2nd Kings Chapter 15 verse 5 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 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.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(5) And the Lord smote the king.--The chronicler relates the reason--viz., because of his usurpation of priestly functions in the sanctuary. This happened towards the end of the reign. Jotham, the regent, was only twenty-five when Azariah died (2Kings 15:33).Smote.--Or, struck. So we speak of a paralytic stroke, and the word plague literally means stroke.In a several house.--Rather, in the sickhouse (or, hospital)--i.e., a royal residence outside of Jerusalem (Leviticus 13:46; 2Kings 7:3) set apart for such cases. (Strictly, in the house of freedom; because lepers were emancipated from all social relations and duties. Gesenius explains the word from an Arabic root said to mean prostration, weakness; but Lane gives for that term the special meaning smallness (or, narrowness) of the eye; weakness of sight. See his Arabic Lexicon, Bk. I., Pt. II., p. 772.Over the house.--Not apparently as prefect of the palace (comp. 1Kings 4:6; 1Kings 18:3), but as dwelling in the palace instead of his father. . . .