2 Kings 15 Study Notes

15:1-7 Once again, the record of a king—this time Azariah of Judah, also called Uzziah—does not do full justice to his stature, godliness, and significance. He was co-regent for twenty-five years with Amaziah (792-767 BC). To see his importance, one must consult the fuller records in Isaiah and Chronicles. Including the co-regency with Amaziah, his reign saw the passing of the dynasty of Jehu and the final end of Israel’s imperial power. It is particularly significant that one of the best known and most significant prophetic visions in the OT is dated “in the year that King Uzziah died” (Is 6:1). His death truly did mark the end of an era.

15:1-2 The formula data for the beginning of the reign of Azariah of Judah again could obscure both the co-regency with his father Amaziah (792-767 BC) and the co-regency with his son Jotham (750-740 BC; see notes at 14:1-2 and 14:19-21).

15:3-4 This evaluation is typical for a good king, including the notice that the high places for illegal worship of the Lord were not removed.

15:5-7 Perhaps out of deference to Azariah’s generally positive character, the writer omitted the reason for Azariah’s skin disease. Azariah became arrogant and performed a task that only priests were allowed to do (2Ch 26:16-19). The situation was so severe that Azariah finished his life in quarantine, and his son Jotham, the successor designate, governed the land in day-to-day matters. These were probably the years of Jotham’s co-regency. The formal close for Azariah’s reign is typical.

15:8-9 The opening for Zechariah of Israel, son of Jeroboam II and the last king of the dynasty of Jehu, is typical formula.

15:10-12 The closer of Zechariah’s rule, however, is not typical. It is the record of a palace revolution. The meaning of publicly (Hb qabal‘am) is uncertain. This sudden revolution, within six months of the death of the great Jeroboam II, showed how quickly both the throne and imperial power declined after his death. But God had kept his promise that four generations of Jehu’s sons would rule Israel (see 10:30). Jehu’s dynasty was the longest of the northern dynasties, enduring forty years longer than Omri’s dynasty. Shallum’s revolution was, formally, part of the record of Zechariah since it told how Zechariah’s reign came to an end.

15:13-15 After a brief opener, the record of Shallum of Israel moves immediately to Menahem’s revolution. Shallum’s record ends with the note that his other deeds are recorded elsewhere in writings now lost to history.

15:16 Some historians see a geographical shift in the center of power in this revolution. Tirzah had once been the center of power before Omri moved the capital to Samaria. They then saw Menahem as returning to an old power base—the people of Tirzah—who apparently were glad to resume a position of prestige and leadership. The location of Tiphsah is uncertain. The Tiphsah on the Euphrates River was too distant to be a part of this struggle. Some read this name as “Tappuah” or “Tirzah.” This city resisted the revolution, so Menahem destroyed it. Whether because of his power base in Tirzah or because of his terrifying brutality to Tiphsah, he gained enough authority to rule for ten years.

15:17-18 The formal beginning of Menahem’s reign in Israel is typical.

15:19-20 In 743 BC, near the end of Menahem’s reign, Tiglath-pileser III (known in the Bible by his throne name Pulu or Pul) invaded the region. This created a new political situation since Assyria was now the enemy to the north and northeast. Thus the major internal struggle for most of the small kingdoms of Palestine and Aram was between the pro-Assyrian party that advocated peace with Assyria at any price and the anti-Assyrian party that advocated wars for independence at any price. Menahem purchased his throne by taking a pro-Assyrian stance and paying a huge tribute, seventy-five thousand pounds of silver. Menahem raised the tribute money by imposing a head tax on the prominent men of Israel. This tax alienated the anti-Assyrian parties in Israel.

15:21-22 The only thing noteworthy about the closing notices of Menahem’s reign is that he succeeded in leaving the throne to his son Pekahiah.

15:23-26 Pekahiah ruled only two years. Subsequent history indicates that the reason for his short reign could have been the dissatisfaction of the anti-Assyrian party in Israel. The leader of the rebellion was Pekah, who became the next king. The formal close reveals nothing new about Pekahiah.

15:27-28 The formal opening statements for Pekah indicate that he ruled for twenty years, a long and successful rule for this period, though his first twelve years were probably as an independent ruler in Gilead. Then he enjoyed eight years (740-732 BC) of rule over Israel until the Assyrians returned.

15:29 Israel had been briefly free from Assyrian invasion because Assyria was too busy elsewhere, so Pekah broke his treaty with Assyria. But then, in 734 BC, Tiglath-pileser returned, conquered, and annexed large portions of northern Israel. The area defined by the names in the text includes significant Transjordan Hebrew holdings and regions north of the fertile Plain of Esdraelon. This still left the king of Israel with the fertile heartland of the country and a reasonable hope of local, though not imperial, prosperity. The Hebrews in the annexed territories were deported to the east and—though not stated here—the Assyrians brought in new population to resettle the land.

15:30-31 Pekah was then deposed by a revolution led by Hoshea. It is not clear whether this was the work of a pro-Assyrian party or of an anti-Assyrian party that penalized Pekah for not being successful enough in his resistance to Assyria. Hoshea later conspired against Assyria. The closing comments for Pekah reveal nothing new.

15:32-35 The clock turns back to two kings of Judah who became king during the reign of Pekah. Again, Jotham’s length-of-rule formula can be confusing. His sixteen years apparently did not include the ten years of co-regency with Azariah, nor did they include the three-year co-regency with Ahaz. He was a good king, except he did not close down the worship of the Lord at the illegal shrines on the high places. He was the last of the four good kings from Joash to Jotham, and he was the only one who, as far as the Bible reveals, did not finish badly. An addition to the Lord’s temple was his outstanding achievement.

15:36-38 The closing comments about Jotham’s reign cast a cloud on the future in referring to the beginning of raids against Judah by Aram’s King Rezin and Pekah of Israel. Historians take this harassment as trying to force Judah into an anti-Assyrian coalition. By some datings, Ahaz may have been ruling as co-regent with Jotham during the invasions of Judah described in the next chapter (16:5-6; see Is 7:3-6).