2 Kings 15:3

And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done;

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(3) And he did that which was right.—This statement is repeated word for word in Chronicles. Its exact meaning here, as in other instances, is that Azariah supported the legitimate worship, and lent his countenance to no foreign cultus. When the chronicler adds that he “sought God in the days of (the prophet) Zachariah,” and that “as long as he sought Jehovah, God made him to prosper,” he does not contradict the preceding general estimate of the king’s religious policy, but simply gives additional information respecting his life and fortunes.

Benson Commentary

2 Kings 15:3-4. 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.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

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.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

He recovered Damascus - Jeroboam probably gained certain advantages over Benhadad, which induced the latter to make his submission and consent to such terms as those extorted by Ahab 1 Kings 20:34.

Hamath was probably among the actual conquests of Jeroboam. It was brought so low in his reign, as to have become almost a by-word for calamity (compare Amos 6:2).

Which belonged to Judah, for Israel - i. e. these cities were recovered to Judah, i. e. to the people of God generally, through or by means of being added to Israel, i. e. to the northern kingdom.

A few further facts in the history of Jeroboam II are recorded by the prophet Amos (compare Amos 7:10, etc.).

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

CHAPTER 15

2Ki 15:1-7. Azariah's Reign over Judah.

1-7. In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam—It is thought that the throne of Judah continued vacant eleven or twelve years, between the death of Amaziah and the inauguration of his son Azariah. Being a child only four years old when his father was murdered, a regency was appointed during Azariah's minority.

began Azariah … to reign—The character of his reign is described by the brief formula employed by the inspired historian, in recording the religious policy of the later kings. But his reign was a very active as well as eventful one, and is fully related (2Ch 26:1-23). Elated by the possession of great power, and presumptuously arrogating to himself, as did the heathen kings, the functions both of the real and sacerdotal offices, he was punished with leprosy, which, as the offense was capital (Nu 8:7), was equivalent to death, for this disease excluded him from all society. While Jotham, his son, as his viceroy, administered the affairs of the kingdom—being about fifteen years of age (compare 2Ki 15:33)—he had to dwell in a place apart by himself (see on [342]2Ki 7:3). After a long reign he died, and was buried in the royal burying-field, though not in the royal cemetery of "the city of David" (2Ch 26:23).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

i.e. In the same manner, unsincerely, and but for a time.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,.... At the beginning of his reign, and in an external way:

according to all that his father Amaziah had done; who did not do what he did as David, sincerely and cordially, 2 Kings 14:3.

Geneva Study Bible

And he did that which was {a} right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done;

(a) As long as he listened to Zachariah the prophet.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

3. he did that which was right in the sight] R.V. eyes. i.e. His obedience to God’s law was partial, like that of his father, for he also allowed the high-places to remain and to be used for worship: and the close of Azariah’s reign was marked by further falling away, just as Amaziah’s had been before.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 3. - And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah had done (comp. 2 Kings 14:3 and 2 Chronicles 26:4). Josephus uses still stronger expressions. "Azariah was," he says (l.s.c.), "a good king, naturally just and high-minded, and indefatigable in his administration of affairs." According to the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 26:5), he "sought God in the days of Zechariah." 2 Kings 15:3

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Beside the general characteristics of Uzziah's fifty-two years' reign, which are given in the standing formula, not a single special act is mentioned, although, according to 2 Chronicles 26, he raised his kingdom to great earthly power and prosperity; probably for no other reason than because his enterprises had exerted no permanent influence upon the development of the kingdom of Judah, but all the useful fruits of his reign were destroyed again by the ungodly Ahaz. Uzziah did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as his father Amaziah had done. For as the latter was unfaithful to the Lord in the closing years of his reign, so did Uzziah seek God only so long as Zechariah, who was experienced in divine visions, remained alive, and God gave success to his enterprises, so that during this time he carried on successful wars against the Philistines and Arabians, fortified the walls of Jerusalem with strong towers, built watch-towers in the desert, and constructed cisterns for the protection and supply of his numerous flocks, promoted agriculture and vine-growing, and organized a numerous and well-furnished army (2 Chronicles 26:5-15). But the great power to which he thereby attained produced such haughtiness, that he wanted to make himself high priest in his kingdom after the manner of the heathen kings, and usurping the sacred functions, which belonged according to the law to the Levitical priests alone, to offer incense in the temple, for which he was punished with leprosy upon the spot (2 Kings 15:5 compared with 2 Chronicles 26:16.). The king's leprosy is described in our account also as a punishment from God. יי ויננּע: Jehovah smote him, and he became leprous. This presupposes an act of guilt, and confirms the fuller account of this guilt given in the Chronicles, which Thenius, following the example of De Wette and Winer, could only call in question on the erroneous assumption "that the powerful king wanted to restore the regal high-priesthood exercised by David and Solomon" Oehler (Herzog's Cycl.) has already shown that such an opinion is perfectly "groundless," since it is nowhere stated that David and Solomon performed with their own hands the functions assigned in the law to the priests in connection with the offering of sacrifice, as the co-operation of the priests is not precluded in connection with the sacrifices presented by these kings (2 Samuel 6:17, and 1 Kings 3:4, etc.). - Uzziah being afflicted with leprosy, was obliged to live in a separate house, and appoint his son Jotham as president of the royal house to judge the people, i.e., to conduct the administration of the kingdom. - The time when this event occurred is not stated either in our account or in the Chronicles. But this punishment from God cannot have fallen upon him before the last ten years of his fifty-two years' reign, because his son, who was only twenty-five years old when his father died (2 Kings 15:33, and 2 Chronicles 27:1), undertook the administration of the affairs of the kingdom at once, and therefore must have been at least fifteen years old. החפשׁית בּית is taken by Winer, Gesenius, and others, after the example of Iken, to signify nosocomium, an infirmary or lazar-house, in accordance with the verb Arab. xfs̆, fecit, II debilis, imbecillis fuit. But this meaning cannot be traced in Hebrew, where חפשׁי is used in no other sense than free, set at liberty, manumissus. Consequently the rendering adopted by Aquila is correct, οἶκος ἐλευθερίας; and the explanation given by Kimchi of this epithet is, that the persons who lived there were those who were sent away from human society, or perhaps more correctly, those who were released from the world and its privileges and duties, or cut off from intercourse with God and man.