Jotham served as regent, governing both the household and the people of Judah. The full account of Azariah's reign is recorded in the Book of Chronicles.

1. 2 KI GS 15 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Azariah King of Judah
1 In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of
Israel, Azariah[a] son of Amaziah king of Judah
began to reign.
CLARKE, "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 2Ki_15:1, 2Ki_15:6, 2Ki_
15:7, ‫עזיהו‬ Uzziah, where the printed text is differently corrupted. This reading is called
true,
1. Because it is supported by the Syriac and Arabic versions in these three verses.
2. Because the printed text itself has it so in 2Ki_15:32, 2Ki_15:34 of this very
chapter.
3. Because it is so expressed in the parallel place in Chronicles; and,
4. Because it is not Αζαριας, Azariah, but Οζιας, Oziah, (Uzziah), in St. Matthew’s
genealogy.”
There are insuperable difficulties in the chronology of this place. The marginal note
says, “This is the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam’s partnership in the kingdom with his
father, who made him consort at his going to the Syrian wars. It is the sixteenth year of
Jeroboam’s monarchy.” Dr. Lightfoot endeavors to reconcile this place with 2Ki_14:16,
2Ki_14:17, 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.

2. When such men disagree, I can’t decide.
GILL, "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.
HE RY 1-7, "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 (2Ki_15:2),
did, for the most part, that which was right, 2Ki_15:3 (it was happy for the kingdom that
a good reign was a long one), only he had not zeal and courage enough to take away the
high places, 2Ki_15:4. 2. That which is peculiar, 2Ki_15:5 (that God smote him with a
leprosy) is more largely related, with the occasion of it, 2Ch_26:16, etc., where we have
also a fuller account of the glories of the former part of his reign, as well as of the
disgraces of the latter part of it. He did that which was right, as Amaziah had done; like
him, he began well, but failed before he finished. Here we are told, (1.) That he was a
leper. The greatest of men are not only subject to the common calamities, but also to the
common infirmities, of human nature; and, if they be guilty of any heinous sin, they lie
as open as the meanest to the most grievous strokes of divine vengeance. (2.) God smote
him with this leprosy, to chastise him for his presumptuous invasion of the priests'
office. If great men be proud men, some way or other God will humble them, and make
them know he is both above them and against them, for he resisteth the proud. (3.) That
he was a leper to the day of his death. Though we have reason to think he repented and
the sin was pardoned, yet, for warning to others, he was continued under this mark of
God's displeasure as long as he lived, and perhaps it was for the good of his soul that he
was so. (4.) That he dwelt in a separate house, as being made ceremonially unclean by
the law, to the discipline of which, though a king, he must submit. He that
presumptuously intruded into God's temple, and pretended to be a priest, was justly
shut out from his own palace, and shut up as a prisoner or recluse, ever after. We
suppose that his separate house was made as convenient and agreeable as might be.
Some translate it a free house, where he had liberty to take his pleasure. However, it was
a great mortification to one that had been so much a man of honour, and a man of

3. 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.
JAMISO , "2Ki_15:1-7. Azariah’s reign over Judah.
In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam — It is thought that the throne of
Judah continued vacant eleven or twelve years, between the death of Amaziah and the
inauguration of his son Azariah. Being a child only four years old when his father was
murdered, a regency was appointed during Azariah’s minority.
began Azariah ... to reign — The character of his reign is described by the brief
formula employed by the inspired historian, in recording the religious policy of the later
kings. But his reign was a very active as well as eventful one, and is fully related (2Ch_
26:1-23). Elated by the possession of great power, and presumptuously arrogating to
himself, as did the heathen kings, the functions both of the real and sacerdotal offices, he
was punished with leprosy, which, as the offense was capital (Num_8:7), was equivalent
to death, for this disease excluded him from all society. While Jotham, his son, as his
viceroy, administered the affairs of the kingdom - being about fifteen years of age
(compare 2Ki_15:33) - he had to dwell in a place apart by himself (see on 2Ki_7:3). After
a long reign he died, and was buried in the royal burying-field, though not in the royal
cemetery of “the city of David” (2Ch_26:23).
K&D 1-7, "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 ‫טו‬ (15) with ‫כז‬ (27), and we must therefore read “in the fifteenth year.”
BE SO , "2 Kings 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 2 Kings 14:21. Began Azariah to reign — Solely
and fully to exercise his regal power.
COFFMA , "THE PHA TOM KI GS OF GOD'S REBELLIOUS PEOPLE

4. The Biblical author here crowds into this single chapter the events of seventy years,
dismissing the long half-century reign of Azariah (Uzziah) in Judah with a mere
seven verses and compressing the five reigns of phantom kings of Israel in the
remaining space. It would be difficult any more emphatically to declare the relative
unimportance of the kings mentioned here. "The lack of information given here is
intentional to show how their despising the sacred covenant hastened the fall of
Samaria, now in its final dissolution."[1]
THE REIG OF AZARIAH A D JOTHAM OVER JUDAH
"In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of
Amaziah king of Judah to reign. 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. And he did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah,
according to all that his father Amaziah had done. Howbeit the high places were not
taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. And
Jehovah smote the king, so that he was a leper unto 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. ow the rest of the acts of Azariah (Uzziah), and all that he did,
are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And
Azariah slept with his fathers; and was buried with his fathers in the city of David:
and Jotham his son reigned in his stead."
"Azariah ... reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem" (2 Kings 15:2). This king was
frequently referred to as Uzziah. "Azariah was the throne name, and Uzziah was an
adopted name."[2] Martin expressed an opposite view, supposing that, "Azariah
was his birth name and that Uzziah was his coronation name."[3] The year of his
death is mentioned in Isaiah 6 as the time of a special vision that was seen by Isaiah.
"The fifty-two years of this reign included 24 years as co-regent and 28 years as sole
ruler."[4] See our introduction for an explanation of the chronological difficulties
and discrepancies here. For those who wish to date the reign of Uzziah, LaSor gave
it as circa 790-740 B.C.[5]
"Jehovah smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death" (2 Kings
15:5). The reason for this divine judgment against Uzziah is given in 2 Chronicles
26:16-21. It was due to his presumption in usurping religious functions that
belonged to the priesthood of God's people, and not to the kings.
"(He) dwelt in a separate house" (2 Kings 15:5). Here again there is solid evidence
of the existence of the Torah, or Pentateuch, long prior to the times when radical
critics would like to date it. Leviticus 13:46 was honored as God's law by those who
segregated the king in a separate building "without the camp." The rebellion of the
king by his presumptive intrusion into the function of the priests shows that his life
was not totally right with God.
Of course, critics are embarrassed by such evidence as this and quickly move to

5. show their disapproval of the passage. "Whether this intrusion by Uzziah into the
sacred duties of the priests was such a great sin in his time as the later priestly
writers would have us believe is open to question."[6] Indeed, such a suggestion is
not true at all. The intrusion of a king into the sacred sphere reserved for the priests
was a sin in Saul's day (1 Samuel 13:13), just as it was in the days of Uzziah.
"The rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did" (2 Kings 15:6). Actually, the
achievements of this monarch were rather extensive; and a full chapter is given over
to the relation of his deeds in 2 Chronicles 26. (For a discussion of these, see our
commentary on 2Chronicles.)
"Azariah (Uzziah) slept with his fathers; and they buried him ... in the city of David;
and Jotham his son reigned in his stead." (2 Kings 15:7). From 2 Chronicles 26:23,
we learn that he was not buried in the same rock sepulchre which contained the
bodies of the other kings, but in another part of the field. "This was quite consonant
with the Jewish feelings with respect to the uncleanness of lepers."[7]
COKE, "2 Kings 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 2 Chronicles 26:1 is called Uzziah; and by St.
Matthew, Ozias; words of pretty much the same signification.
ELLICOTT, "(1) In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam.—An error of
transcription for the fifteenth year ( ‫שץ‬15,‫מ‬,27 ). The error is clear from 2 Kings
14:2; 2 Kings 14:17; 2 Kings 14:23. Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years (2 Kings
14:2), fourteen concurrently with Joash, and fifteen with Jeroboam. It was,
therefore, in the fifteenth of Jeroboam that Uzziah succeeded his father.
Azariah.—An Azriyâhu (.Az-ri-ya-a-u), king of Judah, is mentioned in two
fragmentary inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser II. (B.C. 745-727). The most important
statement runs: “19 districts of the city of Hamath (Hammatti) with the cities of
their circuit, on the coast of the sea of the setting of the sun (i.e., the Mediterranean),
which in their transgression had revolted to Azariah, to the border of Assyria I
restored, my prefects my governors over them I appointed.” The Eponym list
records a three years’ campaign of Tiglath Pileser against the Syrian state of Arpad
in B.C. 742-740. Schrader supposes that Azariah and Hamath were concerned in
this campaign. (This conflicts with the ordinary chronology, which fixes 758 B.C. as
the year of Azariah’s death.)

6. GUZIK, "A. The reign of Azariah (Uzziah) over Judah
1. (2 Kings 15:1-4) A summary of his reign.
In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah the son of Amaziah,
king of Judah, became king. He was sixteen years old when he became king, and he
reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jecholiah of
Jerusalem. And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all
that his father Amaziah had done, except that the high places were not removed; the
people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.
a. He did what was right in the sight of the LORD: The reign of Azariah (also called
Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:13 and many other places in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah)
was largely characterized by the good he did in the sight of the LORD. His godliness
was rewarded with a long reign of 52 years.
i. Azariah came to the throne in a difficult era: “Following the tragic events that
brought King Amaziah’s reign to an end, Jerusalem was in disarray, a major section
of its protective wall destroyed, its temple and palace emptied of their treasures, and
some of its inhabitants taken away to Israel as hostages.” (Dilday)
ii. 2 Chronicles chapter 26 tells us much more about the successful reign of Uzziah
(Azariah):
· He began his reign when he was only 16 years old (2 Chronicles 26:3).
· He reigned during the ministry of Zechariah the prophet (2 Chronicles 26:5).
· He defeated the Philistines and took many of their cities, and also kept the
Ammonites in tribute (2 Chronicles 26:6-8).
· He was internationally famous as a strong king (2 Chronicles 26:8).
· He was an ambitious builder and skilled in agriculture (2 Chronicles 26:9-
10). “He probably gave special attention to the tillage of the soil because of the
prophecies of Hosea and Amos concerning the scarcity about to come. (See Hosea
2:9; Hos_4:3; Hos_9:2; Amos 1:2; Amo_4:6-9; Amo_5:16-19).” (Knapp)
· He built up and organized the army, introducing several new items of
military technology (2 Chronicles 26:11-15).
iii. Knapp suggests that Azariah became king in an unusual manner: “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 Joash’s reign (2 Chronicles 24:23, leaving the people a free

7. hand.”
b. Except that the high places were not removed: As with Jehoash (2 Kings 12:3)
and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:4), the reforms of Azariah did not reach so far as to
remove these traditional places of sacrifice to the LORD.
i. “The apparent compromise is indicative of a basic spiritual shallowness that was
to surface in the prophecies of the great writing prophets of the eighth century B.C.”
(Patterson and Austel)
ii. “This, if it did not loose, yet it lessened his crown of glory.” (Trapp)
PETT, "Verses 1-7
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 (2 Chronicles 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’ (Amos 2:4).
We have, of course, learned in 2 Kings 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.

8. a In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son
of Amaziah king of Judah to reign. 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 (2 Kings 15:1-2).
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 (2 Kings 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 (2 Kings 15:5).
b ow 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? (2 Kings 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 (2 Kings 15:7).
ote 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.
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.’
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 1 Chronicles 25:4; 1 Chronicles 25:18). The usages may be
listed as follows: Azariah (2 Kings 15:1; 2 Kings 15:6; 2 Kings 15:8; 2 Kings 15:17; 2
Kings 15:23; 2 Kings 15:27; 1 Chronicles 3:12). Uzziah (2 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings
15:30; 2 Kings 15:32; 2 Kings 15:34; 2 Chronicles 26:1; 2 Chronicles 26:3; 2
Chronicles 26:11; 2 Chronicles 26:14, etc; Isaiah 1:1; Isaiah 6:1; Hosea 1:1; Amos
1:1; Zechariah 14:5).
EBC, "AZARIAH-UZZIAH
B.C. 783 (?)- 737
JOTHAM
B.C. 737-735

9. 2 Kings 15:1-7; 2 Kings 15:32-38
"This is vanity, and it is a sore sickness."
- Ecclesiastes 6:2.
BEFORE we watch the last "glimmerings and decays" of the orthern 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, {2 Chronicles 26:2-15} and to reduce
the Edomites to the position they had held in the earlier days of his father’s 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 egeb 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

10. 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 David’s 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 king’s reign, but we do not know
whether it was from Isaiah’s 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 priest’s 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 father’s

11. 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 father’s. 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 father’s 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 Isaiah’s 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 Isaiah’s
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: ew
moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies-I cannot away with iniquity and the
solemn meeting Wash you! make you clean!" {Isaiah 1:10-17}

12. 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 father’s 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.
PARKER, "Israel"s Wicked Kings
We have to wander for a little time in the cemetery of kings. ot only Song of
Solomon , 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" ( 2 Kings 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 Prayer of Manasseh , 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

13. explains:—"save that" ( 2 Kings 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 Song of
Solomon , 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" ( 2 Kings 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" ( 2 Chronicles 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

14. 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? o 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

15. 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: ot 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?

16. 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 Song of Solomon , 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!
PULPIT, "2 Kings 15:1-7
THE REIG 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

17. 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 2 Chronicles 26:1-
23.)
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. In 2 Kings 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 (2 Kings 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 2 Chronicles 26:1
and 2 Kings 14:20, 2 Kings 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 2 Kings 14:8, 2 Kings 14:13, 2 Kings 14:23, and 2 Kings 14:27.
2 He was sixteen years old when he became king,
and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-two years. His
mother’s name was Jekoliah; she was from
Jerusalem.
GILL, "Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign,.... By the consent of
the people and princes of Judah, 2Ki_14:21.
and he reigned fifty and two years in Jerusalem: exclusive of the eleven or twelve
years of his minority, from his father's death:
and his mother's name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem; of whom there is no further
account any where.
K&D, "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

18. 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. ‫יי‬
‫ע‬ַ ַ‫נ‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫:ו‬ 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. ‫ית‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ָ‫ֽח‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ֵ 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 ‫י‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ָ‫ח‬ is used in no other sense than free, set at liberty,
manumissus. Consequently the rendering adopted by Aquila is correct, οᅼκος ᅚλευθερίας;
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.
PETT, "2 Kings 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

19. Jecoliah and was born in Jerusalem
PULPIT, "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 (2 Chronicles
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."
3 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,
just as his father Amaziah had done.
CLARKE, "He did that which was right - It is said, 2Ch_26:5, that he sought the
Lord in the days of Zechariah the prophet, and God made him to prosper; that he fought
against the Philistines; broke down the walls of Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod; prevailed
over the Arabians and Mehunims; and that the Ammonites paid him tribute; and his
dominion extended abroad, even to the entering in of Egypt; that he built towers in
Jerusalem, at the corner gate, valley gate, and turning of the wall; and built towers also
in the desert, and digged many wells; that he had a very strong and well-regulated
military force, which he provided with a well-stocked arsenal; and constructed many
military engines to shoot arrows and project great stones; and that his fame was
universally spread abroad.
GILL, "And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,.... At the
beginning of his reign, and in an external way:
according to all that his father Amaziah had done; who did not do what he did as
David, sincerely and cordially, 2Ki_14:3.
HE RY, "
JAMISO , "
K&D, "
BE SO , "2 Kings 15:3-4. According to all that his father had done — Like him
beginning well, but not persevering. Save that — It should rather be read, howbeit,
or nevertheless, (as in 2 Kings 14:4,) the high places were not removed — That
irregularity, in the mode and place of worship, still continued.

20. ELLICOTT, "(3) And he did that which was right.—This statement is repeated
word for word in Chronicles. Its exact meaning here, as in other instances, is that
Azariah supported the legitimate worship, and lent his countenance to no foreign
cultus. When the chronicler adds that he “sought God in the days of (the prophet)
Zachariah,” and that “as long as he sought Jehovah, God made him to prosper,” he
does not contradict the preceding general estimate of the king’s religious policy, but
simply gives additional information respecting his life and fortunes.
PETT, "2 Kings 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
PULPIT, "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 (2 Chronicles 26:5), he "sought God in the days of Zechariah."
4 The high places, however, were not removed;
the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn
incense there.
GILL, "Save that the high places were not removed,.... That is, he did right,
excepting in that instance, and which was the case of his father and other kings before
him, and others afterwards, till Hezekiah came:
the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places; see 2Ki_12:3.

21. 5 The Lord afflicted the king with leprosy[b] until
the day he died, and he lived in a separate house.
[c] Jotham the king’s son had charge of the palace
and governed the people of the land.
BAR ES, "The Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper - The
circumstances under which this terrible affliction befel one of the greatest of the Jewish
kings, are given at some length by the author of Chronicles (marginal reference), who
supplies us with a tolerably full account of this important reign, which the writer of
Kings dismisses in half-a-dozen verses.
A several house - “A house of liberation,” or, freedom. On the necessity, under
which the Law placed lepers, of living apart from other men, see marginal reference
Jotham became regent in his father’s room, and exercised the functions of judge (1Ki_
3:9 note), from the time that his father became a leper.
CLARKE, "The Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper - The reason of
this plague is well told in the above quoted chapter, 2Ch_26:16.
That his heart being elated, he went into the temple to burn incense upon the altar,
assuming to himself the functions of the high priest; that Azariah the priest, with
fourscore others, went in after him, to prevent him; and that while they were
remonstrating against his conduct, the Lord struck him with the leprosy, which
immediately appeared on his forehead; that they thrust him out as an unclean person;
and that he himself hurried to get out, feeling that the Lord had smitten him; that he was
obliged to dwell in a house by himself, being leprous, to the day of his death; and that
during this time the affairs of the kingdom were administered by his son Jotham. A poet,
ridiculing the conduct of those who, without an episcopal ordination, think they have
authority from God to dispense all the ordinances of the Church, expresses himself thus:
-
But now the warm enthusiast cries,
The office to myself I take;
Offering the Christian sacrifice,
Myself a lawful priest I make:
To me this honor appertains,
No need of man when God ordains.
[Some go into the contrary extreme, and in effect say, no need of God when Man

22. ordains.]
Though kings may not so far presume,
’Tis no presumption in a clown,
And, lo, without a call from Rome,
My flail or hammer I lay down;
And if my order’s name ye seek,
Come, see a new Melchisedek!
Ye upstart (men-made) priests, your sentence know,
The marks you can no longer hide;
Your daring deeds too plainly show
The loathsome leprosy of pride;
And if ye still your crime deny,
Who lepers live shall lepers die.
Charles Wesley.
This is very severe, but applies to every man who, through pride, presumption, or the
desire of gain, enters into the priest’s office, though he have the utmost authority that
the highest ecclesiastical officer can confer.
GILL, "And the Lord smote the king,.... With leprosy; the reason of it was, because
he intruded into the priest's office, and went into the temple to burn incense on the altar
of incense, 2Ch_26:19,
so that he was a leper unto the day of his death; but how long it was to it from his
being smitten cannot be said with certainty; Dr. Lightfoot (l) thinks he died the same
year he was smitten:
and dwelt in a several house: without Jerusalem, as the Targum; for lepers,
according to the law, were to dwell separate without the camp or city, Lev_13:46 the
word for "several" signifies "free" (m); here he lived alone, free from the company and
conversation of men, free from the business of government, his son doing that for him,
and in the country, where he might freely walk about, as lepers did, and take the air; the
Jews say (n), his house was among the graves, where he was free among the dead, as the
phrase is, Psa_88:5, but not likely; much better is what Abendana observes from R.
Jonah, that the word, in the Arabic (o) language, signifies a little house, and so this
might be in which he dwelt out of the city, in comparison of his palace:
and Jotham the king's son was over the house; had the direction of the palace,
and the management of all affairs in it:
judging the people of the land; administering justice in all cases, for which they
came to him, and so filled up his father's place; he did not depose his father, nor take
upon him to be king, only did the business of one.
BE SO , "2 Kings 15:5. The Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper — The
cause of this stroke is related at large, 2 Chronicles 26:16-21. And dwelt in a several
house — Separated from conversation with others by virtue of the law, recorded

23. Leviticus 13:46, which, being the law of the King of kings, bound kings no less than
subjects. The Jews, by the term several house, understand a house in the country;
where he might have liberty to take his pleasure, but not to meddle with public
affairs. Jotham, the king’s son, was over the house, &c. — That is, he lived in the
palace, and managed all the affairs of the court and of the kingdom, governing in
his father’s name as his vicegerent. It was in the twenty-seventh year of Azariah’s
reign that he was smitten with the leprosy, and he continued a leper twenty-five
years, during which time Jotham administered the government, his father being
incapable of it.
COKE, "2 Kings 15:5. And the Lord smote the king— See on 2 Chronicles 26:19. In
a several house, is rendered by Houbigant, a separate or remote house.
REFLECTIO S.—Azariah began young to reign, and sat very long upon the throne
of Judah; and, like his immediate ancestors, his first days were his best. The
common fault of the high places remained, and for daring to intrude into the priest's
office, he was struck with leprosy, secluded from society till his death, and Jotham
his son administered in his room, as viceroy, the affairs of the kingdom. ote; (1.)
Those who walk in pride, God is able to abase. (2.) One stroke of disease can make
the mightiest monarch loathsome to others, and a burden to himself. (3.) God, when
he has pardoned the guilt of our sins, may yet correct us long with temporal
afflictions, and bring us under them even to the grave.
ELLICOTT, "(5) And the Lord smote the king.—The chronicler relates the
reason—viz., because of his usurpation of priestly functions in the sanctuary. This
happened towards the end of the reign. Jotham, the regent, was only twenty-five
when Azariah died (2 Kings 15:33).
Smote.—Or, struck. So we speak of a paralytic stroke, and the word plague literally
means stroke.
In a several house.—Rather, in the sickhouse (or, hospital)—i.e., a royal residence
outside of Jerusalem (Leviticus 13:46; 2 Kings 7:3) set apart for such cases. (Strictly,
in the house of freedom; because lepers were emancipated from all social relations
and duties. Gesenius explains the word from an Arabic root said to mean
prostration, weakness; but Lane gives for that term the special meaning smallness
(or, narrowness) of the eye; weakness of sight. See his Arabic Lexicon, Bk. I., Pt. II.,
p. 772.
Over the house.— ot apparently as prefect of the palace (comp. 1 Kings 4:6; 1
Kings 18:3), but as dwelling in the palace instead of his father.
Judging the people of the land.—As his father’s representative. (Comp. 1 Samuel
8:6; 1 Samuel 8:20; 1 Kings 3:9.)

24. This passage is strong evidence against the assumption of joint sovereignties of
princes with their fathers, so often made by way of escaping chronological
difficulties in Hebrew history. Jotham is not co-regent but viceroy of Azariah until
the latter dies.
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 15:5-7) The sad end of his reign.
Then the LORD struck the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death; so
he dwelt in an isolated house. And Jotham the king’s son was over the royal house,
judging the people of the land. ow 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? So
Azariah rested with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the City of
David. Then Jotham his son reigned in his place.
a. The LORD struck the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death: 2
Chronicles 26 also tells us of the downfall of Azariah, who was marvelously helped
till he became strong (2 Chronicles 26:15). The Chronicler goes on: But when he was
strong his heart was lifted up, to his destruction, for he transgressed against the
LORD his God by entering the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of
incense (2 Chronicles 26:16). The priests tried to stop him, but the King insisted on
forcing his way into the temple to offer incense.
i. Azariah violated what had become a general principle in God’s dealing with
Israel: that no king should also be a priest, and that the offices of prophet, priest,
and king should not be combined in one man - until the Messiah, who fulfilled all
three offices.
ii. “His great power fostered such pride and haughtiness that about 750 B.C. he
sought to add to his vast power by usurping the prerogatives of the sacred
priesthood.” (Patterson and Austel)
b. He dwelt in an isolated house: Azariah came into the temple as an arrogant king,
and he left - indeed, he hurried to get out, because the Lord had struck him (2
Chronicles 26:20) - he left as a humbled leper.
i. “It was a fearful stroke from God. Death was the actual penalty enjoined by the
law fro his crime ( umbers 18:7), and leprosy was really that - a living death,
prolonged and intensified.” (Knapp)
c. So Azariah rested with his fathers: The death of Azariah (again, also known as
Uzziah) also contributed to the call of the Prophet Isaiah: In the year that King
Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne (Isaiah 6:1).
i. Considering the reign of Azariah:
· He began his reign at only 16 years of age.

25. · He reigned for 52 years.
· Overall, he was a good and strong king who led Israel to many military
victories and who was an energetic builder and planner.
· Despite all this, Azariah had a tragic end.
ii. Therefore, when Isaiah wrote that he was called in the year King Uzziah died, he
said a lot. It is to say, “In the year a great and wise king died.” But it is also to say,
“In the year a great and wise king who had a tragic end died.” Isaiah had great
reason to be discouraged and disillusioned at the death of King Uzziah, because a
great king had passed away, and because his life ended tragically. Yet despite it all,
he saw the enthroned LORD God who was greater than any earthly king.
B. Five kings over the Kingdom of Israel.
This section of 2 Kings 15 begins the story of five kings over Israel. “This chapter
anticipates the final overthrow of this kingdom of the tribes. It describes the
corruption and disorganization that made them the easy prey of Assyria.” (Meyer)
PETT, "‘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 aaman this
was not true leprosy ( aaman 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 Leviticus 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. ote the interesting distinction, although not to be overpressed, between
the king’s household and the ‘people of the land’.
PULPIT, "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

26. 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. ot only did he recover
Eloth (2 Chronicles 26:2), but he carried on a successful war with the Philistines—
took Garb, Jabneh (Jamnia), and Ashdod, and dismantled them (2 Chronicles 26:6),
defeated the Arabians of Gur-Baal, and the Mehuuim or Maonites (2 Chronicles
26:7), forced the Ammonites to pay him a tribute, and caused his power to be known
and feared far and wide (2 Chronicles 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 (2 Chronicles 26:12-14).
"His name spread far abroad, for he was wonderfully helped" (2 Chronicles 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 (2 Chronicles 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" (2
Chronicles 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
congregation—to "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 2 Kings 7:3 are houseless.
‫ַית‬‫בּ‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ְשׂ‬‫פ‬ָ‫צ‬ַ‫ה‬ 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 house—not over the "several house," but over
the royal palace—judging 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.
6 As for the other events of Azariah’s reign, and
all he did, are they not written in the book of the

27. annals of the kings of Judah?
GILL, "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? In the history of the
reigns of those kings; some of them are recorded in the canonical book of the Chronicles,
2Ch_26:1 and some were written by the prophet Isaiah, 2Ch_26:22.
ELLICOTT, "(6) The rest of the acts of Azariah.—Such as his wars with the
Philistines and Arabs, his improvements in the organisation of the army and the
defences of the capital, his fondness for husbandry and cattle-breeding, and his
success in all these directions, as well as his intrusion into the Sanctuary to offer
incense at the golden altar. (See 2 Chronicles 25 and the otes there.)
PETT, "‘ ow 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.
7 Azariah rested with his ancestors and was
buried near them in the City of David. And
Jotham his son succeeded him as king.
GILL, "So Azariah slept with his fathers,.... Or died, when he had reigned fifty two
years:
and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David; but not in the
sepulchres of the kings, but in the field of the burial, or the burying ground which

28. belonged to them, because he was a leper, 2Ch_26:23. Benjamin of Tudela (p) places his
grave near the pillar of Absalom, and the fountain of Siloah, near the brook Kidron:
and Jotham his son reigned in his stead; who reigned sixteen years; a further
account of him, and his reign, we have in the latter part of this chapter, after the reigns
of several of the kings of Israel.
K&D, "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.
BE SO , "2 Kings 15:7. They buried him with his fathers, &c. — ot in the very
sepulchre of the kings, because he was a leper, (2 Chronicles 26:23,) but in the same
field, and very near to the same place, where his ancestors lay interred.
PETT, "‘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.
PULPIT, "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 (2 Chronicles 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.
Zechariah King of Israel
8 In the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of
Judah, Zechariah son of Jeroboam became king

29. of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned six months.
BAR ES, "In the thirty and eighth year - Rather, according to the previous
numbers 2Ki_14:23; 2Ki_15:2, the 27th year of Azariah. Some suppose an interregnum
between Jeroboam and Zachariah, which, however, is very improbable.
GILL, "In the thirty eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zachariah the
son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria six months. Since Azariah began
to reign in the twenty seventh of Jeroboam, 2Ki_15:1, and Jeroboam reigned forty one
years, 2Ki_14:23, his last year must be the fifteenth or sixteenth of Azariah, in which
year Zachariah must have begun to reign, had he immediately succeeded his father in the
throne; there must be therefore an interregnum of twenty two years at least, which
might be owing to the dissensions among the princes and people about the succession,
and a dislike to Zachariah on some account; however, after all, he must reign, though but
six months, to fulfil the word of the Lord, see 2Ki_15:12.
HE RY, "The best days of the kingdom of Israel were while the government was in
Jehu's family. In his reign, and the next three reigns, though there were many
abominable corruptions and miserable grievances in Israel, yet the crown went in
succession, the kings died in their beds, and some care was taken of public affairs; but,
now that those days are at an end, the history which we have in these verses of about
thirty-three years represents the affairs of that kingdom in the utmost confusion
imaginable. Woe to those that were with child (2Ki_15:16) and to those that gave suck in
those days, for then must needs be great tribulations, when, for the transgression of the
land, many were the princes thereof.
I. Let us observe something, in general, concerning these unhappy revolutions and the
calamities which must needs attend them - these bad times, as they may truly be called.
1. God had tried the people of Israel both with judgments and mercies, explained and
enforced by his servants the prophets, and yet they continued impenitent and
unreformed, and therefore God justly brought these miseries upon them, as Moses had
warned them. If you will yet walk contrary to me, I will punish you yet seven times
more, Lev_26:21, etc. 2. God made good his promise to Jehu, that his sons to the fourth
generation after him should sit upon the throne of Israel, which was a greater favour
than was shown to any of the royal families either before or after his. God had said it
should be so (2Ki_10:30) and we are told in this chapter (2Ki_15:12) that so it came to
pass. See how punctual God is to his promises. These calamities God long designed for
Israel, and they deserved them, yet they were not inflicted till that word had taken effect
to the full. Thus God rewarded Jehu for his zeal in destroying the worship of Baal and
the house of Ahab; and yet, when the measure of the sins of the house of Jehu was full,
God avenged upon it the blood then shed, called the blood of Jezreel, Hos_1:4. 3. All
these kings did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, for they walked in the sins of
Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Though at variance with one another, yet in this they
agreed, to keep up idolatry, and the people loved to have it so; though they were emptied
from vessel to vessel, that taste remained in them, and that scent was not changed. It

30. was sad indeed when their government was so often altered, yet never for the better -
that among all those contending interests none of them should think it as much their
interest to destroy the calves as others had done to support them. 4. Each of these
(except one) conspired against his predecessor, and slew him - Shallum, Menahem,
Pekah, and Hoshea, all traitors and murderers, and yet all kings awhile, one of them ten,
another twenty, and another nine years; for God may suffer wickedness to prosper and
to carry away the wealth and honours awhile, but, sooner or later, blood shall have
blood, and he that dealt treacherously shalt be dealt treacherously with. One wicked man
is often made a scourge to another, and every wicked man, at length, a ruin to himself. 5.
The ambition of the great men made the nation miserable. Here is Tiphsah, a city of
Israel, barbarously destroyed, with all the coasts thereof, by one of these pretenders
(2Ki_15:16), and no doubt it was through blood that each of them waded to the throne,
nor could any of these kings perish alone. No land can have greater pests, nor Israel
worse troubles, than such men as care not how much the welfare and repose of their
country are sacrificed to their revenge and affectation of dominion. 6. While the nation
was thus shattered by divisions at home the kings of Assyria, first one (2Ki_15:19) and
then another (2Ki_15:29), came against it and did what they pleased. Nothing does more
towards the making of a nation an easy prey to a common enemy than intestine broils
and contests for the sovereignty. Happy the land where that is settled. 7. This was the
condition of Israel just before they were quite ruined and carried away captive, for that
was in the ninth year of Hoshea, the last of these usurpers. If they had, in these days of
confusion and perplexity, humbled themselves before God and sought his face, that final
destruction might have been prevented; but when God judgeth he will overcome. These
factions, the fruit of an evil spirit sent among them, hastened that captivity, for a
kingdom thus divided against itself will soon come to desolation.
II. Let us take a short view of the particular reigns.
1. Zachariah, the son of Jeroboam, began to reign in the thirty-eighth year of Azariah,
or Uzziah, king of Judah, 2Ki_15:8. Some of the most critical chronologers reckon that
between Jeroboam and his son Zachariah the throne was vacant twenty-two years,
others eleven years, through the disturbances and dissensions that were in the kingdom;
and then it was not strange that Zachariah was deposed before he was well seated on the
throne: he reigned but six months, and then Shallum slew him before the people,
perhaps as Caesar was slain in the senate, or he put him to death publicly as a criminal,
with the approbation of the people, to whom he had, some way or other, made himself
odious; so ended the line of Jehu.
JAMISO 8-10, "2Ki_15:8-16. Zechariah’s reign over Israel.
In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zechariah the
son of Jeroboam reign over Israel — There was an interregnum from some
unknown cause between the reign of Jeroboam and the accession of his son, which
lasted, according to some, for ten or twelve years, according to others, for twenty-two
years, or more. This prince pursued the religious policy of the calf-worship, and his reign
was short, being abruptly terminated by the hand of violence. In his fate was fulfilled the
prophecy addressed to Jehu (2Ki_10:30; also Hos_1:4), that his family would possess
the throne of Israel for four generations; and accordingly Jehoahaz, Joash, Jehoram,
and Zechariah were his successors - but there his dynasty terminated; and perhaps it
was the public knowledge of this prediction that prompted the murderous design of
Shallum.

31. K&D, "Reign of Zachariah of Israel. - 2Ki_15:8. “In the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah,
Zachariah the son of Jeroboam became king over Israel six months.” As Jeroboam died
in the twenty-seventh year of Uzziah, according to our remarks on 2Ki_14:29, there is an
interregnum of eleven years between his death and the ascent of the throne by his son, as
almost all the chronologists since the time of Usher have assumed. It is true that this
interregnum may be set aside by assuming that Jeroboam reigned fifty-one or fifty-three
years instead of forty-one, without the synchronism being altered in consequence. but as
it is not very probable that the numeral letters ‫נב‬ or ‫נג‬ should be confounded with ‫,מא‬ and
as the conflict for the possession of the throne, which we meet with after the very brief
reign of Zachariah, when taken in connection with various allusions in the prophecies of
Hosea, rather favours the idea that the anarchy broke out immediately after the death of
Jeroboam, we regard the assumption of an interregnum as resting on a better
foundation than the removal of the chronological discrepancy by an alteration of the
text.
COFFMA , "LaSor dated this brief reign in 753 B.C., only about thirty one years
before the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.[8] The most important thing about this man
was the fact of his terminating the dynasty of Jehu as related in 2 Kings 15:12. This,
of course, had been prophesied by the Lord in 2 Kings 10:30. His violent overthrow
also fulfilled the prophecy given by Hosea in which God promised that, "I will
avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu" (Hosea 1:4).
GUZIK, "1. (2 Kings 15:8-12) The short, evil reign of Zechariah.
In the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah the son of Jeroboam
reigned over Israel in Samaria six months. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD,
as his fathers had done; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of
ebat, who had made Israel sin. Then Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against
him, and struck and killed him in front of the people; and he reigned in his place.
ow the rest of the acts of Zechariah, indeed they are written in the book of the
chronicles of the kings of Israel. This was the word of the LORD which He spoke to
Jehu, saying, “Your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.”
And so it was.
a. Zechariah the son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months: The
reign of Zechariah was both short and wicked, and he continued in the state-
sponsored idolatry begun by Jeroboam.
i. “There appears to be (from a comparison of dates) a period unaccounted for, of
about eleven years, between Jeroboam’s death and the beginning of his son
Zechariah’s reign. . . . Anarchy probably prevailed during the above-noted
interregnum.” (Knapp)
b. Then Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and struck and killed him
in front of the people: Zechariah was so despised by his own people that Shallum
was able to do this. This was the end of the dynasty of Jehu, which began with such

32. potential but ended (as God has foretold) in great darkness.
i. “God keepeth promise with his foes: shall he fail his friends?” (Trapp)
ii. “The death of this last king of the dynasty of Jehu saw the end of the orthern
Kingdom proper. In the last twenty years six rulers were to follow each other, but
only one was die naturally. Anarchy, rivalry and regicide led to terminal bloodshed
which fulfilled Hosea’s prophecies (Hosea 1:4).” (Wiseman)
iii. “Within the next forty-three years half a dozen “pseudo-kings” would reign in
rapid succession, on murderer replacing another on the throne, as the nation
tottered on the brink of anarchy.” (Dilday)
PETT, "Verses 8-12
The Reign Of Zechariah King of Israel c.753-752 BC.
By the time of Zechariah the prophets Amos and Hosea were in full flow
denouncing the sins of Israel, and to some extent those of Judah. From this point on
Israel would sink lower and lower until its existence as a nation would itself be
terminated. The reign of Zechariah was to be brief and would bring to an end the
dynasty of Jehu, and from now on Israel would have a motley variety of kings only
one of whom would die naturally. The reign of Jeroboam had offered them their last
chance.
Analysis.
a In the thirty eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah the son of
Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria for six months (2 Kings 15:8).
b And he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, as his fathers had done. He
departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of ebat, by which he made Israel
to sin (2 Kings 15:9).
c And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and smote him
publicly (before people), and slew him, and reigned instead of him (2 Kings 15:10).
b ow the rest of the acts of Zechariah, behold, they are written in the book of
the chronicles of the kings of Israel (2 Kings 15:11).
a This was the word of YHWH which he spoke to Jehu, saying, “Your sons to
the fourth generation will sit upon the throne of Israel. And so it came about (2
Kings 15:12).
ote that in ‘a’ Zechariah reigned, and in the parallel it was seen as fulfilling
YHWH’s word that Jehu’s sons to the fourth generation would sit on the throne. In
‘b’ his behaviour is described and in the parallel we are referred to the official
annals of the kings of Israel for his other acts. Central in ‘c’ is that fact that he was
removed in a coup and assassinated by Shallum the son of Jabesh, who reigned
instead of him.
2 Kings 15:8

33. ‘In the thirty eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah the son of Jeroboam
reigned over Israel in Samaria for six months.’
The dating for Azariah is calculated from when he became co-regent. Zechariah,
son of Jeroboam, son of Jehu, became king and reigned for a mere six months.
EBC, "Verses 8-12
AMOS, HOSEA, A D THE KI GDOM OF ISRAEL
2 Kings 14:23-29;, 2 Kings 15:8-12
"In them is plainest taught and easiest learnt
What makes a nation happy and keeps it so.
What ruins kingdoms and lays cities flat."
- MILTO , "Paradise Regained"
"We see dimly in the Present what is small and what is great,
Slow of faith how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of Fate:
But the soul is still oracular: amid the market’s din
List the ominous Stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,
‘They enslave their children’s children who make compromise with sin.’"
- LOWELL
AMOS and Hosea are the two earliest prophets whose "burdens" have come down
to us. From them we gain a near insight into the internal condition of Israel in this
day of her prosperity.
We see, first, that the prosperity was not unbroken. Though peace reigned, the
people were not left to lapse unwarned into sloth and godlessness. The land had
suffered from the horrible scourge of locusts, until every carmel-every garden of
God on hill and plain-withered before them. There had been widespread
conflagrations; {Amos 7:4} there had been a visitation of pestilence; and, finally,
there had been an earthquake so violent that it constituted an epoch from which
dates were reckoned. There were also two eclipses of the sun, which darkened with

34. fear the minds of the superstitious.
or was this the worst. Civilization and commerce had brought luxury in their
train, and all the bonds of morality had been relaxed. The country began to be
comparatively depleted, and the innocent regularity of agricultural pursuits palled
upon the young, who were seduced by the glittering excitement of the growing
towns. All zeal for religion was looked on as archaic, and the splendor of formal
services was regarded as a sufficient recognition of such gods as there were. As a
natural consequence, the nobles and the wealthy classes were more and more
infected with a gross materialism, which displayed itself in ostentatious furniture,
and sumptuous palaces of precious marbles inlaid with ivory. The desire for such
vanities increased the thirst for gold, and avarice replenished its exhausted coffers
by grinding the faces of the poor, by defrauding the hireling of his wages, by selling
the righteous for silver, the needy for handfuls of barley, and the poor for a pair of
shoes. The degrading vice of intoxication acquired fresh vogue, and the gorgeous
gluttonies of the rich were further disgraced by the shameful spectacle of
drunkards, who lolled for hours over the revelries which were inflamed by
voluptuous music. Worst of all, the purity of family life was invaded and broken
down. Throwing aside the old veiled seclusion of women in Oriental life, the ladies
of Israel showed themselves in the streets in all "the bravery of their tinkling
ornaments of gold," and sank into the adulterous courses stimulated by their
pampered effrontery.
Such is the picture which we draw from the burning denunciations of the peasant-
prophet of Tekoa. He was no prophet nor prophet’s son, but a humble gatherer of
sycamore-fruit, a toil which only fell to the humblest of the people. Who is not
afraid, he asks, when a lion roars? and how can a prophet be silent when the Lord
God has spoken? Indignation had transformed and dilated him from a laborer into
a seer, anti had summoned him from the pastoral shades of his native village-
whether in Judah or in Israel is uncertain-to denounce the more flagrant iniquities
of the orthern capital. First he proclaims the vengeance of Jehovah upon the
transgressions of the Philistines, of Tyre, of Edom, of Ammon, of Moab, and even of
Judah; and then he turns with a crash upon apostatizing Israel. {Amos 1:1 - Amos
2:5} He speaks with unsparing plainness of their pitiless greed, their shameless
debauchery, their exacting usury, their attempts to pervert even the abstinent
azarites into intemperance, and to silence the prophets by opposition and obloquy.
Jehovah was crushed under their violence. {Amos 2:6-13} And did they think to go
unscathed after such black ingratitude? ay! their mightiest should flee away naked
in the day of defeat. Robbery was in their houses of ivory, and the few of them who
should escape the spoiler should only be as when a shepherd tears out of the mouth
of a lion two legs and a piece of an ear. {Amos 3:9-15} As for Bethel, their shrine-
which he calls Bethaven, "House of Vanity," not Bethel, "House of God"-the horns
of its altars should be cut off. Should oppression and licentiousness flourish?
Jehovah would take them with hooks, and their children with fishhooks, and their
sacrifices at Bethel and Gilgal should be utterly unavailing. Drought, and blasting,
and mildew, and wasting plague, and earth-convulsions like those which had
swallowed Sodom and Gomorrah, from which they should only be plucked as a