The chronology of the later kings of Israel is confusing. Hoshea, the last king of Israel, seized power from Pekah, who had reigned fro 20 years (2 Kings 15:17). That was in the third (perhaps fourth) year of Ahaz of Judah, since Ahaz began to reign in Pekah’s seventeenth year (16:1). Yet, Hoshea is said to have seized power in the twelfth year of Ahaz (17:1). Add to that the discrepancy between 15:30 and 15:33: The first claims that Hoshea seized power in the “twentieth” year of Jotham, but a few verses later we learn that Jotham reigned for only sixteen years.

To make it clear: Hoshea’s seizure took place in the third/fourth year of Ahaz, which was also the twelfth year of Ahaz, which was also the twentieth year of Jotham, who reigned for sixteen years. Clear now?

There is perhaps a thematic point here: The times are out of joint, Israel’s clocks are stopping, and as they wind down they go haywire. It wouldn’t be the only place in Scripture where chronology was used to make a thematic point. But that still leaves us with harmonization issues: What actually happened? Even on critical grounds, it hardly does to attribute these discrepancies to redactional problems. It would take a redactor of colossal inattention not to notice that he gave two lengths for Jotham’s reign within the space of three verses. So, what did happen?

The problem can be resolved by inferring that the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz overlapped. One verse gives us Jotham’s reign as a whole, the other his reign as sole ruler; one verse tells us the years of Ahaz’s independent reign, while another is working on the assumption that Ahaz reigned for a time while Jotham was still alive and in some sense considered king.

James Jordan resolves the problems by suggesting that Jotham elevated Ahaz to ensure smooth continuity, a wise move given the rising Assyrian threat and the incursions of Aram and Israel (2 Kings 15:37; Isaiah 7:1). Jordan writes, “We can imagine why Jotham would put Ahaz on the throne next to him before his death. Pekah and Rezin were troubling the nation, and perhaps for stability Jotham wanted to ensure who the next monarch would be. Also, Jotham may have seen Ahaz’s waywardness, and may have wanted to coach him in statecraft before his death. At any rate, we don’t know when Jotham actually died. We only know that the chronology says that Ahaz succeeded him, officially for the purposes of the chronology, after Jotham’s 16th year.”

It is also possible, however, that Ahaz seized power, while leaving his father alive and perhaps even in nominal control. In a 1966 article in the Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society , Harold Stigers suggests this scenario: “In 2 Ki. 16:1 Ahaz’s first year is stated to have begun in the seventeenth year of Pekah, 736/35 B.C. Then follows a resume of his reign, indicating that here (2 Ki. 16:1) his sole reign is under consideration, lasting till 720/19 B.C. What could have caused Ahaz to seize power in 736/35 B.C. rather than to wait till Jotham his father died in 733 or 732 B.C.? In 736/35 B.C. his father’s policy of opposition to Assyria filled Ahaz with fright. No doubt he was supported by the nobles in Jerusalem in his seizure of power, for they would suffer more if Tiglath-Pileser destroyed the city than if they paid tribute. The appeasers won the day, and Ahaz removed his father from the throne and took over in 736/35 B.C. according to the synchronization of 2 Ki. 16:1. Ahaz did not, however, put away Jotham by violent means, for Jotham continued to his twentieth year according to 2 Ki. 15:30. In addition the current alliance of Pekah and Rezin of Damascus added fuel to his fears. Thus the motive is supplied for the shift in rulers. The sixteen-year reign of Ahaz (2 Ki. 16:1) begins at this time, 736/35 B.C.”

If Stigers is right, Ahaz’s unfaithful foreign policy began early, and was well-set before Isaiah confronted him at the conduit of the upper pool.