15:1-7 Uzziah did for the most part that which was right. It was happy for the kingdom that a good reign was a long one.

Verse 5. - And the Lord smote the king. This comes in somewhat strangely, following close upon a statement that the king "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord." We have to go to Chronicles for an explanation. By Chronicles it appears that, in the earlier portion of his reign, Azariah was a good and pious prince, and that God blessed him in all his undertakings. Not only did he recover Eloth (2 Chronicles 26:2), but he carried on a successful war with the Philistines - took Garb, Jabneh (Jamnia), and Ashdod, and dismantled them (2 Chronicles 26:6), defeated the Arabians of Gur-Baal, and the Mehuuim or Maonites (2 Chronicles 26:7), forced the Ammonites to pay him a tribute, and caused his power to be known and feared far and wide (2 Chronicles 26:8). The standing army which he maintained numbered 307,500 men, under 2600 officers, well armed and equipped with shields, spears, helmets, breast-plates, bows, and slings (2 Chronicles 26:12-14). "His name spread far abroad, for he was wonderfully helped" (2 Chronicles 26:15). This marvelous prosperity developed in him a pride equal to that of his father, but one which vented itself differently, Azariab, deeming himself superior to all other men, and exempt from ordinary rules, boldly invaded the priestly office, took a censer, and entered into the temple, and proceeded to burn incense upon the golden altar that was before the veil (2 Chronicles 26:16-18). It was then that "the Lord smote the king." As, in defiance of the high priest and his attendant train, who sought to prevent the lawless act, Azariah persisted in his endeavors, God struck him with leprosy, his forehead grew white with the unmistakable scaly scab, and in a moment his indomitable pride was quelled. The priests closed in upon him and began to thrust him out, but no violence was necessary. Aware of what had happened, "he himself also hasted to go out, because the Lord had smitten him" (2 Chronicles 26:20). It is not very clear why the writer of Kings passes over these facts; but certainly they are not discredited by his silence. At any rate, those who accept the entire series of conquests, whereof the writer of Kings says nothing, on the sole authority of Chronicles, are logically precluded from rejecting the circumstances accompanying the leprosy, which is acknowledged by the writer of Kings, and viewed as a judgment from God. So that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house (comp. 2 Chronicles 26:21). Lepers had to be separated from the congregation - to "dwell alone" - "without the camp" (Leviticus 13:46). Ahaziah's "several house" is regarded by some as an "infirmary," or "hospital for lepers" (Ewald, Gesenius, Winer); but there is no reason to believe that hospitals of any kind existed among the Israelites. The lepers mentioned in 2 Kings 7:3 are houseless. הַחָפְשִׂית בַּית is best translated "house of separation" and understood of a house standing by itself in the open country, separate from others. "Probably the house in which the leprous king lived was," as Bahr says, "especially built for him." And Jotham the Mug's son was over the house - not over the "several house," but over the royal palace - judging the people of the land; i.e. executing the royal functions, whereof "judging" was one of the highest. Azariah's infirmity made a regency necessary, and naturally his eldest son held the office.

And the Lord smote the king,.... With leprosy; the reason of it was, because he intruded into the priest's office, and went into the temple to burn incense on the altar of incense, 2 Chronicles 26:19,

so that he was a leper unto the day of his death; but how long it was to it from his being smitten cannot be said with certainty; Dr. Lightfoot (l) thinks he died the same year he was smitten:

and dwelt in a several house: without Jerusalem, as the Targum; for lepers, according to the law, were to dwell separate without the camp or city, Leviticus 13:46 the word for "several" signifies "free" (m); here he lived alone, free from the company and conversation of men, free from the business of government, his son doing that for him, and in the country, where he might freely walk about, as lepers did, and take the air; the Jews say (n), his house was among the graves, where he was free among the dead, as the phrase is, Psalm 88:5, but not likely; much better is what Abendana observes from R. Jonah, that the word, in the Arabic (o) language, signifies a little house, and so this might be in which he dwelt out of the city, in comparison of his palace:

and Jotham the king's son was over the house; had the direction of the palace, and the management of all affairs in it:

judging the people of the land; administering justice in all cases, for which they came to him, and so filled up his father's place; he did not depose his father, nor take upon him to be king, only did the business of one.

(l) Works, vol. 1. p. 99. (m) "in domo libero", V. L. Tigurine version, &c. (n) T. Hieros. apud Jarchium in loc. (o) "in exiqua domo resedit assidue", Castel. Lexic. col. 1345.

2 Kings 15:5 Parallel Commentaries

2 Kings 15:5 NIV
2 Kings 15:5 NLT
2 Kings 15:5 ESV
2 Kings 15:5 NASB
2 Kings 15:5 KJV

Bible Hub: Online Parallel Bible