Hello LukeCage151. Thanks for your enquiry. I'm sorry that I cannot link my source, as my information was gleaned primarily from my Bible. I can say this though, that it is one of the old versions of the KJV Ryrie Study Bible (bought in 1982), but even a newer edition that I have (since the old one is falling apart) also has this information, but presented differently.
A little about Charles Caldwell Ryrie: (March 2, 1925 - February 16, 2016). He was an American Bible scholar and Christian theologian. He served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and as president and professor at what is now Cairn University. After his retirement from Dallas Theological Seminary he also taught courses for Tyndale Theological Seminary. He is considered one of the most influential American theologians of the 20th century. He was the editor of The Ryrie Study Bible by Moody Publishers, containing more than 10,000 of his explanatory notes. First published in 1978, it has sold more than 2 million copies. He was a notable proponent of classic premillennial dispensationalism (this info taken from the Web).
So, coupled with his detailed charts attached at the end of the Bible, his explanatory notes within the Bible itself & my own double-checking between the Scriptures on specific kings, I have shared that information to this thread's enquirer. I realize that any non-biblical information given can be disputed, since it may not be clearly revealed within the Word, but as mentioned, I've found this man Ryrie, to be very knowledgeable & fundamental in his treatment of the Scriptures & in his presentation of any helps like the one I've shared.
Hi Catherine. I'm unsure where you got that detail from, as my study of the chronology of events during this period show differently. If I might share my gleanings.
In the Kingdom of Judah: King Jehoshapat reigned from 873-848 ( 1 Kings 22:41) and then his son Jehoram was co-regent with him from 853 ( 2 Kings 8:16). After his father died, he continued in his reign (i.e. from 853 & then continued on from 848-841).
In the Kingdom of Israel: King Ahab reigned from 874-853 ( 1 Kings 16:29) & the Prophet Elijah was alive at that time ( 1 Kings 17:1). Elijah also lived & ministered under the next king, King Ahaziah's reign (853-852; 1 Kings 22:51) and then into the reign of King Jehoram (852-841; 2 Kings 1:17). This king was also known as Joram. By the way, it is a coincidence that we see the two Jehorams reigning side-by-side in the two kingdoms; unfortunately, both were bad kings.
When that "writing" (mentioned in 2 Chronicles 21:12) came to Jehoram, the King of JUDAH, (NOT Israel); though Elijah was actually a prophet to the Kingdom of Israel), Elijah would still have been alive. We're not told which year the 'letter' was sent, or received by Jehoram. The 'letter' might even have been delivered to Jehoram some time after Elijah's translation into Heaven, if Elijah wrote it just prior to his departure. So the way I understand it, is that Elijah was well & truly on Earth at this time, though possibly his age & distance may have prevented him from actually making that journey to Jerusalem in the southern kingdom.
As a footnote, I should say that the reigning years of the various kings are taken from reliable sources that have done the calculations going back into biblical history & from other historical documents; i.e. I've not guesstimated those dates.
Hello Ronald. If I might add my understanding to some of the Scriptural references you gave.
Revelation 3:14: "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." The Greek for 'beginning' is 'arche', as we add that prefix to the words such as 'arch-enemy, arch-bishop, arch-rival. It certainly has the primary meaning of a 'beginning or first in line', but it clearly denotes 'one who holds the primary highest position/control over others'. That being the case, if Jesus first appeared as the creation by God in the womb of Mary, it could never be said that He was the beginning/first in line to all of God's Creation, which happened several millennia prior. But Jesus was there because He was involved in the creative Work ( John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2).
Colossians 1:15: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." I understand that 'firstborn' indicated here, refers to the 'rights & privileges' of the firstborn child (e.g. 2 Chronicles 21:3). All God's creation have received His Love & Care, but at the birth of His Son into humanity, Jesus, as the Son, was the first(born) to gain/inherit His Father's full estate, as well as enjoying "the fullness of God in Himself" ( Colossians 1:19). But the full riches of God to humanity could only be realized by those placing their trust in the Forerunner & Shepherd of their faith, Jesus Christ.
John 17:5: "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." What was His Glory? We can assume all of God's Glory, for He is the Word of/from God, but even if that wasn't the case, Jesus, as the Word of God, had that Glory even before creation of the worlds.
You stated, "I honor the Son for what He gave up." If Jesus (the Word) didn't exist from eternity within the Person of God, & was only created from the womb of Mary, I wonder what He had to give up? Your responses have been very interesting.
I appreciate your thoughts. You clearly have wisdom and insight. It is such a difficult time in history and I feel like I could study Kings and Chronicles for years. I must continue forward but I will come back to study and reflect on this part of the Bible.
Thanks Peter. Just to confirm the family line (Judah): King Jehoshaphat's son was Jehoram ( 2 Chronicles 21:1) & Jehoram's son was Jehoahaz (or, Ahaziah): 2 Chronicles 21:17. All Jehoahaz's siblings were killed by the Philistines, etc. & he was the only one left; therefore, heir to the throne. So, if Jehoahaz "followed in the footsteps of his own father", he wouldn't have done well at all, since Jehoram was evil as well taking on the evil ways of the kings of Israel ( 2 Chronicles 21:6,11,13).
And yes, a good person, or king in this instance, can start off well, but if he begins to forget the Lord, not taking in the Word, not listening to God's warnings through the prophets, then he opens himself up to all manner of wickedness, not only giving in to the lusts of the people, but also propagating the apparatus to serve other gods & to overfill their lusts. The kings of Israel had a bad record in this regard; all of them evil (all 18 of them, though Jehu appeared 'good' in part) till their captivity to Assyria. And of the 19 kings of Judah, 8 appeared to serve the Lord with a heart & will towards God, yet the Babylonian captivity awaited them too.
And we see the same today as believers, when our eyes turn from the Lord & His Word, our hearts begin to wander & the appeal of the flesh begin to take hold. So the apostles had to continually warn & teach the Church to the end that they would set their hearts right again & not suffer under the discipline of God. Both Israel & Judah had every opportunity & warning, as does the Church now, but they tested the Lord's patience to the point of suffering & banishment. This again reminds us that it's not worth the pain & loss - the world ought to have no appeal to our hearts, just as Israel & Judah should have been so circumspect given all that the Lord had done for them & all this before their very eyes. The OT has some great lessons for us today. Blessings brother & the Lord's enrichment in every way to your life.
Thank-you Chris. I appreciate your insight. It helps. When I read this I cried and I don't even understand why. The name changed without context as to why. To distinguish King of Israel vs King of Judah is plausible but I feel there must be more to it. These are not good Kings since both did evil in the sight of God. Perhaps King Ahaziah of Judah was worse. Do you think it is possible that it means a good person can become a bad person? That Johoahaz followed in the footsteps of King Ahaziah of Israel whom his father joined ( 2 Chr 20:35) instead of following the footsteps of his own father?
Hi Peter. That is a good observation which not many pick up on & one that has come up previously on this Site. We're not given any clear indication as to why the name, Jehoahaz, is also referred to as Ahaziah. Both names are clearly in the Hebrew text, so this isn't a transcription error that we're dealing with.
The possible reason I see, is based on the same meaning of both names, which is, "Yah has grasped". It might seem strange that what appears as two entirely different names can have the same meaning. It probably appears more apparent to the Hebrew speaker, but I learn that the elements of words (i.e. slightly changing the letters within the words), gives forth another name but still retaining its intended meaning. Now why did the writer do this? One can only guess, but I feel that since Jehoahaz is also a king (son of Jehu of the kingdom of Israel: 2 Kings 13:8,9), maybe it was felt it would be prudent to avoid a mistaken identity, though unfortunately, creating some confusion to us non-Hebrew readers. Even though the Jehoahaz of Israel reigned 15 to 20 years after Jehoahaz of Judah, continual reference to those kings by the same name may have brought confusion, hence Ahaziah being referred to a Judah's king. Just my thoughts.
As well, we do have many instances of name changes in the Bible, though I'm unsure whether they still retained the same meaning, probably not. E.g. Daniel - Belteshazzar; Dorcas - Tabitha; Esther - Hadassaah; Jedediah - Solomon; Gideon - Jerub-baal.
King Jehoram youngest son is named Jehoahaz (2:21:17) why is his named referred as Ahaziah when he becomes the next King of Judah (2:22:1)
Note: 2 Kings confirms only the name Ahaziah; It does not say the name Jehoahaz.
I am new to the word of God but I have always been his rock. I am reading the bible linear from Genesis to Revelation to know his word. It is very complex but this is the first point of which I perceive a discrepancy. Am I reading incorrectly? Can you provide an explanation for the name change; please enlighten me?
Why at times did God want Israel to have lots of gold lots of silver, & lots of jewelry and wear it if they should choose to ? and other times he didn't want them to have any gold, silver, or any Jewelry. ( clues ) Answers are found in Ezekiel chapter 16. Also Isaiah chapter 61: 10 read before and after. It was a way of life in Israel . Then Exodus chapter 28 : Concerning the minister or High priest by God's command had to wear in worship . All the colours And gold and twelve stones embedded into the ephod each one with the names of the twelve tribes etched in them. The dress affair is a interesting study. But it was commanded by God .Also take a look at Rebecca in genesis. When you get your answer, you will also understand the story Jesus told about the prodigal son And why his father treated him like he did when the boy returned. God bless you all. Thank for this opportunity.
Gog has 42 months, minus 1 hour of absolute power left. The lead house of Israel was defeated ( Ezekiel 21:12) in the like manner as Babylon ( Isaiah 47). antichrist sets up his beast 'marked' government.
( Daniel 9:25) ...and to build Jerusalem the street shall be built again, and the wall (temple)...
( 2 Thessalonians 2:4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
( Daniel 2:41) And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided...
( Daniel 11:44) But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy...
( Amos 1:6) The Philistines raided Judah under king Joram ( 2 Chronicles 21:16-17). They sold their captives to the archenemy of Israel, the Edomites.
( Obadiah 1:10) For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
( Obadiah 1:8) Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
( Obadiah 6 & 7) All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee....
( Revelation 16:16) ....And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Gog's 42 months of power are coming to a close. His army is feuding to a point where, if allowed to, they would completely destroy the earth. This is the sole reason for the second coming of Jesus Christ: to prevent armies from ending the planet. When they of Revelation 16:16 see Christ's brightness upon Mt Olive, they will come down to the slaughter.
I agree, that 'fornication' is used quite often in the Bible, but when we examine the Scriptures referring to it, we would find that it doesn't always apply to how we understand it now, but can have several meanings & applications. There are references to Israel's spiritual fornication ( 2 Chronicles 21:11 & Ezekiel 16:26,29) & we know of the heathen's compulsion in this area associated with temple worship where temple prostitutes served to bring worshippers to a heightened experience of their god. A grievous sin indeed, but we shouldn't make this sin our focus because of its numerous references, as all sin, as seen in every book of the Bible, is as much sin as fornication is. But if fornication is made to be the cause of all sin, then we'll find that we have to alter the intent & meaning of relevant Scriptures to suit our belief & for this, thus you will have noticed the comments coming to you from us, to highlight this error.
Jehoshaphat was seduced by a deceitful spirit into giving his son Joram in marriage into the house of Ahab, the hater of the LORD. And although Jehoshaphat himself eventually received the rebuke from the LORD and amended his ways; the effects of that sin was that devil was allowed entrance and nearly put out the light of the house of David. In fact in Matthew 1 there are three generations deleted!
Ren; you may find interesting and helpful Adultery in Exodus 20:14; Matt. 5:27-28 etc. means Apostasy; and so figuratively, Idolatry. In older translations like the Wycliffe Bible it is translated, "Thou shalt not Commit Lechery." Fornication in the O.T. is "Highly Fed, and therefore Wanton, to Commit Adultery, or Idolatry;" in the N.T. 'Porneia' which is Harlotry, Indulge Lust, Practice Idolatry.
@Black-Adultery is ONLY applicable to "MARRIED" persons while
Fornication is ONLY applicable to "UNMARRIED" (SINGLE) persons 1 Corinthians 7:2 - Luke 16:18
17 And they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and 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.
but the next chapter it says ahaziah who became king???
for�ni�ca�tion
Pronunciation: ˌfȯr-nə-ˈkā-shən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other Link
The word "fornication" means "idolatry", not "sex before marriage" like a lot of Christians believe. In the Old Testament, "sex" = "marriage"; and, that's why Jesus said, "An Adulterous and Perverse generation seek after a sign.."
A little about Charles Caldwell Ryrie: (March 2, 1925 - February 16, 2016). He was an American Bible scholar and Christian theologian. He served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and as president and professor at what is now Cairn University. After his retirement from Dallas Theological Seminary he also taught courses for Tyndale Theological Seminary. He is considered one of the most influential American theologians of the 20th century. He was the editor of The Ryrie Study Bible by Moody Publishers, containing more than 10,000 of his explanatory notes. First published in 1978, it has sold more than 2 million copies. He was a notable proponent of classic premillennial dispensationalism (this info taken from the Web).
So, coupled with his detailed charts attached at the end of the Bible, his explanatory notes within the Bible itself & my own double-checking between the Scriptures on specific kings, I have shared that information to this thread's enquirer. I realize that any non-biblical information given can be disputed, since it may not be clearly revealed within the Word, but as mentioned, I've found this man Ryrie, to be very knowledgeable & fundamental in his treatment of the Scriptures & in his presentation of any helps like the one I've shared.
In the Kingdom of Judah: King Jehoshapat reigned from 873-848 ( 1 Kings 22:41) and then his son Jehoram was co-regent with him from 853 ( 2 Kings 8:16). After his father died, he continued in his reign (i.e. from 853 & then continued on from 848-841).
In the Kingdom of Israel: King Ahab reigned from 874-853 ( 1 Kings 16:29) & the Prophet Elijah was alive at that time ( 1 Kings 17:1). Elijah also lived & ministered under the next king, King Ahaziah's reign (853-852; 1 Kings 22:51) and then into the reign of King Jehoram (852-841; 2 Kings 1:17). This king was also known as Joram. By the way, it is a coincidence that we see the two Jehorams reigning side-by-side in the two kingdoms; unfortunately, both were bad kings.
When that "writing" (mentioned in 2 Chronicles 21:12) came to Jehoram, the King of JUDAH, (NOT Israel); though Elijah was actually a prophet to the Kingdom of Israel), Elijah would still have been alive. We're not told which year the 'letter' was sent, or received by Jehoram. The 'letter' might even have been delivered to Jehoram some time after Elijah's translation into Heaven, if Elijah wrote it just prior to his departure. So the way I understand it, is that Elijah was well & truly on Earth at this time, though possibly his age & distance may have prevented him from actually making that journey to Jerusalem in the southern kingdom.
As a footnote, I should say that the reigning years of the various kings are taken from reliable sources that have done the calculations going back into biblical history & from other historical documents; i.e. I've not guesstimated those dates.
Revelation 3:14: "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." The Greek for 'beginning' is 'arche', as we add that prefix to the words such as 'arch-enemy, arch-bishop, arch-rival. It certainly has the primary meaning of a 'beginning or first in line', but it clearly denotes 'one who holds the primary highest position/control over others'. That being the case, if Jesus first appeared as the creation by God in the womb of Mary, it could never be said that He was the beginning/first in line to all of God's Creation, which happened several millennia prior. But Jesus was there because He was involved in the creative Work ( John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2).
Colossians 1:15: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." I understand that 'firstborn' indicated here, refers to the 'rights & privileges' of the firstborn child (e.g. 2 Chronicles 21:3). All God's creation have received His Love & Care, but at the birth of His Son into humanity, Jesus, as the Son, was the first(born) to gain/inherit His Father's full estate, as well as enjoying "the fullness of God in Himself" ( Colossians 1:19). But the full riches of God to humanity could only be realized by those placing their trust in the Forerunner & Shepherd of their faith, Jesus Christ.
John 17:5: "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." What was His Glory? We can assume all of God's Glory, for He is the Word of/from God, but even if that wasn't the case, Jesus, as the Word of God, had that Glory even before creation of the worlds.
You stated, "I honor the Son for what He gave up." If Jesus (the Word) didn't exist from eternity within the Person of God, & was only created from the womb of Mary, I wonder what He had to give up? Your responses have been very interesting.
Thanks Chris, God Bless
And yes, a good person, or king in this instance, can start off well, but if he begins to forget the Lord, not taking in the Word, not listening to God's warnings through the prophets, then he opens himself up to all manner of wickedness, not only giving in to the lusts of the people, but also propagating the apparatus to serve other gods & to overfill their lusts. The kings of Israel had a bad record in this regard; all of them evil (all 18 of them, though Jehu appeared 'good' in part) till their captivity to Assyria. And of the 19 kings of Judah, 8 appeared to serve the Lord with a heart & will towards God, yet the Babylonian captivity awaited them too.
And we see the same today as believers, when our eyes turn from the Lord & His Word, our hearts begin to wander & the appeal of the flesh begin to take hold. So the apostles had to continually warn & teach the Church to the end that they would set their hearts right again & not suffer under the discipline of God. Both Israel & Judah had every opportunity & warning, as does the Church now, but they tested the Lord's patience to the point of suffering & banishment. This again reminds us that it's not worth the pain & loss - the world ought to have no appeal to our hearts, just as Israel & Judah should have been so circumspect given all that the Lord had done for them & all this before their very eyes. The OT has some great lessons for us today. Blessings brother & the Lord's enrichment in every way to your life.
The possible reason I see, is based on the same meaning of both names, which is, "Yah has grasped". It might seem strange that what appears as two entirely different names can have the same meaning. It probably appears more apparent to the Hebrew speaker, but I learn that the elements of words (i.e. slightly changing the letters within the words), gives forth another name but still retaining its intended meaning. Now why did the writer do this? One can only guess, but I feel that since Jehoahaz is also a king (son of Jehu of the kingdom of Israel: 2 Kings 13:8,9), maybe it was felt it would be prudent to avoid a mistaken identity, though unfortunately, creating some confusion to us non-Hebrew readers. Even though the Jehoahaz of Israel reigned 15 to 20 years after Jehoahaz of Judah, continual reference to those kings by the same name may have brought confusion, hence Ahaziah being referred to a Judah's king. Just my thoughts.
As well, we do have many instances of name changes in the Bible, though I'm unsure whether they still retained the same meaning, probably not. E.g. Daniel - Belteshazzar; Dorcas - Tabitha; Esther - Hadassaah; Jedediah - Solomon; Gideon - Jerub-baal.
King Jehoram youngest son is named Jehoahaz (2:21:17) why is his named referred as Ahaziah when he becomes the next King of Judah (2:22:1)
Note: 2 Kings confirms only the name Ahaziah; It does not say the name Jehoahaz.
I am new to the word of God but I have always been his rock. I am reading the bible linear from Genesis to Revelation to know his word. It is very complex but this is the first point of which I perceive a discrepancy. Am I reading incorrectly? Can you provide an explanation for the name change; please enlighten me?
Gog has 42 months, minus 1 hour of absolute power left. The lead house of Israel was defeated ( Ezekiel 21:12) in the like manner as Babylon ( Isaiah 47). antichrist sets up his beast 'marked' government.
( Daniel 9:25) ...and to build Jerusalem the street shall be built again, and the wall (temple)...
( 2 Thessalonians 2:4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
( Daniel 2:41) And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided...
( Daniel 11:44) But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy...
( Amos 1:6) The Philistines raided Judah under king Joram ( 2 Chronicles 21:16-17). They sold their captives to the archenemy of Israel, the Edomites.
( Obadiah 1:10) For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
( Obadiah 1:8) Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
( Obadiah 6 & 7) All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee....
( Revelation 16:16) ....And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Gog's 42 months of power are coming to a close. His army is feuding to a point where, if allowed to, they would completely destroy the earth. This is the sole reason for the second coming of Jesus Christ: to prevent armies from ending the planet. When they of Revelation 16:16 see Christ's brightness upon Mt Olive, they will come down to the slaughter.
I agree, that 'fornication' is used quite often in the Bible, but when we examine the Scriptures referring to it, we would find that it doesn't always apply to how we understand it now, but can have several meanings & applications. There are references to Israel's spiritual fornication ( 2 Chronicles 21:11 & Ezekiel 16:26,29) & we know of the heathen's compulsion in this area associated with temple worship where temple prostitutes served to bring worshippers to a heightened experience of their god. A grievous sin indeed, but we shouldn't make this sin our focus because of its numerous references, as all sin, as seen in every book of the Bible, is as much sin as fornication is. But if fornication is made to be the cause of all sin, then we'll find that we have to alter the intent & meaning of relevant Scriptures to suit our belief & for this, thus you will have noticed the comments coming to you from us, to highlight this error.
Fornication is ONLY applicable to "UNMARRIED" (SINGLE) persons 1 Corinthians 7:2 - Luke 16:18
Jehoahaz mentioned in 2Chronicles 21:17 is the same person whom is called Ahaziah in 2Chronicles 22:1.
He is also called Azariah in 2Chronicles 22:6.
17 And they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and 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.
but the next chapter it says ahaziah who became king???
Pronunciation: ˌfȯr-nə-ˈkā-shən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Link
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?