Why did the high places remain in 2 Kings 15:35 despite Jotham's righteous actions? Historical Setting of Jotham’s Reign Jotham ruled c. 750–735 BC (mid-8th century BC). He became co-regent under his leprous father Azariah/Uzziah (2 Kings 15:5) and reigned in a time of relative prosperity but escalating Assyrian menace (Tiglath-pileser III began western campaigns in 743 BC). Judah’s economy flourished (2 Chronicles 27:3-5), yet idolatrous syncretism still permeated the populace (Hosea 4:13), a factor Scripture repeatedly records of both Israel and Judah. Definition and Origin of “High Places” (Hebrew bamôt) High places were raised cultic sites—natural hills, artificial mounds, or platforms—used for sacrifice, incense, and often fertility rites (1 Kings 14:23). Archaeology has located bamôt at Arad, Beersheba, and Lachish: altars cut down to fit Hezekiah’s later reforms indicate earlier widespread use. While some pre-Temple high places were Yahwistic (e.g., Samuel at Mizpah, 1 Samuel 7:6), post-Temple usage violated the centralization mandate of Deuteronomy 12. The Divine Mandate for Centralized Worship Deuteronomy 12:2-14 commanded Israel to destroy Canaanite worship sites and bring offerings only to “the place the LORD your God will choose.” Solomonic Temple completion (c. 960 BC) fixed that place as Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:29). Hence, retention of bamôt constituted covenant breach regardless of the worshiper’s sincerity. Jotham’s Personal Righteousness vs. National Practice 2 Kings 15:34 affirms, “He did what was right in the sight of the LORD…” Like his father Uzziah, Jotham upheld personal piety and temple maintenance (2 Chronicles 27:6). Yet kings were evaluated on two axes: 1. Personal fidelity to Yahweh. 2. National leadership in covenant enforcement. Jotham excelled in the first but, unlike Hezekiah and Josiah, did not push systemic reform. The inspired summary therefore adds the critical “nevertheless.” Political and Social Obstacles 1. Co-regency Constraints – During much of Jotham’s tenure, the incapacitated but living Uzziah remained symbolic king. Radical religious overhaul might have been perceived as undermining his father’s residual authority. 2. Nobility Resistance – Isaiah 1 indicts Judah’s elites for rebellion. Entrenched landowners often funded or patronized local shrines, creating political cost for shutting them. 3. International Pressures – Tribute demands from Assyria (cf. 2 Kings 15:19) diverted resources; the king prioritized fortifications (2 Chronicles 27:4). Re-education of worship practices lagged behind military exigencies. Spiritual Condition of the People Reform requires heart change (De 30:6). While Jotham “ordered his ways before the LORD” (2 Chronicles 27:6), the populace cherished syncretistic convenience: high places were nearer than Jerusalem, integrated into agrarian rhythms, and blended with Canaanite fertility superstition. Hosea, Amos, and Micah—Jotham’s contemporaries—denounced this very mindset (Hosea 10:8; Amos 7:9; Micah 1:5-7). Comparison with Other Kings • Asa & Jehoshaphat – Pious yet likewise left high places (1 Kings 15:14; 22:43). • Hezekiah – Later removed them (2 Kings 18:4) but faced fierce backlash (Isaiah 36:7). • Josiah – Most thorough purge (2 Kings 23), illustrating the rarity and rigor required. Thus 2 Kings uses the high-place criterion to distinguish partial from complete reform. Prophetic Witness and Impending Judgment Isaiah 2–5, preached during Jotham’s life, links idolatrous high places to looming judgment: “The idols will totally disappear” (Isaiah 2:18). By tolerating bamôt, Judah stored up wrath realized under Babylon (586 BC). God’s patience provided opportunity for repentance; their persistence confirmed culpability. Archaeological Corroboration • Tel Arad – Two-horned altar and temple annex dismantled in Hezekiah’s era show earlier tolerated provincial worship. • Beersheba Altar – Disassembled stones with carved serpent imagery, later reused in wall, fit the biblical narrative of late 8th-century cultic reform lapses preceding Hezekiah’s purge. Material evidence aligns with Scripture: bamôt persisted until decisive later reforms. Theological Reasons God Allowed High Places to Remain 1. Human Agency – Covenant blessings/curses (Leviticus 26) presuppose moral choice. God did not coerce removal; He commanded, warned, and awaited obedience. 2. Progressive Revelation – Each king’s response forms a didactic arc culminating in Josiah, showing the insufficiency of mere human monarchy and anticipating the perfect obedience of Messiah (Hebrews 10:9). 3. Judicial Hardening – Persistent sin can incur divine hardening (Isaiah 6:9-13), preparing the stage for righteous judgment and ultimate restoration. Christological and Redemptive-Historical Perspective High places illustrate humanity’s tendency to self-defined worship, foreshadowing the need for one Mediator and one Sacrifice (1 Titus 2:5). Jesus announces the hour when worship is “in spirit and truth” apart from localized shrines (John 4:21-24), fulfilling Deuteronomy’s concentration in His own person (John 2:19-21). Through His resurrection—historically attested by enemy attestation, early creed (1 Colossians 15:3-8), and empty tomb evidence—He becomes the definitive locus of worship, rendering all former high places obsolete. Practical and Devotional Application Believers may emulate Jotham’s personal godliness yet tolerate “high places” of compromise—ungodly media, materialism, or secret sin. True reform demands both private devotion and public courage to dismantle anything competing with Christ’s lordship (2 Colossians 10:4-5). Conclusion Jotham’s reign proves that personal righteousness does not automatically translate into corporate reformation. The high places remained because of entrenched popular idolatry, political limitations, and incomplete covenant enforcement. Scripture transparently records this tension, underscoring humanity’s need for the perfect King whose atoning resurrection secures both heart transformation and ultimate removal of every rival altar. |
    |