Why Jesus Apologetics

16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  17 Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth.

John 17:16-17 (BSB)

At Why Jesus Apologetics, we’re tackling alleged Bible contradictions to strengthen believers’ confidence and address skeptics’ challenges. A frequently cited issue is the differing age of Ahaziah at his ascension to the throne of Judah, as reported in 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2. Critics claim these discrepancies undermine Scripture’s reliability.

In our previous post, we set the historical background toward understanding this resolution, exploring the divided monarchy, Ahaziah’s family ties, and the socio-political tensions of 9th-century BCE Judah. As we noted, this apparent numerical discrepancy has puzzled readers for centuries, but it fits into patterns of ancient historiography rather than outright error. This blog post now focuses on the resolution itself. Although it may appear simple at first glance—a mere number swap—it is actually more technical than many, blending historical practices with theological intent. Sit back, read carefully, and enjoy the solution.

The Passages in Question

The texts at the heart of this alleged contradiction are:

“And Ahaziah was twenty and two years old 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.”

2 Kings 8:26 (KJV)

Versus

“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.”

2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV)

The Problem

1. The age of Ahaziah according to 2 Kings (2 Kings 8:26) is 22 years old.
2. But according to 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 22:2), it is 42 years old.
3. The difference between the two numbers is:

22 vs. 42 = a 20-year gap.

The question posed by critics is, how old was Ahaziah when he became king? They say, we must account for the 20-year difference in Ahaziah’s age (22 vs. 42), or else the seemingly contradictory allegation stands—especially since a 42-year-old Ahaziah would be older than his father Jehoram, who ascended at 32 and reigned only 8 years, dying around age 40.

In this post, we will directly address the critics’ claim. By examining the historical context, biblical chronologies, and hermeneutical principles, we will demonstrate how these figures can be harmonized, revealing not a flaw, but a window into ancient royal succession.

The Historical Context

To resolve this, we must ground ourselves in the realities of ancient Near Eastern monarchies, particularly Judah’s Davidic line during the divided kingdom era (c. 931–722 BCE for Israel, longer for Judah). As outlined in our background post, Ahaziah (r. c. 842 BCE) was the son of Jehoram (r. c. 849–842 BCE) and Athaliah, granddaughter of Omri (founder of Israel’s Omride dynasty, r. c. 884–873 BCE). This period was marked by instability: Jehoram’s reign involved revolts (Edom, Libnah), illness, and northern influences via Athaliah’s marriage alliance.

The historical facts:

a. Coregency and Regency Practices

Common in Judah and neighboring kingdoms (e.g., Egypt, Assyria), coregencies allowed a senior king to share power with a successor due to age, illness, or war. Examples include Jehoshaphat with Jehoram (2 Kings 8:16) and Uzziah with Jotham (2 Kings 15:7). Regency, where a queen mother like Athaliah wielded influence, blurred lines of “ascension.”

b. Dynastic Chronologies

Biblical writers, especially in Chronicles (post-exilic, emphasizing temple and purity), often used numbers symbolically or dynastically. Ages could mark generational spans or ties to foreign lines, like the Omrides (approximately 42–44 years from Omri’s rise to Ahaziah’s fall).

c. Chronological Framework

Jehoram co-reigned with Jehoshaphat from c. 853 BCE, ascended solely c. 849 BCE at age 32 (2 Kings 8:16), and died after 8 years. Ahaziah’s 1-year reign ended with Jehu’s purge (2 Kings 9). A literal 42 would invert father-son ages, impossible without nuance.

This context shows the texts as complementary records: Kings (earlier, Deuteronomistic history) focuses on linear events; Chronicles (priestly) on theological lessons. No modern precision, but intentional historiography.

The Solution

Let’s read:

“…Ahaziah was twenty and two years old when he began to reign…”

– 2 Kings 8:26 (KJV)

Versus

“…Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”

– 2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV)

Now, let’s examine this more closely.

a. Applying the Law of Non-Contradiction

To determine whether these two passages are truly contradictory, we must apply the Law of Non-Contradiction, a fundamental principle of logic. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction states:

“A thing cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect.”

This is a foundational law of rationality and logic. If something violates this principle, it is logically incoherent or self-refuting. Geisler states:

“A contradiction occurs only when two statements assert opposing claims about the same subject, in the same sense, at the same time.”
(Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, Bethany House, 2002, p. 118).

For a real contradiction to exist, three conditions must be met:

1. The statements must refer to the same thing,
2. They must speak of it at the same time, and
3. They must speak of it in the same sense.

A closer look shows that these passages fail to meet the criteria for a true contradiction.

First, the two accounts are not referring to the exact same thing. 2 Kings gives Ahaziah’s literal personal age when he began to exercise royal power (likely as regent or co-regent during Jehoram’s final illness, 2 Chron 21:18-19). 2 Chronicles uses “42” as a dynastic marker—counting from Omri’s founding of the Omride dynasty (c. 884 BCE) to Ahaziah’s death (c. 842 BCE), emphasizing his tainted northern heritage via Athaliah. Thus, they refer to different reckonings: personal vs. generational/dynastic.

Second, while both texts refer to the same historical event—Ahaziah’s ascension amid Jehoram’s death and Athaliah’s influence—they do not describe it in the same sense. One gives a personal, chronological age; the other a theological-dynastic tally.

This difference in sense means the third condition of the Law of Non-Contradiction is not fulfilled.

In conclusion, because the ages in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles are not referring to the same metric in the same sense, these verses do not contradict each other. Instead, they reflect different emphases and legitimate variation in reporting, just as we often see in ancient royal annals blending biography with dynasty-spanning commentary.

Therefore, when judged by the standard of logical consistency, the Bible stands firm.

N-O – B-I-B-L-E – C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-O-N

b. A Logical Harmony from the Internal Texts

Let’s carefully compare the internal chronologies, narrative details, and Hebrew phrasing of 2 Kings 8–9 and 2 Chronicles 21–22.

This resolution draws from the texts’ shared framework of royal succession, enriched by linguistic clues and broader biblical usage that reveal layered meaning in the numbers.

2 Kings 8:26 – Literal Personal Age at Effective Start of Rule

Hebrew (word-for-word):

בֶּן־עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה אֲחַזְיָהוּ בְּמָלְכוֹ

(“Son of twenty and two years Ahaziah in-his-becoming-king”).

Observations

1. This follows the standard biblical formula for a king’s personal age at accession (used consistently throughout Kings, e.g., Jehoram in 8:17, Jehoiachin in 24:8).
2. The structure tightly links “son of X years” directly to the moment he “became king” (בְּמָלְכוֹ), signaling a straightforward biographical detail.
3. This reports Ahaziah’s literal biological age (22) when he began to exercise royal power—most likely during a short regency or co-regency amid Jehoram’s debilitating bowel disease (2 Chron 21:18–19). Kings prioritizes linear historical sequence and political events.

2 Chronicles 22:2 – Dynastic/Theological Marker with Distinct Linguistic and Contextual Signals

Hebrew (word-for-word):

בֶּן־אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה אֲחַזְיָהוּ וּבְמָלְכוֹ

(“Son of forty and two years Ahaziah and in-his-reigning”).

Linguistic and Contextual Observations

The Conjunction וְ (“and”)

The added conjunction וְ (“and”) before “in his reigning” is unusual in standard royal age formulas. In most parallel introductions (e.g., 2 Kings 8:17 for Jehoram: בֶּן־שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה בְּמָלְכוֹ — no וְ; or 2 Kings 15:2 for Azariah: בֶּן־שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בְּמָלְכוֹ — again no וְ), the age clause flows directly into the reigning phrase without separation. This extra וְ creates deliberate syntactic separation, allowing “son of forty-two years” to stand somewhat independently—as an additional qualifier or idiomatic aside—before connecting to “and he reigned.” Biblical Hebrew often uses וְ this way to add explanatory or emphatic information (e.g., Genesis 4:4: וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם־הוּא — “And Abel also brought…”; or Exodus 1:11: וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים… וַיִּבֶן עָרֵי מִסְכְּנוֹת — adding details with וְ).

Biblical Hebrew “Ben-” (בֶּן־ / בְּנֵי־) Idiomatic Expressions

The Hebrew construction בֶּן־ (“son of”) or its plural בְּנֵי־ (“sons of”) is one of the most productive idiomatic patterns in the Bible. Far from always meaning literal biological sonship, when the construction בֶּן־ (“son of”) followed by a number, quality, or period is frequently non-literal, it denotes membership in a group, characteristic quality, fate, or belonging to a time/condition. This semitic idiom (common also in Aramaic and Ugaritic) makes “ben” a classifier rather than a strict genealogical term. Examples below:

• בְּנֵי הַנְּבִיאִים (“sons of the prophets”) = members of the prophetic guild (2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7; 4:1, 38).
• בֶּן־בְּלִיַּעַל (“son of Belial/worthlessness”) = a worthless person (1 Sam 2:12; Deut 13:13).
• בְּנֵי גָלוּת (“sons of the exile”) = those belonging to the exilic generation (Ezra 4:1; 8:35).
• בְּנֵי עַוְלָה (“sons of iniquity”) = guilty people (Ps 89:23).
• and many more

“Son of X years” in royal formulas is normally literal (as in 2 Kings). But when the syntax is altered (extra וְ), the immediate context makes literal sense impossible (“youngest son” yet older than father), and the broader theological agenda highlights dynastic corruption, the door is wide open for the same idiomatic usage: בֶּן־אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה = “a son/representative of the forty-two-year (Omride) era.”

This is not stretching the text—it’s how Hebrew idiom works throughout Scripture. Chronicles’ subtle linguistic signals (the וְ, the “youngest son” note, the heavy Omride emphasis) invite exactly this reading, turning an apparent discrepancy into a profound theological statement: Ahaziah was the final, doomed “offspring” of a corrupt dynastic period.

These parallels show “ben” + abstract/time/quality often means “one characterized by” or “belonging to the era of.” Here, bolstered by the separating וְ, “son of forty-two years” idiomatically marks Ahaziah as the representative of the 42-year Omride dynastic period.

Immediate context (22:1)

Ahaziah is called “his youngest son” (בְּנוֹ הַקָּטֹן) which is biologically impossible if literally 42 when his father died at 40, but perfectly coherent if “42” refers to the dynastic era he embodied.

Broader context (22:3–4)

Chronicles heavily stresses Athaliah’s Omride roots (“daughter of Omri”) and Ahaziah’s wicked ways “like the house of Ahab,” with his mother as counselor. The author theologically frames Ahaziah as the final “son” of the corrupt Omride line that had influenced Judah for approximately 42–44 years (from Omri’s accession c. 884 BCE to Jehu’s purge c. 842 BCE).

Here is why this is very important to this resolution:

In 2 Kings, 22 is Ahaziah’s personal age at the effective onset of rule (including short regency under Athaliah’s strong influence).

In 2 Chronicles, the altered phrasing (extra וְ for separation), idiomatic “ben” parallels, “youngest son” reference, and theological emphasis on Omride corruption signal that 42 is a dynastic/theological marker—highlighting the end of that idolatrous era’s grip on Judah.

Just like other symbolic biblical numbers (e.g., “40” for a full generation or trial period), this interpretive lens (short coregency + dynastic reckoning) harmonizes the texts. It shows the difference is not a contradiction but intentional variation in scope: Kings offers biographical sequence; Chronicles delivers priestly theological warning.

When read with these internal linguistic and contextual clues, the accounts are logically consistent, historically credible, and theologically profound

Still – N-O – B-I-B-L-E – C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-O-N

c. Do We Need to Account for the Difference of 20 Years?

We don’t think so in a literal personal sense, and here is why:

Internal clues in 2 Chronicles 21:18–20 and 22:1–4 show Jehoram’s illness and Athaliah’s dominance created a phased power transfer: Ahaziah as “youngest son” reigned in his place amid disruption.

The “reign” began variably: effective power during illness/regency, then sole rule. The Omride tie affected Chronicles’ framing, using dynastic years.

2 Kings simply gives 22 as the personal start point.

A consistent explanation:

• 2 Kings (22): Literal age at effective power onset (short regency/co-regency).
• 2 Chronicles (42): Dynastic marker for the Omride era’s culmination.

This distinction explains the difference without contradiction, stemming from each book’s purpose—Chronicles’ theological judgment vs. Kings’ political sequence.

d. What About the Scribal Error Theory?

Some have attempted to explain the discrepancy by claiming a copyist mistake (e.g., Hebrew words for “twenty-two” and “forty-two” confused in transmission). The theory is that ancient scribes swapped similar terms.

However, this explanation is weak for several reasons:

1. It presents a chronological dismissal, ignoring historical practices like coregency seen elsewhere (e.g., 2 Kings 8:16).

2. There is no manuscript evidence of consistent “42” variants; Septuagint often aligns with 22, but doesn’t prove error over intent.

3. The Bible distinguishes ages contextually (e.g., Jehoiachin’s in 2 Kings 24:8 vs. 2 Chron 36:9), showing pattern, not accident.

Such a theory reads too much into transmission and invents unnecessary simplicity. These variations do not represent contradictions. The Masoretic “42” fits Chronicles’ deliberate dynastic emphasis perfectly.

Thus, there is no need to force an error.

e. Analogy to Help Understand

The Family Business Succession – Explaining the 20-Year Difference

Imagine a family-owned company founded by Grandpa Omri in 1984. His descendants expand it corruptly. By 2024 (the company’s 40th year), grandson Joram is CEO amid health issues. His son Ahaziah (personal age 22) steps in as acting CEO during Joram’s illness, with Grandma Athaliah advising.

First Report: Company Newsletter (Like 2 Kings) “Ahaziah, 22, takes acting leadership to support his father.”

Second Report: Historical Review (Like 2 Chronicles) “Ahaziah assumed control in the company’s 42nd year, carrying the founding line’s legacy—leading to its downfall.”

The 20-year “gap”? One measures personal age; the other the dynastic era.

Thus Scripture reports different reckonings: biographical (Kings) vs. dynastic/cautionary (Chronicles)—complementary, not contradictory.

Conclusion

There is no contradiction, just contextual clarity. The Bible is consistent when historical, linguistic, and theological factors are considered—revealing short coregency and dynastic markers as faithful reflections of ancient reality.

So N-O – B-I-B-L-E – C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-O-N —Just Contextual Clarity.

*Note: “Some respected older commentators (Geneva Bible, Radak, Malbim) rightly sensed that the Omride connection and the possibility of an earlier regency during Jehoram’s final illness were key to the puzzle. While the chronological data do not allow a full 20-year co-regency, their ideas underscore the texts’ complementary nature, our resolution: 2 Kings gives Ahaziah’s personal age at the effective beginning of his rule (22), while 2 Chronicles marks the end of the Omride dynasty’s 42-year influence over Judah through Athaliah’s line — a deliberate theological-dynastic note rather than a second personal age.”

If you found this post helpful, please consider sharing it on your social media platforms and in your church groups because you never know who might be encouraged or helped by the message!

We also encourage you to subscribe to our blog so you never miss an update. Here’s how:

1. As you scroll through our page or this post, a subscription prompt may pop up — simply enter your email address.

2. Then, check your inbox and confirm your subscription to complete the process.

3. You can also find a subscription box at the bottom of every page on our site.

It’s quick, easy, and ensures you’ll receive all our upcoming posts — filled with thoughtful insights, answers to important questions, and content designed to equip and inspire both Christians and non-Christians.

Don’t miss out on what’s coming — stay connected, stay informed, and grow with us!