2 Kings 15:31

And 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.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

15:8-31 This history shows Israel in confusion. Though Judah was not without troubles, yet that kingdom was happy, compared with the state of Israel. The imperfections of true believers are very different from the allowed wickedness of ungodly men. Such is human nature, such are our hearts, if left to themselves, deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. We have reason to be thankful for restraints, for being kept out of temptation, and should beg of God to renew a right spirit within us.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The rest of the acts of Pekah - On these, see 2 Kings 16:5 note.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

30. Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy … and slew him—He did not, however, obtain possession of the kingdom till about nine or ten years after the perpetration of this crime [Hales].

in the twentieth year of Jotham—Jotham's reign lasted only sixteen years, but the meaning is that the reign of Hoshea began in the twentieth after the beginning of Jotham's reign. The sacred historian, having not yet introduced the name of Ahaz, reckoned the date by Jotham, whom he had already mentioned (see 2Ch 27:8).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

No text from Poole on this verse.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And the rest of the acts of Pekah,.... Not recorded here, were to be read in the book of chronicles of the kings so often referred to.

Geneva Study Bible

And 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.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 31. - And the rest of the acts of Pekah and all that he did (see the comment on vers. 27-31), behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. 2 Kings 15:31

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Pekah met with his death in a conspiracy organized by Hosea the son of Elah, who made himself king "in the twentieth year of Jotham." There is something very strange in this chronological datum, as Jotham only reigned sixteen years (2 Kings 15:33), and Ahaz began to reign in the seventeenth year of Pekah (2 Kings 16:1); so that Pekah's death would fall in the fourth year of Ahaz. The reason for this striking statement can only be found, as Usher has shown (Chronol. sacr. p. 80), in the fact that nothing has yet been said about Jotham's successor Ahaz, because the reign of Jotham himself is not mentioned till 2 Kings 15:32.

(Note: Other attempts to solve this difficulty are either arbitrary and precarious, e.g., the conjectures of the earlier chronologists quoted by Winer (R. W. s. v. Jotham), or forced, like the notion of Vaihinger in Herzog's Cycl. (art. Jotham), that the words בן־עזיה ליותם are to be eliminated as an interpolation, in which case the datum "in the twentieth year" becomes perfectly enigmatical; and again the assertion of Hitzig (Comm. z. Jesaj. pp. 72, 73), that instead of in the twentieth year of Jotham, we should read "in the twentieth year of Ahaz the son of Jotham," which could only be consistently carried out by altering the text of not less than seven passages (viz., 2 Kings 15:33; 2 Kings 16:1, and 2 Kings 16:2, 2 Kings 16:17; 2 Chronicles 27:1 and 2 Chronicles 27:8, and 2 Chronicles 28:1); and lastly, the assumption of Thenius, that the words from בשׁנת to עזיה have crept into the text through a double mistake of the copyist and an arbitrary alteration of what had been thus falsely written, which is much too complicated to appear at all credible, even if the reasons which are supposed to render it probable had been more forcible and correct than they really are. For the first reason, viz., that the statement in what year of the contemporaneous ruler a king came to the throne is always first given when the history of this king commences, is disproved by 2 Kings 1:17; the second, that the name of the king by the year of whose reign the accession of another is defined is invariably introduced with the epithet king of Judah or king of Israel, is shown by 2 Kings 12:2 and 2 Kings 16:1 to be not in accordance with fact; and the third, that this very king is never described by the introduction of his father's name, as he is here, except where the intention is to prevent misunderstanding, as in 2 Kings 14:1, 2 Kings 14:23, or in the case of usurpers without ancestors (2 Kings 15:32, 2 Kings 16:1 and 2 Kings 16:15), is also incorrect in its first portion, for in the case of Amaziah in 2 Kings 14:23 there was no misunderstanding to prevent, and even in the case of Joash in 2 Kings 14:1 the epithet king of Israel would have been quite sufficient to guard against any misunderstanding.)