The last year of Solomon's reign was 3142 A.H. (983 B.C.E.). The following year we shall call year 1 of the disruption. These facts are presented in tabular form on page 272. From this date forward to the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel we shall have two primary columns: the one to the left gives the record and years of the kings of Judah and the second, those of Israel, the northern kingdom. According to I Kings 14:21 Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, reigned in Jerusalem 17 years. Hence in Judah's column we give him 17 years. This date is 3159 A.H. From verse 20 of this chapter we learn that Jeroboam reigned in the northern kingdom 22 years. Hence, since these two kings mounted their thrones in the same year, the year 1 for each is 3143 A.H. Reboboam's 17th year, his last, is year 17 of Jeroboam.

From I Kings 15:1 we learn that Abijah, Rehoboam's son, reigned in Jerusalem. Our English versions render the Hebrew verb מָלַךְ "began to reign." This is a very unfortunate translation, for the same form is rendered "reigned" in verse 2. As we study the books of Kings and Chronicles, we must bear this fact in mind. Abijah's year 1 was Jeroboam's year 18. Since the former reigned 3 years, his last year was the twentieth of Jeroboam. But in the ninth verse we are told that Asa king of Judah reigned in the 20th year of Jeroboam. Since Asa succeeded his father, Abijah, and since the latter's year 3 was year 20 of Jeroboam, we must conclude that Asa ascended the throne that year.

Asa's third year is also attributed to both Nadab as his year 2 and to Baasha as his year 1. Therefore, year 23 of the disruption is divided between Nadab and Baasha. By the locking and the interlocking of Asa's years 2 and 3 with the chronology of Jeroboam, Nadab, and Baasha, we see that Jeroboam's year 20, attributed to Asa, was but the occasion of his accession to the throne and not his year 1.

In Asa's 15th year occurred the mighty revival which had a salutary effect upon the nation and doubtless averted God's judgments upon it at that time.

We are informed in II Chronicles 16:1 that Baasha king of Israel went against Asa king of Judah in the 36th year of the latter's reign. Since Asa's year 3 is Baasha's year 1, Asa's year 26 is Baasha's last year, his 24th (I Kings 15:33). Asa's year 36 then is the year 56 of the disruption, which was 10 years after Baasha was dead. It is utterly unthinkable that a king having been dead this long could have waged war. As the text appears in our English Versions, there is a clear and unmistakable contradiction. Since our assumption is that the Scriptures were inspired infallibly of God without any mistake, and since this error appears in the translation, it is necessary that we examine minutely the original text. The Hebrew idiom rendered in the ordinary English Version "in the 6 and 30th year of the reign of Asa" also may be translated "Asa being a son of 36 years in his kingdom." This rendering is just as grammatical and accurate as our text reading. Whenever a passage of Scripture can be rendered in two different ways and at the same time both translations are correct grammatically, one must select that one which does not contradict any testimony, and which accords with all the known facts. The Hebrew word ben has great latitude and covers many relationships, both that which is its primary meaning and others derived there from. When one remembers that Asa was the grandson of Rehoboam, at whose accession the kingdom was divided, it is natural to think of his dynasty as having begun with that event. Hence, when we look at the 36th year of the disruption, we see that it was the 16th year of Asa and the 14th of Baasha. Baasha was alive, vigorous and active, as seen from the records, and lived 10 years thereafter. Since, therefore, by adopting the translation suggested above, there is no contradiction whatsoever but perfect harmony, we are to accept this rendering as that which was intended by the sacred writer.

As seen above, Baasha's year 24 was Asa's year 26; but according to I Kings 16:8 Elah mounted the throne of Israel and reigned in Asa's 26th year and is accredited with 2 years. Therefore, Asa's year 26 was given as year 24 to Baasha and year 1 to Elah. Hence, Asa's year 27 was Elah's year 2.

But according to I Kings 16:9,10,15 Zimri murdered Elah and reigned 7 days in Asa's year 27. At this time the army of Israel was encamped against the Philistine city, Gibbethon. When the news of the murder reached the camp, the army proclaimed Omri as king, raised the siege, and returned to Tirzah, the capital, and besieged it. Zimri, seeing that there was no escape, went to the king's house and burned it over him. With this turn of affairs the people were divided: Half followed Tibni and the other half, Omri. Hence, there were two rival governments in the northern kingdom. Asa's year 27 was, therefore, year 1 of both Omri and Tibni. But according to I Kings 16:23 Omri reigned over Israel 12 years: 6 years in Tirzah and 6 in Samaria, which he established at that time as his capital. Tibni, therefore, reigned as a rival with Omri for 5 years, and possibly a fraction of another. As to how he met death the Word is silent. Omri from this time on became the sole sovereign. Since Asa's year 27 was his year 1, and since he reigned 12 years, Asa's year 38 was his 12th and last year.

According to I Kings 16:29 Ahab, the son of Omri, mounted the throne in the 38th year of Asa and reigned 22 years in Israel. Therefore, Asa's 38th year is attributed both to Omri as his last and to Ahab as his first. Since Asa reigned 41 years and his 38th was Ahab's year 1, his 41st was Ahab's year 4.

According to I Kings 22:41 Jehoshaphat reigned over Judah in the 4th year of Ahab. Was this his accession or first regnal year? This question can be answered only by marshaling the data and synchronizing certain years of the reigns of these two monarchs. II Kings 1:17 informs us that Jehoram, the son of Ahab and brother of Ahaziah, reigned in Israel in the 2nd year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, but from II Kings 3:1 we learn that Jehoram, Ahab's son, reigned in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat of Judah. Thus the first year of Jehoram king of Israel is said by the first passage to be the 2nd year of Jehoram king of Judah and also the 18th of Jehoshaphat, his father. If year 1 of Jehoram of Israel is the 18th of Jehoshaphat of Judah, then likewise the first year of Jehoram of Judah was the 17th year of Jehoshaphat, his father.

A glance at the chronology thus far worked out, as indicated in the tables, (at the end of the chapter; Ed.), shows that in Israel the year in which the king died was counted to both him and his successor. There have been five instances of a new king's ascending the throne in Israel, and in each of these cases the coronation year was counted to both the deceased monarch and to his successor. This method of reckoning we may call the Israelite mode of computation. In Judah, however, thus far we have discovered an entirely different system of recording the reigns of each sovereign. The year when a new monarch ascended the throne was counted as a full one to the outgoing king and was also reckoned as the year of accession for the new sovereign. His first regnal year began with the first of Nisan after he mounted the throne. This is known as the Judahite system.

According to the Israelite method Jehoshaphat's 18th year was Ahab's 22nd and last and the first of Jehoram, his son. Since this year, 79 of the disruption, was Jehoshaphat's 18th year, his first regnal year was Ahab's 5th. Therefore, the 4th year of Ahab was Asa's 41st and Jehoshaphat's year of accession.

From the Scriptures studied we see that Jehoshaphat's years 17 and 18 were years 1 and 2 of Jehoram, his son. Also we learned that Ahab's years 21 and 22 were years 1 and 2 of Ahaziah, his son. We may conclude, therefore, that Jehoram of Judah reigned with his father as pro-rex during these 2 years, for in II Kings 8:16 it is stated that Jehoram of Israel's 5th was the 1st year of Jehoram of Judah. In view of these facts it is evident that Jehoram reigned with Jehoshaphat simply as pro-rex at that time. We may also conclude that during these 2 years Ahaziah in Israel reigned as co-rex with his father.

This is an unusual case, but an examination of the historic records shows that at that time Ahab made a military alliance with Jehoshaphat against the Syrians, who were holding Ramoth-gilead. (See I Kings 22.) While these two kings were away in battle, it was natural for them to have someone upon the throne. The proper persons, of course, were their sons and successors.

Ahaziah of Israel fell through the lattice in the upper chamber of the royal palace and was sick (II Kings 1). As a result of this accident he died and his brother Jehoram mounted the throne. Ahab was killed in battle; hence Jehoram became the legal successor and reigned 12 years. By taking into consideration all the statements in regard to the political situation which existed during years 78 and 79 of the disruption, we can recast most accurately the political state which existed at that time. We do not have to emend the text, nor assume that there was a copyist's error.

A very interesting and enlightening statement occurs in II Kings 8:16 relative to the reign of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, along with his father in the 5th year of Jehoram king of Israel. Thus Jehoshaphat's year 22 was the 1st year of Jehoram, his son, as co-rex. Since Jehoshaphat reigned only 25 years, the 87th of the disruption was Jehoram's first year as sole-rex. Further, since he reigned 8 years, the year 90 of the disruption was his last. This year also was the 12th of Jehoram king of Israel. We are told in II Kings 9:29 that Ahaziah of Judah reigned in the 11th year of Jehoram of Israel, but in 8:25,26 appears the statement that he reigned in the 12th year of the same king and ruled for 1 year only. Evidently, therefore, Ahaziah reigned as co-rex with his father in the latter's 7th year and became sole-rex in his 8th. This 90th year of the disruption, therefore, is ascribed to both Ahaziah of Judah and his father. Here we have the only instance in Judah of a year's being counted both to the outgoing king and to the new sovereign. This, therefore, is the Israelite method imported from the northern kingdom into Judah. How was this? The answer doubtless is that, since Jehoram, his father, married Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, the Israelite method was adopted in Judah together with many of the foreign customs of the northern kingdom. Being the offspring of such a wicked woman, he was not reckoned as a true Jewish king. (See II Kings 8:25-27.)

In this section we have traced the course of the chronology of the two kingdoms for 90 years. If we add the full number of years that are accredited to the kings of Judah, we have a total of 95. The surplus, 5 years, is to be accounted for by the fact that the first 4 years of Jehoram of Judah's reign were the last 4 of his father, and by the additional fact that, since Ahaziah reigned as co-rex with Jehoram, his father, the year 90 of the disruption is counted as year 1 of Ahaziah and at the same time the 8th of his father. In reality, as we have seen, there were only 90 years. The total number of years accredited to the eight kings of Israel is 98. This excess of 8 years is due to the fact that by the Israelite method the last year of an outgoing king was counted twice. This phenomenon accounts for 6 of the excess years. Ahaziah's 2 years are the same as the last 2 of Ahab, his father. This fact accounts for the remaining 2. Hence, when all the facts are recognized, we see clearly that this period was only 90 years long, and we understand the principle by which the excess years entered into the count.

Jehu, one of the captains of the Israelite army fighting against Ramoth-gilead, was anointed by one of the sons of the prophets to be king of Israel. Read the full account in II Kings 9 and 10. Having been inducted officially into office by this ceremony, Jehu immediately proceeded to blot out the house of Ahab. Leaving the battle front he found Jehoram king of Israel in Jezreel for treatment of the wounds received in battle. Upon meeting the king, Jehu slew him and later killed Ahaziah of Judah, having overtaken him near Ibleam. From here he fled to Megiddo and died of his wounds. Hence, with one stroke both thrones were made vacant. Jehu became king in Israel and Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, slew all the sons royal save Joash and usurped the throne in Judah. Thus in the year 91 of the disruption the reigns in both kingdoms started evenly.

Athaliah reigned 6 years in Jerusalem and was slain during the 7th according to II Kings 11:4-21 and 12:1. A conspiracy led by Jehoiada resulted in Athaliah's death and the coronation of Joash (Jehoash), who had been secretly protected in the temple during Athaliah's reign. His administration lasted, according to II Kings 12:1, 40 years. The 7th year of Jehu of Israel is accredited to Joash as his first year, although Athaliah is said to have reigned 6 years and was slain in her 7th.

From II Kings 10:36 we learn that Jehu reigned 28 years. His year 1 was the first of Athaliah's which, in turn, was the 91st of the disruption. Since his year 7 was year 1 of Joash of Judah, his 28th year, the last, was the 22nd year of Joash.

Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu, became king in Israel in the 23rd year of Joash of Judah according to II Kings 13:1 and reigned 17 years. This was the year 119 of the disruption. Hence, it was Jehoahaz's year 1. His 17th and last year equals the 39th year of Joash king of Judah. But we are told in II Kings 13:10 that Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz of Israel, reigned in Samaria in the 37th year of Joash of Judah. Evidently, therefore, Jehoash was co-rex with his father Jehoahaz. The period during which he was associated with his father in the government was 3 years, which are the 15th, 16th, and 17th of Jehoahaz and the 37th, 38th, and 39th of Joash of Judah.

Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz is called Joash the son of Joahaz king of Israel in II Kings 14:1. These are just the shortened forms of their names. Here we are told that Amaziah, the son of Joash king of Judah, reigned in the 2nd year of Jehoash king of Israel and continued his administration for 29 years. The 17th year of Jehoahaz of Israel was the 39th year of Joash of Judah. The latter's 40th year would, therefore, be the 1st year of Jehoash of Israel as sole king. The following year was Jehoash's 2nd year and the first of Amaziah king of Judah. This is the year 137 of the disruption. Some chronologers, however, have understood the 2nd year of Jehoash of Israel, mentioned in 14:1, to refer to his 2nd year as co-rex. Upon this hypothesis, Amaziah's year 1 would be the 38th year of Joash king of Judah. Therefore, according to this opinion, Amaziah reigned as co-rex with his father Joash. This interpretation shortens the chronology by 3 years. Such an abridgement cannot be correct because it is checked, as we shall see later by the sabbatic periods. Therefore, since there is no indication in the text that Amaziah reigned as co-rex with his father, and since such a theory clashes with the sabbatic year reckoning we shall accept the statement of II Kings 14:1 that Jehoash's year 2, which equals Amaziah's year 1, was the 2nd year of his reign as sole-rex. Hence, Joash of Judah's year 40 was year 1 of Jehoash of Israel.

Jeroboam, the son of Jehoash king of Israel, began his reign in the 15th year of Amaziah king of Judah according to II Kings 14:17,23. This date, however, was the 16th year of Jehoash of Israel. Therefore, in this instance, we find the Israelite method of reckoning occurring for the only time in this period which we are now discussing. Evidently the reforms of Jehu were so very drastic and thoroughgoing that times and seasons changed in the northern kingdom and the former peculiar Israelite method of reckoning the regnal years was lost sight of except in this one instance. Since Amaziah's 15th year was year 1 of Jeroboam of Israel, Amaziah's last and 29th year was Jeroboam's 15th.

But the next step in the unfolding of the chronological problem is found in II Kings 15:1,2, which states that Uzziah (Azariah) king of Judah reigned in the 27th year of Jeroboam of Israel and continued for 52 years. Since Amaziah's last year was 165 of the disruption and since Uzziah's year 1 was 177 of this era, there was a gap of 11 years between Amaziah and Uzziah. Chronologers have wrestled with this problem and have resorted to many different devices to explain it, all of which do violence to the text and dislocate the subsequent chronology. Since Amaziah's 29th year was the 15th of Jeroboam, and since Uzziah's year 1 was the 27th of Jeroboam, plainly there were 11 years during which no one sat upon the throne of Judah. We are justified, therefore, in designating this period as an interregnum. This explanation accepts the facts as they are stated in the text without distorting any statement and makes, as we shall see, the chronology consistent with our sabbatic periods.

Since Jeroboam II reigned in Israel 41 years (II Kings 14:23), his last year was the 15th of Uzziah king of Judah. The next chronological fact stated is that in the 38th year of Uzziah Zechariah, son of Jeroboam, reigned over Israel 6 months (II Kings 15:8). Between the 15th and 38th years of Uzziah the throne of Israel was vacant so far as the Biblical record is concerned. Therefore in the northern kingdom there was an interregnum of 22 years.

In the 39th year of Uzziah of Judah Shallum reigned 1 month in Israel (II Kings 15:13). Also according to verse 17 of this chapter Menahem reigned in this 39th year and continued for 10 years. Was this date his accession or his first regnal year? This question can be answered by noting the fact, stated in verse 23, that Menahem's successor, Pekahiah, reigned in the 50th year of Uzziah. Therefore Menahem's year 1 was the 40th year of Uzziah. Since Uzziah's 50th year was Pekahiah's year 1, and since he reigned 2 years, his 2nd year was Uzziah's 51st. Pekah, the successor of Pekahiah of Israel, reigned in the 52nd year of Uzziah (II Kings 15:27) and continued for 20 years.

Jotham, Uzziah's son and successor in Judah, reigned in the 2nd year of Pekah king of Israel (II Kings 15:32,33) and continued for 16 years.

But in II Kings 15:30 we are told that Hoshea, the son of Elah, made a conspiracy against Pekah of Israel, slaying him, and reigned in his stead in the 20th year of Jotham of Judah. According to this verse Jotham reigned 20 years, but in verse 33 below only 16 years are accredited to him. There is, therefore, a plain contradiction between the two statements or there must be an explanation for speaking of his 20th year, whereas in reality he reigned only 16. Since in verses 32, 33 we have the regular formula for stating the beginning and the extent of a king's reign, and since here we learn that he ruled 16 years, we must conclude that this statement is to be taken at its literal, face value. With this understanding of the matter we must seek some reason for the unusual statement that Hoshea slew Pekah in the 20th year of Jotham, son of Uzziah.

This verse does not say that Jotham reigned 20 years, but simply that the murder of Pekah occurred in the 20th year of Jotham. There is a vast difference between the assumption which is read into this verse, and which contradicts the plain statement of verse 33, on the one hand and the Scriptural declaration that Jotham reigned only 16 years (II Kings 15:33, II Chron. 27:8). Since the Scriptures are accurate in their minutest details as has been demonstrated by recent archaeological discoveries, we must conclude that there was some special reason for the Holy Spirit's speaking of the 20th year of Jotham. An examination of the characters of both Jotham and Ahaz, his son and successor, in the 4th year of whose reign the murder was committed, will possibly give us a clue to the unusual expression. Jotham was a godly, pious, good man; Ahaz, on the other hand, was an impious, carnal, and wicked person. One commentator spoke of him as an impious upstart and hypocrite, which judgment is an accurate characterization of the man. Dr. Lightfoot has said that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to speak in terms of the reign of pious Jotham in his grave rather than of impious Ahaz on the throne. This explanation is a possible one. Therefore we must conclude that there is no necessary contradiction in the two statements under consideration.

According to II Kings 16:1,2, Ahaz of Judah reigned in the 17th year of Pekah king of Israel. Was this date, which is the year 244 of the disruption, Ahaz's accession or first regnal year? According to the Judahite method of reckoning, which we have seen obtained in the tabulation of the reigns of the Davidic kings, the entire year during which the sovereign died was accounted to the deceased king as his last year and was reckoned simply as the accession year of the incoming ruler. Since this 17th year of Pekah of Israel was the 16th and last year of Jotham of Judah, we must conclude that the statement of II Kings 16:1 refers to Ahaz's accession and not to his first regnal year. Therefore year 18 of Pekah was year 1 of Ahaz, and Pekah's 20th and last year was Ahaz's 3rd.

From II Kings 17:1 we learn that Hoshea, son of Elah, who, as we have seen above, murdered Pekah in Jotham's 20th year (in reality Ahaz's 4th), reigned in the 12th year of Ahaz. Who was on the throne of Israel during the period of 8 years from the murder of Pekah until Hoshea mounted it in the 12th year of Ahaz? On this point the Scriptures are silent. If anyone occupied it, we have no way of knowing. Hence the years 248 to 255 of the disruption may properly be designated as an interregnum in the northern kingdom. The real explanation of this state of affairs may be seen in the turbulent, revolutionary character of the times.

Since year 1 of Hoshea of Israel was year 12 of Ahaz of Judah, Hoshea's year 5 was Ahaz's 16th and last year; but we are told in II Kings 18:1 that Hezekiah, Ahaz's son, reigned in Judah in the 3rd year of Hoshea of Israel. But from our tabulated forms we see that this year was the 14th of Ahaz, year 258 of the disruption. Nevertheless it is attributed to Hezekiah. Evidently, therefore, Hezekiah must have reigned as co-rex with his father. Again the question must be answered as to whether or not this year was Hezekiah's accession or his first regnal year. The answer to this question is found in II Kings 18:9, where we are informed that Hoshea's year 7 was Hezekiah's year 4. Therefore Hoshea's year 6 was Hezekiah's year 3; and his year 4 was Hezekiah's year 1. Therefore Hezekiah's years 1 and 2 as co-rex were years 15 and 16 of Ahaz. Hezekiah's year 3 was his first year as sole-rex. From verse 10 of this chapter we see that Hezekiah's 6th year was Hoshea's 9th and last, which was the year 264 of the disruption.

The downfall of Israel was foretold at least 50 years before it occurred. Hosea announced this coming catastrophe: "And Jehovah said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to cease. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel" (Hos. 1:4,5). Amos, a contemporary of Hosea, likewise foretold the passing of the kingdom of Israel: "Behold, the eyes of the Lord Jehovah are upon the sinful kingdom and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; save that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith Jehovah" (Amos 9:8). These predictions were fulfilled in the overthrow of the northern kingdom. It, as a political entity, was to pass away and it did so.

Now let us resume the investigation of the events in the northern kingdom which culminated in the overthrow of the government. From the monuments we note that Hoshea was an appointee of the Assyrian king who engineered the revolt which resulted in the overthrow of Pekah's government. Owing his authority to Shalmaneser king of Assyria, Hoshea swore fealty to him and paid tribute.

Finally he conspired with So king of Egypt and refused to send the annual levy to Assyria thereafter. At last, Shalmaneser went up against the land of Israel and besieged Samaria, its capital, 3 years. In the 9th year of Hoshea, which was year 264 of the disruption, Samaria was taken. According to the Assyrian monuments, 27,290 captives were deported to certain provinces of the Empire beyond the Tigris. Then the Assyrians placed a governor in charge of the land.

In order to understand the historical situation attending the fall of Samaria, one must note carefully II Kings 18:9,10. In verse 9 we are told that Shalmaneser besieged Samaria; but in the next statement we read, "and at the end of 3 years they took it," etc. Shalmaneser began the siege, but, according to the Assyrian inscriptions, Sargon captured the city and at that time deported 27,290 of the flower of the population to Assyria. Evidently then Shalmaneser died or his government was overthrown by Sargon, who, according to certain intimations of the historian, instituted the revolt and mounted the throne. This change of government at Nineveh seems to be echoed in the Scriptural language that Shalmaneser besieged Samaria, but that "they took it." In view of the intimations of the Assyrian records and the Biblical account, it is a gratuitous assumption to suppose that Samaria was first captured by Shalmaneser, who deported certain ones from the country, and then later, a second siege was conducted by Sargon and others, who removed the entire population from the land. This mythical reconstruction of the historical facts relative to the fall of the northern kingdom has been invented to bolster up a non-Scriptural hypothesis.

Continued on next page