2 Chronicles Chapter 22

The Evil Reigns of Ahaziah and Athaliah
A. Ahaziah’s rise and fall

1. (2 Chronicles 22:1–4) The brief and wicked reign of Ahaziah

“And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly. Wherefore he did evil in the sight of the LORD like the house of Ahab: for they were his counsellors after the death of his father to his destruction.”

a. The inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead.
The Chronicler immediately explains why Ahaziah ascended the throne despite his moral unfitness. He was not chosen because of merit, wisdom, or godliness, but because he was the only surviving son. The Arabians, previously stirred up by the LORD against Jehoram, had effectively wiped out the royal heirs. Leadership in Judah at this point was not guided by spiritual discernment, but by sheer necessity. This already signals instability and divine judgment lingering over the Davidic house.

i. Poole’s observation highlights the brutality of the raiders. Whether these men were auxiliary forces accompanying the Arabians or the Philistines who joined in the campaign described earlier, the intent was clear, eliminate the royal line. Humanly speaking, the Davidic dynasty stood on the brink of extinction, preserved only by God’s covenant faithfulness.

b. He reigned one year in Jerusalem.
Ahaziah’s reign was even shorter than his father’s already truncated rule. Jehoram reigned eight years and died under divine judgment, and Ahaziah lasted only one year. Scripture presents brevity of reign here as a sign of divine disfavor. Length of reign is not always a measure of righteousness, but repeated short reigns within one house are a clear indicator of instability and judgment.

i. Patterson and Austel rightly situate Ahaziah’s reign in a period of massive geopolitical upheaval. Yet Scripture’s focus is not Assyrian pressure, but moral collapse. World events may explain timing, but sin explains outcome.

ii. Forty and two years old.
This presents a chronological difficulty when compared with “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign” (2 Kings 8:26). The weight of textual and historical evidence supports the reading of twenty two years rather than forty two. To accept forty two would make Ahaziah older than his father at the time of Jehoram’s death, which contradicts “Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years” (2 Chronicles 21:20). As Clarke and Payne note, this is best understood as a scribal error in transmission, not a contradiction in Scripture. The integrity of the text is preserved when the parallel account is properly weighed.

c. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
The Chronicler intentionally names Athaliah and traces her lineage to Omri, not merely to Ahab. Omri’s dynasty was notorious for institutionalized idolatry. “But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the LORD, and did worse than all that were before him” (1 Kings 16:25). This genealogy is a theological indictment. Ahaziah was biologically a son of David, but spiritually a grandson of Omri.

d. He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab.
Ahaziah did not merely tolerate the policies of Ahab’s house, he actively adopted them. The phrase “walked in the ways” indicates deliberate pattern and lifestyle. The Davidic ideal of kingship, submission to the Law of the LORD, dependence upon God, and covenant faithfulness, was entirely abandoned.

i. For his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly.
Athaliah’s influence dominates the narrative. She did not merely advise, she counseled him toward evil. The text assigns moral responsibility directly to her. Jezebel’s spirit lived on in her daughter. This is the poisonous fruit of Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab, now in its second generation. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:29) describes the visible consequences, though each individual remains responsible for his own sin.

ii. Athaliah’s influence did not end with Ahaziah’s reign. As later verses will show, she seized power herself, attempting to eradicate the royal seed. Her ambition was not merely political, it was anti Davidic and therefore anti Messianic.

e. Wherefore he did evil in the sight of the LORD like the house of Ahab.
The LORD’s assessment is decisive. Ahaziah is not evaluated relative to Judah’s standards, but relative to the wickedness of Ahab’s house. This is one of the strongest condemnations possible in the historical books.

f. For they were his counsellors after the death of his father to his destruction.
After Jehoram’s death, Ahaziah surrounded himself with the same corrupt influences that had destroyed his father. Scripture makes clear that ungodly counsel is not neutral. “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly” (Psalm 1:1). Ahaziah rejected godly heritage, embraced wicked counsel, and walked directly toward destruction. His downfall was not sudden or accidental, it was cultivated.

i. Selman’s observation is especially insightful. Through Jehoram and Ahaziah, Ahab’s dynasty effectively ruled Judah. The shared royal names between Israel and Judah during this period symbolize the spiritual merger of the two kingdoms under apostasy. What began as a political alliance became a theological surrender.

2. (2 Chronicles 22:5–9) Ahaziah falls in judgment along with Ahab’s house by Jehu in Israel

“He walked also after their counsel, and went with Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth-gilead: and the Syrians smote Joram. And he returned to be healed in Jezreel because of the wounds which were given him at Ramah, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria. And Azariah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Jehoram the son of Ahab at Jezreel, because he was sick. And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against Jehu the son of Nimshi, whom the LORD had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab. And it came to pass, that, when Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab, and found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah, that ministered to Ahaziah, he slew them. And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him, for he was hid in Samaria, and brought him to Jehu: and when they had slain him, they buried him: Because, said they, he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the LORD with all his heart. So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom.”

a. He walked also after their counsel, and went with Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel to war.
Ahaziah’s moral alignment with the house of Ahab expressed itself not merely in religious compromise, but in political and military alliance. He deliberately joined Jehoram of Israel in war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth-gilead. This was the same region where Ahab had previously met his death under divine judgment. “If thou return at all in peace, the LORD hath not spoken by me” (1 Kings 22:28). Ahaziah ignored the historical warning embedded in that location. His loyalty to Ahab’s house overrode discernment rooted in Judah’s covenant history.

b. And the Syrians smote Joram… and he returned to be healed in Jezreel.
Jehoram of Israel was wounded in battle and withdrew to Jezreel to recover. Ahaziah followed him there, motivated by familial loyalty and political solidarity. The Chronicler identifies Ahaziah here by his alternate name Azariah, emphasizing royal identity rather than personal righteousness. His decision to visit Jehoram appears compassionate on the surface, yet Scripture exposes it as spiritually fatal.

c. And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram.
This is a decisive theological statement. Ahaziah’s downfall was not coincidence, poor timing, or geopolitical miscalculation. It was “of God.” Divine sovereignty governs even the seemingly minor choices of compromised men. By aligning himself with Jehoram, Ahaziah stepped directly into the path of judgment that God had already decreed against the house of Ahab.

d. For when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against Jehu the son of Nimshi.
Jehu had been anointed by divine command to execute judgment. “Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I have anointed thee king over the people of the LORD, even over Israel” (2 Kings 9:6). Ahaziah unknowingly opposed God’s chosen instrument of judgment. He did not merely stand near wickedness, he actively joined it in resisting God’s purposes.

i. Jehu was commissioned specifically to destroy the house of Ahab, not Judah’s king. Yet Ahaziah’s persistent association with Ahab’s dynasty placed him squarely within the scope of judgment. God does not require a separate decree when a man willingly entangles himself with those already under condemnation.

ii. And found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah.
Though Ahaziah’s brothers had already been killed, their sons and close kinsmen remained and served him. Selman rightly observes that these were likely extended family members rather than literal nephews. Their presence alongside Ahaziah shows that Judah’s leadership had become inseparably bound to Ahab’s house.

e. And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him, for he was hid in Samaria.
Ahaziah fled and attempted to hide, a striking contrast to the bold confidence expected of a Davidic king. His flight into Samaria, the heartland of Israel’s apostasy, is symbolically fitting. The man who aligned himself with Israel’s wicked kings died on Israelite soil.

f. And when they had slain him, they buried him.
Ahaziah was killed as part of Jehu’s purge. His death fulfilled divine justice, yet his burial was handled with restraint. He was not honored for his own righteousness, but for his lineage.

i. Because, said they, he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the LORD with all his heart.
This statement is remarkable. Ahaziah’s one mitigating factor was not his conduct, but his ancestry. “And he walked in the first ways of his father David, and sought not unto Baalim” (2 Chronicles 17:3). Jehoshaphat’s faithfulness still cast a shadow of mercy two generations later. This burial was an act of respect for covenant legacy, not personal merit.

g. So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom.
With Ahaziah dead and his male relatives slain, the Davidic line appeared again to be in grave danger. Humanly speaking, the throne of Judah stood vacant and defenseless. This sets the stage for Athaliah’s violent seizure of power and demonstrates how close the Messianic line came to extinction. Only God’s covenant faithfulness would preserve it.

B. The reign of Queen Athaliah

1. (2 Chronicles 22:10) The evil Queen Athaliah reigns over Judah

“But when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah.”

a. When Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead.
Athaliah responded to the death of her son not with grief, repentance, or restraint, but with ruthless ambition. The text shows calculated resolve rather than emotional impulse. With Ahaziah dead and the royal house weakened, she seized the moment to claim power for herself. According to 2 Kings 11:1–3, she reigned over Judah for six years, making her the only woman to sit on Judah’s throne, and she did so illegitimately, violently, and in open defiance of the Davidic Covenant.

i. Athaliah was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, the most infamous royal couple in Israel’s history. “And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD above all that were before him” (1 Kings 16:30). Jezebel intensified that wickedness through idolatry, persecution of the prophets, and political murder. Athaliah brought that same spirit into Judah through her marriage to Jehoram. She corrupted her husband, destroyed her son, and now attempted to annihilate the Davidic line itself.

b. And destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah.
This was not merely a political purge, it was a direct satanic assault on the Messianic promise. God had sworn to David, “Thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever” (2 Samuel 7:16). Athaliah sought to erase that promise by eliminating every royal heir. Jehu had already exterminated Ahab’s house in Israel. Athaliah now attempted to preserve Ahab’s legacy by destroying David’s.

i. Morgan rightly observes that no human wickedness can frustrate divine purpose. God countered the rage of Athaliah with the courage of another woman. Where one woman sought to destroy life, another acted to preserve it.

ii. Poole correctly identifies the root cause. This massacre was the bitter fruit of Jehoshaphat’s compromise years earlier. The alliance forged through marriage with Ahab’s house now nearly extinguished his own posterity. Sin may be delayed in consequence, but it is never denied.

iii. Knapp’s assessment is fitting. Athaliah stands as one of the darkest figures in Scripture. She was not merely immoral, she was anti covenant, anti Davidic, and therefore anti redemptive.

2. (2 Chronicles 22:11–12) God uses Jehoshabeath to preserve the royal line of David

“But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons that were slain, and put him and his nurse in a bedchamber. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest, (for she was the sister of Ahaziah,) hid him from Athaliah, so that she slew him not. And he was with them hid in the house of God six years: and Athaliah reigned over the land.”

a. But Jehoshabeath.
With these words, Scripture introduces one of the quiet heroines of redemptive history. Jehoshabeath, called Jehosheba in 2 Kings 11:2, acted decisively and courageously at the darkest moment in Judah’s history. While Athaliah murdered children to secure power, Jehoshabeath risked her life to preserve one child. God often counters public wickedness with private faithfulness.

i. Selman rightly calls this a tale of two women. One was driven by ambition, the other by reverence for God. One sought a throne, the other preserved a promise.

ii. Morgan’s insight applies broadly. Evil often appears thorough and unstoppable, yet it inevitably leaves one small opening through which God acts. Athaliah believed she had destroyed all the royal heirs. She missed one.

iii. For she was the sister of Ahaziah.
Clarke’s observation is important. Jehoshabeath was likely not Athaliah’s daughter. She was Ahaziah’s sister by Jehoram, but probably by a different mother. This further explains her willingness to oppose Athaliah. She was part of the royal family, yet not morally aligned with Jezebel’s line.

b. Took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons that were slain.
Joash was an infant, likely no more than a year old, as confirmed later in 2 Chronicles 24:1. Jehoshabeath intervened in the midst of slaughter. The text emphasizes urgency and danger. This was not a ceremonial rescue, but a stealth operation carried out under threat of death.

c. And put him and his nurse in a bedchamber.
Wiseman notes that this was likely a storage room for spare furniture. God used the most ordinary, overlooked place as the means of preserving His covenant. The survival of the Messianic line depended not on armies or thrones, but on a hidden room and a faithful woman.

d. And he was with them hid in the house of God six years.
Joash was raised in the temple, under the protection of Jehoiada the priest and his wife Jehoshabeath. While Athaliah ruled the land, the true king lived quietly in God’s house. The irony is deliberate. The usurper ruled publicly, but illegitimately. The rightful heir lived hidden, but secure.

i. Like Samuel, Joash grew up surrounded by priests, worship, and the law of the LORD. “And the child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the LORD, and also with men” (1 Samuel 2:26). God often prepares His servants in obscurity before placing them in prominence.

ii. Clarke’s observation captures the theological weight of this moment. Humanly speaking, the salvation of the world hung on the life of one hidden child. From Satan’s perspective, destroying David’s line would nullify God’s promises. From God’s perspective, the outcome was never in doubt.

iii. Morgan’s reflection is timeless. Evil appears powerful only temporarily. It builds systems, fortresses, and policies, yet it lacks permanence. God’s purposes do not depend on visible strength. They advance quietly, faithfully, and irresistibly.