Lange Commentary - 2 King 15:1

Lange Commentary - 2 King 15:1 - 15:38

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 2 King 15:1 - 15:38

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

15:1 - 15:38

THIRD SECTION

The Monarchy Under Azariah (uzziah) And Jotham In Judah, And Under Zachariah And Others Until Hoshea, In Israel

(2 Kings 15-17)

A.—The reigns of Azariah and Jotham in Judah, and of Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, and Pekah in Israel

2Ki_15:1-38. (2 Chronicles 26, 27)

¹In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel [,] began [omit began] Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign [became king]. ²Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign [became king], and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. ³And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according ⁴[like] to all that his father Amaziah had done; save that the high places were not removed; the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places. ⁵And the Lord smote [touched] the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house [house of sickness]. And Jotham the king’s son was over the house, judging the people of the land. ⁶And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? ⁷So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.

⁸In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria six months. ⁹And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his fathers had done: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. ¹⁰And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and smote him before the people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. ¹¹And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. ¹²This was the word of the Lord which he spake unto Jehu, saying, Thy sons shall sit on the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation. And so it came to pass.

¹³Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign [became king] in the nine and thirtieth ¹⁴year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria. For [And] Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. ¹⁵And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. ¹⁶Then Menahem [starting from Tirzah] smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts [environs] thereof from Tirzah [omit from Tirzah]: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

¹⁷In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah king of Judah began [omit began] Menahem the son of Gadi to reign [became king] over Israel, and reigned ten years in Samaria. ¹⁸And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not all his days [omit all his days] from the sins of Jeroboam the son ¹⁹of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. And [In his days—omit And] Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. ²⁰And Menahem exacted [imposed] the money of [upon] Israel, even of [upon—omit even of] all the mighty men of wealth, of [upon] each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land. ²¹And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? ²²And Menahem slept with his fathers; and Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead. ²³In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign [became king] over Israel in Samaria, and reigned two years. ²⁴And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. ²⁵But Pekah the son of Remaliah, a captain of his, conspired against him, and smote him in Samaria, in the palace [citadel] of the king’s house, [together] with Argob and Arieh, and with him [i.e. Pekah there were] fifty men of the Gileadites: and he killed him, and reigned in his room. ²⁶And the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.

²⁷In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign [became king] over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years. ²⁸And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. ²⁹In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria. ³⁰And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned [became king] in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah. ³¹And the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.

³²In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began [omit began] Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign [became king]. ³³Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign [became king], sand he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. ³⁴And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: he did according [like] to all that his father Uzziah had done. ³⁵Howbeit the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burned incense still in the high places. He built the higher [upper] gate of the house of the Lord. ³⁶Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? ³⁷In those days the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah. ³⁸And Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Ki_15:1. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam. This chronological statement, although it appears in all the versions and in the massoretic text, is inconsistent with 2Ki_14:2; 2Ki_14:17; 2Ki_14:23. Amaziah the father of Uzziah ruled in all 29 years (2Ki_14:2), 14 years contemporaneously with Joash of Israel, and 15 years contemporaneously with his successor, Jeroboam II. (2Ki_14:17; 2Ki_14:23). Amaziah therefore died, and his son Uzziah succeeded him, in the 15th year of the reign of Jeroboam II., not in the 27th. In order to retain the number 27, it has been assumed that there was an interregnum of 11 or 12 years, although there is no mention of any such thing in the history. According to 2Ki_14:20-21, Uzziah succeeded immediately upon the death of his father, and moreover, if this supposition were to be adopted, we should have to alter all the other chronological statements in chaps. 14 and 15 Cf. the Excursus on the Chronology, below, after chap. 17. Evidently there has been an interchange of the numerical signs here, ëæ , 27, has been put for èå , 15, as Capellus and Grotius supposed, and as all the expositors, even including Keil and Von Gerlach, now assume. [Thenius, adopting this solution of the difficulty, calls attention to the testimony which it bears to the antiquity of the use of èå , instead of éä , to represent 15. The latter being the abbreviation for éäåä , was avoided, as is well known, when it should have occurred in the list of numerals to represent fifteen. If èå ever stood there, of course the inference is good, that, even at a very early time, the superstitious reverence for the name åäåä had gone so far as to produce this change in the mode of writing the number. In fact, however, the change here from 27 to 15 is purely arbitrary. It must be defended by considerations drawn from the context. Any argument in its favor which is deduced from the greater or less resemblance of ëæ to èå is of little value. Other letters would have as great or greater resemblance. We ought to understand that, when we abandon the text as it stands, we make arbitrary changes, and we must justify them by critical grounds. We only deceive ourselves when we imagine that there is a resemblance between the numerals in the text and those we want to put there, and so persuade ourselves that we have found further support for our conjecture. That number must be put in the place of 27, which the best critical combinations require. The expositors almost all agree in reading 51 (53) for 41 as the duration of Jeroboam’s reign, and then in reading 15 for 27 here, because Zachariah succeeded in Uzziah’s 38th. See, however, the bracketed note on 2Ki_14:22, and the Appendix on the Chronology.—W. G. S.] Azariah, or Uzziah, was devoted to the worship of Jehovah, as Amaziah was at the commencement of his reign; like him, however, he still permitted the worship upon the high places. See notes on 2Ki_14:3-4. The chronicler says that he sought Jehovah so long as the prophet Zachariah lived (2Ch_26:5). [The chronicler does not charge him with idolatry at all. He accounts for his leprosy by telling how he trespassed upon the function of the priests. This he did from pride; nevertheless, it was rather too great zeal in the service of Jehovah than too little.—W. G. S.]

2Ki_15:5. And the Lord touched the king, &c. This did not take place until after Uzziah had accomplished what is narrated in 2Ch_26:6-15. The ground which is there given (2Ki_15:16) for the punishment with leprosy is, that he, being puffed up in consequence of his victories and of his powerful position, usurped priestly functions contrary to the law (Num_18:3; Num_18:7), and thereby violated the sanctuary. It is. hardly possible that he can have become a leper earlier than the last years of his long reign. His son Jotham, who ruled in his stead during his sickness, was only 25 years old when he became king in his own right by his father’s death (2Ki_15:33).— áֵּéú äַçָֽôְùִׂéú does not mean: sick-house, or pest-house, as it is now generally translated, for çôùׁ means to be loose, free, that is, separated (Lev_19:20). Neither does it mean house of freedom, or manumission (Hengstenberg, Keil), but house of separation, i. e., a house which stands in the open country, by itself, separate from others. Vulg: in domo libera seorsum. [See Grammatical note on the verse.] According to the Law (Lev_13:46), the lepers had to dwell apart ( áãã ), outside of the city or the camp (2Ki_7:3). Probably the house in which the leprous king lived was especially built for him.—And Jotham the king’s son was over the house, i.e., he filled one of the highest offices of the court (cf. 1Ki_4:6; 1Ki_18:3; 2Ki_18:18)—judging the people of the land (cf. 1Sa_8:6; 1Sa_8:20; 1Ki_3:9), i. e., Vicarius erat regis, qui a populo segregatus fungi regiam potestatem non poterat (Grotius). As was said above (Pt. II., pp. 88 and 89), this passage bears strongly against the supposition that there occurred, in the Hebrew history, joint-regencies which are not specifically mentioned. Uzziah remained king until his death; up to that event, Jotham was not co-regent, but only the representative of his father.—In the city of David, 2Ki_15:7. Instead of this the chronicler says (2Ch_26:23): “In the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper.” Bertheau remarks on this: “He was buried, according to this, near to the royal tombs (with his fathers), because they did not dare to put a king who had died of leprosy in the royal sepulchres, lest they should make them unclean.”

2Ki_15:8. In the thirty and eighth year, &c. In regard to the correctness of this statement, see note on 2Ki_14:23. The assassinations of kings which had been perpetrated before this, had taken place in secret, but this one was carried out in public, that is to say, boldly and without fear. The people saw it perpetrated without opposing it. The Sept. translate quite incorrectly: êáὶ ἐðÜôáîåí áὐôὸí ἐí Êåâëáὰì . Ewald considers ÷ָáָìÎòָí a proper name, because òָí has not the article [and because ÷ָáָì does not “occur elsewhere in prose,” and because the Sept. take it as a proper name]. He believes it to be the name of the “third king during that month” [see Zec_11:8]. He translates: “And Kobolam slew him.” Not to speak of any other objection to this, we should then expect to be told whose son he was, as in the similar cases, 2Ki_15:14; 2Ki_15:25; 2Ki_15:30. [Stanley is the only scholar who has followed Ewald in this invention. The facts referred to in support of it are not by any means without weight, but the invention of another king is too ponderous a solution for them. Yet it is remarkable to notice that a form from the root ÷áì forms a part of certain Assyrian proper names. (See the list of Assyrian kings at the end of vol. I. of Lenormant’s Manual of the History of the East, with foot-note thereon.) However, to take ÷ָáָìÎòָí as a proper name in the place before us renders the passage awkward and unnatural.—W. G. S.] Thenius arbitrarily pronounces 2Ki_15:12 to be an addition by the “redactor.” It refers back very significantly to 2Ki_10:30. Zachariah was the fourth and last descendant of Jehu upon the throne of Israel.

2Ki_15:13. Shallum the son of Jabesh, &c. As the one month, during which Shallum reigned, falls in the thirty-ninth year of the reign of Uzziah, the six months, during which Zachariah was king (2Ki_15:8), must be placed in the last part of the 38th year of Uzziah’s reign; probably some of them fall even in the beginning of the 39th. According to Josephus, Shallum was a friend ( ößëïò ) of Zachariah, and put him to death by taking advantage of this relation. When Menahem, ὁ óôñáôçãüò (i.e., the commander-in-chief), who was then in Tirzah, heard this, he started up with his entire force, and marched to Samaria, êáὶ óíìâáëὼí åἰò ìÜ÷çí ἀíáéñåῖ ôὸí ÓÝëëïõìïí ; after he had made himself king, ἐêåῖíåí åἰò èáøὰí ðáñáãßíåôáé ðüëéí . Tirzah lay in the neighborhood of Samaria. See above, note on 1Ki_14:17.—Then Menahem, 2Ki_15:16, i.e., after he had made himself master of the throne. The verse contains a further continuation of 2Ki_15:14, and tells more definitely what Menahem did, after he had killed Shallum, in order to become ruler of the country. This event does not belong to the reign of Menahem, for the story of that does not begin until the 17th verse, but it belongs to the incidents connected with his taking possession of the throne. It follows that Tiphsah is not the celebrated Thapsacus on the Euphrates (as it is in 1Ki_5:4; see note thereon), as has often been supposed, and as Keil [and Rawlinson] yet maintain. Menahem could not, at any time, have undertaken an expedition against this far distant city, which formed the utmost limit of the kingdom of Solomon; least of all could he have undertaken this just after ascending the throne. He had enough to do to establish his usurped authority on a firm basis. Most commentators, therefore, correctly judge that Tiphsah was a city near Tirzah, of which, as of so many others which are mentioned but once, nothing further is known. The name úִּôְñַç , trajectus, ford, “may, in view of its appellative force, have been applied to many towns which lay near to fords” (Winer). There is not sufficient reason for believing that “ úôñç is an error for úַּôּåּçַ ,” a town on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh, Jos_17:7-8 (Thenius).— îִúִּøְöָä cannot be translated otherwise than as in 2Ki_15:14. It does not therefore mean: “from Tirzah on,” i.e., to Tiphsah, but: “starting out from Tirzah,” and it is to be joined with éַëֶּä , not with âְּáåּìֶéäָ . The meaning of the passage is, therefore, this: When Menahem heard of the events which had happened in Samaria, he marched from Tirzah with his army, or a part of it, to Samaria, and there slew Shallum. Then he went back to Tirzah and marched out with his entire force to reduce the country to obedience to himself. In Tiphsah he met with obstinate resistance, but took the city by storm (Josephus: êáôὰ êñÜôïò ), and chastised it and the surrounding territory in a horrible manner (Josephus: ὠìüôçôïò ὑðåñâïëὴí ïὐêáôáëéðῶí ïὐäὲ ἀãñéüôçôïò ). He thereby frightened any others who might have been intending to resist, and so established himself on the throne. We have mention of a similar cruelty towards pregnant women in 2Ki_8:12; Hos_14:1 [E. V. xiii. 16]; Amo_1:13. If newspaper reports may be believed, a guerilla captain in Michoacan, Mexico, did the same thing in the year 1861.

2Ki_15:17. In the nine and thirtieth year, &c. On the duration of Menahem’s reign, see note on 2Ki_15:23. The closing words of 2Ki_15:18 : ëָּìÎéָîָéå are nowhere else added to the stereotyped formula which recurs in that verse, although they would hold just as true of any of the other kings of Israel as of Menahem. The Sept. join the words to the following verse, and translate: ἐí ôáῖò ἡìÝñáéò áὐôïῦ ἀíÝâç Öïýë . They therefore read áéîéå , and Thenius and Keil, referring also to 2Ki_15:29, agree in regarding this as the original reading of the text. By this change áָּà , at the commencement of 2Ki_15:19, comes into a good connection of sense, and is not left abrupt; also there is no need for Hitzig’s emendation åּáָà .—Pul. (2Ki_15:19) is the first Assyrian king who is mentioned in the Old Testament. In fact this is the first reference to the Assyrians in the history of the Israelites. Since they had to come through Syria in order to reach Palestine, it follows that they must have reduced that country to subjection, and extended their power on this side of the Euphrates; i. e., Assyria must have commenced to take the position of a great world-monarchy. [Assyria had begun to take the position of a world-monarchy, but it must be understood that these expeditions were raids rather than complete conquests. Tribute was imposed and then the defeated nation was left intact. It refused the tribute as soon as it dared and then a new expedition was made against it. It was only after a long period of this vassal relationship that a conquered country was incorporated as a province of the empire. Accordingly very few were ever thus treated at all. The expression for incorporation used in the inscriptions is to “treat them like the Assyrians.”—W. G. S.] Hosea (2Ki_8:10) calls the king of Assyria “The king of princes.” [“King of kings” is a standing epithet of the Assyrian monarchs upon their monuments.] It has often been inferred from Hos_5:13; Hos_7:11; Hos_8:9 that Menahem invited the Assyrians to support him against other aspirants to the crown (Thenius), and that Pul came “to help the king to restore order” (Ewald). This notion is controverted by the expression áָּà òַìÎäָàַøֶõ , which is used of a hostile coming and attack, Gen_34:25; Jdg_18:21; Isa_10:28; Job_2:11. In 1Ch_5:26, Pul’s coming is distinctly referred to as a hostile attack. Menahem induced the mighty enemy to withdraw from the country by a large sum of money, and then secured his alliance against internal and external foes. This last is what Hosea calls Israel’s going to Assyria. A thousand talents of silver are about two or two and a half million thalers [$1,440,000 or $1,800,000. The value of the talent is not surely and definitely known.] Menahem imposed this sum as a tax ( éֹöֵà , he made the money go out) upon the “able ones” in Israel. âִáּåֹøֵé äַçַéִì are not here the mighty men of the army, but those who were strong in wealth (Job_20:15; Rth_2:1). Either there were no treasuries then in Israel, or, if there were any, they were empty. Menahem did not include the poor in this tax, in order that he might not excite discontent, and might not have to use force to collect it. Each man fifty shekels of silver. As a talent contained 3,000 shekels, there must have been 60,000 “mighty men of wealth.” The interpretation, that Menahem paid to Pul 50 shekels for every soldier in his army (Richter), is incorrect. It is often inferred, though incorrectly, from 1Ch_5:26, that Pul, on his departure, took away Reuben and Gad and the half of Manasseh. This deed is ascribed there, as here, to Tiglath Pileser (see Bertheau on that passage). The assertion of the. Calw. Bibel that “this entire occurrence was prophesied in Amo_7:1-3,” has little or no foundation.

2Ki_15:23. In the fiftieth year of Azariah, &c. As Menahem became king, according to 2Ki_15:17, in the 39th of Uzziah, and ruled 10 years, we expect here the 49th year. Keil assumes that “some months passed between the death of Menahem and the accession of Pekahiah; probably because of the disorder which prevailed at the time, and which made this accession difficult.” We prefer to suppose that Menahem became king in the last months of the 39th year of Uzziah, and reigned for a month or two into his 50th, i.e., a few months over ten years. [This changes the form of the difficulty, but does not do away with it at all. If the facts had been as is here supposed, the Jewish mode of reckoning would have made Menahem’s reign 11 or 12 years in duration. There is a discrepancy which we cannot explain. We must either change the text, or pass it over, taking 10 years as the length of the reign and neglecting the other statement. The attempted explanations are futile.—W. G. S.] On ùָׁìִéùׁ , 2Ki_15:25, see Exeg. note on 1Ki_9:22. It is not apposition to Remaliah (as Luther took it), but to Pekah. The citadel of the king’s house is not the harem (Ewald). It is the fortified part of the palace into which Pekahiah fled when the conspirators approached (cf. 1Ki_16:18). [So far as we know there was no part of the Oriental palaces which was, in any proper sense, fortified. The Assyrian palaces which have been exhumed consist of three independent yet connected buildings, a hall of audience or business, a servants’ house, and the harem. The last was the most strictly enclosed and carefully guarded, and was the strongest for defence. It was connected by an enclosed cloister with the first mentioned building. If we may judge from this of the arrangement of a Samaritan palace, the àøîåï was the harem or included it.—W. G. S.] Josephus gives as the reason for his short reign of two years: ôῇ ôïῦ ðáôñüò êáôáêïëïõèÞóáò ὠìüôçôé . Argob and Arieh were no doubt high officials, and influential friends of the king, whose opposition was to be feared, and whom Pekah, therefore, put to death together with ( àֶú ) the king. The following òִîּåֹ shows that they were not fellow-conspirators of Pekah (as many have supposed) who, with him, murdered the king. The fifty Gileadites probably belonged to the body-guard which was under the command of Pekah. The Gileadites, who were stout soldiers (1Ch_12:8; 1Ch_26:31; Jos_17:1), were employed in this department of the service.

2Ki_15:27. In the two and fiftieth year, &c. On the chronological data in 2Ki_15:27; 2Ki_15:30, see below, after chap. 17. The following may suffice here: Pekah is said (2Ki_15:27) to have reigned only 20 years. But, according to 2Ki_15:32, he reigned two years before Jotham. The latter reigned 16 years. According to 2Ki_17:1, Pekah’s successor, Hoshea, came to the throne in the 12th year of Jotham’s successor Ahaz. But 2 + 16 + 12 = 30. We are therefore compelled to conclude that the time from the accession of Pekah to that of Hoshea was thirty years. All the commentators agree in this. Then, either Pekah ruled 30 instead of 20 years, or he reigned 20 years and there was an interval of 10 years before the accession of his successor, Hoshea, during which there was no king in Israel, and, as those who adopt this view agree, there was anarchy. 2Ki_15:30, however, contradicts this latter hypothesis, for it is there said that Hoshea slew Pekah and reigned in his stead, not after an interval of 10 years, but as soon as he had killed him. The history does not hint at any period of strife or anarchy, although such a period must have presented incidents worth recording We do not hesitate, therefore, to assume here, as in 2Ki_15:1, that an error in copying has been made. The error here, in writing á , 20, for ì , 30, is one which could take place more easily than the one we discovered there (Thenius). All the other chronological data are consistent with 30 in this place, as we shall see below, on chap. 17. [See the translator’s addition below at the end of this Exeg. section.]

2Ki_15:29. In the days of Pekah… came Tiglath Pileser. This Assyrian king was the successor of Pul. To which of the Assyrian dynasties he belonged, and whether he was the last of the dynasty of the Dercetadæ, are questions which do not interest us hero [?] (Keil on the passage). The signification of the name Tiglath-pileser (or, as the chronicler writes it, Tilgath-pilneser) is uncertain. According to Gesenius, Tiglath is equivalent to Diglath, the Tigris river, and pileser means lord: “Lord of the Tigris river.” According to Fürst, Tiglath means acer, fortis.—[This is the etymological meaning of Diglath, applied to the Tigris from its swiftness. See the dictionaries on çִãֶּ÷ֶì .]— ôִּì , arcere, and àֶñֶø , prince; together: “The chief, as mighty defender.” According to others, Diglath is the name for the goddess Derceto, or Atargatis. [The name is transcribed from the cuneiform by Lenormant: Tuklat-pal-ashir; by Smith: Tukulti-pal-zara; by Rawlinson: Tiglat-pal-zira. Rawlinson (Five Great Monarchies, II. 539) gives the etymology thus: Tiglat is worship, or adoration (Chald. úְּëַì , to trust in); pal is son (of this there is no doubt; it occurs in scores of names); zira is obscure; Sir. H. Rawlinson thinks that it means lord, “as Zirat certainly means lady.” However this last may be, Pal-zira, as a compound, was an epithet of the god Nin (= Hercules), and the king’s name would mean: “Worship to Hercules.” This is the only explanation yet offered which is anything more than a guess.—W. G. S.] On Ijon and Abel-beth-maachah, see notes on 1Ki_15:20. Janoah cannot be the town on the border between Ephraim and Manasseh, which is mentioned Jos_16:6 sq., for all the cities here mentioned were in the northern part of Palestine; it probably lay near those which have been mentioned. Kedesh was a free, levitical city in the tribe of Naphtali (Jos_19:37; Jos_20:7; Jos_21:32); on the western bank of the sea of Merom (Robinson, Palest. III. 355). On Hazor see note on 1Ki_9:15. Gilead with the article is not a city but the territory east of the Jordan which Jeroboam II. had recovered to Israel (2Ki_14:25). On Galilee, or Galilah, see note on 1Ki_9:11. All the land of Naphtali is an explanatory apposition to Galilah. The places are mentioned in the order in which they were conquered. The incident which is here narrated coincides with that in 2Ki_16:9 (see Maurer on that verse) and belongs to the last years of Pekah’s reign. Perhaps it gave occasion to Hosea’s conspiracy against him. The chronological statement in 2Ki_15:30 : in the twentieth year of Jotham, cannot be correct, for Jotham only reigned 16 years. See further, notes on chap. 17.

2Ki_15:32. In the second year of Pekah, &c. On the section 2Ki_15:32-38 see the parallel narrative in 2Ch_27:1-9, which contributes further information in regard to Jotham. To the words: He did like to all that his father Uzziah had done, the Chronicler adds: “howbeit he entered not into the temple of the Lord,” i.e., into the inner sanctuary, by which it is meant to say that he did not usurp priestly functions as Uzziah had done (2Ch_26:16). He did not abolish the worship on the heights (2Ki_15:4 and 2Ki_14:4). He built the upper gate, i.e., he restored it, he rebuilt it more splendidly, for it could not well be meant to assert that he built it at this time, and that there had been none before. äַòֶìְéåֹï is not the highest gate, nor the chief gate, but “the upper one,” perhaps because it was toward the north, towards that part of the temple rock, which, as compared with the south side, was higher. (Bertheau, on 2Ch_17:3). [“King Solomon’s palace was evidently at a lower level than the temple, and therefore (2Ch_27:3) king Jotham may still have built much upon the wall.” (Jerusalem Restored, p. 222).] According to Eze_40:38 sq., the sacrifices were slain at this gate. (Cf. Eze_9:2; Eze_8:5) This is probably the reason why Jotham made it especially beautiful. In Jer_20:2 it is called the gate of Benjamin. It must not be confused with the gate ñåּø , 2Ki_11:6, for this was adjoining the palace (see Exeg. note on that ver.).—In those days (2Ki_15:37), i.e., towards the end of Jotham’s reign, Jehovah began to send against Judah the confederated Israelites and Syrians, i.e., he brought this chastisement upon Judah (Lev_26:22; Amo_8:11). Rezin; “the name of the founder of the dynasty (1Ki_11:23) [rather of the founder of the monarchy. There had been more than one dynasty.] appears again, slightly altered, in him who was to close it” (Thenius). The attacks were begun under Jotham; under his successor Ahaz (chap. 16) they first became threatening to the kingdom. As the Assyrians had already once penetrated into Palestine (2Ki_15:19), and as Ahaz once more called on them for aid against Rezin and Pekah (2Ki_16:7), we must suppose that the Syrians had, in the mean time, freed themselves once more from the Assyrian yoke (see notes on 2Ki_15:19). This had probably become possible for them because the Assyrians, on account of the revolt of the Medes and Babylonians, were prevented for a time from maintaining their authority. Tiglath Pileser reconquered Damascus (2Ki_16:9).

[Supplementary Note on the references to Assyrian history contained in chap. 15.—The references to contemporaneous history which occur in the text are of the highest value for the solution of the chronological difficulties, and for the elucidation of the history. Every such reference, therefore, requires our most careful attention. In the three years since the German edition of this volume was published most important contributions have been made to our knowledge, especially of Assyrian history. It is difficult to understand how the German author could lay aside all notice of the results which had been attained, even at that time, and refuse to take notice of them. The time has now certainly come when biblical scholars must give them attention, and a summary of the information we possess is given in a series of notes at the end of the Exegetical sections on the next few chapters.

Pul (2Ki_15:19) is the first king of Assyria who is mentioned in the Book of Kings, though we know from the monuments and inscriptions that Ahab and Jehu both came in contact with the Assyrian world-monarchy. (See notes 5 and 12 on the Chronological Table, and p. 114 of Part II.) No such king is mentioned in any inscription which has yet been found, and no such one is named in the Canon (See Appendix on the Chronology, § 4). Rawlinson (Five Great Monarchies, II., p. 385 sq.) thinks that the identification with certain known kings of Assyria, which has been attempted, is unsatisfactory, but does not dispose definitely of the question. In the Manual, Pul is not mentioned among the kings of Assyria though he is mentioned in the section on “Judsæa.” Oppert offers a solution of the difficulty. He gives credit to the story of the “first destruction of Nineveh” by the Chaldeans and Medes. According to his identification of the eclipse mentioned in the Canon (App. on the Chron., § 4.), the date of this would be 789. The accession of Tiglath Pileser II. in 747–5 is beyond dispute. The gap between 789 and 747 is filled by inserting Pul, a Chaldean (the name is not Assyrian in form), who is supposed to have remained in Assyria after the destruction of Nineveh as ruler of the country. This, such as it is, is the best conjecture to account for the king mentioned in 2Ki_15:19.

Tiglath Pileser II. (2Ki_15:29) was, according to Rawlinson, a usurper, according to Lenormant, a descendant of the ancient Assyrian dynasty. His reign dates from 745–4, but he may have been engaged for two or three years before that time in securing the throne. He reigned until 727. He is said in the text to have come into Syria and Samaria in the reign of Pekah. This is the first instance we find of that policy of deportation which the Assyrians and Babylonians afterwards practised so much. It was not generally, or certainly had not been up to this time, the policy of the Assyrians to destroy the nationality of the nations which they subdued. (See bracketed note on 2Ki_15:19.) They made expeditions against certain nations which they plundered and made tributary, but which they then left undisturbed so long as the tribute was paid. It was only after long vassalage, and repeated revolts and reconquests, that nations were incorporated as provinces in the Assyrian empire.

We are now promised from the Assyrian inscriptions a solution of one of the most perplexing discrepancies in the chronological statements of the text, and one which, if correct, at the same time supplies an omission in the historical narrative. It is said that Pekah reigned for 20 years (2Ki_15:27), but it is stated also that he came to the throne in the 52d of Azariah, who reigned for 52 years. In 2Ki_17:1, it is said that Hoshea (Pekah’s successor) came to the throne in the 12th of Ahaz. In the mean time Jotham reigned for 16 years. But 1 + 16 + 12 = 29 or 28 years interval for Pekah’s reign. This difficulty has never been solved; it has only been put aside by the assumption of an interregnum after the death of Pekah.

Oppert claims to have discovered the explanation in certain statements of the inscriptions. Lenormant adopts his results, but Rawlinson does not. “It is found that the reign of Pekah was interrupted for more than 7 years; that about 742 he was deposed by a second Menahem, probably a son of Pekahiah, who was placed on the throne by Tiglath Pileser II., king of Assyria, to whom he paid tribute as vassal. In 733 a new revolution dethroned him and restored Pekah. The latter, openly hostile to the Assyrians, whose vassal he had dethroned, made an alliance with Rezin, king of Damascus. These two princes, even in the time of Pekah’s first reign, had formed the design of overturning the throne of the House of David, and installing as king in Jerusalem a certain son of Tabeel (his own name is given in the inscription—Ashariah), a creature of their own (see 2Ki_15:37, where they seem to have formed the plan before Jotham’s death, and Isa_7:1-6), in order, probably, to oppose a more compact force to the Assyrians.” (Lenormant, I. 172; cf. also 389.) See note 15 on the Chron. Table. In the last column of the table the chronology of the events of this period is given according to this scheme. In the second alliance and revolt of Rezin and Pekah, in 733, they resumed the plan of attacking Judah. Ahaz called for Tiglath Pileser’s aid (see note after Exeg. on chap. 16), and that monarch marched into Damascus. He put Rezin to death, made Damascus a province, forced many of the chief inhabitants of Syria, northern, and trans-Jordanic Israel to emigrate into Armenia, and, though he left Pekah on the throne, reduced the kingdom of Israel to the district of Samaria. Pekah was present as a vassal at Tiglath Pileser’s court in Damascus in 730.

“Towards the end of 730, Muthon, king of Tyre, made an alliance with Pekah, king of Israel, and they both refused their tribute to the Assyrians. Tiglath Pileser did not consider this revolt of sufficient importance to require his own presence. He contented himself with sending an army into Palestine. On the approach of this force a conspiracy was formed in Samaria, headed by Hoshea, who, after killing Pekah, possessed himself of the crown. The Assyrian king confirmed him in this position, and Muthon, finding himself without an ally, attempted no resistance, and quickly submitted to pay his tribute.” (Lenormant, I. 391.)—For continuation see Supp. Note after the Exeg. section on chap. 16—W. G. S.]

HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL

1. This chapter contains rather a succinct review of several reigns than a detailed account of them. Although we have very little specific information in regard to the character and conduct of the kings mentioned, yet we have a statement about each one in respect to his attitude towards the fundamental law, or constitution, of Israel, that is, towards the covenant of Jehovah. This is always stated in a stereotyped formula. Hence we see that this point was the most important one, in the eyes of the author, in regard to any king, and that, in reviewing or estimating his reign, he laid most stress on this inquiry: How did he stand towards the covenant with Jehovah—the constitution of Israel? After the death of Jeroboam II. the decline of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes went on without interruption. From the reign of Zachariah on, the kingdom was in the progress of dissolution. The author therefore hastens more rapidly over the period of these kings, of whom three, indeed, only reigned for a very short time, and gives only those facts in regard to them which bear either upon the chief question mentioned above, or upon the approaching catastrophe. For everything beyond this he refers to the original authorities. It is true that he follows the same course in regard to Uzziah and Jotham, who belonged, according to the Chronicler, to the number of energetic and efficient rulers, but this is to be explained, first, by the fact that he treats the history of Judah with less detail from the time of the division of the kingdom on, and, secondly, by the character of the activity of these two kings, which was directed almost exclusively to the external and political prosperity of the nation, not to the restoration and complete realization of the theocracy, which was, for this author, the matter of chief interest. From what the Chronicler gives in addition, we cannot see that the religious and moral life took any new élan under their rule, or reached any more vigorous development. Both were, it is true, favorable to the worship of Jehovah, but they lacked decided zeal for it, for “the people still sacrificed and offered incense upon the heights; “i.e., they did nothing to abolish a form of worship which could so easily lead to error. The external prosperity which they produced and fostered caused carelessness, luxury, forgetfulness of God, and immorality of every kind, just as the same causes had produced these vices in Israel under Jeroboam II. This we see from the descriptions of the prophets (see Isaiah 2-5). A slow corruption and demoralization was making its way in Judah. It became evident, and bore fruit under the next king, Ahaz. His successor, Hezekiah, was the first to bring the Mosaic constitution into full and efficient working, hence the author narrates in detail the reign of this genuine theocratic king (cf. chaps. 18, 19, and 20).

[Ewald (Gesch. III. s. 634) thus describes the state of Judah under Uzziah: At this time the people turned their attention to money-getting “not so much, as had formerly been the case, in particular provinces and districts, but throughout the country, even in Judah, and not so much because a single king like Solomon favored commercial undertakings, as because the love of trade and gain, and the desire for the easy enjoyment of the greatest possible amount of wealth, had taken possession of all classes. All the scorn poured out by the prophets upon this haste to be rich, and all their rebukes of the tendency to cheat, which was one of the fruits of it, no longer availed to restore the ancient simplicity and contentment (Hos_12:8; Isa_2:7). The long and fortunate reign of Uzziah in Judah was very favorable to the growth of this love of gain and enjoyment. The quick interchange of money in the lower classes, and the fierce struggle for gain which gradually absorbed the entire people, stimulated the upper classes to similar attempts. Many were the complaints in Judah of the injustice of the judges, and of the oppression of the helpless (Amo_3:1; Amo_6:1; Hos_5:10; cf. also Psalms 12). There was a perverse and mocking disposition prevalent which led men to throw doubt upon everything and to raise objections to everything (Amo_6:3; Amo_9:10; Hos_4:4). It made them treat with harsh contempt the rebukes and exhortations of the best prophets, as we feel distinctly from the whole tone of the writings of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. It led them to desire to know heathen religions, and to introduce foreign divinities, even when the king himself held aloof from any such movement (Amo_2:4; Hos_4:15; Hos_6:11; Hos_12:1; Isa_2:8). It became more and more difficult to restrain these tendencies.”]

2. The only incident which is mentioned during the long reign of Uzziah is that God touched him ( ðâò ), and that he was a leper until his death. It follows that this fact must have seemed to the author to be important before all others. Leprosy is not, for him, an accidental disease, but a divine judgment for guilt, as it is often described (Num_12:10; Deu_24:8-9; 2Sa_3:29; 2Ki_5:27). He does not tell more particularly what the sin of the king was, perhaps because it was baleful to the king alone and personally, and not to the whole people, like the sin of Jeroboam. He rests with a simple reference to the original documents. [The author of the Book of Kings regards Uzziah’s sickness as a visitation of Providence, just as he regards any other affliction, or any piece of good fortune, as something sent by God. He does not know of any guilt on the part of Uzziah for which this was a judgment. He simply mentions it as a matter of interest in itself, and in its connection with the fact, otherwise unparalleled in the history of the monarchy (unless Uzziah was made king while his father was a captive), that the king’s son exercised royal functions during his father’s life-time. He does not hint at any belief on his part that this was a proof that the king had been guilty of some sin, and it does not behoove us to draw any such inference.—W. G. S.] On the contrary, the Chronicler (2Ch_26:16 sq.) gives a detailed explanation of the cause of this visitation. According to him the king, who had become arrogant and puffed up by his prosperity and by the power he had attained, was no longer contented with the royal authority, but. sought, as an absolute ruler, to combine with it the highest priestly authority and functions, as the heathen kings did. The institution of the levitical priesthood, however, formed an essential part of the theocratic constitution, and the monarchy, which was, moreover, not established until much later, was not justified in attempting to absorb the priestly office and to overthrow its independence. Uzziah’s guilt, therefore, did not consist in a single illegal action, but in an assault upon the constitution. A principle was at stake, whose violation would have opened a cleft in the theocratic constitution. According to Josephus, Uzziah went into the sanctuary (holy-place), on a great feast-day, before the entire people, ἐíäὺò ἱåñáôéêὴí óôïëÞí , and offered incense there upon the golden altar. [Thenius calls attention to the remarkable detail in the account of this incident in Josephus. Josephus says that the earthquake which is mentioned in Amo_1:1, and Zec_14:5, as having occurred during Uzziah’s reign, took place at the moment of his quarrel with the priests; that it broke the roof of the temple, and that a ray of sun-light penetrated this, fell upon the head of the king, and produced the leprosy.] No former king had ventured to make such an assault upon the independent authority of the priesthood. Thenius says: “It is most probable that the powerful king desired to reassume the high-priest’s functions which had been executed by David and Solomon,” but this is decidedly false, for there is no hint anywhere that David and Solomon executed priestly functions in the holy place, or in the holy of holies; in fact, there is nothing in the whole Old Testament about any “chief-priestly authority of the kings.” (See notes on the passage 1Ki_9:25.) It was not, therefore, “any improper self-assertion on the part of the priests against the king” (Ewald). They did right to resist him. On the other hand, it was a usurpation on the part of the king to attempt any such violence upon the rights and functions of the priesthood which God had appointed. It was as much the right as it was the duty of the priests not to allow any such invasion of their prerogatives, and if they resisted the powerful and revered monarch, their courage deserves to be honored. Moreover, it was not they, but Jehovah, who smote the king with leprosy, and he was now compelled to abandon not only the priestly, but also the royal functions.

3. Witsius (Decaphyl. p. 320) says of the five kings who followed Zachariah: non tam reges fuere quam fures, latrones ac tyranni, augusto regum nomine indigni; qui tyrannidem male partam neque melius habitam fœde amistrunt. They all persevered in the sin of Jeroboam, which was, from the very commencement of the kingdom, the germ of its ruin. It is to them that the prophet’s words apply: “They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes and I knew it not” (Hos_8:4). Only one of them died a natural death and left the succession to his son, who, in his turn, could only retain the sceptre for a short time. Of the others, each one killed his predecessor in order to gain the crown, the authority of which was, in the mean time, shattered by these commotions. One of the most important factors in the history of this period is the conflict with the rising Assyrian monarchy, which came to assist the internal dissension in hurrying the nation to its downfall. Assyria was destined, in the purpose of God, to be the instrument for inflicting the long-threatened judgment. Invited, probably, by the internal weakness and distraction which commenced under Zachariah, Pul made the first invasion during the reign of Menahem; he could only be bribed to withdraw by a heavy tribute. The second Assyrian, Tiglath Pileser, came during Pekah’s reign; he could not be satisfied with money, but carried off a large portion of the inhabitants into captivity. The third, Shalmaneser, came during Hoshea’s reign, captured Samaria, and put an end to the kingdom forever (2Ki_17:6). [See the bracketed addition at the end of the Exegetical section, above.]

4. Not a single event of the reign of Zachariah, which, in fact, only lasted for six months, is mentioned. It is, however, stated expressly that with him the house of Jehu expired, according to the word of the prophet, 2Ki_10:30, and not by dying out, but in a violent and bloody way (Hos_1:4; Amo_7:9). This was also an actual confirmation of the declaration in the fundamental law of Israel, that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exo_20:5; Exo_34:7; Deu_5:9); that is, the sin against the first and chief commandment: “Thou shalt have none other Gods before me, and shalt not make to thyself any graven image” [the first commandment, according to the Lutheran division]. This commandment was the foundation of the covenant with Israel and the centre of the Israelitish nationality. The meaning is, therefore, that the “sin of Jeroboam” will not be permitted by God to run on beyond the third or fourth generation (cf. Menken, Schriften, v. s. 35). No dynasty in Israel which followed the sin of Jeroboam lasted for more than three or four generations. The house of Jeroboam, like that of Baesha and Menahem, perished with its first member; the house of Omri with its third, and the house of Jehu with its fourth. Zimri, Shallum, Pekah, and Hoshea died without successors, while the house of David remained without [long] interruption upon the throne. Although single kings in the line were guilty of apostasy, yet the sin was never continued until the second generation. [On the physical calamities which marked the last years of Jehu’s dynasty, and on the death of Zachariah, see Stanley, II. 400–403.]

5. Shallum, the king of a month, had no historical importance further than this, that he murdered and was murdered. Both these facts go to show, what the author desires to show, the state in which the kingdom then was. The history makes special mention of only two events in the history of Menahem, although he reigned for ten years, but these two events are characteristic of him and of the state of the kingdom. The first is his campaign against Tiphsah, the city which would not admit him, that is, would not recognize him as king. We see from this that he was not at all beloved, and that the land was already distracted by parties. The fact that he there perpetrated a great massacre, and did not even spare the infant in its mother’s womb, and so raged against his own countrymen after the manner of the most savage foreign foes, shows that he was a bloody tyrant, who desired from the outset to fill all his opponents with terror. Machiavelli’s words (De principe, 8) apply to him: “He who violently and without just right usurps a crown, must use cruelty, if cruelty becomes necessary, once for all, in order that he may not find it necessary to recommence the use of it daily.” The second fact mentioned in regard to this reign, one which had decisive influence upon the fate of the whole nation, is the contact with Assyria. Menahem pressed from his subjects a large sum of money, in order not only to bribe the Assyrian king to leave his territory, but also to purchase his support and assistance against his subjects themselves. He was the first king of Israel who, in order to hold his people in subjection and establish his own authority, purchased the assistance of a foreign power. “In order to establish his authority, at the price of the independence of his people, he founded his power upon the Assyrian support” (Duncker). It was against this course that the prophet Hosea pronounced his intense denunciations (2Ki_5:13; 2Ki_7:11; 2Ki_10:6). Instead of establishing the kingdom securely by these means, the king only hastened its ruin, for “it has always been thus in the history of the world; the protection of mighty nations has only been the first step towards oppression by them. Such protection has often been, as it was here for Israel, a punishment for those who sought it” (Calw. Bibel). Starke’s observation: “Menahem acts prudently here, not only in purchasing the departure of the invader with money, but also in laying the tribute as a tax upon his wealthy subjects,” entirely misses the historical connection. Ewald says: “Menahem seemed at first to be inspired with better principles, and it seemed as if the nation would take new life, under his rule, after three incapable rulers had been killed in a single month.” The fact of the three kings is asserted on the strength of Zec_11:4-8, where “three shepherds” are mentioned, but it falls at once as destitute of foundation. “Kobolam” is a pure fiction (see Exeget. on 2Ki_15:10). There is no hint in the text of any better principles at the beginning of Menahem’s reign; his conduct at Tiphsah rather bears testimony to the contrary. Also all the rest which Ewald brings together in regard to Menahem’s reign (Gesch. III. s. 599 sq. [3d Ed. s. 644]) rests upon passages in the prophets Zachariah, Isaiah, and Hosea, which do not contain any history. Winer justly characterizes it as: “a very ill-founded combination.”

6. The author does not mention a single event in the reign of Pekahiah. He only speaks of the end of it, which was significant in two respects. Menahem had bought at a heavy price the assistance of Assyria to confirm his royal authority, and to found a dynasty. As long as he lived he maintained himself on the throne. Hardly had his son succeeded him, however, before the vanity of the Assyrian support became apparent. In the second year it was all over with the new dynasty; it was not destined to last. Pekahiah was murdered, not by foreign foes, but by one of his familiar attendants with the help of a portion of the bodyguard which should have protected him. Such crimes can be perpetrated only where all the bonds of discipline and order, of fidelity and obedience, are loosed; hence the contemporary prophet Hosea says: “The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land,” &c. (Hos_4:1-2).

7. In regard to Pekah again, we are not informed of a single act of his. The author tells us, however, that, during his reign, Tiglath-pileser conquered a large portion of the country and carried off the inhabitants. This was the upshot of Pekah’s long reign. This was the great event of the time, in comparison with which all else that occurred was insignificant. The reference to this event is meant to show us that with Pekah’s reign comes the beginning of the end. The war which Pekah carried on against Judah in alliance with Rezin, contributed to the same general result, as is shown in chap. 16 It is at any rate a proof of unusual and irrepressible energy that Pekah, in spite of the internal decay and decline of the kingdom, was able to maintain himself so long upon the throne. He had energy and a soldier’s courage. The manner in which he attained to the throne shows that he was a violent, ambitious, and perfidious man, who cared not for God or divine things. Isaiah never calls him by his name, but only refers to him contemptuously as the “son of Remaliah” (Isa_7:4-5; Isa_7:9), probably because he was a man of vulgar origin. We can only guess what passages in the prophets apply especially to Pekah, since we have no historical data in the book before us upon which to attach them. The interpretation of Zec_11:16 sq.; 2Ki_13:7; cf. 2Ki_10:3, as applying to Pekah, which Ewald proposes so confidently (Propheten des A. B. I. s. 319 sq. Geschichte III. s. 602 [3d ed. s. 648]), is arbitrary and forced. Schmieder’s opinion (in Von Gerlach’s Bibelwerk) that Hos_7:4-7 refers to Pekah’s conspiracy against Pekahiah, although it is much more probable than Ewald’s notion mentioned above, is not by any means above serious doubts.

8. In the history of king Jotham of Judah no details are given aside from the regular data, except that he built the upper gate of the temple (on the north si