J.J. Blunt's Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE VERACITY OF THE HOLY BIBLE
Introduction
Part One:
The Books of Moses
Part Two:
The Historical Scriptures
Part Three:
The Prophetical Scripture
Part Four:
The Gospels and Acts
Appendix:
The Gospels, Acts
and Josephus

XXIII. AHAZIAH AND JEHOSHAPHAT

A Word upon the marriage of which I spoke in a former paragraph. Evil was the day for Judah when the son of Jehoshaphat took for a wife the daughter of Ahab, and of Jezebel, ten times the daughter. Singular, indeed, is the hideous resemblance of Athaliah to her mother, though our attention is not at all directed to the likeness; and were the fidelity of the history staked upon the few incidents in it which relate to this female fiend, it would be safe—so characteristic are they of the child of Jezebel—the same thirst for blood; the same lust of dominion, whether in the state or the household; the same unfeminine influence over the kings their husbands; Jezebel the setter-up of Baal in Israel; Athaliah in Judah—those bitter fountains from which disasters innumerable flowed to either kingdom [See Hosea 13:1.] , preparing the one for a Shalmanezer, the other for a Nebuchadnezzar. But this by the way. Whatever might be the motive which induced so good a prince as Jehoshaphat to sanction this alliance; whether, indeed, it was of choice, and in the hope of re-uniting the two kingdoms, which is probable; or whether it was of compulsion, the act of an impetuous son, and not his own—for the subsequent history of Jehoram shows how little he was disposed to yield to his father’s will, when his own was thwarted by it [2 Chron. 21:3.4.] —certain it is, that it proved a sad epoch in the fate and fortunes of Judah; a calamity almost as withering in its effects upon that kingdom, as the sin of Jeroboam had been upon his own. Up to the time of Jehoshaphat, Judah had prospered exceedingly; henceforward there is a taint of Baal introduced into the blood-royal, and a curse for a long time, though not without intermissions, seems to rest upon the land. The even march with which the two kingdoms now advance hand in hand is early seen; they were now bent upon grinding at the same mill; and a remarkable instance of coincidence without design here presents itself, which the general observations I have been making may serve to introduce.

1. Ahaziah, the son of Ahab, I read [1 Kings 22:51.] , began to reign over Israel in Samaria, in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah.

2. But Jehoram, the son of Ahab, began to reign over Israel in Samaria, in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, his brother Ahaziah being dead [2 Kings 3:1.] .

3. Elsewhere, however, it is said that this Jehoram, the son of Ahab, began to reign in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah [2 Kings 1:17.] .

4. Therefore, the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat must have corresponded with the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat; or in other words, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat must have begun to reign in the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat.

It is obvious that the maze of dates and names thus brought together from various places in Scripture, through which the argument is to be pursued, renders all contrivance, collusion, or packing of facts, for the purpose of supporting a conclusion, utterly impossible. Now the result of the whole is this, that Ahaziah, the son of Ahab king of Israel, and Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, both began to reign in the same year, in the respective kingdoms of their fathers, their fathers being nevertheless themselves alive and active sovereigns at the time. Is there anything by which this simultaneous adoption of these young men to be their father’s colleagues can be accounted for? An identity so remarkable in the proceedings of the confederate kingdoms can scarcely be accidental. Let us, then, endeavour to ascertain what event was in progress in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, the year in which the two appointments were made.

Now Jehoshaphat began to reign in the fourth of Ahab [1 Kings 22:41.] . But Ahab died in the great battle against Ramoth-gilead, having reigned twenty-two years [1 Kings 16:29.] ; he died therefore in the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat.

Accordingly, in the seventeenth of that monarch, the year in which we are concerned, the two kings were preparing to go up against Ramoth—a measure upon which they did not venture without long and grave deliberation, concentration of forces, application to prophets touching their prospects of success [1 Kings 22.] .

But when they approached this hazardous enterprise in a spirit so cautious, can anything be more probable than that each monarch should then have made his son a partner of his throne, in order that, during his own absence with the army, there might be one left behind to rule at home, and in case of the father’s death, in battle (Ahab did actually fall), to reign in his stead? There can be little or no doubt that this is the true solution of the case, though the text itself of the narrative does not contain the slightest intimation that it is so.