Bible Synapse

Was Ahaz buried with his fathers, or outside the tombs of the kings?

Hard question · Israel’s history: Joshua to Esther · raised by 1 of the lists sceptics circulate

Both true, in different sensesA summary and a fuller account
See the passages joined in the interactive map

The passages

2 Kings 16:20

“Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David”.

And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.

2 Chronicles 28:27

They buried him “in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel”.

And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.

2 Chronicles 26:23

Of Uzziah: “they buried him with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper”.

So Uzziah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.

2 Kings 15:7

Kings says of Uzziah (Azariah) only that “they buried him with his fathers in the city of David”.

So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.

The objection

2 Kings 16:20 says that Ahaz ‘was buried with his fathers in the city of David’. 2 Chronicles 28:27 says that he was buried in Jerusalem but was not brought into the tombs of the kings. Either he was laid with his royal ancestors or he was not.

The answer

Both books say that Ahaz was buried in Jerusalem, the city of David. Chronicles adds a detail that Kings does not give: he was not laid in the royal tombs themselves. Kings does not say that he was. ‘Slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David’ is the regular formula Kings uses for a king of Judah who died and was buried in the royal city. The Hebrew preposition ‘im (‘with’) can mean ‘beside’ or ‘near’, and the BSB translates the same formula in 2 Kings 15:7 as “buried near them in the City of David”.

Chronicles itself shows that ‘with his fathers’ can describe a burial near the kings rather than in their tombs. Of Uzziah, who died a leper, it says that “they buried him with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings” (2 Chronicles 26:23): with his fathers, but in the burial field, not the tomb, “for they said, He is a leper”. Kings says of the same man only that “they buried him with his fathers in the city of David” (2 Kings 15:7). The same pair of statements is made about Joash (2 Kings 12:21; 2 Chronicles 24:25) and Jehoram (2 Kings 8:24; 2 Chronicles 21:20).

Chronicles records such details because they show how the nation judged a king. Ahaz had shut the doors of the temple and set up altars to other gods all over Jerusalem and Judah (2 Chronicles 28:24–25), and he was refused a place among the kings. Gill and Clarke both read the two passages in this way.

From the classic commentators

But it is expressly declared, 2 Chronicles 28:27, that he was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings of Israel; and this was undoubtedly intended as a mark of degradation.Adam Clarke, Commentary on 2 Kings 16 (1810–1826)

Sources

Further reading

Raised by: The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Only the verse references come from these lists.

Checked 2026-10-22. All hard questions