Topical Studies
What the Bible says about
Jotham
(From Forerunner Commentary)
|
2 Kings 15:34-35
Jotham was the fourth successive king of Judah who "did what was right in the sight of the LORD," but during whose reign "the high places were not removed." He had the shortest reign of the four—16 years—and died at a mere 41 years of age. Though he, too, failed to remove the high places, unlike his fathers, he remained true to God during his short reign and life. II Chronicles 27:2 adds, "And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Uzziah had done (although he did not enter the temple of the LORD). But still the people acted corruptly." II Chronicles 27:6 provides another significant description: "So Jotham became mighty, because he prepared [or established] his ways before the LORD his God" (emphasis ours throughout; cf. Proverbs 4:26; 16:3; 24:3). Jotham was well aware of the presumptuous mistake of his father Uzziah, and it must have weighed on him as he contemplated the direction of his own life. God prospered him because he considered his ways to ensure they conformed to God's standard. God was no stranger in his thoughts. Notice also the phrase "the LORD his God." The relationship was a personal one; God was not simply a Being about whom Jotham had heard stories. No, he was dedicated to God and remained committed throughout his life. However, like his fathers, though he did not personally worship on the pagan high places, he tolerated them—and that tolerance had some unintended consequences for his progeny. Jotham's son, Ahaz, was truly a bad king. He did not do what was right in the sight of the LORD his God, as his father David had done. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel; indeed he made his son pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out from before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree. (II Kings 16:2-4) Apparently, Jotham's good example was not enough, as Ahaz latched onto what had been left undone and ran with it. The high places had been a feature in Judah for about 150 years when Ahaz assumed the throne and so were a part of his environment, even though his father did not worship at them. But Jotham's tolerance of them was probably a contributing factor to his son's path into idolatry and beyond to the abhorrent practice of child sacrifice. In looking at the record of Jotham's life, we can see that while he was fastidious in his own relationship with God, he apparently put little effort into improving matters spiritually for the people. While he did not personally regress as his fathers had, he did not get the nation back on track regarding the true worship of God. He held steady in his own life but did not dirty his hands attempting to clean up the spiritual morass he had inherited. The histories of Israel's kings and judges show that successful spiritual revivals typically begin with tearing down the idols first, which sets the stage for the people to turn back to God. The same dual action appears throughout Scripture: Getting rid of something bad is combined with replacing it with something good. When we are converted, we have to remove the false and take in the truth. In addition, one of the prophecies about Jesus Christ says that He would "know to refuse the evil and choose the good" (Isaiah 7:15-16). Because our Creator is a God of purity, the best results always come from paying attention to both aspects—otherwise, the result is a mixture of good and evil, which always falls short of the mark. Even if one holds onto the good, ignoring the evil (as opposed to excising it) allows it to grow and fester like cancer, ready to break out and cause harm. Jotham stands as the best of the four successive kings who failed to remove the high places, and considering the overall state of the nation, perhaps he did the best he could. Unlike Hezekiah, he did not lead a spiritual revival, but neither did he personally let down. Nevertheless, the net effect of these four kings' reluctance to rid Judah of the high places was to allow an evil to endure that later resulted in the kingdom's destruction and captivity.
David C. Grabbe
The High Places (Part Five)
|
|
2 Chronicles 26:4
The chronicler does not even compare Uzziah to David but to his father, Amaziah, whose life did not end well, though he started fine. Uzziah seems to have followed in Joash's footsteps: “He sought God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of God; and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him prosper” (II Chronicles 26:5). Joash sought God while Jehoiada the priest lived. Now another strong priest, who, as the margin says, understood the fear of God, steered Uzziah in the right direction. As long as Uzziah had this righteous guidance, God helped him with victories over surrounding nations, bringing him fame and prosperity (II Chronicles 26:9-11). The record of his early reign concludes, “So his fame spread far and wide, for he was marvelously helped till he became strong” (verse 15). However, upon reaching the zenith of power and fame, he plunges toward his nadir; the butterfly turns into a worm: “But when he was strong his heart was lifted up, to his destruction, for he transgressed against the LORD his God by entering the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense” (II Chronicles 26:16). Uzziah presumptuously disregarded God's Word, for it says that only the priests could perform this responsibility. Success after success spoiled his character. He became arrogant, filled with inordinate self-esteem. In his pride, he tried to emulate the despotic Oriental kings around him, who were their nations' high priests as well. But God had purposely separated the two offices within Israel. What was the result of his flagrant presumption? First, the priests tried to stop him from his foolish act (II Chronicles 26:17-18). In his overweening pride, Uzziah's reaction was rage. The priests had challenged his authority! Was he not the mighty king of Judah? It appears he felt that he had become infallible and invincible. The chronicler relates the disastrous ending of the tale: Then Uzziah became furious; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense. And while he was angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead, before the priests in the house of the LORD, beside the incense altar. And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and there, on his forehead, he was leprous; so they thrust him out of that place. Indeed he also hurried to get out, because the LORD had struck him. King Uzziah was a leper until the day of his death. He dwelt in an isolated house, because he was a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD. Then Jotham his son was over the king's house, judging the people of the land. (II Chronicles 26:19-21) Josephus adds an interesting postscript to the story, though it is not clear if he is correct or not. He writes that the earthquake the prophet Amos mentions in Amos 1:1 occurred when Uzziah invaded the Holy Place. Moreover, he says that the shaking tore the sanctuary's roof, and a ray of sunlight pierced the Temple, striking Uzziah in his forehead. When the sunbeam disappeared, leprosy remained. Tradition says this was the hand of God, showing His displeasure with Uzziah's presumptuous pride. We see a king who started marvelously but faltered and failed along the way. Like Amaziah, when confronted with the truth of his sin, he refused to repent, doubling down with anger and threats. God humbled him for the rest of his life. He had sought glory and fame, and he had to live with shame and loneliness for about another decade before he died. II Chronicles 26:23 records that he was buried with his fathers but separated from them in the field because “they said, 'He is a leper.'”
John W. Ritenbaugh
Three Missing Kings (Part Two)
|
|
Matthew 1:7-11
I Chronicles 3 contains a counterpart to Matthew's list, at least his middle section covering the kings of Judah, that is, the family of David: Solomon's son was Rehoboam; Abijah was his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son, Amon his son, Josiah his son. The sons of Josiah were Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, and the fourth Shallum. The sons of Jehoiakim were Jeconiah his son and Zedekiah his son. (I Chronicles 3:10-16) From David to Zedekiah, twenty-one kings reigned in Judah. But in Matthew's list, only the names of fifteen kings appear. Three of the six left out, the three who followed Josiah (Shallum/Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah), were of the same generation, brothers—blood relatives, of the same family line. However, two of them, Shallum and Zedekiah, are not direct ancestors of Jesus and so are not included, providing a logical reason for their absence. Matthew further disparages this generation by skipping over Jehoiakim and naming his son, Jehoiachin or Jeconiah, as Josiah's son (his literal grandson). In addition, a renegade queen, Athaliah, is not on either list. She was the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel (II Chronicles 22:2), and a truly evil woman. She usurped the throne following her son Ahaziah's death by killing all his heirs. She deserves exclusion, yet some of the most evil kings of Judah are on the list as part of Christ's ancestry. Another three kings whose names appear in the king list in I Chronicles 3 fail to appear in Matthew's list. Which three kings they are is not entirely clear because of a confusion of names. There are two possibilities. The kings in question appear in I Chronicles 3:11-12: “Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son.” The first possibility is that Matthew excluded Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah from his list because of their connection to Athaliah. The second possibility is that he left Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah off his list. The last of these kings is better known as Uzziah. Why did Matthew drop them from Jesus' family tree? Rather than excluding them due to their connection to Athaliah, he may have omitted them to draw attention to a disastrous flaw these three men had in common. God does not tell us which is the correct answer. Either of the two possibilities would be a good enough reason for their absence from Matthew's list. The second, however, has greater application to Christians living and growing today. We are not descended from or have any direct connections to Athaliah, but we may well have a similar spiritual problem to what Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah had.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Three Missing Kings (Part One)
|
Find more Bible verses about Jotham:
Jotham {Nave's}
|
 |
The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment
Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 155,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.
Email Address:
|
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time. |
|
|
