Question
In II Chronicles 21:20 we read that Jehoram was 32 when he became king, and that he ruled for 8 years. Hence, that would make him 40 years old at his death. In chapter 22:1-2 we read that his youngest son Ahaziah took over as Judah’s new king. The problem is that he is 42 years old, how can he be older than his father? The issue becomes even more clouded when we see what seems to be a contradiction in II Kings 8:26 where Ahaziah is said to be 22 years old when he begins to reign. I am a very strong KJV person and I believe it to contain no errors, can you please help clear this up?
Response
Interestingly enough, I responded to a similar question, (along with some others like it), not that long ago. So what follows is a copy of that response. Instead of editing out the other issues in the response, I have just left it intact. (Maybe the other questions that were asked will be interesting to you as well.) Hopefully there will be some helpful information in this for you.
With respect to the those that you cite in your email, (I Kings 7:26 compared with II Chronicles 4:5; then II Kings 8:26 compared with II Chronicles 22:2; then II Kings 24:8 compared with II Chronicles 36:9), the resolution to the first is very simple with the exact wording of the verses providing the resolution to the seeming contradiction, while the resolution of the others involves needing to pay close attention to the scripture’s testimony concerning events leading up to Ahaziah’s time, and for the final one the issues surrounding Jehoiachin.
Regarding I Kings 7:26 compared with II Chronicles 4:5; (by the way, it is funny that someone would call this a ‘KJV problem,’ for the NASV, for example, has the same “problem.” But with its departure from the Massoretic text, it has no resolution to the “problem.”) Notice carefully that in I Kings 7:26 the text says, “…it contained two thousand baths”. But in II Chronicles 4:5 the text says, “…and it received and held three thousand baths”. The issue of “contained” and the issue of “received and held” are not the exact same thing. The words are two different expressions in English and they are saying two different things in English. Though we might have a tendency today to use words such as “contain” and “hold” in a synonymous way when talking about the volume of material in a vessel or container, the concepts are not synonymous by nature.
“Hold” when referring to the volume capacity of a vessel refers to its maximum capacity. Hence when we talk about the fact that a vessel has been filled to its maximum, we still say, ‘It can’t hold anymore.’ Or when we want to know what the maximum capacity is of some vessel we commonly ask, ‘How much does that hold?’
“Contain,” on the other hand, does not by nature designate the maximum volume capacity of a vessel. Instead, it refers to the amount of actual or useable contents in the vessel, whether or not the vessel is filled to its maximum holding capacity. And with this discrimination of terms there is no “problem” with the two verses.
In I Kings 7:26 the text is stating the useable and functional volume of baths contained in the molten sea as it fulfilled its purpose and the priests made use of it. In II Chronicles 4:5, however, the text is stating what the molten sea “received and held,” which is the issue of what it was totally capable of holding. And its total capacity was 1000 baths more than its proper functional capacity.
Regarding II Kings 8:26 compared with II Chronicles 22:2; as I indicated earlier, the resolution to the ‘supposed problem’ here involves a very close and detailed examination of the people, events, and things that have been set forth, related, and described in the historical record (of both I and II Kings, and I and II chronicles) leading up to the time of Ahaziah and also during his time. And as the accounts set forth, there is much complexity to what was going on in both Samaria and Judah, even to the point of Jehoshophat king of Judah ‘joining affinity’ with Ahab king of Israel, and Jehoshophat ending up being called “king of Israel” when he was the king of Judah. As even a cursory reading of the accounts show, there was a great deal of intrigue, collusion, plotting, subverting, and the like going on, with heirs being murdered, fathers and sons reigning at the same time, dying or dead sons replaced with others, etc. Needless to say, it takes a patient and careful detailed examination of the recorded details to begin to come to grips with all that was going on at this time and the effects of it all. Add to all of this the reasons God has for having two separate and distinct accounts (I Samuel through II Kings, and then I and II Chronicles) of the ‘kingdom-time’ in His nation’s history, and it should be clear that differences in the accounts are going to exist. But not because of careless record-keeping, scribal errors, or anything like that, but because the two distinct accounts serve two distinct purposes in God’s testimony, which requires at times differing (not contradictory at all, but actually complimentary) information to be presented, and differing systems of reckoning being used.
To put it very briefly, my understanding of the reason for the differing ages of Ahaziah in the two verses has to do with a precisely accurate accounting of the reigning in view of all the royal turmoil related in the accounts. And in view of all that had taken place, it is necessary for both ages to be taken into account in order to understand exactly what happened at this time in Israel’s rapidly deteriorating history. Hence the truth of both ages allow for the possibility that either Ahaziah had begun his reign in principle, so to speak, at the earlier age, but not in actuality until later; or, as the presence of the word “also” in the II Chronicles 22:2 statement regarding his mother’s name may indicate, the original Ahaziah could have been replaced with another of his mother’s sons and in so doing bore the same name, as is not uncommonly done in royal lines.
As you can tell by the way in which I have just stated things, at the present time I haven’t settled my mind on which of the two is the exact case. The royal turmoil, as I call it and as far as I have examined it, allows for both. Obviously, though, further study of the details and further understanding from them will testify to which is the case. The ‘supposed problem’ only exists if someone assumes that the two accounts are supposed to be identical, that the situation in Samaria and Judah at the time couldn’t have produced a reason for needing to talk about Ahaziah’s reigning with respect to two different ages, and that God doesn’t have a real significant reason for having two distinct accounts of the ‘kingdom-time’ in Israel’s program and history that might make it so that He Himself wants certain rulers to have their periods of reigning looked at from two different perspectives. When these kinds of assumptions are not made, the very idea of contradictions and “problems” in the two accounts begin to vanish away, and further edification about this time in Israel’s program starts taking place.
Regarding II Kings 24:8 compared with II Chronicles 36:9 and the apparent contradiction, my understanding is pretty much what you assume; i.e., seeing that God recognizes both a king and a queen at this time (Jeremiah is dealing with a king and a queen when Nebuchadnezzar gets ready to come as in Jeremiah 13:18); and that Jehoiachin’s mother is particularly spoken about in II Chronicles, not only in 36:9 but among those who go out with the royalty when Nebuchadnezzar finally comes; my understanding is that she is the “queen” who co-reigned with him, and would naturally do so if she either considered him too young, or she herself wanted to reign, when he began active heir to the throne. My understanding is that he became active heir when he was eight, as II Chronicles declares; co-reigned with his mother as queen until he was eighteen; and then reigned on his own for the short span of time related in the verses.
Actually, it is also interesting to note that the Chronicles account has an additional ten days to his reign in Jerusalem. Obviously not just a copyist’s oversight or some other scribal glitch that someone wants to say assign to the many differences in the Kings and Chronicles accounts. What people need to understand is that in view of the Divine viewpoint and commentary that the Chronicle accounts are designed to supply, with the Kings accounts being more or less purely historical as they follow the courses of punishment, it makes sense for the Chronicle accounts to differ in details seeing that God often reckons time, generations, royal lines, and the like, differently than man does. Especially is this so in Jehoiachin’s case in view of Judah’s earlier good king Josiah who also had a reputation at both age “eight” and “eighteen.” But Josiah’s record and reputation were for righteousness, not evil. To me. God is making the contrast plain and clear.
Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries
20011220 B55 B L kjv