An explanation of the discrepancy of age found in 2 Chronicles 22:2:
"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.''
Compare with 2 Kings 8:26:
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.''
==__==__==__==__==__==__==__==__==__==__==
During the reigns of Jehoshapat in the south [house of Judah] and Ahab in the north [house of Omri], it is possible that both of these houses sought to achieve control in their own ways over the twelve tribes, through inheritance and marriage alliances.
Thus we read in 2 Chronicles 18:1 that Jehoshaphat “joined affinity” with Ahab at some point after the third year of his reign,1“Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honour in abundance, and joined affinity with Ahab.”
— 2 Chronicles 18:1 possibly to this end.
This might also serve to explain the overlapping names of four heirs at this era, two Ahaziahs (one from each house) and two Jehoram/Jorams2in scripture both individuals are referred to variously by either name (also one from each house).
Perhaps both houses were planning to establish their own lineage as the inheritors of both kingdoms, thus reuniting the “divided monarchy.”
To start with, Ahab’s order of succession was his son Ahaziah (the one who reigned in the north), and next in line was his other son Jehoram/Joram (the one who reigned in the north). This Ahaziah ruled for only one year (but two years counting inclusively, as the northern kings did3compare 1 Ki. 15:25 with 15:28,
1 Ki. 16:8 with 16:10,
1 Ki. 22:51 with 2 Ki. 3:1), he fell in the lattice at the beginning of 2 Kings and was succeeded by his brother (Jehoram/Joram) because he had no son.4“So he died according to the word of the Lᴏʀᴅ which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son.
Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?”
— 2 Kings 1:17-18 The Jehoram/Joram who reigned in the north would be the king within roughly a year of Ahab’s death, and this Jehoram/Joram reigned twelve years until Jehu purged the house of Omri.
Meanwhile, Jehoshaphat’s order of succession was his son Jehoram/Joram (the one who reigned in the south) and then presumably Jehoram’s own sons after him. However, this order of succession was also severely disturbed by unexpected events.
According to 2 Kings 8:26-27, it is known for a fact that Ahaziah (the one who reigned in the south) had his mother in Athaliah and was therefore a son-in-law of the house of Ahab, as it says.5Athaliah in turn was a daughter of Ahab (2 Kings 8:18, 26) of the house of Omri This second Ahaziah now became the heir apparent to Jehoram/Joram (the one who reigned in the south) unexpectedly, because according to the 2 Chronicles 21:16-17 narrative, all of Jehoram/Joram’s sons and wives were suddenly taken away by the Arabians leaving only one: Jehoahaz, which is another name for the Ahaziah in the south.6not to be confused with several other men called Jehoahaz long after
Therefore, because of this slaughter, Jehoram/Joram of the south had no other choice but to name Ahaziah (of the south) as his successor. This occurred in his last year7noted in 2 Kings 9:29 where he was named co-regent of Judah8the southern kingdom during Jehoram/Joram’s extreme sickness (2 Chronicles 21:18-19). In the following year, the southern Jehoram/Joram died, so Ahaziah in the south became sole ruler of Judah (2 Kings 8:25-26), noted there as the following year in Jehoram/Joram of the north’s reign.9as compared to 2 Kings 9:29 He only ruled one year of his own, because Jehu soon purged house of Omri (2 Kings 9). As we have explained, both kings (Jehoram/Joram of the north and Ahaziah of the south) were currently of the house of Omri at this point, becoming targets for Jehu.
Now an interesting set of circumstances seems to surround this situation, suggested by two odd statements in the Chronicles passage. It seems plausible that the second Ahaziah, who only reigned in Jerusalem for one year, had in previous years also been part of a plan to unite the two houses of Judah and Omri.10the northern and southern kingdoms
It is stated in 2 Chronicles 22:9, upon his death, that he was a “son of Jehoshaphat” and they felt he should be buried with honors.11“And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him, (for he was hid in Samaria,) and brought him to Jehu: and when they had slain him, they buried him: Because, said they, he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the LORD with all his heart. So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom.”
— 2 Chronicles 22:9 This does not require him to be a direct biological father, but the strength of the association might easily suggest it. We therefore suggest that this southern Ahaziah had his biological parents as Jehoshaphat and Athaliah, daughter of Ahab.
An interesting piece of information is gained by the two statements given in 2 Chronicles 22:1-2. The chroniclist says that Ahaziah was “his [Jehoram/Joram’s] youngest son”12“And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead:” and yet that he was forty-two years old.13“Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.” We glean from 2 Chron. 21:20 that Jehoram/Joram himself was only forty years old upon his demise!14“Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired.” – the prior verse Therefore, it is not possible that he is the direct father but only the father-in-law, which would be the case given our assumptions since, after Jehoshaphat died, this Jehoram/Joram15son of Jehoshaphat married Athaliah daughter of Omri, and, by this strategic marriage the consequence is that the Ahaziah who reigned in the south became his son-in-law, despite being two years older. Then the unexpected massacre of all of Jehoram/Joram’s own sons meant, he had no choice but to name his son-in-law by Athaliah as the heir of Judah, which would explain why the chroniclist thought it noteworthy to add that this Ahaziah was “the youngest.” There were no younger heirs remaining, forcing him to name a 42-year-old son-in-law as heir.
Now another unusual piece of information that very much obscures this story, is the fact that, in the Kings account (2 Kings 8:26) the same man’s age is given as 22 and not 42. Almost all commentaries assume at this point that the Chronicles account must have a scribal error, but let us examine another possibility for explaining this.
If we continue with our assumption that Jehoshaphat directly fathered Ahaziah (who eventually reigned in the south), we ask ourselves why this situation might have occurred in the first place. It was noted before that 2 Chronicles 18:1 specifically tells, that at least for some period of time, Jehoshaphat “joined affinity” with Ahab, father of Athaliah. There may have been some kind of short-lived plan to merge the two houses by forming this (hypothetical) union of Jehoshaphat himself with the daughter of Ahab. Thus Ahaziah the son of Athaliah was conceived directly via Jehoshaphat. However, later Jehoshaphat decided to name his son Jehoram/Joram as heir of Judah and only by unexpected situation did Ahaziah come to inherit this throne.
Let us go back to the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Ahab. Supposing that both houses sought to extend their own lineage to inherit the throne of a united monarchy, it would make sense that each house, in periods of rivalry, would try to extend their own claims over the whole twelve tribes of Israel. After the birth of the southern Ahaziah, these two houses might have experienced a rise in hostility (comp. 1 Kings 22:4916“Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not.”
— 1 Kings 22:49). It is posited that Jehoshapat during his reign attempted to claim the throne of Judah for one of his sons, and the throne of Israel for the other, each being the two sons of Jehoshaphat, the southern Jehoram/Joram and the southern Ahaziah respectively.
We note that, towards the very end of Ahab’s life, his son the northern Ahaziah was placed by Ahab as the regent over the north. But this is the very same year that the southern Jehoram/Joram was raised to the regency of the south by Jehoshaphat (comp. 1 Kings 22:51, 2 Kings 1:17, 2 Kings 3:1). The following year is the year Ahab died. Perhaps the two rival kings were each trying to set up their own dynasties to inherit the northern throne.
After the death of Ahab, the most senior members of Omri would be Ahab’s two sons the northern Ahaziah and Jehoram/Joram, as well as the (posited) son of Jehoshaphat, the southern Ahaziah. Obviously, Jehoshaphat, having outlived Ahab, would now be attempting to rally the northern kingdom around his candidate for the northern throne, against the northern brothers who were first generation descendants of Ahab. After the northern Ahaziah fell through the lattice and died in the first year after Ahab’s death, the northern kingdom would seem to have just two candidates remaining. The northern Jehoram, last remnant of Ahab’s sons, would be clinging onto his throne against the combined efforts of Jehoshaphat and his two regents who would each be set to inherit one of the thrones. In fact, it is likely that, similar to Jehoshephat’s son Jehoram/Joram (who was elevated to the sub-regent of the south when Ahab’s death seemed imminent and/or in response to Ahab naming his heir), Jehoshaphat would have had reasons to elevate his chosen heir for the north even sooner. The southern Ahaziah would be the only descendant of Omri under Jehoshaphat’s control, a fact he would use to promote this son’s candidacy as the true successor of Ahab. This would then explain the statement in 2 Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah (the son of Jehoshaphat) was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, because this was his age at the beginning of his reign in the capacity as the rival claimant king of Israel to the north. He would have continued to assert this claim all the way until the death of his half-brother in the south (the southern Jehoram/Joram) who unexpectedly lost all of his family and heirs. Therefore he had been reigning since he was age 22 (being promoted by his father Jehoshaphat), but, at age 42 he was unexpectedly required to inherit the throne of Judah, being the last remaining possible heir. In that specific capacity, he only reigned (in Jerusalem) one year.
It is well-known that in the Chronicles version of the account, in general the writer is focused on the kingdom of Judah, and hardly at all on the northern kingdom. Therefore, he would instead give the southern Ahaziah’s age upon becoming king of Judah (42) because he is focusing on Judah, rather than his age at being promoted to co-regent17of Israel (in dispute w/ Ahab) by Jehoshaphat (22). The writer of the Kings account would have instead given his age upon starting his claimancy to the northern kingdom first. But in either case he only reigned one year in Jerusalem during his final year, and this would be important to clarify in either case.
This also explains the extra, unusual statement given in 2 Kings 9:29, which is to clarify that this Ahaziah had been reigning in Judah specifically only since the eleventh year of the northern Jehoram/Joram.182 Kings 9:29 tells us the exact time when he began to be set up to inherit Judah, during the last disease-stricken year of his father-in-law. This statement would be necessary to clarify the details, if, in fact, Ahaziah had also had an earlier reign where he was promoted to be ruler of the northern kingdom, which is what evidence not only limited to this verse suggests.
One last interesting observation is the fact that Ahaziah of the south and Jehoram/Joram of the north seemed to be in friendship and alliance in the last year before Jehu’s purge. This quick reconciliation between the two, might seem to suggest there was yet another plot to place sons of Omri on both thrones. The fact Ahaziah of the south was spared from the wholesale destruction of Jehoram/Joram of the south’s lineage, leaving himself as the sole heir, might not have been an accident.
However, neither side seems to have predicted that Jehu, an outsider would appear the following year to destroy the whole remnant of Omni. The narrative is in 2 Kings 9:16-27. Nothing the two remaining kings could do would turn him away. The only remaining piece was the queen Athaliah who remained in control of the south for seven woeful years. She immediately rose to destroy the remnant of Judah’s lineage, however another woman named Jehosheba rescued a single son of the king named Jehoash/Joash, who was her nephew.
Jehoash subsequently became the grandfather to Uzziah/Azariah, officially listed by Matthew as the next successive generation to Jehoram/Joram (of the south), the king whose lineage had apparently been “taken away” by the Arabians (2 Chronicles 21:16-17), possibly a plot of the house of Omri. This might suggest that perhaps, there had been survivors of that attack also, which could have restored the lineage by union with the next two kings of Judah. The immediate (rescued) son of Ahaziah of the south would have been at minimum 1/4 of the house of Omri, probably 3/4, which indicates the reason why Matthew in chapter 1 leaves out him, his father, and his son, three kings total in his list. The wickedness of Athaliah to extend her purge even to those of her own grandchildren, just to attempt to wipe out the lineage of Judah is also surprising. –End of theory.
⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜__⚜⚜
The Arabians had “slain all the eldest” (2Ch.22:1). If Ahaziah was older than Jehoram, he certainly was older than Jehoram’s sons, and could not possibly have been termed the “youngest” (2Ch.22:1).
I understand your point that, by the time the sons of Jehoram were killed, Ahaziah was at the point technically the “youngest”, but my point is that, by the same token, before the sons of Jehoram were killed, he would have been among “the eldest” – and yet he clearly was not reckoned among the “eldest”. Moreover, the intimation that Ahaziah was somehow spared precisely due to his youth is very strong.
I don’t know what the right answer is, I keep praying and studying.
Thanks for the comment, George. According to the explanation offered here, there are two possible ways to account for the issue you note.
1) “All the eldest” in 2 Chron. 22:1: I am certainly not a Hebrew scholar, but looking at the root word for this we see “הָרִאשֹׁנִים” is the root for “the eldest,” and it is a plural adjective. This term is modified in the full form of the passage to say “כָל־הָרִאשֹׁנִים” where you will notice the extra characters on the right side, which makes this expression as: “all the eldest.”
We notice that this expression does not seem to explicitly include the word for “sons,” but it is only an adjective. Therefore, it may possibly be interpreted more broadly than only to include sons, but also to other potential successors to the throne. So as another example – perhaps comparable – sometimes you will read in medieval history about how the “elder branch” of a noble or royal family will go extinct, at which point a “younger branch” will claim primacy. This happened in the history of England, for instance, numerous times. For instance when the only son and legitimate heir of Henry I died at sea, the next person to claim the throne after Henry’s death was his nephew, Stephen. However, Stephen was about ten years older than the heir of Henry I (William Adelin) had been. But despite the fact that William Adelin was younger than Stephen, he was the son and original heir-apparent of Henry I, and would have been considered “elder” in the sense of having priority in the succession to the throne. There are many other examples of this happening in history.
This also agrees with the definition of the original Hebrew adjective in the “Tense Voice Mood” database of Larry Pierce. See below:
Consider also this definition of the English word “elder” in Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary:
Notice that “elder” can mean having privileges of primogeniture. If we were to apply this definition to the house of Jehoram collectively, we would see that Jehoram’s own sons would be first in line for succession (and hence, the “eldest”), while Ahaziah, who was a half-brother of the king who did not represent king Jehoram’s line as closely, would be lower in the overall order of succession.
2) Consider further, the possibility that “the eldest” refers not only to the sons of Jehoram, but to everything else that was in Jehoram’s royal “house,” as it says in 2 Chron. 21:17, “carried away all the substance that was found in the king’s house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons.” If we allow “the eldest” to refer not only to the king’s sons, but to all of his potential successors (including say, his brothers, and so on) in his house – except, as we read, the sole remaining man, Ahaziah – then we see why the emphasis might be placed on the fact that Ahaziah was the “youngest.”
The reason for emphasizing this might not be as one might initially think. One might think this is emphasized because Ahaziah was the youngest among all of the subtance of Jehoram’s house, as it existed before the raid. However, this might actually be a statement emphasizing that not a single person younger than the 42-year-old was left: so that the passage actually emphasizes for us that this older half-brother of the king was indeed the youngest person left. Ideally, Jehoram would have someone younger than him to succeed the throne, but this Scripture tells us that there was no one else. The writer of Chronicles could be stressing the fact of this unusual situation, informing us that none of Jehoram’s own sons (even to the very youngest child) had been spared. These might have originally had priority (or “primogeniture”) over Ahaziah, and therefore would have been “elder” in the sense of succession order. So Ahaziah was alone, and there was no “son” younger besides him. This is in the sense of no one physically younger than him remaining, as well as him being the last in the line of succession if we take the “primogeniture” definition of “elder.”
At least, this would be how my explanation would handle this passage. I am not saying this is the only possible way to explain everything. God bless, George!