5

How old would Ahaz have been when his son, Hezekiah was born? A cursory look at 2 Kings 16:1 and 18:1 suggest he may have only been eleven. (Ahaz was 20 when he became king and he reigned 16 years. So he died aged 36. Hezekiah was 25 when he became king. 36 - 25 = 11)

Would a more likely possibility have been that they were brothers - both of them sons of Jotham?

2

I would most likely attribute the reigning dates to co-regency rather than early maturity or fatherhood.

| improve this answer | |
  • I agree with this answer, this is a relatively common practice and it would explain a lot of discrepancies in the royal dynasty dates in the books of kings and chronicles. Was going to comment the same thing. This has always been my first thought when I see such discrepancies. – Kevin H Sep 21 '18 at 14:41
1

It is said in 2 Kings 16:20 this

20 Ahaz rested with his ancestors and was buried with them in the City of David. And Hezekiah his son succeeded him as king.

(Emphasis Mine)

Things were much different at that time, so it is very probable that yes, Ahaz had a son at the age of just 11.

| improve this answer | |
0

Ahaz was 20 years old when his son Hezekiah was born! Five years later Father Ahaz is 25 years old. The 25th birth date of Ahaz in Judah is the same as Hoshea of Israel's 03rd year reign. A father(Ahaz) son (Hezekiah) relationship would place son Hezekiah at the age of 05 in this year. Otherwise, the surface reading of 2Ki 18:1-3 would literally make Ahaz and Hezekiah twin brothers instead of Father Son.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Welcome to BH.SE! Please take the tour to get a feel for how the site functions. This answer needs more work for it to be of any help. You have shared your thoughts, but not how they came about. – enegue Apr 5 '18 at 9:26
0

It looks more likely that Hezekiah was 15 years when he began to reign rather than 25. Ahaz ascended the throne at 20 years, and may have given birth to Hezekiah at 21. In that sense, Hezekiah would be 15 when his father Ahaz was 36 and died. I hasten to say however, that this deduction has no biblical accuracy. it is a mere conjecturing that makes human sense.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Welcome to BH. Please see the Tour and the Help as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. I'm afraid that 'mere conjecturing' is not what we are after. This is an hermeneutic site, after all. We do need biblical accuracy so we need referenced texts to the actual evidence of the scripture. – Nigel J Jul 15 at 17:02
0

I would subscribe to the possibility of a coregency, although the text doesn't point to a need for that. There's also one more possibility, that is often found; a scribal error.

| improve this answer | |
  • Welcome to BH. Please see the Tour and the Help as to the purpose and the functioning of the site.Can you substantiate, from scripture, your suggestions ? – Nigel J Jul 16 at 16:45
  • This answer is credible but could be improved with a reference or two to support it. – Dottard Jul 23 at 0:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.