Matthew Poole Commentary - 2 King 1:17 - 1:17

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Matthew Poole Commentary - 2 King 1:17 - 1:17


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:





Jehoram; Ahaziah’s brother, 2Ki_3:1, for he had no son to succeed him, as it here follows.



In the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat: other passages of Scripture seem to clash with this, as that Ahaziah, who reigned but two years, begun his reign in Jehoshaphat’s seventeenth year, 1Ki_22:51; and therefore this Jehoram must begin his reign in Jehoshaphat’s nineteenth year; and therefore before the reign of Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s son; and that Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat began to reign in the fifth year of Joram, Ahab’s son, 2Ki_8:16.



Answ. These difficulties are easily resolved by this consideration, that it was a usual practice among kings in former ages, to make their sons sometimes their viceroys and deputies in the administration of the kingdom; and sometimes formally kings in conjunction with themselves, and whilst they lived; whereof there are instances, both in profane history, among the Persians, Greeks, and Romans, and in the sacred Scripture, as in David, 1Ch_23:1 29:22, in Uzziah, 2Ch_26:21, and (to come close to the point) in Jehoshaphat, 2Ki_8:16; who in his seventeenth year, when he went to Ahab, and with him to Ramoth-gilead, appointed his son Jehoram his viceroy, and (in case of his death) his successor. In the second year from that time, when Jehoram was thus made vice-king in his father’s stead and absence, this Jehoram, Ahab’s son, began to reign; and in the fifth year of the reign of this Joram, son of Ahab, which was about the twenty-fourth year of Jehoshaphat’s reign,



Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat was formally made king of Judah, together with his father; or whilst Jehoshaphat lived, and was king of Judah also. And so all the places agree. To which some add, that this verse, or this part of it, wherein the difficulty consists, is wanting in some ancient copies, and is omitted by the LXX. interpreters; which is far more prudent and pious to grant, than upon such chronological difficulties to question the truth and divinity of the Holy Scriptures.