It is mildly troubling to our senses to discover that the first connection between the Old Testament and secular history was made by wicked king Ahab who reigned over the northern Kingdom of Israel. His reign occurred during a period when the nation had split following the death of Solomon. His deeds are described in the last few chapters of the book of I Kings when he was brought into several confrontations with the prophet Elijah. Those encounters illustrate important spiritual truths, but they are not presently the reason for focusing on king Ahab. It turns out he was also involved in an historical event recorded with astronomical precision in an Assyrian eponym.

Ahab was guilty of many evils, but his reign marked a time of expansion and prosperity for the northern Kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom coveted control of the trade routes on the east side of the Jordan River. However, the Gentile nation of Aram located in the present-day region of Syria also desired to dominate that same area. Thus Israel and Aram turned to military actions to secure their objectives after diplomatic negotiations broke down.

Unfortunately, the fortunes of war are seldom clear, and a third factor was added as they vied for the upper hand. Assyrian presence was rising to the east, rapidly becoming a serious threat to both Israel and Aram. That threat had been temporarily defused generations earlier when the prophet Jonah reluctantly made a trip to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. His stern message of God’s coming judgement upon them had caused them to repent. Now another generation was again moving toward Aram and Israel. This fact caused these two nations to become strange "bedfellows" as they conspired to combine their military forces against Assyria. Matters became even more complicated when Ahab solicited king Jehoshaphat, who reigned over the southern Kingdom of Judah, to also assist in the venture.

Ahab was mortally wounded in the ensuing military campaign, and died as he returned from the battlefield. The full account of this scenario and its tragic conclusion is described in (I Kings 22.1-40). However, important for our purpose is the fact that Assyrian king Shalmaneser III preserved the record of the encounter; it occurred in the sixth year of his reign. Shalmaneser’s reign was also associated with Assyrian astronomical observations, so it is possible to precisely date the sixth year of his reign to 853 BC. This date is the earliest connection between the histories of Israel and Assyria, therefore the earliest date where a Biblical event may be associated with secular history.

Israel’s problems with Aram continued after the death of Ahab. Ahaziah, son of Ahab, became king over the northern Kingdom of Israel, but his reign ended in the second year when he fell through a ceiling lattice in his palace and later died from the injuries.

Then Jehoram, another son of Ahab, became king and reigned for 12 years as conflicts continued with the Gentile nations east of the Jordan River. Moab, subjected by Israel during Ahab, rebelled after Ahab’s death and the political crisis created by the untimely death of Ahaziah. Aram even besieged Samaria, the capital city of the Northern Kingdom, at one point during this time. Jehoram’s reign came to an abrupt end when he became the victim of a coup perpetrated against the entire house of Ahab.

Jehu became king over the Northern Kingdom following that coup, but for our purposes, also became the next king to have recorded dealings with Assyrian king Shalmasser III. Assyrian eponyms indicate that Jehu was forced to pay tribute to Shalmaneser during the 18^th year of his reign, falling in the year 841 BC.

We may draw the following conclusions concerning the reigns of Ahab and Jehu.

• Ahab could have died no earlier than 853 BC since his name is mentioned in Assyrian records dated that year.

• Ahaziah then reigned 2 years (I Kings 22.51)

• Jehoram then reigned 12 years (II Kings 3.1)

• Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser 12 years after Ahab.

It is obvious that there is an arithmetic problem here. If Ahab was around until 853 BC and the next two kings reigned for a total of 14 years, how could Jehu have paid tribute to Shalmaneser in 841 BC, only 12 years after Ahab?

Actually, this seeming contradiction has an easy answer, for there are two ways in which the length of the reigns of rulers may be computed. The first is an "accession" method where the first year of a new ruler is counted as the year following the final year of the previous ruler. For example, a new President of the United States is elected in November of the final year of an outgoing President, but his term does not begin until January of the following year. Thus the United States operates under an "accession" transition of power.

The other system is termed "non-accession" where the new ruler’s first year is counted as the same year as the outgoing ruler. One might even argue this approach had merit in ancient times when one ruler had to die before his successor could take office. But notice that a "non-accession" method causes the apparent length of rule to be one year greater than its actual length.

Edwin Thiele determined that the Kingdom of Israel used the non-accession method during the time frame in question, so the actual length of time between Ahab and Jehu was only 12 years, causing the numbers to work out. Accordingly, we may construct the following calendar for this period.

This result is very important toward the objective of tying the Bible to secular history. It shows that consistency is produced in the numbers if Ahab’s last year as king was 853 BC and Jehu’s first year was 841 BC. This result thereby establishes precise dates for the reigns of four of the kings in the northern Kingdom of Israel and forms the basis from which dates for all of the remaining kings in both the northern and southern kingdoms may be calculated. In this manner, it is possible not only to tie the Bible to secular history but also to simultaneously check its correctness with respect to other secular dates also known.

With this finding, we have a key entry point for the study of Old Testament chronology. From the secular dates just associated with the Ahab-Jehu time frame, it becomes possible to assign dates to the reigns of all the kings in both the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah for the entire period of the Divided Kingdom. Furthermore, as these dates are assigned according to Edwin Thiele's work, it will also be possible to check them against various contemporary secular dates known from archaeology. Thus, many of the events described in the books of the Kings and Chronicles can be connected to the historical record of ancient times in the Middle East.

The period of the Divided Kingdom is found in (I Kings 12-22; II Kings, and the book of II Chronicles 10-36). Edwin Thiele started with the Ahab-Ahaziah-Jehoram-Jehu (853-841) time frame, then expanded the calendar to the entire period of the divided Kingdom by accounting for the following additional factors:

• Although there is some difference of opinion about when the northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed, a study of Assyrian records suggest the most likely date to be 723 BC. The Old Testament indicates that this also occurred in the 9^th year of king Hoshea of the Northern Kingdom (II Kings 17.6).

• Assyrian records show that Sennacherib invaded the Southern Kingdom of Judah in 701 BC. The Old Testament also records this event in the 14^th year of king Hezekiah of the Southern Kingdom (II Kings 18.14).

• Babylon made an early incursion into Judah in 597 BC, captured king Jeconiah and took him to Babylon, setting up Zedekiah his brother as ruler. The Old Testament records this in the 8^th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.

• Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in 589 BC and finally destroyed it along with the Temple on July 18, 586 BC. The Old Testament records the siege beginning in the 9^th year of Zedekiah’s reign and ending in the 11^th year.

• Thiele found that the Kingdom of Israel did not use a "non-accession" regnal system for the entire period of their existence. It was used from its inception until King Jehoash (II Kings 12.1) then was converted to an "accession" method until its demise in 723 BC.

• He also found that the southern Kingdom of Judah briefly changed their regnal system in midstream. An "accession" system was used until queen Athaliah usurped the throne when it adopted a "non-accession" system. Following the reign of her grandson Joash, Judah then reverted back to an "accession" system for the remainder of their existence.

Such vacillation seems odd until it is realized that momentous upheavals occurred within both the kingdoms during this time frame. Athaliah was a daughter of Ahab. When she usurped the throne of the southern kingdom in 841 BC, it was only natural that she would adopt governmental procedures like the ones already in being in the North so her adoption of a "non-accession" regnal method is reasonable. That method continued through the reign of her grandson Joash, when it was changed back to the "accession" method during Amaziah’s reign (II Kings 14.1).

Conversely, the northern kingdom had historically adhered to a "non-accession" method from its beginning. However, that was changed to an "accession" method starting with northern king Jehoash who reigned at the same time as southern king Amaziah. These two kings must almost certainly have collaborated with each other in their shift to accession year reckoning. The reason for this shift was undoubtedly influenced by Assyria and Babylonia, both of whom employed accession year systems at that time.

• This difference would not change the total number of reigning years recorded in the Bible, but could create apparent discrepancies when comparing a specific regnal year between a kings in the north and south.

The following is a kind of potpourri of various circumstances that took place over the period of the Divided Kingdom, showing how and why co-regencies occurred.

• Jeroboam rebelled against the kingdom following the death of Solomon, and became the first king of Israel. It was a period of great confusion. His son, Nadab, came to power but was killed during his second year in office by Baasha who took the throne. After Baasha continued in the evil ways of Jeroboam, God pronounced a curse on him so that his posterity would be utterly destroyed. Sure enough, Baasha’s son, Elah, was killed during his second year in office. His assassin, Zimri briefly took the throne, but committed suicide after only seven days when half of the nation chose Omri for their next king. However, the other half of the nation chose Tibni as their king so that both Omri and Tibni ruled over a divided northern kingdom for a period of four years (I Kings 16.21-22).

• In the 39^th year of Judah’s aging king Asa, he was afflicted with a severe foot disease making it impossible for him to continue his duties. Jehoshaphat, was elevated to the throne to carry on the affairs of state in behalf of his stricken father (II Chronicles 16.12).

• Joram was later elevated to be co-regent with his father, Jehoshaphat, during his 17^th year. Recall that Ahab solicited Jehoshaphat to help him overcome Aram to regain control of the region to the East of the Jordan River. Jehoshaphat anticipated his risks to life and limb, apparently bringing Joram into a co-regent status to facilitate a transition of power if he became a battle casualty. As it turned out, Jehoshaphat survived but Ahab was killed.

• Amaziah began to rule in the South following the reign of his father, Joash (II Kings 14.1). At first, he had friendly relations with northern king Jehoash, but the situation changed drastically about four years later. A North/South united military campaign against the Gentile nation of Edom went awry, and the northern soldiers vented their displeasure against the southern kingdom by pillaging some of the cities of Judah. This prompted Amaziah to challenge Jehoash for a face-to-face battle. This presumptuous act cost Amaziah his freedom for he was captured and spent the next ten years in a northern prison. As a result, his son Uzziah had to be brought to the throne as co-regent.

• When Jehoash was challenged to that battle by Amaziah, he also appointed his son Jeroboam II to be co-regent with him in the event of his death.

• Judah’s king Uzziah arrogantly tried to assume the role of a priest in the Temple by burning incense in the Holy Place near the end of his reign. The Lord struck him with Leprosy as punishment, an affliction that remained with him until his death about ten years later (II Chronicles 26.16-23). It was necessary to elevate his son Jotham to the throne to carry on the affairs of state during that debilitating illness.

• Later, Jotham was forcibly removed from office by his own son Ahaz. Since he was not killed, the Old Testament continued to carry him in the official capacity of a co-regent king until his death.

• Pekah and Menahem began rival reigns in the North during the time when Uzziah was king in Judah. Their co-regency continued for ten years until the death of Menahem when his son, Pekahiah, began to reign in his stead. However, Pekah killed Pekahiah only two years later and assumed full control over Israel.

A review of these happenings makes it clear why this was called the "Chaotic" kingdom period, involving such soap-opera antics. Nevertheless they did happen, enabling Thiele to reconcile with secular history the entire Biblical account in both the Old Testament books of the Kings and Chronicles. Some of the details of his studies have been displayed here to show the extraordinary accuracy of the Bible when everything is factored in. Using Thiele’s results, a chronology for the entire period of the Divided Kingdom is summarized below.

The entire Divided Kingdom period thus spanned a period of 344/345 years. It was a time of great turmoil and distress. Once the northern Kingdom of Israel separated itself politically, it also separated its people from God because the proper place of worship remained in Jerusalem. Israel set up places of worship within its political borders at Bethel and Dan in order to remain "religious". However, it had abrogated God’s Covenant so finally came to an end in 723 BC at the hands of the Assyrians. They razed the land, permanently removed many Israelites to foreign lands, and brought in Gentiles from other countries to replace them. In this way the New Testament region of "Samaria" came into being.

The southern Kingdom of Judah continued on for another 22 years until 701 BC when the Assyrians also invaded them. Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah lived during this time. A detailed account of that invasion is recorded in (II Kings 18-20; II Chronicles 29-32; and Isaiah 36-39). It was a major crisis because Assyria was the major world empire at that time. Judah’s defeat seemed inescapable, but God preserved the Messianic line by miraculously destroying Assyria’s army.

Judah continued for three more kings, i.e. Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah, then judgement also began to fall on them. Jehoahaz was taken into captivity by Egypt, then Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar began a series of incursions into Judah that eventually brought about Judah's downfall in 586 BC.

REDEMPTIVE PLAN