TEXT [Commentary]

3. Uzziah rules in Judah (15:1-7)

1 Uzziah[*] son of Amaziah began to rule over Judah in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of King Jeroboam II of Israel. 2 He was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-two years. His mother was Jecoliah from Jerusalem.

3 He did what was pleasing in the LORD’s sight, just as his father, Amaziah, had done. 4 But he did not destroy the pagan shrines, and the people still offered sacrifices and burned incense there. 5 The LORD struck the king with leprosy,[*] which lasted until the day he died. He lived in isolation in a separate house. The king’s son Jotham was put in charge of the royal palace, and he governed the people of the land.

6 The rest of the events in Uzziah’s reign and everything he did are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah. 7 When Uzziah died, he was buried with his ancestors in the City of David. And his son Jotham became the next king.

NOTES

15:1 Uzziah. Or “Azariah,” as in the MT (cf. the NLT mg). Commentators suggest that “Uzziah” was his throne name (cf. Isa 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1; Zech 14:5) and “Azariah” was his personal name, which he probably used after his “leprosy” forced him off the throne (McKenzie 2009:722; cf. Cogan and Tadmor [1988:165-166], who note that the Hebrew roots ‘azaz [TH5810, ZH6451] and ‘azar [TH5826, ZH6468] are semantically very close, both conveying the idea of “victory, valor, strength”). The conventional translation of “­Azariah” is “Yahweh is my help”; of “Uzziah,” “Yahweh is my strength.”

twenty-seventh year of . . . Jeroboam II. This is an odd synchronism; 14 or 15 years would have been expected in light of the earlier chronological data where Amaziah, reigning 29 years (14:2), has his 15th year synchronized with the accession of Jeroboam II (14:23). Since Amaziah presumably reigned 14 more years (or maybe less in actuality; cf. the note on 15:2), his son Uzziah would have come to the throne at the latest in Jeroboam’s 14th or 15th year (even earlier if a coregency is posited). I know of no way to explain the high number found here, except to suggest that it partakes of the same 12-year dislocation found later in connection with Ahaz and Hezekiah in relation to Hoshea of Israel (Barnes 1991:19; cf. the second note on 17:1).

15:2 fifty-two years. This is another impressive regnal total, and frankly, one difficult to reconcile within the chronological constraints of the middle of the eighth century BC (cf. McKenzie 2009:723). It should, nonetheless, be noticed that the various synchronisms found in 15:8, 13, 17, 23, and 27 for the Israelite kings presuppose this regnal total.

15:3 did what was pleasing. This is the third (cf. 12:2; 14:3) in a string of five positive notices for the Judahite kings (see endnote 33 of the Introduction for details); but here again the positive notice is tempered with the formulaic reminder that the pagan shrines still had not been removed.

15:5 leprosy. See the third note on 5:1 concerning the characteristics of biblical “leprosy.”

lived in isolation in a separate house. Lit., “he lived in the house of freedom/separation” (wayyesheb bebeth hakhopshith [TH2669, ZH2931]). Although the exact meaning of the last two Hebrew words still eludes us, most would suggest that some sort of sanatorium (or place of quarantine) is in view, although the alternative view that Uzziah was “freed” of his duties as king is also possible (Gray 1970:618-620; cf. Cogan and Tadmor 1988:166-167). In any case, an inscribed plaque written in Aramaic and dated to the first century BC was discovered in Jerusalem some time ago (cf. Sukenik 1931:217-220, and Plates I and II); the inscription reads, “Here were brought the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah. Do not open!” Albright (1931:10), commenting on this unique find, concluded, “Since our inscription cannot be dated less than six hundred years after the death of Uzziah, it is quite likely that the bones in question did not belong to the king at all, but were found during the clearance of a tomb which was traditionally assigned to him. In this case it is a most interesting illustration of the growing reverence paid to the graves and relics of great men of the past” (also see Cogan and Tadmor [1988: Plate 5] for a photograph of the plaque).

was put in charge of the royal palace. Lit., “was over the house”; Sweeney (2007:370, citing the work of Nili Sacher Fox) specifies this as taking on the role of the chief administrator of the kingdom. Many would see this annalistic note as also attesting a coregency—indeed, as representing the only clearly attested coregency to be found anywhere in 1–2 Kings (so Albright; cf. Barnes 1991:8-9).

the people of the land. See the second note on 11:14 for details concerning this recurring reference (cf. 21:24; 23:30, 35). Sweeney (2007:370) notes that these “people” were also probably the ones responsible for placing Uzziah on the throne after the assassination of his father Amaziah (cf. 14:21).

15:6 are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah. See “Literary Style” in the Introduction.

15:7 Jotham. See 15:32-38 for details.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The entirety of the present chapter consists of seven examples of the chronological “leapfrog” treatment of the northern and southern kings typical of 1–2 Kings, with the kings’ order of presentation based solely on their chronological succession as determined by the Deuteronomistic editor, probably working from two different king-lists, one for each kingdom (for further discussion concerning these hypothetical king-lists, as well as the concomitant Deuteronomistic regnal accession notices, evaluations, and concluding summaries, see “Literary Style” in the Introduction).

To be remembered largely for leprosy and for living in separate accommodations from the palace is a curious way to be commemorated. We never know how (or even if—see Eccl 2:16) we will be remembered! Uzziah had been celebrated for his rebuilding of the town of Elath back in 14:22, and thus his reassertion of Judahite dominance over the region of Edom is strongly implied (see the note to that verse; cf. the second note on 14:28, which discusses Na’aman’s conclusion that during the time of King Uzziah, Judah also exhibited clear independence from Israel. That, after decades of Judahite submission to Israel, was indeed something to commemorate.) The text could celebrate Uzziah’s remarkably long reign (even if the 52 years literally attributed to him seem excessive), but no, it rehearses instead the onset of his leprosy and the resulting quarantine of his living arrangements. Once again, we never know how we will be remembered!

An important event mentioned several times in other biblical texts goes unnoticed here—a powerful earthquake (see Amos 1:1 [cf. Amos 8:8 and 9:1?]; cf. Zech 14:5). Later on, Josephus (Antiquities 9.10.4.225) and others connected the onset of this earthquake with the exact moment when Yahweh struck the king with leprosy (cf. Cogan and Tadmor 1988:166). In Chronicles, much additional material is given regarding Uzziah, both positive and negative (see 2 Chr 26:3-23). There, Uzziah’s leprosy is attributed directly to divine punishment for his attempt to encroach upon the role of the priests by offering incense on the altar. But once again in 2 Kings we have the problem of silence; we cannot conclude much at all from what the text chooses not to say!

One more chronological datum found elsewhere, however, deserves mention here: the famous reference in Isaiah 6:1 to “the year King Uzziah died,” when Isaiah son of Amoz “saw the Lord.” This, of course, introduces Isaiah’s incredible vision of Yahweh and the seraphim in the Temple (Isa 6:1-8), ending with the famous query, “Whom should I send as a messenger to this people? Who will go for us?” Isaiah instantly volunteered: “Here I am. Send me.” When King Uzziah finally met his demise (usually dated to c. 740 BC), the presumed period of national uncertainty was immediately met by the calling of one of the most famous prophets of Old Testament times.

Again, we read nothing about Isaiah’s call in our present passage—just the briefest details about some positive actions by the king, and then an inexplicable strike from Yahweh with its life-changing results. This is followed by his death and then (for once) the completion of a smooth transition of the throne to his son Jotham (with no reference to any conspiracies, in contrast to what befell his predecessors Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah). So, to sum up: Like Naaman, the important Aramean army official (cf. 5:1), Uzziah was a great man. But also like Naaman, Uzziah (or Azariah; see note on 15:1) was a leper. And that, evidently, is how we are meant to remember him. As Cogan and Tadmor (1988:167) succinctly point out: “Azariah is the only ‘leper king’ attested in antiquity.”