2 Kings · Chapter 15

V. 1. To reign-Solely and fully to exercise his regal power.

Verse 1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam] Dr. Kennicott complains loudly here, because of “the corruption in the name of this king of Judah, who is expressed by four different names in this chapter: Ozriah, Oziah, Ozrihu, and Ozihu. Our oldest Hebrew MS. relieves us here by reading truly, in 2 Kings 15:1, 6, 7, whyz[ 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, 34 of this very chapter. 3. Because it is so expressed in the parallel place in Chronicles; and, 4. Because it is not Azariav, Azariah, but Oziav, Oziah, (Uzziah,) in St. Matthew’s genealogy.” There are insuperable difficulties in the chronology of this place. The marginal note says, “This is the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam’s partnership in the kingdom with his father, who made him consort at his going to the Syrian wars. It is the sixteenth year of Jeroboam’s monarchy.” Dr. Lightfoot endeavours to reconcile this place with 2 Kings 14:16, 17, thus: “At the death of Amaziah, his son and heir Uzziah was but four years old, for he was about sixteen in Jeroboam’s twenty-seventh year; therefore, the throne must have been empty eleven years, and the government administered by protectors while Uzziah was in his minority.” Learned men are not agreed concerning the mode of reconciling these differences; there is probably some mistake in the numbers. I must say to all the contending chronologers:— Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites.

When such men disagree, I can’t decide.

Verse 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.

Verse 1. Azariah; that is, Uzziah, as below, and Isaiah 6:1. He was a good man under affliction, brought several of the ten tribes under the wings of his defence, extended his empire to the Red sea, and sent a fleet round Africa.

REIGN OF AZARIAH, [UZZIAH,] KING OF JUDAH, 1-7.

1. The twenty and seventh year — This is probably an error in the text. For if Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, (2 Kings 14:2,) and outlived Jeroboam’s father fifteen years, (2 Kings 14:17,) he must have reigned fourteen years before Jeroboam attained the throne. Hence it appears that Azariah began… to reign in the fifteenth or sixteenth, instead of the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. Some, however, understand that these twenty-seven years of Jeroboam include twelve years of partnership with his father Joash, as expressed in the margin. Others suppose an interregnum of eleven years between Amaziah’s death and Azariah’s succession. But neither of these suppositions are satisfactory. Keil plausibly suggests that the error in the text originated with some ancient copyist, who mistook wc, (15,) for zk, (27.) The name Azariah is variously written Azariahu, (Hebrews, verses 6 and 7;) Uzziah, (verses 13 and 30;) Uzziahu, (Hebrews, verse 32.) Some of these changes, if not all, have doubtless arisen, as Gesenius supposes, from the error of copyists. Uzziah is the more common form.

2. Two and fifty years — The reign of this king was a most eventful period in Judah and Israel. In his day lived the great prophets Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Joel, and Jonah; and he lived to see six kings pass from the throne of Israel. The record of this reign is so much more fully given in Chronicles that the reader is referred to the notes there. See on 2 Chronicles 26.

Verse 3. He did that which was right] It is said, 2 Chronicles 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.

Verses 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.

REIGN OF AZARIAH, [UZZIAH,] KING OF JUDAH, 1-7.

1. The twenty and seventh year — This is probably an error in the text. For if Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, (2 Kings 14:2,) and outlived Jeroboam’s father fifteen years, (2 Kings 14:17,) he must have reigned fourteen years before Jeroboam attained the throne. Hence it appears that Azariah began… to reign in the fifteenth or sixteenth, instead of the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. Some, however, understand that these twenty-seven years of Jeroboam include twelve years of partnership with his father Joash, as expressed in the margin. Others suppose an interregnum of eleven years between Amaziah’s death and Azariah’s succession. But neither of these suppositions are satisfactory. Keil plausibly suggests that the error in the text originated with some ancient copyist, who mistook wc, (15,) for zk, (27.) The name Azariah is variously written Azariahu, (Hebrews, verses 6 and 7;) Uzziah, (verses 13 and 30;) Uzziahu, (Hebrews, verse 32.) Some of these changes, if not all, have doubtless arisen, as Gesenius supposes, from the error of copyists. Uzziah is the more common form.

Verses 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.

REIGN OF AZARIAH, [UZZIAH,] KING OF JUDAH, 1-7.

1. The twenty and seventh year — This is probably an error in the text. For if Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, (2 Kings 14:2,) and outlived Jeroboam’s father fifteen years, (2 Kings 14:17,) he must have reigned fourteen years before Jeroboam attained the throne. Hence it appears that Azariah began… to reign in the fifteenth or sixteenth, instead of the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. Some, however, understand that these twenty-seven years of Jeroboam include twelve years of partnership with his father Joash, as expressed in the margin. Others suppose an interregnum of eleven years between Amaziah’s death and Azariah’s succession. But neither of these suppositions are satisfactory. Keil plausibly suggests that the error in the text originated with some ancient copyist, who mistook wc, (15,) for zk, (27.) The name Azariah is variously written Azariahu, (Hebrews, verses 6 and 7;) Uzziah, (verses 13 and 30;) Uzziahu, (Hebrews, verse 32.) Some of these changes, if not all, have doubtless arisen, as Gesenius supposes, from the error of copyists. Uzziah is the more common form.

V. 5. A leper-The cause whereof see 2 Chronicles 26:16.

Verse 5. The Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper] The reason of this plague is well told in the above quoted chapter, 2 Chronicles 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 honour appertains,

No need of man when GOD ordains.

[Some go into the contrary extreme, and in affect say, no need of GOD when MAN 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.

Verse 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 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.

Ver. 5. The king was a leper. See on 2 Chronicles 26:21.

5. The Lord smote the king — For burning incense, and thereby usurping priestly functions. See in Chronicles. A several house — Some explain this a free house, or house of liberation; meaning a house for those who were dismissed from the Lord’s service, and so dishonourably free; or, according to others, free from the society of men. But Gesenius and Furst explain it as a house of sickness; that is, an infirmary or hospital.

REIGN OF AZARIAH, [UZZIAH,] KING OF JUDAH, 1-7.

1. The twenty and seventh year — This is probably an error in the text. For if Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, (2 Kings 14:2,) and outlived Jeroboam’s father fifteen years, (2 Kings 14:17,) he must have reigned fourteen years before Jeroboam attained the throne. Hence it appears that Azariah began… to reign in the fifteenth or sixteenth, instead of the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. Some, however, understand that these twenty-seven years of Jeroboam include twelve years of partnership with his father Joash, as expressed in the margin. Others suppose an interregnum of eleven years between Amaziah’s death and Azariah’s succession. But neither of these suppositions are satisfactory. Keil plausibly suggests that the error in the text originated with some ancient copyist, who mistook wc, (15,) for zk, (27.) The name Azariah is variously written Azariahu, (Hebrews, verses 6 and 7;) Uzziah, (verses 13 and 30;) Uzziahu, (Hebrews, verse 32.) Some of these changes, if not all, have doubtless arisen, as Gesenius supposes, from the error of copyists. Uzziah is the more common form.

Verse 7. They buried him with his fathers, &c. — Not 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.

REIGN OF AZARIAH, [UZZIAH,] KING OF JUDAH, 1-7.

1. The twenty and seventh year — This is probably an error in the text. For if Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, (2 Kings 14:2,) and outlived Jeroboam’s father fifteen years, (2 Kings 14:17,) he must have reigned fourteen years before Jeroboam attained the throne. Hence it appears that Azariah began… to reign in the fifteenth or sixteenth, instead of the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. Some, however, understand that these twenty-seven years of Jeroboam include twelve years of partnership with his father Joash, as expressed in the margin. Others suppose an interregnum of eleven years between Amaziah’s death and Azariah’s succession. But neither of these suppositions are satisfactory. Keil plausibly suggests that the error in the text originated with some ancient copyist, who mistook wc, (15,) for zk, (27.) The name Azariah is variously written Azariahu, (Hebrews, verses 6 and 7;) Uzziah, (verses 13 and 30;) Uzziahu, (Hebrews, verse 32.) Some of these changes, if not all, have doubtless arisen, as Gesenius supposes, from the error of copyists. Uzziah is the more common form.

V. 8. Six months-After the throne had been vacant several years, thro’ the dissentions that were in the kingdom.

REIGN OF ZACHARIAH, KING OF ISRAEL, 8-12.

8. The thirty and eighth year of Azariah — According to 2 Kings 14:23, Jeroboam began to reign in Amaziah’s fifteenth year, and as he reigned forty-one years, he must have died in Uzziah’s twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year. Hence there must have been an interregnum in the kingdom of Israel of about eleven years, from the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh to the thirty-eighth of Uzziah; or else, as is more probable, Jeroboam reigned not forty-one, but fifty-two or fifty-three years. This is further shown by the concurring dates given in verses 13, 17, 23, 27.

REIGN OF ZACHARIAH, KING OF ISRAEL, 8-12.

8. The thirty and eighth year of Azariah — According to 2 Kings 14:23, Jeroboam began to reign in Amaziah’s fifteenth year, and as he reigned forty-one years, he must have died in Uzziah’s twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year. Hence there must have been an interregnum in the kingdom of Israel of about eleven years, from the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh to the thirty-eighth of Uzziah; or else, as is more probable, Jeroboam reigned not forty-one, but fifty-two or fifty-three years. This is further shown by the concurring dates given in verses 13, 17, 23, 27.

Verse 10. Smote him before the people] In some public assembly: he probably became very unpopular.

Verse 10. Shallum the son of Jabesh — Probably one of his chief captains; conspired against him — On what pretence is quite uncertain. And smote him before the people — Openly and impudently, which, it is likely, he presumed to do, either because he remembered that the promise of the kingdom, made to Jehu, was confined to the fourth generation, (2 Kings 10:30,) which he observed to be now expired; or because he perceived the people were generally disaffected to their king, and favourable to his attempt.

10. Smote him before the people — That is, openly; before the eyes of all. It would seem that Zachariah’s administration was so unpopular as to invite or occasion conspiracy. The Septuagint takes the words rendered before the people as a proper name — in Keblaam — and Ewald thinks we should disregard the in, and understand Keblaam as the name of another conspirator, who sought, like Shallum, to usurp the throne.

Verse 11. The rest of the acts of Zachariah, &c. — We read of nothing that he did; therefore the meaning is, that his behaviour during the six months in which he reigned, how he managed things, and provoked this conspiracy, are recorded elsewhere.

REIGN OF ZACHARIAH, KING OF ISRAEL, 8-12.

8. The thirty and eighth year of Azariah — According to 2 Kings 14:23, Jeroboam began to reign in Amaziah’s fifteenth year, and as he reigned forty-one years, he must have died in Uzziah’s twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year. Hence there must have been an interregnum in the kingdom of Israel of about eleven years, from the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh to the thirty-eighth of Uzziah; or else, as is more probable, Jeroboam reigned not forty-one, but fifty-two or fifty-three years. This is further shown by the concurring dates given in verses 13, 17, 23, 27.

Verse 12. This was the word of the Lord-unto Jehu] God had promised to Jehu that his sons should sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation; and so it came to pass, for Jehoahaz, Joash, Jeroboam, and Zachariah, succeeded Jehu, to whom this promise was made. But because he executed the Divine purpose with an uncommanded cruelty, therefore God cut his family short, according to his word by Hosea, I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu; and I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel, Hosea 1:4.

Verse 12. This was the word of the Lord, Thy sons, &c. — How unfaithful soever they proved to God, he faithfully performed the promise which he made to Jehu, whose sons, to the fourth generation, succeeded him in the throne of Israel. But this Shallum put an end to that family, and fulfilled the prophecy of Hosea, (Hosea 1:4,) I will average the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. For though Jehu had a command from God to destroy the house of Ahab, yet because he did it not so much in obedience to God, and with a view to his glory, as to satisfy his own private ambition, and in a way of cruelty quite abhorrent to the divine nature, God cut his family short, as soon as he had fulfilled his promise, and avenged that blood by this man, who slew Zachariah, and the rest of his posterity, if there were any. At least, he made the kingdom to cease in his family, and, not long after, it ceased in all Israel, who were rooted out, and never restored to their own country, as Judah was.

Ver. 12. The fourth generation. God kept his promise with the house of Jehu, though his sons kept no faith with Him who placed them on the throne.

12. The word of the Lord… unto Jehu — See 2 Kings 10:30, note. Keil here remarks how rapidly the kingdom of Israel, after the death of Jeroboam, hastened to its fall. “In sixty-two years from the death of Jeroboam to the conquest of Samaria by Shalmaneser, two anarchies, making up twenty years, prevailed, and six kings followed one another, of whom only one, Menahem, died a natural death, so that his son succeeded him on the throne. The remaining five were dethroned and murdered by rebels, so that, according to the just remark of Witsius, with the murder of Zachariah not only the sentence of Hosea, (Hosea 1:4,) ‘I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu,’ but also the sentence forming a parallel with it, ‘and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel,’ was carried into effect, inasmuch as with Zachariah the kingdom properly ceased in Israel.”

V. 13. Full moon-That dominion seldom lasts long, which is founded in blood and falsehood.

Verse 13. He reigned a full month] Menahem is supposed to have been one of Zachariah’s generals. Hearing of the death of his master, when he was with the troops at Tirzah, he hastened to Samaria, and slew the murderer, and had himself proclaimed in his stead. But, as the people of Tiphsah did not open their gates to him, he took the place by assault; and as the text tells us, practised the most cruel barbarities, even ripping up the women that were with child!

Verses 13, 14. He reigned a full month — That dominion seldom lasts long that is founded in blood and falsehood. Menahem, either provoked by his crime, or animated by his example, soon served him as he had served his master: he went up from Tirzah — A city in the tribe of Ephraim, where Jeroboam first dwelt; and smote Shallum — Probably he was general of the army, which then lay encamped at Tirzah, and hearing of Shallum’s treason and usurpation, he hastened to Samaria to avenge it, as Omri acted, in a like case, with regard to Zimri.

SHALLUM’S RULE, 13-15.

13. Shallum… reigned a full month — Hardly deserving to be called a reign. It was a bold usurpation, and a short and disastrous possession of ill-gotten power.

Verses 13, 14. He reigned a full month — That dominion seldom lasts long that is founded in blood and falsehood. Menahem, either provoked by his crime, or animated by his example, soon served him as he had served his master: he went up from Tirzah — A city in the tribe of Ephraim, where Jeroboam first dwelt; and smote Shallum — Probably he was general of the army, which then lay encamped at Tirzah, and hearing of Shallum’s treason and usurpation, he hastened to Samaria to avenge it, as Omri acted, in a like case, with regard to Zimri.

Ver. 14. Menahem—smote Shallum, even as Shallum had killed his master Zachariah. Unhappy is that government when generals dream that they can kill their sovereigns, and then usurp their thrones. Greece had its senate in the Areopagus; the Romans had their senate also; but alas, the Hebrews now had no idea of senates and parliaments.

14. Menahem… went up from Tirzah — According to Josephus and most expositors, Menahem was the general of Zachariah’s army, and had his headquarters at Tirzah, the former residence of the kings of Israel, (see note on 1 Kings 14:17,) and when he heard of the assassination of the king, he marched immediately with all his forces to Samaria. and slew the usurper Shallum, and took the kingdom into his own hand.

15. Acts of Shallum… in the book of the Chronicles — Though he ruled but thirty days, the scribes were careful to record his acts and the history of his conspiracy. How ample the records from which our historian drew, but how brief his narrative!

Verse 16. Then Menahem smote Tiphsah — Either that Tiphsah mentioned 1 Kings 4:24, or another city of the same name. And the coasts thereof, from Tirzah — All the people dwelling between those places. Because they opened not to him — Refused to open the gates of their city, and submit to him as conqueror. All the women that were with child he ripped up — That by this example of severity he might affright all the rest of the people into obedience. The frequent mention of this kind of cruelty, shows how inhumanly barbarous the eastern people were in those ages.

REIGN OF MENAHEM, 16-22.

16. Smote Tiphsah — Ewald, Thenius, and others, think this must have been a city in Palestine near Tirzah. But in the absence of any mention of a city of this name near Tirzah, it is better to understand the border city of Solomon’s kingdom, the Thapsacus of the Greeks, mentioned 1 Kings 4:24, where see note. Wordsworth well remarks: “In the state of confusion in which Israel was at this time, we need not be surprised that a restless and aspiring man, like Menahem, going forth from Tirzah, should have been able to carry his marauding and desolating conquests even to the banks of the Euphrates.” The coasts thereof from Tirzah — These words do not sufficiently authorize us to maintain that Menahem wasted all the land between Tirzah and Tiphsah, but they clearly show that his conquests were not confined to Tiphsah. We understand that he set out on his expedition from Tirzah, and no doubt many parts of the country between that place and the Euphrates suffered from his march. Because they opened not — The inhabitants of Tiphsah offered resistance to Menahem’s forces, and this so enraged him that he not only ravished the coasts thereof, but having taken the city, he perpetrated on its inhabitants, even to women and children, the most barbarous cruelties.

REIGN OF MENAHEM, 16-22.

16. Smote Tiphsah — Ewald, Thenius, and others, think this must have been a city in Palestine near Tirzah. But in the absence of any mention of a city of this name near Tirzah, it is better to understand the border city of Solomon’s kingdom, the Thapsacus of the Greeks, mentioned 1 Kings 4:24, where see note. Wordsworth well remarks: “In the state of confusion in which Israel was at this time, we need not be surprised that a restless and aspiring man, like Menahem, going forth from Tirzah, should have been able to carry his marauding and desolating conquests even to the banks of the Euphrates.” The coasts thereof from Tirzah — These words do not sufficiently authorize us to maintain that Menahem wasted all the land between Tirzah and Tiphsah, but they clearly show that his conquests were not confined to Tiphsah. We understand that he set out on his expedition from Tirzah, and no doubt many parts of the country between that place and the Euphrates suffered from his march. Because they opened not — The inhabitants of Tiphsah offered resistance to Menahem’s forces, and this so enraged him that he not only ravished the coasts thereof, but having taken the city, he perpetrated on its inhabitants, even to women and children, the most barbarous cruelties.

REIGN OF MENAHEM, 16-22.

16. Smote Tiphsah — Ewald, Thenius, and others, think this must have been a city in Palestine near Tirzah. But in the absence of any mention of a city of this name near Tirzah, it is better to understand the border city of Solomon’s kingdom, the Thapsacus of the Greeks, mentioned 1 Kings 4:24, where see note. Wordsworth well remarks: “In the state of confusion in which Israel was at this time, we need not be surprised that a restless and aspiring man, like Menahem, going forth from Tirzah, should have been able to carry his marauding and desolating conquests even to the banks of the Euphrates.” The coasts thereof from Tirzah — These words do not sufficiently authorize us to maintain that Menahem wasted all the land between Tirzah and Tiphsah, but they clearly show that his conquests were not confined to Tiphsah. We understand that he set out on his expedition from Tirzah, and no doubt many parts of the country between that place and the Euphrates suffered from his march. Because they opened not — The inhabitants of Tiphsah offered resistance to Menahem’s forces, and this so enraged him that he not only ravished the coasts thereof, but having taken the city, he perpetrated on its inhabitants, even to women and children, the most barbarous cruelties.

Verse 19. Pul, the king of Assyria] This is the first time we hear of Assyria since the days of Nimrod, its founder, Genesis 10:11. Dean Prideaux supposes that this Pul was father of the famous Sardanapalus, the son himself being called Sardan; to which, as was frequent in those times, the father’s name, Pul, was added, making Sardanpul of which the Greeks and Latins made Sardanapalus; and this Pul is supposed to be the same that reigned in Nineveh when Jonah preached the terrors of the Lord to that city.

That his hand] That is, his power and influence, might be with him: in this sense is the word hand frequently used in Scripture.

Verse 19. Pul the king of Assyria came against the land — This is the first time that we find any mention of the kingdom of Assyria, since the days of Nimrod, who erected a small principality there, Genesis 10:11. And they were no great people, one would suppose, when the eighty-third Psalm was written, in which they are mentioned as auxiliaries to the children of Lot, against the Israelites, together with other small nations. But now they were become very powerful. This Pul, or Phul, was the first monarch of that nation that invaded Israel, and began their transportation out of their country. Some have been of opinion, with Bishop Patrick, Poole, and others, that he was the same with Belesis, the governor of Babylon, who, together with Arbaces the Mede, slew Sardanapalus, the last of the Assyrian monarchs, and translated the empire to the Chaldeans. But, according to Dr. Prideaux, Belesis was one generation later. It is supposed, therefore, that this Pul was the father of Sardanapalus, and the same king of Assyria who, when Jonah preached against Nineveh, gave great tokens of his humiliation and repentance. See Prideaux’s Con. A. 747, and Bedford’s Script. Chronology. Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver — A very considerable present indeed, being no less than f450,000 sterling. This sum he gave, not only with a view to turn away the army of Pul from him, but also to purchase his friendship and assistance against those of his own subjects who opposed him, and to confirm the kingdom in his hand. By which it appears, that his cruelty at Tiphsah was so far from establishing him as he expected, that it weakened and endangered him, so that he was obliged to call in a foreign power to his aid.

Ver. 19. Pul the king of Assyria. See the list of those kings, Genesis 11. This prince is the first of eight others. 1. Son of Sardan, Pul or Sardanapalus. 2. Tiglath-Pileser. 3. Salmaneser. 4. Sennacherib. 5. Asar-hadan. 6. Berodach. 7. Ben-Berodach. 8. Nebuchadnezzar. This strong kingdom had not much troubled the Jews, except as in Judges 3., when they oppressed them for eight years. From this time God was about to employ them as “the rod of his anger.” Isaiah 10:5.

19. Pul… came against the land — Perhaps this king of Assyria had become alarmed at Menahem’s successful expedition against Tiphsah, on the Euphrates, on the borders of his own dominion. Or possibly, as Rawlinson thinks, (see note on 2 Kings 14:5,) the kingdom of Israel was already in some way dependent on Assyria, and the war against Tiphsah was regarded by Pul as an act of rebellion. Gave Pul a thousand talents — About seventeen thousand dollars. This present turned the Assyrian foe into an ally, and led him at once to confirm the kingdom in his hand, that is, to ratify Menahem’s government, and recognise him as the king of Israel.

Verse 20. Each man fifty shekels of silver] Upwards of five pounds sterling a man.

Verse 20. Of all the mighty men of wealth — By exacting the money only of the rich, it is likely, he thought he should ingratiate himself with the common people, upon whom he laid no tax. Fifty shekels of silver, demanded of each man of wealth, were a sum equal to f7. 10s. of our money.

20. Turned back — But according to 1 Chronicles 5:26, he carried away with him a number of Israelitish captives.

Pul is the first Assyrian king whose invasion of Israel is mentioned in the Bible, and it is deeply interesting to know that the recently exhumed monuments of the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris throw much light on the biblical history, and often strikingly confirm its statements. But antiquarian research has thus far failed to identify the biblical Pul with any king mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions. At one time Rawlinson thought the name might be an abbreviation of Vullush, but the discovery of the Assyrian Canon showed that three kings reigned between him and Tiglath-pileser, neither of whose names could possibly be represented by Pul. Accordingly, says Rawlinson, a high authority on this subject, “the Assyrian records do not merely omit Pul, but exclude him; and we have to inquire how this can be accounted for, and who the biblical Pul is, if he is not a regular and recognised Assyrian monarch.”

Some propose to identify him with Tiglath-pileser; others regard him as merely the general of the Assyrian army, but confounded in the Jewish records with the reigning monarch; but according to the latest views of the writer last quoted, “perhaps the most probable supposition is, that he was a pretender to the Assyrian crown, never acknowledged at Nineveh, but established in the western and southern provinces so firmly, that he could venture to conduct an expedition into Lower Syria, and to claim there the fealty of Assyria’s vassals. Or possibly he may have been a Babylonian monarch, who in the troublous times that had now evidently come upon the northern empire, possessed himself of the Euphrates valley, and thence descended upon Syria and Palestine. Berosus represented Pul as a Chaldean king, and the name itself, which is wholly alien to the ordinary Assyrian type, has at least one counterpart [Porus, in Ptolemy’s Canon] among known Babylonian names.” — Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii, p. 123.

Verse 21. Are they not written in-the chronicles] There are no chronicles extant, in which there is any thing farther relative to this king.

REIGN OF MENAHEM, 16-22.

16. Smote Tiphsah — Ewald, Thenius, and others, think this must have been a city in Palestine near Tirzah. But in the absence of any mention of a city of this name near Tirzah, it is better to understand the border city of Solomon’s kingdom, the Thapsacus of the Greeks, mentioned 1 Kings 4:24, where see note. Wordsworth well remarks: “In the state of confusion in which Israel was at this time, we need not be surprised that a restless and aspiring man, like Menahem, going forth from Tirzah, should have been able to carry his marauding and desolating conquests even to the banks of the Euphrates.” The coasts thereof from Tirzah — These words do not sufficiently authorize us to maintain that Menahem wasted all the land between Tirzah and Tiphsah, but they clearly show that his conquests were not confined to Tiphsah. We understand that he set out on his expedition from Tirzah, and no doubt many parts of the country between that place and the Euphrates suffered from his march. Because they opened not — The inhabitants of Tiphsah offered resistance to Menahem’s forces, and this so enraged him that he not only ravished the coasts thereof, but having taken the city, he perpetrated on its inhabitants, even to women and children, the most barbarous cruelties.

Ver. 22. Menahem. In the Jewish writings this is a favourite name of the Messiah, because it designates consolation. Luke 2:25. But this good name was not realized in the life of this king.

REIGN OF MENAHEM, 16-22.

16. Smote Tiphsah — Ewald, Thenius, and others, think this must have been a city in Palestine near Tirzah. But in the absence of any mention of a city of this name near Tirzah, it is better to understand the border city of Solomon’s kingdom, the Thapsacus of the Greeks, mentioned 1 Kings 4:24, where see note. Wordsworth well remarks: “In the state of confusion in which Israel was at this time, we need not be surprised that a restless and aspiring man, like Menahem, going forth from Tirzah, should have been able to carry his marauding and desolating conquests even to the banks of the Euphrates.” The coasts thereof from Tirzah — These words do not sufficiently authorize us to maintain that Menahem wasted all the land between Tirzah and Tiphsah, but they clearly show that his conquests were not confined to Tiphsah. We understand that he set out on his expedition from Tirzah, and no doubt many parts of the country between that place and the Euphrates suffered from his march. Because they opened not — The inhabitants of Tiphsah offered resistance to Menahem’s forces, and this so enraged him that he not only ravished the coasts thereof, but having taken the city, he perpetrated on its inhabitants, even to women and children, the most barbarous cruelties.

REIGN OF PEKAHIAH, 23-26.

23. The fiftieth year — According to verse 17, Menahem must have died in the forty-ninth year of Azariah, so that perhaps several months elapsed before his son became the acknowledged king. Perhaps, as Keil suggests, his right to the throne was contested.

Verses 24, 25. He did that which was evil, &c. — He was the wicked son of a wicked father, and so perished by such a conspiracy as his father formed against Shallum. With Argob and Arieh — It does not appear from the text whether these persons were Pekah’s partners in this treason, or Pekahiah’s courtiers and officers now slain with him. With fifty men of the Gileadites — Who, it is probable, were Pekahiah’s body-guard.

REIGN OF PEKAHIAH, 23-26.

23. The fiftieth year — According to verse 17, Menahem must have died in the forty-ninth year of Azariah, so that perhaps several months elapsed before his son became the acknowledged king. Perhaps, as Keil suggests, his right to the throne was contested.

Verse 25. Smote him in Samaria, in the palace of the king’s house, with Argob and Arieh] Who Argob and Arieh were we know not; some make them men, some make them statues. Pekah had fifty Gileadites in the conspiracy with him.

Verses 24, 25. He did that which was evil, &c. — He was the wicked son of a wicked father, and so perished by such a conspiracy as his father formed against Shallum. With Argob and Arieh — It does not appear from the text whether these persons were Pekah’s partners in this treason, or Pekahiah’s courtiers and officers now slain with him. With fifty men of the Gileadites — Who, it is probable, were Pekahiah’s body-guard.

25. Smote him… in the palace of the king’s house — Rather, as Gesenius, “the fortress of the king’s house, the innermost part, as the highest and strongest, q.d., the citadel. J.D. Michaelis, and after him most modern interpreters, here translate it the woman’s apartment, the harem; but there is no trace of this in the ancient interpreters, nor is there any reason for departing from the simple explanation above given.” With Argob and Arieh — That is, as the Hebrew particle ta here sufficiently indicates, Argob and Arieh were slain along with the king. They were probably two important persons of Pekahiah’s court, whom Pekah thought it not safe to leave alive after their master’s assassination. With him — With Pekah. Fifty men of the Gileadites — These men probably belonged to the royal army, and were under the command of Captain Pekah, and joined with him in the conspiracy.

REIGN OF PEKAHIAH, 23-26.

23. The fiftieth year — According to verse 17, Menahem must have died in the forty-ninth year of Azariah, so that perhaps several months elapsed before his son became the acknowledged king. Perhaps, as Keil suggests, his right to the throne was contested.

Verse 27. In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah Pekah began to reign — This is the fifth king that reigned over Israel during the reign of Azariah king of Judah. Pekah, however, reigned much longer than any of the preceding four. For though he also, like Shallum and Menahem, got the kingdom by treason and blood, he kept possession of it twenty years. So long it was before his violent dealing returned upon his own head. And he made himself more noted abroad than any of these usurpers; for even in the latter part of his time, in the reign of Ahaz, (which began in his seventeenth year,) he was a great terror to the kingdom of Judah, as we find, Isaiah 7:1. Mr. Locke justly observes, that the prophecies of Hosea, Joel, and Amos, come in here, who all prophesied about this time.

REIGN OF PEKAH, 27-31.

27. Pekah… twenty years — According to Bahr we should here read thirty years. Pekah’s reign is especially noted for its connexion with Syrian and Assyrian wars. After Tiglath-pileser’s first invasion Pekah, and Rezin king of Syria, made a league against Judah, and proposed to reduce Jerusalem, and make a “son of Tabeal” king there in place of Ahaz. 2 Kings 16:5; Isaiah 7:1, 2, 6. This led Ahaz to seek an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, who immediately marched against Damascus, captured the city, and carried its inhabitants into captivity. 2 Kings 16:9.

REIGN OF PEKAH, 27-31.

27. Pekah… twenty years — According to Bahr we should here read thirty years. Pekah’s reign is especially noted for its connexion with Syrian and Assyrian wars. After Tiglath-pileser’s first invasion Pekah, and Rezin king of Syria, made a league against Judah, and proposed to reduce Jerusalem, and make a “son of Tabeal” king there in place of Ahaz. 2 Kings 16:5; Isaiah 7:1, 2, 6. This led Ahaz to seek an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, who immediately marched against Damascus, captured the city, and carried its inhabitants into captivity. 2 Kings 16:9.

Verse 29. Came Tiglath-pileser] He is supposed to have been the successor of Sardanapalus: Dean Prideaux makes him the same with Arbaces, called by Ælian Thilgamus, and by Usher Ninus junior; who, together with Belesis, headed the conspiracy against Sardanapalus, and fixed his seat at Nineveh, the ancient residence of the Assyrian kings; as did Belesis, who is called, in Isaiah 39:1, Baladan, fix his at Babylon. Took Ijon] These places belonged to Israel; and were taken by Ben-hadad, king of Syria, when he was in league with Asa, king of Judah. See 1 Kings 15:20. They were regained by Jeroboam the second; and now they are taken from Israel once more by Tiglath-pileser. From 1 Chronicles 5:26, we learn that Pul and Tiglath-pileser, kings of Assyria, carried away into captivity the two tribes of Reuben, and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh; all that belonged to Israel, on the other side of Jordan. These were never restored to Israel.

Verse 29. In the days of Pekah came Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, &c. — He is supposed by some to have been the son and successor of Sardanapalus, who restored the kingdom of Assyria, and possessed it after it bad been dismembered by Belesis and Arbaces: but our learned Prideaux, who begins his valuable connection of the Old and New Testaments at this period, makes him to be the same with Arbaces, who, together with Belesis, headed the conspiracy against Sardanapalus, and fixed his royal seat at Nineveh, the ancient residence of the Assyrian kings, as Belesis fixed his at Babylon, and there governed his newly-erected kingdom for nineteen years. And took Ijon, &c., and Gilead, and Galilee, and all Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria — Thus Pekah lost a great part of his kingdom. And by this judgment God punished him for his attempt upon Judah and Jerusalem. For it was then foretold by Isaiah, that within two or three years after he had made that attempt, before a child then born should be able to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Samaria should be taken away before the king of Assyria; and here we have the accomplishment of that prediction. It may be proper to observe here, that the kingdom of the ten tribes was not destroyed at one time. The first invasion of their country, and prelude to their destruction, was made by Pul, who took away an immense booty, and drained them of their wealth; probably also carrying captive some of the people that dwelt on the east of Jordan. The second was by this Tiglath-pileser, who carried away the inhabitants of the northern parts, with the Reubenites, Gadites, and half-tribe of Manasseh, 1 Chronicles 5:26. The third and last was by Shalmaneser, who took Samaria, and carried into captivity the rest of the Israelites, 2 Kings 17:1-23.

Ver. 29. Tiglath. He conquered all Gilead east of the Jordan, and all the northern parts of Israel, as stated by Isaiah 9:1-5.

29. Tiglath-pileser — From the various sources of information concerning this Assyrian monarch we learn that he was a usurper, and by a successful revolution became the founder of a new dynasty. He reigned about eighteen years, and was engaged most of the time in wars to recover the losses which the kingdom seems to have suffered through the weakness of his predecessors. His principal campaigns were in Babylonia, Syria, and Palestine. Unfortunately the monuments of this king, though numerous, have been wantonly defaced, mutilated, and in many instances destroyed, by his successors, and used to build and adorn later structures. Still they yield much evidence to confirm the Scripture records. Of his league with Ahaz, and his smiting the Syrian power, see 2 Kings 16:7, ff. Ijon — See note on 1 Kings 15:20. Abel-bethmaachah — See note on 2 Samuel 20:14. Janoah is identified by some with the Janohah of the tribe of Ephraim, (see Joshua 16:6;) but as that lies far out of the line of Tiglath-pileser’s march, it is more commonly believed that this Janoah must have been in Northern Palestine, and not far from these other cities in connexion with which it is named; but no place of this name has yet been found in that locality, Kedesh — See note on Joshua 12:22. Hazor — See note on Joshua 11:1. Gilead — The mountainous region east of the Jordan, (see note on Judges 10:17,) from which, according to 1 Chronicles 5:26, Tiglath-pileser carried away “the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh.” Galilee — This name, signifying a circle, seems to have been originally applied to a circular plain in the vicinity of Kedesh, and in the time of Joshua was limited to the region around that ancient sanctuary of Naphtali. Gradually the name came to indicate a larger region, till at this invasion of Tiglath-pileser it embraced all the land of Naphtali, for these words, not being connected by and with the preceding, we take to be explanatory of Galilee. At a later period Galilee became the name of one of the three provinces into which Palestine was divided, and embraced all northern Palestine between Samaria and Syria. Keil regards the enumeration of names in this verse as “purely historical, that is, following the actual order of the conquests. Tiglath-pileser first took the several partly fortified cities adjacent to the Sea of Merom, then turned to Gilead, conquered this district, and on his return thence the remaining part of Galilee, namely, the whole land of Naphtali.” Carried them captive — This was the second Assyrian captivity of any considerable number of Israelites, the first having been under Pul. (1 Chronicles 5:26;) but in the reign of the next king, Hoshea, all northern Israel was carried into exile. 2 Kings 17:6.

V. 30. Twentieth year-The meaning is, that he began his reign in the twentieth year after the beginning of Jotham’s reign; or, which is the same thing, in the fourth year of Ahaz, son of Jotham.

Verse 30. Hoshea the son of Elah-in the twentieth year of Jotham] There are many difficulties in the chronology of this place. To reconcile the whole, Calmet says: “Hoshea conspired against Pekah, the twentieth year of the reign of this prince, which was the eighteenth after the beginning of the reign of Jotham, king of Judah. Two years after this, that is, the fourth year of Ahaz, and the twentieth of Jotham, Hoshea made himself master of a part of the kingdom, according to 2 Kings 15:30. Finally, the twelfth year of Ahaz, Hoshea had peaceable possession of the whole kingdom, according to 2 Kings 17:1.”

Verse 30. Hosea made a conspiracy against Pekah, and smote him — It is probable that the people were provoked at him for leaving them exposed to a foreign enemy, while he invaded Judah; and that Hosea took advantage of their discontent and disgust to seize and slay him. Thus Pekah’s treason and violence returned upon himself at last. And reigned in his stead in the twentieth year of Jotham — The meaning is, that he began his reign in the twentieth year after the beginning of Jotham’s reign; or, which is the same thing, in the fourth year of Ahaz, son of Jotham.

30. Twentieth year of Jotham — That is, as Usher explains, the twentieth year after Jotham had begun to reign; which was, however, the fourth year of Ahaz, for Jotham reigned only sixteen years. The historian dates from the year of Jotham, because his son Ahaz has not yet been named in his records. But Bahr regards these words as a “false and late addition.” His argument, however, is inconclusive.

REIGN OF JOTHAM, KING OF JUDAH, 32-38.

REIGN OF PEKAH, 27-31.

27. Pekah… twenty years — According to Bahr we should here read thirty years. Pekah’s reign is especially noted for its connexion with Syrian and Assyrian wars. After Tiglath-pileser’s first invasion Pekah, and Rezin king of Syria, made a league against Judah, and proposed to reduce Jerusalem, and make a “son of Tabeal” king there in place of Ahaz. 2 Kings 16:5; Isaiah 7:1, 2, 6. This led Ahaz to seek an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, who immediately marched against Damascus, captured the city, and carried its inhabitants into captivity. 2 Kings 16:9.

Verse 32. Began Jotham the son of Uzziah to reign — Why he should be called all along Azariah, and here, and verse 34, Uzziah, no account can be given, unless it was to show that he had two names. And it appears by the book of Chronicles, that the name Uzziah was as much used, when that book was written, as the other.

Ver. 32. Jotham, a valiant prince, who, like his father, continued to raise his country. The leprosy of Uzziah did not affect Jotham.

V. 33. To reign-Alone: for he had reigned before this, as his father’s deputy.

Verses 33, 34. Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign — Namely, properly and alone; for he had reigned before this as his father’s deputy. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord — Josephus gives him a very high character; that he was pious toward God, just toward men, and laid himself out for the public good; that whatever was amiss he took care to have it rectified; and, in short, wanted no virtue that became a good prince. And though the high places were not taken away, yet, to draw the people from them, and keep them close to God’s holy place, he showed great respect to the temple, and built, or rebuilt rather, the higher gate, not indeed of the temple itself, but of one of its courts, probably that which led to the king’s palace, 2 Chronicles 23:20. “If magistrates,” says Henry, “cannot do all they would for the suppression of vice and profaneness, let them do so much the more for the support and advancement of piety and virtue, and bringing of them into reputation. If they cannot pull down the high places of sin, yet let them build and beautify the high gate of God’s house.”

Verses 33, 34. Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign — Namely, properly and alone; for he had reigned before this as his father’s deputy. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord — Josephus gives him a very high character; that he was pious toward God, just toward men, and laid himself out for the public good; that whatever was amiss he took care to have it rectified; and, in short, wanted no virtue that became a good prince. And though the high places were not taken away, yet, to draw the people from them, and keep them close to God’s holy place, he showed great respect to the temple, and built, or rebuilt rather, the higher gate, not indeed of the temple itself, but of one of its courts, probably that which led to the king’s palace, 2 Chronicles 23:20. “If magistrates,” says Henry, “cannot do all they would for the suppression of vice and profaneness, let them do so much the more for the support and advancement of piety and virtue, and bringing of them into reputation. If they cannot pull down the high places of sin, yet let them build and beautify the high gate of God’s house.”

V. 35. Gate-Not of the temple, but of one of the courts of the temple, probably that which led to the king’s palace.

Verse 36. Now the rest of the acts of Jotham] These acts are distinctly stated in 2 Chronicles 27:1-9. He built the high gate of the house of the Lord, and he built much on the wall of Ophel. He built cities in the mountains of Judah; and in the forests he built castles and towers. He overthrew the Ammonites; and obliged them to give him one hundred talents of silver, ten thousand measures of wheat, and ten thousand of barley, for three consecutive years. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years. These are the particulars which we learn from the place in Chronicles quoted above; few of which are mentioned in this place. As to the higher gate of the house of the Lord, commentators are not well agreed: some think it was a gate which he then made, and which did not exist before, and is the same that is called the new gate, Jeremiah 26:10, which is very likely.

Verse 37. In those days the Lord began to send] It was about this time that the Assyrian wars, so ruinous to the Jews, began; but it was in the following reigns that they arrived at their highest pitch of disaster to those unfaithful and unfortunate people. However much we may blame the Jews for their disobedience and obstinacy, yet we cannot help feeling for them under their severe afflictions. Grievously they have sinned, and grievously have they suffered for it. And if they be still objects of God’s judgments, there is revelation to believe that they will yet be objects of God’s goodness. Many think the signs of the times are favourable to this ingathering; but there is no evidence among the people themselves that the day of their redemption is at hand. They do not humble themselves; they do not seek the Lord.

II KINGS

Verse 37. In those days — That is, toward the end of Jotham’s reign; the Lord began to send against Judah, Rezin and Pekah — As he bid Shimei curse David, when he gave him an opportunity of doing it, without fear of punishment. Wicked men are the sword, the rod in God’s hand, which he makes use of as he pleases, to serve his own righteous counsels, though they be unrighteous in their intentions. This storm was gathered in the reign of pious Jotham, but he came to his grave in peace, and it fell upon his degenerate son Ahaz, whose heart, upon notice of it, was moved, as were the hearts of the people, as the trees of the wood are moved by the wind, Isaiah 7:2.

37. In those days — Evidently near the close of Jotham’s reign. Began to send… Rezin… and Pekah — That is, the Syro-Israelitish war against Judah only began in Jotham’s day. It belonged rather to the reign of Ahaz. See notes on chap. 16:5-9.

The reign of Jotham is more fully detailed in 2 Chronicles 27, where see notes.

Verse 38. Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David — He died in the midst of his days, being only forty-one years of age. He was too great a blessing to be continued long to such an unworthy people. His death was a judgment, especially considering the character of his son and his successor.