This is a short account of the reign of Azariah. 1. Most of it is general, and the same that has been given of others; he began young and reigned long (Kg2 15:2), did, for the most part, that which was right, Kg2 15:3 (it was happy for the kingdom that a good reign was a long one), only he had not zeal and courage enough to take away the high places, Kg2 15:4. 2. That which is peculiar, Kg2 15:5 (that God smote him with a leprosy) is more largely related, with the occasion of it, Ch2 26:16, etc., where we have also a fuller account of the glories of the former part of his reign, as well as of the disgraces of the latter part of it. He did that which was right, as Amaziah had done; like him, he began well, but failed before he finished. Here we are told, (1.) That he was a leper. The greatest of men are not only subject to the common calamities, but also to the common infirmities, of human nature; and, if they be guilty of any heinous sin, they lie as open as the meanest to the most grievous strokes of divine vengeance. (2.) God smote him with this leprosy, to chastise him for his presumptuous invasion of the priests' office. If great men be proud men, some way or other God will humble them, and make them know he is both above them and against them, for he resisteth the proud. (3.) That he was a leper to the day of his death. Though we have reason to think he repented and the sin was pardoned, yet, for warning to others, he was continued under this mark of God's displeasure as long as he lived, and perhaps it was for the good of his soul that he was so. (4.) That he dwelt in a separate house, as being made ceremonially unclean by the law, to the discipline of which, though a king, he must submit. He that presumptuously intruded into God's temple, and pretended to be a priest, was justly shut out from his own palace, and shut up as a prisoner or recluse, ever after. We suppose that his separate house was made as convenient and agreeable as might be. Some translate it a free house, where he had liberty to take his pleasure. However, it was a great mortification to one that had been so much a man of honour, and a man of business, as he had been, to be cut off from society and dwell always in a separate house: it would almost make life itself a burden, even to kings, though they have never any to converse with but their inferiors; the most contemplative men would soon be weary of it. (5.) That his son was his viceroy in the affairs both of his court (for he was over the house) and of his kingdom (for he was judging the people of the land); and it was both a comfort to him and a blessing to his kingdom that he had such a son to fill up his room.

In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam - Dr. Kennicott complains loudly here, because of "the corruption in the name of this king of Judah, who is expressed by four different names in this chapter: Ozriah, Oziah, Ozrihu, and Ozihu. Our oldest Hebrew MS. relieves us here by reading truly, in Kg2 15:1, Kg2 15:6, Kg2 15:7, עזיהו Uzziah, where the printed text is differently corrupted. This reading is called true,
1. Because it is supported by the Syriac and Arabic versions in these three verses.
2. Because the printed text itself has it so in Kg2 15:32, Kg2 15:34 of this very chapter.
3. Because it is so expressed in the parallel place in Chronicles; and,
4. Because it is not Αζαριας, Azariah, but Οζιας, Oziah, (Uzziah), in St. Matthew's genealogy."
There are insuperable difficulties in the chronology of this place. The marginal note says, "This is the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam's partnership in the kingdom with his father, who made him consort at his going to the Syrian wars. It is the sixteenth year of Jeroboam's monarchy." Dr. Lightfoot endeavors to reconcile this place with Kg2 14:16, Kg2 14:17, thus: "At the death of Amaziah, his son and heir Uzziah was but four years old, for he was about sixteen in Jeroboam's twenty-seventh year; therefore, the throne must have been empty eleven years, and the government administered by protectors while Uzziah was in his minority." Learned men are not agreed concerning the mode of reconciling these differences; there is probably some mistake in the numbers. I must say to all the contending chronologers: -
Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites.
When such men disagree, I can't decide.

And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,.... At the beginning of his reign, and in an external way:

according to all that his father Amaziah had done; who did not do what he did as David, sincerely and cordially, Kg2 14:3.