How can 2 Chronicles 27:1–2 claim Jotham faithfully followed God if “the high places” were not removed, suggesting partial disobedience?

I. Context of Jotham’s Reign

Jotham’s place in Scripture appears primarily in 2 Chronicles 27:1–9 and the parallel passage in 2 Kings 15:32–38. These texts provide a summary of his lineage, reign, and general religious posture. According to 2 Chronicles 27:1–2:

“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. His mother’s name was Jerushah, the daughter of Zadok. And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done. In addition, he did not enter the temple of the LORD. But the people still behaved corruptly.”

Meanwhile, 2 Kings 15:34–35 adds:

“And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done. Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away; the people continued sacrificing and burning incense on the high places.”

Both passages underscore Jotham’s personal obedience and clarify that he did right before God. However, 2 Kings notes specifically that the high places were not removed. This raises the question about the apparent tension: how can Scripture describe him as faithful if he did not remove these illicit worship sites?

II. The Meaning of “High Places”

In the Old Testament, “high places” were locations often set on elevated ground where sacrifices and rituals took place. While some high places may originally have been devoted to the worship of the true God (1 Samuel 9:12–14 suggests legitimate worship at times), many became associated with idolatry and syncretism, mixing the worship of the God of Israel with the practices of surrounding nations.

Israelite kings who sought genuine reform were generally commended for removing these high places (see 2 Chronicles 31:1 regarding Hezekiah, and 2 Kings 23:8–9 regarding Josiah). By contrast, kings who left them intact, even while personally following God, were often criticized for not bringing full covenantal obedience across the land (1 Kings 15:14; 2 Kings 12:3).

III. Personal Righteousness vs. National Reform

Jotham’s example demonstrates a distinction between his own moral and spiritual fidelity and the broader spiritual condition of the nation. The text in 2 Chronicles 27:2 emphasizes his personal obedience: “He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done… But the people still behaved corruptly.” Although he himself walked uprightly, he did not enforce the removal of the high places in a sweeping national reform.

This pattern is not isolated. Asa (1 Kings 15:11–14) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20:32–33) also personally followed the Lord in many respects, yet the high places remained during parts of their reigns. The Chronicler likely highlights Jotham’s faithful character while acknowledging that he did not address every aspect of the nation’s idolatry.

IV. The Nature of Obedience in the Historical Narrative

Scripture often shows that even genuine believers and righteous leaders can have incomplete obedience. Rather than undermining their overall faithfulness, these failures highlight human fallibility and the complexity of widespread reform. In Jotham’s case:

• He built extensively on the wall of Ophel (2 Chronicles 27:3) and continued other projects that demonstrated trust in God.

• He “ordered his ways before the LORD his God” (2 Chronicles 27:6), indicating a consistent personal devotion.

• The people, however, “still behaved corruptly,” and the high places continued (2 Chronicles 27:2; 2 Kings 15:35).

From a theological perspective, describing him as faithful does not require perfection but shows that his personal posture toward God was right, even if he fell short of leading the nation into deeper covenantal purity.

V. Harmonizing Chronicles and Kings

Some may wonder if 2 Chronicles omits explicit mention of the high places to portray Jotham more positively. However, the Chronicler still notes the prevalent corruption among the people (2 Chronicles 27:2). The parallel account in 2 Kings simply adds more detail that Jotham did not remove these high places. Together, they paint a complete picture:

• Personal fidelity: 2 Chronicles highlights Jotham’s righteous walk and his building efforts.

• National shortcoming: 2 Kings underlines the continued presence of idolatrous practices and sites not addressed by his administration.

In biblical historiography, it is common for authors to emphasize specific themes. The Chronicler’s primary emphasis often rests on temple worship, priestly lineage, and personal devotion of the king. The author of Kings focuses additional attention on the national leadership’s responsibility to eradicate pagan worship practices. Both are true and work together.

VI. Purpose of Emphasizing Jotham’s Faithfulness

Because Jotham did not repeat his father Uzziah’s sin of improperly entering the temple (2 Chronicles 27:2), he is upheld as a model of respecting the boundary God set. His faithfulness can remind readers that spiritual leadership must begin with personal integrity before God.

• Jotham’s moral stance did not automatically transform the broader culture.

• His separation from the temple abuse mirrored a conscious choice to avoid the pride that led to his father’s downfall (2 Chronicles 26:16–20).

VII. Lessons on Leadership and Worship

1. Godly Influence vs. Popular Practice: An upright leader might indeed honor God personally but not always achieve a sweeping national purge of idolatry. Jotham stands as an example of partial reform—he walked faithfully yet failed to remove all idols.

2. Individual Responsibility: Even if national conditions remain corrupt, personal righteousness or devotion can still flourish. Leaders will be judged by how they walk with God, though they also bear responsibility to guide the people into proper worship.

3. Complexity of Cultural Reform: The Bible’s historical accounts repeatedly demonstrate that deep-seated cultural or religious practices (like sacrificing at high places) are not always rooted out overnight, even under kings who generally follow God’s commands.

VIII. Archaeological and Historical Corroborations

Though explicit evidence of Jotham’s building projects relating to the wall of Ophel are limited, archaeological findings in Jerusalem do show layers of construction from various kings in Judah’s monarchy. Some scholars note ancient defensive structures and walls near the Ophel area that may date to this general time period (late eighth century BC). While the exact attribution to Jotham can be debated, these findings corroborate that significant projects took place in Jerusalem during the era of Judah’s kings, supporting the biblical narrative (2 Chronicles 27:3).

IX. Conclusion

Jotham is rightly characterized as a faithful king who “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD” (2 Chronicles 27:2; 2 Kings 15:34–35). His personal devotion is well-attested, and he purposefully avoided the sins of his father. Yet, the high places remained, highlighting that even faithful rulers in Scripture could leave widespread idolatry unaddressed—either because of social pressures, political complexities, or limited personal influence over the entrenched customs of the people.

Far from contradicting Jotham’s commendation, the mention that high places were not removed underscores a realistic and nuanced portrayal of human leadership. Scripture recognizes his faithfulness, while honestly acknowledging that the nation needed a deeper reform that Jotham did not fully enact. This dual emphasis presents both God’s gracious acknowledgment of genuine devotion and the perpetual need for ongoing reform in every generation.