II Chronicles 25:14

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 (Ch2 26:1-4), agree entirely with Kg2 14:21-22, and Kg2 15:2-3; see the commentary on these passages. Uzziah (עזּיּהוּ) is called in Ch1 3:12 and in 2 Kings (generally) Azariah (עזריה); cf. on the use of the two names, the commentary on Kg2 14:21. - In Ch2 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. Dan 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, Exo 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…

Here is, I. The revolt of Amaziah from the God of Israel to the gods of the Edomites. Egregious folly! Ahaz worshipped the gods of those that had conquered him, for which he had some little colour, Ch2 28:23. But to worship the gods of those whom he had conquered, who could not protect their own worshippers, was the greatest absurdity that could be. What did he see in the gods of the children of Seir that could tempt him to set them up for his gods and bow himself down before them? Ch2 25:14. If he had cast the idols down from the rock and broken them to pieces, instead of the prisoners, he would have manifested more of the piety as well as more of the pity of an Israelite; but perhaps for that barbarous inhumanity he was given up to this ridiculous idolatry. II. The reproof which God sent to him, by a prophet, for this sin. The anger of the Lord was kindled against him, and justly; yet, before he sent to destroy him, he sent to convince and reclaim him, and so to prevent his destruction. The prophet reasoned with him very fairly and very mildly: Why hast thou sought the favour of those gods which could not deliver their own people? Ch2 25:15. If men would but duly consider the inability of all those things to help them to which they have recourse when they forsake God, they would not be such enemies to themselves. III. The check he gave to the reprover, Ch2 25:16. He could say nothing in excuse of his own folly; the reproof was too just to be answered. But he fell into a passion with the reprover. 1. He taunted him as saucy and impertinent, and meddling with that which did not belong to him: Art thou made of the king's counsel? Could not a man speak reasonably to him, but he must be upbraided as usurping the place of a privy-counsellor? But, as a prophet, he really was…

25:14-15 Conquerors sometimes worshiped the gods of a vanquished nation, wrongly believing that the gods of the defeated people had helped them to victory. Amaziah held this pagan mindset; he did not believe that the Lord is the only true God (see Isa 40:18-28; 42:8; Jer 10:1-16).