2 Chronicles 26:2

26:1-15 As long as Uzziah sought the Lord, and minded religion, God made him to prosper. Those only prosper whom God makes to prosper; for prosperity is his gift. Many have owned, that as long as they sought the Lord, and kept close to their duty, they prospered; but when they forsook God, every thing went cross. God never continues either to bless the indolent or to withhold his blessing from the diligent. He will never suffer any to seek his face in vain. Uzziah's name was famed throughout all the neighbouring countries. A name with God and good people makes truly honourable. He did not delight in war, nor addict himself to sports, but delighted in husbandry.

2 . Eloth ] So spelt in 2 Chronicles 8:17 (= 1 Kings 9:26 ), but “Elath” in Deuteronomy 2:8 ; 2 Kings 14:22 . In 2 Kings 16:6 the two forms are found side by side in one verse. The word is probably of foreign origin, and such words are seldom of fixed form when adopted into common language; cp. the various forms of “Damascus” ( 1 Chronicles 18:5 , note). after that the king , etc.] We conjecture that this phrase means that it was after king Amaziah slept with his fathers that Uzziah his son restored Elath to Judah. If this be right, we must suppose that Uzziah reigned in Jerusalem for some time, while his father was in refuge at Lachish. Some years of history may be crowded into 2 Chronicles 25:27 . The meaning of the present passage will be that Uzziah built Elath after he became sole and undisputed king.

Verse 2. - Eloth ; Hebrew, אֶת־אֵילות ; the parallel reads אֵילַת . This place was at the head of the Gulf Akaba ( 2 Chronicles 8:17 ; 1 Kings 9:26 ); Judah had lost hold of it at a past revolt of Edom, and Uzziah, after his father's crippling of Edom, seizes the opportunity of making it Judah's again and rebuilding it, thus finishing very probably a work that he knew had been in his father's heart to do. This consideration may explain alike the following clause in our verse. and the placing of this here. Uzziah charged himself to do it the first thing. 2 Chronicles 26:2

2. He built Eloth—or, "He it was who built Eloth." The account of the fortifications of this port on the Red Sea, which Uzziah restored to the kingdom of Judah (2Ch 33:13), is placed before the chronological notices (2Ch 26:3), either on account of the importance attached to the conquest of Eloth, or from the desire of the historian to introduce Uzziah as the king, who was known as the conqueror of Eloth. Besides, it indicates that the conquest occurred in the early part of his reign, that it was important as a port, and that Hebrew merchants maintained the old trade between it and the countries of the East [Bertheau].

The statements as to Uzziah's attainment of dominion, the building of the seaport town Elath on the Red Sea, the length and character of his reign ( 2 Chronicles 26:1-4 ), agree entirely with 2 Kings 14:21-22 , and 2 Kings 15:2-3 ; see the commentary on these passages. Uzziah (עזּיּהוּ) is called in 1 Chronicles 3:12 and in 2 Kings generally) Azariah (עזריה); cf. on the use of the two names, the commentary on 2 Kings 14:21 . - In 2 Chronicles 26:5 , instead of the standing formula, "only the high places were not removed," etc.) Kings), Uzziah's attitude towards the Lord is more exactly defined thus: "He was seeking God in the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God; and in the days when he sought Jahve, God gave him success." In לדרשׁ ויהי the infinitive with ל is subordinated to היה, to express the duration of his seeking, for which the participle is elsewhere used. Nothing further is known of the Zechariah here mentioned: the commentators hold him to have been an important prophet; for had he been a priest, or the high priest, probably הכּהן would have been used. The reading האלהים בּראות (Keth.) is surprising. ה המּבין ב can only denote, who had insight into (or understanding for the) seeing of God; cf. Daniel 1:17 .

But Kimchi's idea, which other old commentators share, that this is a periphrasis to denote the prophetic endowment or activity of the man, is opposed by this, that "the seeing of God" which was granted to the elders of Israel at the making of the covenant, Exodus 24:10 , cannot be regarded as a thing within the sphere of human action or practice, while the prophetic beholding in vision is essentially different from the seeing of God, and is, moreover, never so called. בראות would therefore seem to be an orthographical error for ביראת, some MSS having ביראות or ביראת (cf. de Rossi, variae lectt.); and the lxx, Syr., Targ., Arab., Raschi, Kimchi, and others giving the reading בּיראת ה המּבין, who was a teacher (instructor) in the fear of God, in favour of which also Vitringa, proll. in Jes. p. 4, has decided.