15:27 In the fifty-second year of King Azariah’s reign over Judah, Pekah son of Remaliah became king over Israel. He reigned in Samaria for twenty years.

The chronology of Pekah’s reign is fraught with difficulty: there appears not to be room for a 20-year reign.

The difficulty is summed up by Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties):

‘Second Kings 15:27 states that “Pekah son of Remaliah became king over Israel in Samaria—twenty years.” (NASB inserts “and reigned” in italics before “twenty years.”) This raises an apparent difficulty because he did not establish his headquarters in Samaria itself until 739 B.C., when he assassinated King Pekahiah son of Menahem (15:25). Since he in turn was assassinated by Hoshea in 732, Pekah would appear to have reigned only eight years in Samaria rather than twenty.’

(a) Inaccurate chronology?

Some think that the biblical chronology at this point is simply inaccurate.

Barnes (Cornerstone) thinks that, while it is not without its own difficulties, it is most likely that a textual error has crept in.

(b) A reign over part of Israel before reigning over the entire nation, possibly involving co-regency?

A possible explanation is that he reigned over part of Israel before becoming king over the whole nation.

Hobbs (WBC) notes:

‘Many are prone to follow Thiele’s suggestion (Mysterious Numbers, 124) that the twenty-year reign of Pekah is dated not from his accession to the throne of the whole kingdom, but from the initial establishment of a separate kingdom on the east side of the Jordan.’

According to Harper’s Bible Dicitonary:

‘2 Kings 15:27 assigns a twenty-year reign to Pekah, but he could hardly have ruled in Samaria longer than three years (735-732 B.C.), since contemporary Assyrian records show that Menahem was still on the throne in 737 B.C. One solution is to assume that Pekah had already begun to rule independently in Gilead prior to the murder of Pekahiah.’

According to the IVPBBC the turmoil of the period may well have led to overlapping reigns of several claimants to the throne (Pekah, Menahem and Pekahiah).

Bartelt (Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible):

‘It is quite possible that Pekah actually controlled a large part of Gilead as a rival to Menahem and was taken into Pekahiah’s court as an effort to consolidate territory. This strategy backfired when Pekah took control with “fifty of the Gileadites” and quickly (re?)-established contact with Rezin of Syria, which may indicate his previous leadership east of Samaria. The numeration of his 20 years would then include at least 10–15 years before he became king in Samaria.’

The issue is discussed at some length in Harold Lindsell’s The Battle For The Bible (p171f).

Lindsell quotes Marcus Dods (The Bible: Its Origin And Nature) as approving the opinion that ‘Assyrian inscriptions have shown that the chronology of the book of Kings is hopelessly wrong.’  Edwin R. Thiele (The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings), while tending to support the accuracy of the biblical text, was unable, at the time, to resolve the chronological difficulties around Pekah’s reign.  Dewey Beegle adoption this, according, as a prime example of biblical errancy.

Subsequently, Thiele published an article in which he argued that the present text does not state that Pekah reigned in Samaria for twently years.  The twenty years of Pekah’s reign (according to Thiele) covers both the period of his sole reign (8 years) and also the overlapping years with other kings (Menahem, 10 years, and Pekahiah, 2 years).  This was the case also with Omri (1 Kings 16:23; Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:41f), and Jeroboam (2 Kings 14:23).

Geisler and Howe (When Critics Ask) offer the following solution:

‘Although Pekah did not have control over the city of Samaria, he was considered to be the only lawful king of Israel, and therefore his reign over Israel, and its capital city Samaria, was calculated from the time he claimed the throne after the death of Zechariah in 752 B.C. Pekah actually took up official residence in Samaria in 740 B.C., approximately two years after Menahem died. However, only eight years later, in 739 B.C., Hoshea led a conspiracy against Pekah and killed him.’

The Reformation Study Bible offers:

‘It is possible that he led a rebellion during the politically unstable reign of Menehem (vv. 17–22) and that his reign is calculated from this point.’

According to the Holman Illustration Bible Dictionary:

‘His reign of 20 years (15:27) probably is the total time he held military control in Gilead and Samaria.’

In the course of a rather full discussion of the chronological problems posed by this phase of Israel’s history, Hobbs (WBC) offers as a plausible explanation of the Pekah’s 20 year ‘reign’ that this period be dated:

‘not from the death of Menahem, but from the establishment of a rival kingdom on the eastern bank of the Jordan…If Pekah’s “reign” is reckoned by the writer beginning from his accession to an independent “kingdom” in the east, then his twenty-year reign presents no problem, and the accession of Jotham in Pekah’s second year is also accommodated. This dating allows for the co-regency mentioned in 15:5 and does not leave a gap between Azariah and Jotham.’

This solution, based on that of Thiele, is ‘not without seroius difficulties’ of its own, according to Hobbs.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Revised):

‘The notice of a twenty-year reign for Pekah (v. 27) would seem to indicate that this Gileadite strong man had laid claim to the crown some twelve years earlier. Apparently he had been prevented from taking the throne only by Menahem’s swift action in the unsettled times during Shallum’s conspiracy. Pekahiah’s appointment of Pekah to be a chief officer may have been an attempt to placate a rival party.’

The matter is discussed in some detail in the Lexham Bible Dictonary.  First, the problem is analysed:

According to 2 Kings 15:27, Pekah reigned 20 years. He was then succeeded by Hoshea, who reigned 9 years (2 Kgs 17:1), leading up to the destruction of Israel by Assyria. Assyrian documents state that Menahem of Israel paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III in 738 BC (Kelle and Strawn, “History,” 467) or 743~742 BC (Rainey and Notley, Sacred Bridge, 226). Menahem’s son, Pekahiah, came to the throne in 742 BC (Rainey and Notley, Sacred Bridge, 226) or 737 BC (Cogan and Tadmor, 14) and was assassinated two years later. Thus, Pekah came to the throne either in 740 BC or 735 BC. These dates allow for Pekah’s reign to be either nine years or two years, both of which contrast with the 20 years assigned to his reign in 2 Kgs 15:27.

Two possible explanations are given:

‘Some interpreters suggest that Pekah was a rival claimant to the throne who either helped Menahem in the assassination of Shallum in 752 BC or simply took advantage of the political chaos that often ensues after assassination. Under this interpretation, Pekah claimed the Transjordan territories, including Gilead and some of the northern territories of Galilee. With his territories adjacent to Damascus, Pekah allied himself with Rezin and acted in tandem with him in matters of foreign policy (Cook, “Pekah,” 124; Kelle and Strawn, “History,” 468). Pekah finally made a move to assert his control over all of Israel when he assassinated Pekahiah in 734 BC. Thus, Pekah was sole ruler over Israel in its entirety for about three years (734–731 BC).

‘Thiele asserts that Pekah was a high official within Menahem and Pekahiah’s courts or a chief officer within their armies (Thiele, Mysterious). Thus, the author of Kings included Pekah’s years of service and leadership during his predecessors’ reigns when calculating his regnal years. Foundational to this view, and countering the view of Pekah as a rival king, is the Hebrew word for “chief officers” (שָׁלִישׁ֗, shalish) in 2 Kgs 15:25 (Cook, “Pekah,” 124). Thiele and others (Kelle and Strawn, “History,” 468) believe that this word identifies Pekah as working under Pekahiah’s authority rather than competing against him.’

Archer thinks that the interval of twenty years:

‘was simply the official position of Pekah’s government that after Zechariah (or Shallum) was murdered, Pekah became the only lawful king over Israel. To be sure, he was unable to dislodge Menahem from the West Bank; but still, as the only legitimate king of Israel (in his own opinion, at least), his right to Samaria as capital of the kingdom was ipso facto established. He finally took up official residence in Samaria (after the coup d’etat against Pekahiah) from 740 or 739, but his reign in Samaria was theoretically computed from 752, when he first asserted his right to the throne.’

Conclusion

Dogmatism is inadvisable in this case.  Remember that this chapter is dealing with:

‘the final chaotic years of the life of Israel with a succession of kings and assassinations, coups d’état, and foreign intervention.’ (Hobbs, WBC)

In the very nature of the case, the chronology is bound to be complicated, and difficult (if not impossible) to unravel at this distance.