As we proceed through Coming Glory, we are discovering that certain Old Testament individuals like David, along with others like Haggai and Zechariah, though they were leaders who lived through epic periods of Israel's history, also fulfilled prophetic patterns repeated in the 20^th Century by the State of Israel. With this evidence, it is only natural for us to inquire whether other Old Testament individuals might similarly define prophetic portraits applicable to the State of Israel, as modern-day Jews move toward that final crescendo when the Lord returns and sets up His Millennial Kingdom. If they exist, our overall understanding of the End Times would certainly be enhanced. 

Since Coming Glory indicates that the modern-day "kingdom" of  Israel is moving toward a time of Covenant restoration with God, we seek to investigate those times during Old Testament history when similar Covenant revivals also occurred during Israel's Old Testament kingdom period. A search through the Old Testament will uncover three major times of spiritual reawakening when Israel's kings renewed or revitalized their Covenant responsibilities under the Law.

1. David, the shepherd king and psalmist, who established the Davidic Throne following the reign of Saul.
   
   

2. Hezekiah, who restored the Levitical system, tore down the unlawful "high-places", cleansed the Temple for worship, then appealed to Israelites from both the northern and southern portions of the divided kingdom to return to the true worship of God, following the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel at the hands of the Assyrians.
   
   

3. Josiah, who moved again to restore the Temple less than 70 years later, and led the people in a another revival to the true worship of God.

This abbreviated list is not intended to disregard other individuals like Jehoshaphat and Jotham who also pursued righteous policies, however a reading of the Scriptures seems to single out the above three for times of special consecration, not only by the leaders but also by the Hebrew people at large. 

We have already dealt with the time of David in Israel's Redemptive Timeline, showing how the State of Israel has been repeating the historic pattern originally followed by David when his kingdom was set up. This leaves the time of Hezekiah and Josiah to be considered. 

Although we are unable to discriminate between these two on the basis of their individual zeal to restore a right worship of God in the Land, i.e. compare (II Kings 18.5) with (II Kings 23.25), Hezekiah becomes the clear choice for this study when we take note of several other factors.

• First, the reign of Hezekiah spanned a transition between periods of dominance by two ancient world empires. His reign began shortly before the Assyrian empire destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel, then continued through their later invasion of the southern kingdom of Judah. It ended when God's destruction of the Assyrian army under Sennacherib triggered that empire's decline. This was followed by later contacts from Babylon, as they were rising to become the next major empire with whom Israel must interact. However, beyond these facts of ancient history, a study of Daniel suggests that this transformation of ancient Babylon from a wicked to a righteous empire may also prophetically typify how the Lord will one day restore the "kingdoms of men" in preparation for His Millennial Kingdom (Daniel 4.34-37).   
  
  

• Second, the prophet Isaiah used the story of Hezekiah as an historic interlude between the first 39 and final 27 chapters of that Book. (Isaiah 1-39) emphasize God's judgements against Israel and the Gentile nations, while (Isaiah 40-66) stress God's redeeming grace for both Jews and Gentiles. Bible students have observed that the book of Isaiah is divided organizationally between judgement and grace, just as is the Bible as a whole, for just as there are 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New, there are also 39 chapters in Isaiah dealing with judgement, followed by 27 chapters dealing with grace. Consequently, this special placement of Hezekiah within Isaiah, falling as it does between Judgement and Grace, deserves special attention, not only from a historic, but also from a prophetic perspective.   
  
  

• Third, Sidlow Baxter proposes an intriguing connection between Hezekiah and the Psalter. He observes, "It is generally agreed by scholars that Hezekiah had a large part in shaping the Book of Psalms into its present form" (Explore the Book---Psalms p103). In addition, he advances a compelling argument for the claim that some of (Psalms 120-134), titled the "Songs of the Degrees", were actually penned by Hezekiah, and most probably refer to the sundial sign given by God when He extended Hezekiah's life by 15 years. If true, Baxter and other Bible scholars, would have identified a definite prophetic connection between Hezekiah and the structure of the Psalms. 

Therefore, this study will focus on the story of Hezekiah, searching for possible prophetic patterns embedded in that story. 

However, that cannot be done without first developing a defensible historic chronology for Hezekiah. Unfortunately, we shall discover shortly that this will prove to be a daunting task, for even Edwin Thiele, who accomplished the masterful job of resolving most of the chronological issues associated with the kings of the divided kingdom period, declared, 

We will break the problem down into the following series of questions.

Surely we should at least be able to determine convincingly the year when Hezekiah first became king, since that year is Biblically connected with the third year of Hoshea (II Kings 18.1), which appears in Edwin Thiele’s chronology of the kings. Thiele has established with precision that Hoshea's first year must have been 732/731 BC depending on the specific time of Jeroboam's earlier rebellion following Solomon's death. Furthermore, Coming Glory has been able to remove this one-year uncertainty through the construction of a Jubilee calendar, for it is found from its extension into the 20th century that it works only if the latter year of the two-year uncertainty is selected. Therefore we will start with 731 BC as the correct year, thereby requiring that the third year of Hoshea and first year of Hezekiah fell in the year 729 BC (counted inclusively). At this point, we discover that Hezekiah and Ahaz must have had a two year co-regency because (II Kings 17.1) informs us that the 12^th year of Ahaz was also the first year of Hoshea, thereby causing the 16^th and final year of Ahaz to be Hezekiah's 2^nd year. (Contrary to this synchronism, Thiele has seen fit to extend Ahaz's reign to 715 BC for reasons to be explained later.)

The often published date for the fall of the Northern Kingdom's capital city of Samaria is 722 BC. However A.T. Olmstead in his book, "The Fall of Samaria", argues that all the available evidence points to the fall of Samaria one year earlier, in 723 BC. Thiele's analysis of this period agrees with this finding, since the “Assyrian Eponym" itself reinforces the 723 BC claim. These chronological records of the actions of the Assyrian kings were astronomically related to known solar and lunar eclipses contemporary with those actions, and so should be quite accurate. The Assyrian Eponym significantly records that, in the years 726 BC and 722 BC, Assyrian governmental activities were concentrated in country, but in the years 725 BC, 724 BC, and 723 BC, the king was out of the country, involved in an external military campaign. Unfortunately the chronicle on the Assyrian Eponym has been badly mutilated for this period, making it impossible to decipher the geographical location of that military campaign. Nonetheless, we know that Samaria did fall into the hands of the Assyrians in either 723 or 722 BC, so it seems safe to assume that it must have been the northern kingdom of Israel under attack at this time. We may now use these results in attempting to reconcile recorded history with the Biblical account.

(II Kings 18.9-10) tells us that Samaria was besieged in the 4^th year of Hezekiah, which was the 7^th year of Hoshea, and that it fell at the end of three years in the 6^th year of Hezekiah which was the 9^th and final year of Hoshea. We see here a potential match with the Assyrian Eponym because Hoshea's 7^th year should have occurred in our calendar year 726/725 BC and his 9^th year in 723/722 BC.

However, it is here that two potential problems surface. How come a two-year spread between the reigns of Hezekiah and Hoshea at the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign becomes a three-year spread during the period of the siege and fall of Samaria? Moreover, if the siege ended “at the end of three years” as indicated in (II Kings 18.10a), why does the Bible record that only two years transpired in their reigns from the beginning of the siege till its end?

Fortunately both of these concerns can be explained quite easily when we remember from Thiele's study that the regnal periods for the kings of Israel were referenced to a different month in the Levitical calendar, from those of Judah. Hoshea was one of the kings of Israel, and the reigns of those kings were based on the month of Nisan, the first month of the Levitical year. Conversely, Ahaz and his son Hezekiah were two of the kings of Judah, and the reigns of those kings were computed on the basis of the month of Tishri, the seventh month of the Levitical year. Accordingly, if we take account of these regnal differences by proposing the following synchronism among the three kings under consideration, with respect to known Assyrian historic records, we can resolve the apparent conflicts, while additionally proposing a more precise date for the actual fall of Samaria.   

The synchronisms are seen to be in harmony with the regnal information provided in the Biblical texts. This arrangement shows that the Assyrian military campaign against Israel should have begun in 725 BC, in harmony with the Eponym Chronicle that indicates this year was the first of a three-year military campaign against an unknown enemy. This places the most probable fall of Samaria in the latter half of 723 BC at the end of Hezekiah's 6^th year, to conform to the Biblical assertion that its fall occurred "at the end of three years", i.e. (of Hezekiah’s reign). (II Kings 18.10a)

With this apparent agreement, we are ready to continue our study of Hezekiah's reign, optimistic because of the results obtained so far, but at this point unaware of the formidable difficulties remaining.

The account of this miracle is described in (II Kings 20.1-11; Isaiah 38.1-8), immediately following the account of the destruction of Sennacherib's army and his subsequent death in (II Kings 19.35-37), and immediately preceding a condolatory visit by the Babylonian envoys in (II Kings 20.12-19; Is 39.1-8). Since Hezekiah’s death is recorded after that Babylonian visit, we are led to think that the “sundial sign” must have occurred near the end of Hezekiah's reign. Unfortunately, such an assumption would be in conflict with recorded Babylonian history, and would also cause other stated Bible chronologies associated with Hezekiah's reign to be in error. To see why this is so, let’s spend a little time reviewing Babylonian and Assyrian history.

According to the Bible, it was Merodach-Baladan who visited Hezekiah (II Kings 20.12). The “Cannon of Ptolemy” identifies Merodach-Baladan (“Marduk-apaiddin” in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions), as being the king of Babylon who ruled during the years 721-710 BC. History records that he was expelled from Babylon after that time and returned only very briefly in either 704BC or 703BC ("Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", Archer, p212-213 and "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Thiele, p227-228). There is confidence in these dates, because the Cannon of Ptolemy was prepared using astronomical sightings, and is therefore very precise.

To continue our historic review, it is also certain that Assyrian king Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 BC, for an Assyrian cuneiform referred to as the "Taylor Prism" absolutely confirms that date (Biblical Archaeology Review Jan/Feb 1991; Archer p211). Now at the time of Sennacherib's invasion, Isaiah had prophesied to Hezekiah that the Assyrian king would not overcome Jerusalem, but would instead be forced to return to his own land where he would be killed (Isaiah 37.6-7). History records that Sennacherib did just as was prophesied, and was finally assassinated at the direction of his son some 20 years later in 681 BC (Hindson and Kroll, p1356-1357; Archer p212).

Armed with this evidence, it becomes obvious that Hezekiah could not have received the sundial sign after Sennacherib's death, for an additional 15 years tacked onto 681 BC would have caused Hezekiah’s reign to last (729BC - 681BC) + 15 years = 64 years (inclusive). Such an extension in his reign is clearly impossible, for we are told in both the Books of Kings and Chronicles that his reign must somehow work out to be 29 years (II Kings 18.2; II Chronicles 29.1).

Moreover, we would have a similarly intractable problem if we were to take license with the text and suppose that maybe the sundial sign occurred during Sennacherib's invasion, so that the 15 years could be added from that time. If that were assumed, Hezekiah's reign would then become (729 BC - 701 BC) + 15 years = 44 years (inclusive), still vastly too long. So if we cannot place the time of the sundial miracle during or after 701 BC, how can we explain the adverbial phrase "In those days" at the beginning of (II Kings 20.1; Isaiah 38.1)? Does this not necessarily refer to the time frame of Sennacherib's defeat and death?

Fortunately, Archer has treated this issue in some detail in his book ("Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", Archer p212) by citing examples in both the Old and New Testaments where the subject accompanying the phrase, "in those days", does not necessarily connect it to the preceding subject, but may only relate it to the overall time frame under consideration. Here are two examples of its use:

• (Judges 17.6, 18.1) uses the phrase “in those days there was no king in Israel” in connection with a foray by the Danites into a northern region of the Land where they extended their inheritance. We are told in (Joshua 19.40-48) that this occurred in the early years of Israel’s occupation of the Land.  However, the Judges account of the life and times of Samson is described in (Judges 13-16), as though it occurred before the Danite excursion, when in fact it actually had to occur hundreds of years later. Yet, the phrase “in those days there was no king in Israel”, understood to apply to the Danite event, actually had to also apply to the life and times of Samson, because both occurred prior to the setting up of Israel’s kingdom. Consequently the phrase, “in those days”, must be understood to refer only to the general time frame of the Judges, and cannot be used to make a specific connection between the two events, or even to the relative time in which they occurred.
  
  

• A similar phrase also appears in the New Testament where it is used in connection with the preaching of John the Baptist in AD 28 (Matthew 3.1). However, that event is immediately preceded with the account of Herod Archelaus who was removed from office in AD 6 according to history. Consequently, John the Baptist would have been no more than 12 years old during the reign of Archelaus, thereby requiring a period of decades between these two events!

Therefore, we understand that the phrase "in those days" may be used simply as an introductory formula for a new episode dealing with an overall story, and in the case of Hezekiah should undoubtedly be understood to mean “in those days” (of Hezekiah). This conclusion also harmonizes with (II Kings 20.6), which states that the sundial miracle did indeed occur prior to Sennacherib’s defeat and death, and could therefore have occurred when Merodach-Baladan still ruled Babylon.

We have already established that Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 BC, so we now simply want to connect that year with the corresponding regnal year of Hezekiah's reign. This hardly seems worth the effort, since (II Kings 18.13) says it was Hezekiah’s 14^th year. Nevertheless, let's do a little arithmetic. Since we have already determined that 729/728BC was Hezekiah's first year, it follows that 701/700BC had to be his 29th year, not his 14th year as indicated in the Bible. Hence, we are faced with what appears to be an obvious discrepancy between the Bible and what we know from recorded history.

This is certainly the view taken by the majority of scholars who seem to take one of two tacks in proposing solutions to this dilemma. Archer generally subscribes to the chronology developed in this paper so far, but here presumes that a textual error was made in (II Kings 18.13). While holding that Hezekiah's 6^th year was 722 BC, he does agree that his first year was 729/728 BC, but then supposes that the “14^th year” was a scribal error, and should have been the "24^th year". Unfortunately, since that year should also have been 701 BC, when Sennacherib invaded Judah, he does not share with his readers just how (729/728 BC - 701 BC) curiously works out to be 24?

Other scholars like Thiele, Hindson, Kroll, and Willmington take an alternative approach. They place the start of Hezekiah's reign around 715 BC, then allow it to continue until about 686 BC, to fulfill the 29 year Biblical requirement for Hezekiah's tenure in office. Of these who delay the start of Hezekiah's reign in this manner, only Edwin Thiele details the horrendous implications of what has been done. In truth, Thiele is the acclaimed authority on these chronologies of the kings, so the other named scholars may have simply parroted his results.

Quite frankly, it is difficult to understand why the 715 BC to 686 BC assumed reign for Hezekiah has been adopted so widely, because the resulting timeline does great injustice to the account given in the Bible from three points of view.

1. First, it forces the trashing of pretty much everything we know concerning the history of Merodach-Baladan, since this revised chronology forces the sundial sign to have occurred around 701 BC. However, Merodach-Baladan was long gone by 701 BC and could not possibly have represented Babylon at that date or thereafter, except on a persona non grata basis.

2. Second, we will discover shortly that we must also arbitrarily manufacture an extended co-regency between Hezekiah and his son Manasseh, even though none such is even hinted at in the Bible.

3. Third, its most flagrant obloquy against the inerrancy of the Word of God is that the Biblical synchronism clearly stated between Hezekiah and Hoshea, prior to and during the siege of Samaria, must all be declared null and void (II Kings 18.1, 18.9-10).

C'mon now---there must be some other way of looking at this paradox without writing off Biblical accuracy and discounting historic facts. In pursuit of an explanation, let us leave our work to date unchanged, and simply extend Hezekiah’s regnal chronology down though the period of Sennacherib's 701 BC invasion of Judah, as shown in the following tabulation.

As we examine the extended timeline in the previous chart, we will observe a very interesting correspondence, for it turns out that if Sennacherib's invasion had happened to occur during the last three months of 701 BC, it would also have fallen at the beginning of the 29^th year of Hezekiah. This is especially interesting because “29” - 15 = "14". This means that if something had happened prior to 701 BC that caused Hezekiah's regnal calendar to be turned back “15 years”, the year of Sennacherib's invasion would have become the "14^th year” of Hezekiah rather than the “29^th year”, in agreement with (II Kings 18.13). But of course, this is exactly what would have happened had the sundial miracle occurred earlier, perhaps in the year 711/710 BC! What if we have been thinking of Hezekiah's added life in the wrong way? Rather than God simply adding 15 years to the numerical number of Hezekiah's life, suppose He instead subtracted 15 years off of his regnal timeline, then counted back up to the final 29^th year total originally intended. And is that not what Hezekiah asked Him to do? When Isaiah gave him the option of having the shadow go forward or backward, Hezekiah opted to have it regress 10 degrees (II Kings 20.9-11).

It is becoming apparent that this is precisely what the Lord did; He subtracted 15 years off of Hezekiah's regnal timeline, so that (II Kings 18.13) does not reflect the resulting secular reigning year but rather the prophetic reigning year unique for Hezekiah. Consequently, if we view Biblical history in a purely secular way, we will miss the whole point and end up thinking the Bible is wrong. The writer believes this is exactly what the named scholars did. Yet to their consolation, are we not all equally guilty of profaning the Word as we try, with our human fallen nature, to gain insight into God's ways? Yes, we can only proclaim, "How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out!"

Still, before leaving this segment of our study, we are moved to ask one last question. If 15 regnal years were regressed as indicated, why did Isaiah inform Hezekiah that the sundial was to be moved back only 10 degrees; would not 15 degrees have been more indicative of the 15 regnal years being regressed?

Returning to the previous timeline, we will observe another interesting "coincidence". Although we have no proof at this phase of our study that the sundial sign actually occurred in the 711/710 BC permissible time frame selected, if it had occurred in that year, there would be just a 10-year span of time remaining until Sennacherib's invasion and defeat. This suggests the possibility that the sundial sign, while portending a full 15-year extension of Hezekiah's life, additionally served to designate the next major event that was to occur during those 15 remaining years. Indeed, the Lord's promise to Hezekiah through Isaiah clearly coupled the sundial sign with the Assyrian invasion and the Lord's subsequent defense of Jerusalem (II Kings 20.6; Isaiah 38.5-7). Accordingly, if this is the proper interpretation of the sign, we might even anticipate a second event or sign later, to complete the full 15 years. We shall need to be alert to that possibility as we move on.

The answer to this question will allow us to compare the overall length of Hezekiah's reign, as computed in this paper, with the stated 29-year reign recorded for him in (II Kings 18.2). This follows from the fact that we have previously computed his first year to be 729/728BC, and his final year could not have ended prior to Manasseh’s ascendancy to the throne, he being the next king (II Kings 20.21).

As we continue to study the reigns of the kings of Judah, we come to learn that another Babylonian record provides us with a precise date that may also be associated with the line of those kings of Judah following Hezekiah. This date appears on a tablet called the “Babylonian Chronicle”. It states that Nebuchadnezzar, in the 7^th year of his reign, made an expedition to “Hatti-land” in the month of Chislev, besieging and capturing Jerusalem on Adar 2 (Saturday, March 16, 597 BC). It also states that the incumbent king of Jerusalem was taken prisoner and a new king placed on the throne (Edwin Thiele p186). By correlating this Babylonian Chronicle account with the Biblical account, we realize that the king who was taken prisoner must have been Jehoichin, i.e. Jeconiah, and the one replacing him Zedekiah (II Kings 24.8-17). Consequently, this single 597 BC Babylonian Chronicle date provides an historic anchor to which the kings of Judah before and after may be referenced. Of immediate interest is the fact that it was the 9^th year of Zedekiah’s reign when Jerusalem was besieged and finally fell (II Kings 25.1-4), so this synchronism tells us that Jerusalem was first besieged in 589 BC and finally fell in 586 BC.

However our present attention is focused, not on the fall of Jerusalem, but on the span of Hezekiah's reign, so we seek to work back in time starting with the 597 BC Babylonian Chronicle date, to establish the first year of Manasseh's reign. We take the first step toward this objective by setting down the spans of years given in the Bible for each of the kings from Manasseh to Jehoiachin.

Next we remind ourselves that Judah employed an "accession" regnal system, starting in the month of Tishri, when reckoning the reigning years for their kings. According to this method, the transfer of regency from one king to the next was always designated to occur in the month of Tishri, irrespective of the actual month when the previous king died or was removed from office, so the regnal years of successive kings were post-dated so as to never overlap (Thiele p53). This means that the total number of numerical years from the start of Manasseh's reign until Jehoiachin should have been the same as the total number of regnal years over the period of those kings. Since regnal chronology must always be given in whole years we are only left with the simple task of flipping a coin to decide whether to round off the total to 99 or 100. Actually the lower figure would be favored, since neither of the two “three month” reigns, taken separately as they actually occurred, would have merited the designation of a full regnal year. Therefore we arbitrarily choose the 99-year total and will try to confirm or deny it as we proceed.

With this result, we can compute Manasseh's first year as, 

                  597 BC    = Year Jehoichin was taken prisoner
                  +99 years = Estimated reigning spans from Manasseh to Jehoichin
                  696 BC
                   -  1 year = since regnal years are to be counted inclusively
                  695 BC = Estimated year when Manasseh first began to reign 

We have already established that Hezekiah's first regnal year should have been 729/728 BC, and now we learn that his reign could not have ended before 696/695 BC. But with this realization, it becomes distressingly clear that we have just created another paradox for ourselves, because Hezekiah's reign, when counted inclusively over this period, comes out to be 34 years rather than the required 29 years! Yet our arithmetic seems to be okay, and the historic evidence as it has been correlated step by step with the Biblical record seems to leave little or no room for adjustment. We certainly can't have Hezekiah's reign end five years earlier for that would leave a five-year gap between Hezekiah and Manasseh when no one was in charge. We can't move the start of Manasseh's reign five years earlier for that would mean that the Bible incorrectly recorded the reigning spans of the kings from Manasseh to Jehoichin. Nor can we delay by five years the time when Hezekiah first became king for that would hopelessly foul up the synchronism with Hoshea, as well as creating an impossible conflict with the historic date for the fall of Samaria.

We are once again tempted to charge the Bible with error, yet in the prior cases where we were so moved, the Bible has always proved correct. We should pause for a moment to remember that this timeline for Hezekiah, which has been constructed as a result of the various historic and Biblical alignments discussed in this study, is the very one that allows us to explain how Sennacherib's invasion of Judah could have been Hezekiah's 14^th year, when a purely secular chronology indicates it should have been his 29^th year. Furthermore, if that finding is valid, it is also certain that Hezekiah's reign had to continue at least five years beyond that time, because we recall that no more than 10 years of the additional 15 years promised by the sundial sign had transpired by the time of Sennacherib's invasion.

In fact let's reflect for a bit on Hezekiah's situation at the time of the sundial sign. Just a short time before, he had been very sick and Isaiah had informed him that his sickness was terminal. Then just minutes later after Hezekiah prayed to the Lord, Isaiah was directed to return with the happy news that he had just been guaranteed an additional 15 years of life. Except for Jesus Christ, this writer is unaware of another case in which the time of someone's physical death was ever disclosed years in advance with such precision, for it is apparent from the text that the confirming sundial sign was given only a short time later. Now we have already observed that this sign not only confirmed the 15 years but also seemed to be tied to the Lord's deliverance of Jerusalem by the Angel of the Lord's Presence. If that 10 degree sundial regression was intended to mark the time of that deliverance, it could have occurred no earlier than Hezekiah's 19^th year since that victory could not have occurred before his 29^th/14^th year. 

Accordingly, if the 19^th year was the year of the sundial sign, Hezekiah would have known that he was going to be around until his 34^th year, and there would therefore have been no need for a successor, and no need for a co-regency, until the regnal year following that one. Since the 19^th year of Hezekiah would fall in 711/710BC, it follows that his 34^th year would be 696/695 BC, and the first regnal year of the next king would need to be 695/694 BC. But this is the very year that we have already calculated independently for Manasseh’s first year, so we continue to discover a mounting array of evidence encouraging us to pursue our present track. Nevertheless, we are frustrated by our inability to explain the Biblical disparity claimed for the years of Hezekiah's total reign, and are compelled to return to a more detailed scrutiny of comparative Bible texts pertaining to this general time frame, to see if something has been overlooked.

It may have been noticed that our study of Hezekiah so far has been developed exclusively from those accounts provided in (II Kings 18-20; Isaiah 36-39). However, Hezekiah's reign is also chronicled in (II Chronicles 29-32), and by the sheer length of that version we might expect it would be every bit as detailed concerning the various events already covered. Therefore, we are mildly surprised when a cursory review of (II Chronicles 29-32) has little to say about the Sennacherib invasion, and nothing to say about the details of the sundial sign or the incident involving the Babylonian envoys. But unlike (II Kings), which only briefly mentions Hezekiah's reforms, (II Chronicles) details them over three full Chapters in (II Chronicles 29-31).

Nonetheless, it is not until we read carefully the (II Chronicles) story that the full extent of the dichotomy between it and (II Kings) begins to emerge. While it also asserts that Hezekiah reigned 29 years, in apparent agreement with (II Kings), there is no mention of a synchronism between his reign and that of Hoshea, nor is there any direct reference to the siege or fall of Samaria. In fact, a careful reading of the subsequent texts, coupled with some knowledge of the conditions prevalent during the period of the divided kingdom, drives us to the conclusion that the reforms spoken of could not have occurred prior to the Assyrian military campaign against Samaria, further forcing the conclusion that Hezekiah's 29-year reign, as described in (II Chronicles), must have begun near the time of the northern kingdom’s fall.

This mystery is better understood when we briefly review the activities beginning with the first year of Hezekiah's reign, as set down in (II Chronicles). In the first month of that 29-year reign, he issued a decree to cleanse the Temple (II Chronicles 29.3). He immediately instructed the Levites to sanctify themselves (II Chronicles 29.4-11), which they did forthwith (II Chronicles 29.12-15). Moreover the Priesthood also went into the inner part of the Temple on the first day of that first month, and continued to sanctify the House of the Lord until the 16th day (II Chronicles 29.16-19). Once this had been accomplished, Hezekiah instructed them to resume the sacrificial ordinances prescribed according to the Law (II Chronicles 29.20-33), but all of this had been done so quickly that too few of the priests were sanctified for the observance of the Passover, thereby requiring the Levites to help them in the skinning of the animal sacrifices (II Chronicles 29.34-36). Therefore, when Hezekiah sent a proclamation throughout all of Israel from Dan to Beersheba, inviting all to come to Jerusalem to keep the Passover, it had to be delayed until the second month of Iyar because there had not been sufficient time to sanctify all of the priests, nor time for the respondents to make their journey to Jerusalem (II Chronicles 30.1-5).

We may derive a very profound implication from what has just been read. That "first month" of Hezekiah's reign referred to in (II Chronicles 29.3, 17) must have been the month of Nisan. This is inferred by the fact they did not complete the cleansing of the Sanctuary until the 16^th day of that month, therefore the Passover celebration had to be delayed until the second month of Iyar. Passover was supposed to be observed on Nisan 14, but it is seen that the time spent to consecrate the officiating tribe of Levi, and to cleanse the Temple, made this impossible. Therefore it was necessary to delay the observance until the "Second Passover", to be held on Iyar 14-21 according to the Law (Numbers 9.1-14). Consequently, we see that Hezekiah was not making up a new arbitrary date for the keeping of the Passover; he was simply abiding by the rules already enforce. All of this harmonizes with the statement that these events took place "suddenly" (II Chronicles 29.36).

There is still another strange enigma in this unfolding saga of Hezekiah. It has already been noted that Judah employed a regnal system that was keyed to the civil month of Tishri, not the month of Nisan. Why is it then that Hezekiah's reign is suddenly referenced to a Nisan regnal system? What could possibly be the rationale for such a shift at this particular point in time?

Before we attempt to address this issue, still another significant inference emerges from this text. It stems from the fact that this proclamation to celebrate the "Second Passover" was to be spread from “Dan to Beersheba”, i.e. throughout all of Israel, both north and south. This is emphasized by the fact that runners were sent through the named Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Asher, and Zebulun, all known to be Tribes within the northern kingdom of Israel. This prompts the question: Just how could this have been done, if the first year of Hezekiah was also the third year of Hoshea, for at that time the kingdoms remained divided and those residents of Israel were limited to prescribed places of worship in the northern cities of Bethel and Dan (I Kings 12.25-33; II Kings 10.29, 13.6, 13.11, 14.24, 15.9, 15.18, 15.24, 15.28, 17.2)? It is admitted that from 734 BC on, Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III had essentially reduced Israel to a vassal state (James M. Monson, “The Land Between”, p30-31). Yet, wouldn’t the northern kingdom of Israel still have taken a dim view of a southern king of Judah, attempting to usurp its remaining authority by soliciting its citizens to worship in Jerusalem instead of the appointed sites in the north?

By the way, archeological evidence gives solid confirmation that a large demographic shift to Judah did occur with the fall of Samaria, for the population of Jerusalem increased dramatically from about 5,000 at the time of Solomon to about 25,000 at the time of Hezekiah. Thus, this increased population correlates well with Hezekiah's initiative to make Jerusalem the center of worship for all Israel.

Edwin Thiele explains these strange happenings with the view that by the time of Hezekiah's "first year" indicated in (II Chronicles), Israel found itself in a precarious situation where its government could no longer enforce its authority, so that Hezekiah was able to treat both north and south collectively as being under his jurisdiction as far as God's Covenant was concerned (Thiele p176). This seems logical, since it’s difficult to conceive of any other explanation, other than the actual destruction of Samaria, or at least its imminent collapse. Moreover, such statements as (II Chronicles 29.9, 30.6-9) seem to provide strong corroboration for this view, since they suggest that the Assyrians were already in the process of carrying out their destruction of Israel, and their dispersion of its inhabitants into other lands. Therefore, all of these things seem to require that the "first year" of Hezekiah in (II Chronicles) could have been no earlier than 725 BC when the military campaign against Israel first began. But clearly this would be years later than the stated "first year" of Hezekiah in (II Kings 18.1), making the two chronologies irreconcilable.

Yes, we must concur with Thiele’s perception that two disparate chronologies are defined in (II Kings) and (II Chronicles). The first absolutely ties the start of Hezekiah's reign to king Hoshea in the pre-siege years, but the latter absolutely links the start of Hezekiah's reign to the siege time frame. Nevertheless, we must strongly nonconcur with the conclusion that Thiele draws from this dichotomy. He concludes that the (II Kings) synchronism with Hoshea never happened. He supposes that a Biblical error was perpetrated by some supposed "editor" of (II Kings) who failed to understand the synchronism of some of the previous kings, and thus corrupted the record (Thiele, p174). In other words, freely translated, we are enjoined to believe that the Bible is really not inspired at all with respect to this portion of Israel's history, and that the Holy Spirit was asleep at the switch when this text was wrongly inserted. 

Here is another instance where Thiele, by virtue of his uncontested expertise in this business of Biblical chronology of the Old Testament kings, has become the purveyor of a view that has been widely accepted and propagated through pretty much all of evangelical scholarship. However, we are reminded that arithmetic predicated on a purely secular approach to history leaves much to be desired when we are trying to understand the Bible. Remember the issue of Hezekiah’s 24^th/14^th year as it was found to relate to the sundial regression? Such anomalies should provide testimony to warn against the danger of a purely secular approach to Bible interpretation, and lead us to seek other alternatives that might achieve Biblical harmony.

This writer has been continually impressed by Sidlow Baxter's exalted view of the Word of God. Just as we have highlighted the contrast between Kings and Chronicles in this one specific case concerning Hezekiah, he has been able to contrast these Books in a more general sense. He observes that these two sets of Books, while superficially appearing to be only vain repetitions of the period of the kings, actually set forth two profoundly different perspectives for that period.

The Books of the Kings emphasize the regnal and prophetic records in both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. They provide an unbiased synopsis of the activities of those kingdoms, as they often seemed to operate much like the contemporary Gentile kingdoms. Through these Books, prophets came and went, proclaiming warnings to that divided nation, occasionally showing God's intervention into their affairs, but more often, forecasting their coming judgement. There is a strong flavor of the civil government in these Books, men practicing the fine art of “wheeling and dealing”, as they interacted among each other and with the Gentile states and empires.

Conversely, the Books of the Chronicles seem to emphasize their government from the perspective of God’s Covenant. As such, they provide a record of the kings of Judah following the division, but omit the kings of Israel. Why? --- Because the northern kingdom of Israel had separated itself from the Temple in Jerusalem and set up an unauthorized priesthood and places of worship in the north. The Jerusalem Temple was the only place where God's name abided (Deuteronomy 12.10-11), and the Levitical system the only one that could provide the temporal forgiveness of sins (Leviticus 4.1-6.7), and fellowship between God and His chosen people. So Chronicles provide us with the Covenantal perspective, whereas Kings with the civil and prophetic perspectives.

Viewed in this way we should not expect an indistinguishable record between these two sets of Books. Indeed, we should expect just the sorts of differences observed. (II Kings) summarizes the regnal timeline of Hezekiah from a civil point of view, showing its synchronism, not only with Ahaz of Judah, but also with Hoshea of the northern kingdom of Israel. It also includes the prophetic element by detailing the accounts of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, the sundial sign, and visit by the Babylonian envoys, all almost verbatim as they appear in the prophet Isaiah. But notice that nothing is said of the Temple, the priesthood, or the restoration of true worship by the remnant under the Covenant. It is only in (II Chronicles) that restoration under the Covenant is discussed, and a new regnal timeline for Hezekiah is presented. Moreover, this new timeline is predicated on the Levitical year beginning with the month of Nisan, suitable for the Covenant, rather than the civil year beginning with the month of Tishri.

We are reminded initially that a regnal chronology associated with God's Covenant would have to begin with the month of Nisan rather than Tishri. In addition, its 29^th year would have to end so as to leave no time gap before the start of Manasseh's reign, and also would have to be in harmony with the 15 years added to his life at the time of the sundial regression. Consider the arrangement shown in the following timeline.

A 29 year timeline which began on Nisan, 723 BC as shown, would have ended on Nisan, 694 BC. Since the fall of Samaria should have occurred near the end of Hezekiah's 6^th year, i.e. just before Tishri, 723 BC (II Kings 18.10), Hezekiah's cleansing of the Temple and consecration of the Levitical officials, as indicated by this arrangement, would have occurred in the final months of the siege when Israel was in its death throes and its government in a state of chaos, a time when it would have been possible for Hezekiah to commence re-establishing Covenant jurisdiction over the entire nation. Since the 29^th year of this timeline ends on Nisan, 694 BC, it would have provided a six-month regnal overlap with the Tishri, 695 BC estimated start of Manasseh's reign. Accordingly, it appears to fulfill the necessary conditions to be valid; it only remains to explore whether there is some way to prove that this is the actual timeline intended in (II Chronicles).

The first part of the evidence to support this proposed timeline for Hezekiah will be provided in the next section of this Hezekiah study, which shows a prophetic link between Hezekiah's reign and the Jubilee Calendar.

Coming Glory         Homepage

Questions and/or Comments