| Clarke's Commentary on the Bible 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 2 Kings 15:1, 2 Kings 15:6, 2 Kings 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 2 Kings 15:32, 2 Kings 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 2 Kings 14:16, 2 Kings 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. When such men disagree, I can't decide.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleIn 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, 2 Kings 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 2 Kings 14:21 and which seems to be the best way of accounting for it.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old TestamentReign of Azariah (Uzziah) or Judah (cf. 2 Chronicles 26). - The statement that "in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam Azariah began to reign" is at variance with 2 Kings 14:2, 2 Kings 14:16-17, and 2 Kings 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 (2 Kings 14:2, 2 Kings 14:17); if, moreover, Jeroboam followed his father Joash in the fifteenth year of Amaziah (2 Kings 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 2 Kings 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."
Geneva Study BibleIn the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign.
Wesley's Notes 15:1 To reign - Solely and fully to exercise his regal power.
King James Translators' NotesAzariah: also called, Uzziah
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible CommentaryCHAPTER 15 2Ki 15:1-7. Azariah's Reign over Judah. 1-7. 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 (Nu 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 [342]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).
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary15:1-7 Uzziah did for the most part that which was right. It was happy for the kingdom that a good reign was a long one.
Matthew Henry's Whole Bible CommentaryChapter 15 In this chapter, I. The history of two of the kings of Judah is briefly recorded:-1. Of Azariah, or Uzziah (v. 1-7). 2. Of Jotham his son (v. 32-38). II. The history of many of the kings of Israel that reigned at the same time is given us in short, five in succession, all of whom, except one, went down slain to the pit, and their murders were their successors. 1. Zachariah, the last of the house of Jehu, reigned six months, and then was slain and succeeded by Shallum (v. 8-12). 2. Shallum reigned one month, and then was slain and succeeded by Menahem (v. 13-15). 3. Menahem reigned ten years, or tyrannised rather, such were his barbarous cruelties (v. 16) and unreasonable exactions (v. 20), and then died in his bed, and left his son to succeed him first, and then suffer for him (v. 16-22). 4. Pekahiah reigned two years, and then was slain and succeeded by Pekah (v. 23-26). 5. Pekah reigned twenty years, and then was slain and succeeded by Hoshea, the last of all the kings of Israel (v. 27-31) for things were now working and hastening apace towards the final destruction of that kingdom. Verses 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 (v. 2), did, for the most part, that which was right, v. 3 (it was happy for the kingdom that a good reign was a long one), only he had not zeal and courage enough to take away the high places, v. 4. 2. That which is peculiar, v. 5 (that God smote him with a leprosy) is more largely related, with the occasion of it, 2 Chr. 26:16, etc., where we have also a fuller account of the glories of the former part of his reign, as well as of the disgraces of the latter part of it. He did that which was right, as Amaziah had done; like him, he began well, but failed before he finished. Here we are told, (1.) That he was a leper. The greatest of men are not only subject to the common calamities, but also to the common infirmities, of human nature; and, if they be guilty of any heinous sin, they lie as open as the meanest to the most grievous strokes of divine vengeance. (2.) God smote him with this leprosy, to chastise him for his presumptuous invasion of the priests' office. If great men be proud men, some way or other God will humble them, and make them know he is both above them and against them, for he resisteth the proud. (3.) That he was a leper to the day of his death. Though we have reason to think he repented and the sin was pardoned, yet, for warning to others, he was continued under this mark of God's displeasure as long as he lived, and perhaps it was for the good of his soul that he was so. (4.) That he dwelt in a separate house, as being made ceremonially unclean by the law, to the discipline of which, though a king, he must submit. He that presumptuously intruded into God's temple, and pretended to be a priest, was justly shut out from his own palace, and shut up as a prisoner or recluse, ever after. We suppose that his separate house was made as convenient and agreeable as might be. Some translate it a free house, where he had liberty to take his pleasure. However, it was a great mortification to one that had been so much a man of honour, and a man of business, as he had been, to be cut off from society and dwell always in a separate house: it would almost make life itself a burden, even to kings, though they have never any to converse with but their inferiors; the most contemplative men would soon be weary of it. (5.) That his son was his viceroy in the affairs both of his court (for he was over the house) and of his kingdom (for he was judging the people of the land); and it was both a comfort to him and a blessing to his kingdom that he had such a son to fill up his room. |
