2 Kings Chapter 15

Unstable Monarchy in Israel

A. The reign of Azariah (Uzziah) over Judah.

1. (2 Kings 15:1-4) A summary of his reign.

In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah the son of Amaziah, king of Judah, became king. He was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done, except that the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.

a. He did what was right in the sight of the LORD:

Azariah, also called Uzziah, stands out as one of Judah’s strongest and most capable kings. His reign was marked by stability, military strength, administrative wisdom, and agricultural expansion. God blessed him with fifty-two years on the throne because he honored the Lord during the early and middle years of his rule. His success reflects the principle later echoed in 2 Chronicles 26:5, which says, “And 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 to prosper.” This provides a clear cause-and-effect relationship that aligns with the literal hermeneutic: faithfulness brings blessing, and departure brings judgment.

i. Azariah began his reign in a difficult national moment. His father had been assassinated, the northern kingdom had broken down part of Jerusalem’s wall, temple treasures had been carried off, and Judah’s morale was low. Yet this is exactly where God often raises up faithful leadership, demonstrating the truth of Psalm 75:7, which says, “But God is the judge, he putteth down one, and setteth up another.”

ii. 2 Chronicles 26 provides essential background. Azariah conquered Philistine cities, controlled Ammon, strengthened Judah’s fortifications, built towers, dug reservoirs, and developed advanced military engines capable of shooting arrows and stones from the walls. God prospered him because he walked in obedience.

iii. Some commentators note he may have been chosen by the people rather than ascending purely by succession. If so, God used this unique moment to preserve the Davidic line, in keeping with 2 Samuel 7:16, “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee, thy throne shall be established for ever.”

b. Except that the high places were not removed:

This recurring theme in Judah’s history shows the persistence of partial obedience. Azariah upheld temple worship, yet he allowed the people to continue offering incense on unauthorized high places. These were not pagan shrines in this context, but unauthorized local worship sites that God had prohibited. The problem with high places is that they represent worship on man’s terms instead of God’s.

i. The prophets of this era—especially Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah—denounced such shallow obedience. Isaiah 1:11-13 rebukes external religion without heart-level submission, saying, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD… Bring no more vain oblations.” Judah kept religious forms but resisted full obedience.

ii. As Trapp rightly observed, this failure “lessened his crown of glory.” Azariah accomplished much, but he tolerated long-standing patterns of disobedience. His reign shows the danger of halfway reform, similar to how Saul obeyed partially in 1 Samuel 15, where Samuel declared, “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice.”

2. (2 Kings 15:5-7) The sad end of his reign.

Then the LORD struck the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death; so he dwelt in an isolated house. And Jotham the king’s son was over the royal house, judging the people of the land. Now the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? So Azariah rested with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the City of David. Then Jotham his son reigned in his place.

a. The LORD struck the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death:

2 Chronicles 26 records the fuller story of Azariah’s downfall. After long years of blessing, military success, architectural expansion, agricultural innovation, and divine help, pride infected his heart. Scripture says, “But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction, for he transgressed against the LORD his God, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense” (2 Chronicles 26:16, KJV). He attempted to seize priestly authority that God had reserved exclusively for the sons of Aaron.

This was no small sin. God established from Sinai onward that kings could not serve as priests. The separation of king, priest, and prophet remained absolute until the Messiah, who alone holds all three offices in perfection. The priests confronted Azariah, urging him to leave the sanctuary. Instead of humbling himself, he persisted. Then the judgment fell instantly.

2 Chronicles 26:20 describes the moment: “And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence, yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him.” The very forehead lifted in pride was marked with divine judgment.

i. This reinforces the principle set forth in Numbers 18:7, where God warns that priestly duties belong exclusively to the sons of Aaron: “Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest’s office for every thing of the altar… the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” Azariah was not a priest. The penalty for approaching the altar unlawfully was death. Leprosy was a living death, carried out with precision and mercy.

ii. Patterson and Austel are correct: Uzziah’s power fed his pride. His downfall illustrates Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Even a godly, gifted king is not immune to pride’s corruption.

b. He dwelt in an isolated house:

The proud king who forced his way into the sanctuary was forced into a life of separation. He had entered the holy place unlawfully, so God removed him from the public life of the nation. His isolation symbolized his spiritual condition. The man once celebrated internationally (2 Chronicles 26:8) now lived cut off, excluded from temple worship, unable to sit upon his throne in public.

2 Chronicles 26:21 says, “And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD.”

i. Knapp’s observation is right: leprosy was a divine judgment mirroring the law’s threat of death. It was a prolonged execution of a spiritual sentence. Pride brought him into the temple; the LORD struck him and expelled him.

ii. His son Jotham essentially co-reigned, managing the affairs of state. Azariah’s pride cost him his fellowship, his influence, his throne, and the dignity of his final years.

c. So Azariah rested with his fathers:

His death marks a significant moment in biblical history. Isaiah begins his prophetic call narrative with the words, “In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple” (Isaiah 6:1, KJV). The contrast is intentional. The earthly king who tried to exalt himself was brought low, but the heavenly King remains exalted forever.

i. Considering Azariah’s life:

• He began well, taking the throne at sixteen.

• He reigned longer than nearly every king in Judah’s history.

• He was militarily powerful, administratively gifted, and divinely blessed.

• Yet he fell because pride led him into direct rebellion against God.

ii. Isaiah’s discouragement at Uzziah’s death is understandable. A long, stable, mostly godly reign ended in humiliation. Yet God used this dark moment to reveal His unshakable sovereignty. Earthly kings fail; the heavenly King reigns forever. The message to Isaiah—and to every believer—is that God’s throne is never vacant.

B. Five kings over the kingdom of Israel.

This section of 2 Kings 15 begins the story of five kings over Israel. “This chapter anticipates the final overthrow of this kingdom of the tribes. It describes the corruption and disorganization that made them the easy prey of Assyria.” (Meyer)

1. (2 Kings 15:8-12) The short, evil reign of Zechariah.

In the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah the son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, as his fathers had done; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin. Then Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and struck and killed him in front of the people; and he reigned in his place. Now the rest of the acts of Zechariah, indeed they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. This was the word of the LORD which He spoke to Jehu, saying, “Your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.” And so it was.

a. Zechariah the son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months:

Zechariah’s reign marked the end of Jehu’s dynasty. He continued the same corrupt religious system inaugurated by Jeroboam I, the counterfeit worship of the true God through golden calves. His reign was short, his spiritual condition was bankrupt, and his authority was hollow. His six-month rule is a picture of Israel’s deep moral collapse as the Northern Kingdom drifted closer to Assyrian judgment.

i. Knapp notes a likely period of eleven years of instability after Jeroboam II’s death. This would illustrate the chaos prophesied in Hosea 1:4, where God said, “For yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.”
The brevity of Zechariah’s rule shows the certainty of that prophetic word.

b. Then Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and struck and killed him in front of the people:

Zechariah fell by assassination, and Shallum seized the throne through violence. The Northern Kingdom had reached a point where regicide was normal and public murder was tolerated. The people did not resist because they no longer distinguished between legitimate and illegitimate rule.

i. Trapp observes, “God keepeth promise with his foes: shall he fail his friends?” The Lord had promised Jehu four generations on the throne. Zechariah, the last of the line, fulfilled that promise exactly.

ii. Wiseman emphasizes that Zechariah’s death marked the collapse of the Northern Kingdom as a stable state. In the next twenty years, six kings would rule, five of whom would die violently. The kingdom was devouring itself.

iii. Dilday calls the following kings “pseudo-kings,” men who gained their throne by treachery rather than divine appointment. It pictures the rot of a kingdom refusing God’s Word.

2. (2 Kings 15:13-16) The even briefer reign of Shallum.

Shallum the son of Jabesh became king in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah; and he reigned a full month in Samaria. For Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, came to Samaria, and struck Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria and killed him; and he reigned in his place. Now the rest of the acts of Shallum, and the conspiracy which he led, indeed they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. Then from Tirzah, Menahem attacked Tiphsah, all who were there, and its territory. Because they did not surrender, therefore he attacked it. All the women there who were with child he ripped open.

a. Shallum… reigned a full month:

Shallum’s coup lasted barely thirty days before he too was killed. The contrast with Jehu’s four-generation dynasty underscores just how unstable Israel had become. The nation rejected God, and the result was political fragmentation, moral confusion, and rapid-fire leadership changes.

i. Knapp points to Hosea 7:3, where the prophet writes, “They make the king glad with their wickedness, and the princes with their lies.” Israel was celebrating wickedness, and its leadership reflected the moral condition of the people. When sin is normalized, stable leadership becomes impossible.

b. Now the rest of the acts of Shallum:

The writer of Kings gives no moral analysis because Shallum’s reign was too short to leave a policy legacy. But his violent rise and fall reveal a man who did not seek the Lord, did not honor His covenant, and did not protect the people he claimed to lead.

i. Morgan describes the age as one of military despotism, where generals replaced kings and violent ambition replaced godly leadership. Israel had abandoned the LORD, so He abandoned them to the consequences of their rebellion.

c. Menahem attacked Tiphsah… he ripped open the women with child:

The brutality Menahem unleashed upon Tiphsah marks one of the darkest moments in Israel’s history. He slaughtered innocents, including pregnant women, when the city refused immediate surrender. This horrific act mirrored the cruelty of surrounding pagan nations.

i. Wiseman notes that such brutality echoes earlier atrocities predicted by the prophets:

• 2 Kings 8:12, where Elisha foretold that Hazael would dash children and rip open pregnant women.

• Amos 1:13, “Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon… because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead.”

• Hosea 13:8, where God compares Assyria’s coming judgment to a wild beast tearing its prey.

Israel had become indistinguishable from the pagan nations surrounding it. When God’s people reject His law, they do not become neutral – they become like the world they imitate.

3. (2 Kings 15:17–22) A summary of the reign of Menahem.

In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem the son of Gadi became king over Israel, and reigned ten years in Samaria. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin. Pul king of Assyria came against the land; and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to strengthen the kingdom under his control. And Menahem exacted the money from Israel, from all the very wealthy, from each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and did not stay there in the land. Now the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? So Menahem rested with his fathers. Then Pekahiah his son reigned in his place.

a. Menahem the son of Gadi became king over Israel:

Menahem's ten-year reign is remembered for brutality, political corruption, and unwavering commitment to the false religious system established by Jeroboam I. His rule offered no spiritual reform, no revival of covenant faithfulness, and no repentance before the LORD. He continued the same counterfeit worship centered around the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, a system God repeatedly condemned. His leadership deepened Israel’s decline and accelerated the nation’s collapse toward Assyrian domination.

b. Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to strengthen the kingdom under his control:

When Pul, the Assyrian king (also known as Tiglath-Pileser III), came against the land, Menahem did not seek the LORD. Instead, he purchased Assyria’s favor, effectively transforming Israel into a tributary state. He surrendered a massive sum of silver, taken not from his own treasury, but extracted forcefully from the wealthy of Israel.
This political maneuver preserved Menahem’s throne temporarily, but it was a declaration of weakness and a rejection of God’s covenant protection.

i. Knapp emphasizes that the wealthy who bore the tax burden were often those condemned by the prophets for exploiting the poor.
For example Amos 5:11 says, “Forasmuch therefore as your treading is upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them.”
These wealthy elites gained riches through oppression, so their forced contribution to Assyria reflects poetic justice under God’s providence. Judgment reached the very class that had ignored the suffering of the common people.

ii. Wiseman notes the standard Assyrian imperial strategy: first impose tribute, then install an Assyrian “watchdog” in the royal court, and finally subjugate the nation fully.
This fits the long-term trajectory of Israel’s decline. Tribute was only the beginning. Israel was being drawn into the jaws of the Assyrian Empire because of persistent rebellion against the LORD.

4. (2 Kings 15:23–26) The two-year reign of Pekahiah

In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekahiah the son of Menahem became king over Israel in Samaria, and reigned two years. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin. Then Pekah the son of Remaliah, an officer of his, conspired against him and killed him in Samaria, in the citadel of the king's house, along with Argob and Arieh; and with him were fifty men of Gilead. He killed him and reigned in his place. Now the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, indeed they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.

a. Pekahiah the son of Menahem became king over Israel:

Pekahiah inherited the throne from his father Menahem, making him part of a rare father-to-son succession during the chaotic final years of the northern kingdom. Because the two kings before Menahem were assassinated and left no stable dynasty, Menahem’s ability to pass the throne to his son shows that he had enough political strength, military backing, or Assyrian support to secure a temporary line. Pekahiah’s ascension illustrates how fragile and politically unstable Israel had become. Dynasties no longer lasted more than a generation or two and often ended violently.

b. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam:

The biblical evaluation of Pekahiah is the same as nearly every king of northern Israel. He continued in the counterfeit worship system Jeroboam I established, centered on the golden calves at Bethel and Dan. He did not restore biblical worship, did not lead the nation in repentance, and did nothing to return Israel to covenant loyalty.

This phrase is more than a summary; it is a theological indictment. Jeroboam’s sin became a national legacy, a chain that every northern king chose to remain bound to. The pattern hardened the people in idolatry and guaranteed the judgment the prophets repeatedly warned about.

i. Meyer comments strongly on the repeated phrase “Jeroboam the son of Nebat,” noting that Nebat’s name is repeatedly tied to his son’s rebellion. Meyer argues that this implies Nebat bore responsibility for shaping Jeroboam’s corrupted character. Parents influence their children profoundly, and negligent or ungodly instruction can echo for generations. Scripture illustrates this principle in several places.
For instance Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This proverb highlights the long-term influence of parental guidance, whether faithful or corrupt.

c. He killed him and reigned in his place:

Pekahiah’s reign ended violently after only two years when Pekah, one of his officers, led a conspiracy against him and murdered him in Samaria’s fortified citadel. His assassination marks the collapse of yet another short-lived dynasty and the rise of a new usurper.

i. “An officer of his”: Patterson and Austel note that the rebellion came from within Pekahiah’s personal bodyguard. This shows how little loyalty he commanded and how unstable Israel had become. When a king cannot trust even those who guard his life, the kingdom is already rotting from the inside.

This mirrors earlier prophetic warnings.
Hosea 7:7 describes Israel’s leadership in this era:
“They are all hot as an oven, and have devoured their judges; all their kings are fallen: there is none among them that calleth unto me.”
This perfectly captures the climate of internal betrayal, constant palace coups, and spiritual blindness that characterized the final decades of Israel’s monarchy.

5. (2 Kings 15:27–31) The 20-year reign of Pekah

In the fifty-second year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah the son of Remaliah became king over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD; he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin. In the days of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria. Then Hoshea the son of Elah led a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and struck and killed him; so he reigned in his place in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah. Now the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, indeed they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.

a. “And he did evil in the sight of the LORD”

Pekah continued the same spiritual rebellion that had defined the northern kingdom for two centuries. The dynasties changed, the kings changed, the politics changed, but the idolatry remained intact. Every king of Israel maintained the man-made worship system established by Jeroboam I, refusing to submit to the LORD’s covenant and refusing to restore biblical worship in Jerusalem.

This is a testimony to the spiritual blindness of the nation. Even in a time of political collapse and divine warning, the kings clung to idolatry. This reinforces the repeated biblical axiom that idolatry is not merely a political choice, but a heart condition.

i. Chronology difficulty:
The twenty-year reign attributed to Pekah is challenging to place historically, because he likely began ruling as a rival king or military commander in parts of Israel long before he fully seized the throne. This internal fragmentation reflects the same societal decay the prophets warned about.
Hosea 10:3 describes Israel’s political instability during this era:
“For now they shall say, We have no king, because we feared not the LORD; what then should a king do to us?”
Israel’s kings could not bring stability because the nation had already forsaken the true King.

b. “Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took…”

Unlike earlier Assyrian interactions, Tiglath-Pileser did not accept money in exchange for leaving Israel alone. Instead, he seized the strategic northern regions, including Galilee, Hazor, Gilead, and the entire tribal territory of Naphtali. These were among Israel’s most fertile and militarily valuable territories.

This invasion crushed Pekah’s anti-Assyrian foreign policy and showed the helplessness of Israel against God’s appointed instrument of judgment.

i. Patterson and Austel rightly observe that this disaster exposed the suicidal foolishness of Pekah’s anti-Assyrian stance. With Assyrian forces now stationed along Israel’s western frontier, the kingdom was effectively reduced to a tiny remnant on life support.

ii. Clarke notes that 1 Chronicles 5:26 reveals the deportation of the tribes east of the Jordan:
“And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh.”
These tribes were never restored in Israel’s history. Their exile was permanent.

iii. Dilday emphasizes the extent of the loss: Israel was reduced to a tiny strip of land, only about thirty miles by forty miles. This was more than political decline; it was a fulfillment of covenant judgment as described in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.

c. “He carried them captive to Assyria”

Assyria began implementing its infamous deportation policy, forcibly relocating the strongest, most skilled, and most influential people of conquered nations. This practice prevented rebellion, destabilized national identity, and ensured submission. The exile of these northern tribes was the first wave leading toward the full destruction of the northern kingdom.

i. Wiseman notes that this marks a transition. Israel was now functionally a vassal-state. This was the beginning of the end, the process that would culminate in the total destruction of Samaria under Shalmaneser V and Sargon II.

This partial deportation fulfills exactly what the LORD warned through Moses.
Deuteronomy 28:64 says,
“And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other.”
This was not random geopolitical movement. It was God’s covenant discipline.

d. “Hoshea… led a conspiracy… and struck and killed him”

Pekah’s violent rise to power is matched by a violent end. He assassinated Pekahiah, only to be assassinated himself. Not one king in this entire period died peacefully except one. Their instability reflected a nation completely given over to spiritual rebellion.

i. Knapp cites Josephus, who says Hoshea was a friend whom Pekah trusted. This mirrors the judgment principle found in Proverbs 26:27:
“Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein.”
Pekah killed to obtain power. He was killed by someone close to him. God’s justice is not always immediate, but it is always exact.

ii. Knapp also recalls that Pekah had slaughtered one hundred thousand men of Judah in one day (2 Chronicles 28:6).
2 Chronicles 28:6 says,
“For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men, because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.”
Pekah shed blood treacherously, and God repaid him in kind. His own blood was shed through treachery.

Just as God warned in Genesis 9:6:
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”

C. Jotham’s Reign Over Judah

1. (2 Kings 15:32–36) A summary of the reign of Jotham

In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, Jotham the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, began to reign. He was twenty five years old when he became king, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jerusha the daughter of Zadok. And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, he did according to all that his father Uzziah had done. Howbeit the high places were not removed, the people still sacrificed and burned incense in the high places. He built the upper gate of the house of the LORD. Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

Jotham stands out as one of the rare kings of Judah who consistently pursued what was right in the eyes of the LORD. His reign contrasts sharply with the instability and wickedness that characterized the kings of Israel during the same period. The text emphasizes that he continued the spiritual pattern of his father Uzziah, but without repeating his father’s sins. Whereas Uzziah attempted to intrude into the priestly office, Jotham respected the boundaries God had established and governed with humility. His commitment to strengthening the temple entrance reveals his devotion to the worship of the LORD and his desire to preserve proper access between the royal palace and the house of God.

Although he was personally upright, the high places were still not removed. This allows us to see the recurring pattern in Judah, where the people clung to traditional forms of worship that fell short of full obedience. Even a good king cannot singlehandedly produce revival when the nation itself is spiritually half hearted.

Notes on Key Phrases

a. “He did what was right in the sight of the LORD”

Jotham represents a bright spot in Judah’s history. His righteousness stands in stark contrast to the spiritual disorder in the northern kingdom. This is particularly important because it shows the continuing mercy of God toward Judah during a time when Israel was descending into political collapse and approaching judgment.

A parallel example of individual righteousness in the midst of national decline is found in 2 Chronicles 27:6,
“So Jotham became mighty, because he prepared his ways before the LORD his God.”
His personal preparation before God resulted in national stability.

Another example of this spiritual principle appears in Psalm 1:1–3,
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season, his leaf also shall not wither, and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”

b. “He did according to all that his father Uzziah had done”

This points to the influence of a father upon a son. Though Uzziah ended poorly because of pride, his lifelong pattern of godliness left a mark on Jotham. A father’s example shapes the spiritual direction of the next generation.

This principle appears in Proverbs 20:7,
“The just man walketh in his integrity, his children are blessed after him.”

Jotham repeated his father’s strengths but avoided his father’s sins. Whereas Uzziah tried to assume priestly duties and was struck with leprosy, Jotham respected God’s order. This is a reminder of the divinely established separation among the offices of prophet, priest, and king. These offices were never united except in Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1:8–9 shows the perfection of Christ’s kingship,
“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity.”

Christ alone can hold the triple office. Jotham understood his place and ruled with humility.

c. “He built the upper gate of the house of the LORD”

This building work is a sign of spiritual vitality in Judah. For a king to strengthen the access between palace and temple symbolized his desire to keep the nation aligned with the worship of the LORD. Jotham did not seize priestly authority like his father Uzziah, rather, he strengthened the connection between throne and temple in a proper and God honoring way.

Knapp’s observation that this gate acted as his “line of communication” with God fits the biblical pattern. David understood this principle when he said in Psalm 27:4,
“One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life.”

The spiritual prosperity of a ruler who honors God’s house is echoed in 2 Samuel 7:28–29,
“And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant. Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for ever before thee.”

d. “Howbeit the high places were not removed”

Jotham was personally faithful, yet the people remained half committed. This failure is consistent with earlier evaluations of Judah’s kings.

The LORD repeatedly condemned the high places, including in Deuteronomy 12:2–4,
“Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God.”

Keeping these places open allowed syncretism to survive. This pattern eventually contributed to Judah’s downfall under later kings.

2. (2 Kings 15:37–38) Judah begins to experience chastening

In those days the LORD began to send Rezin king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah against Judah. So Jotham rested with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father. And Ahaz his son reigned in his place

Although Jotham was righteous, the spiritual condition of Judah as a whole was deteriorating. The LORD began to send foreign pressures through Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel. This was the early stage of divine chastening meant to call Judah to repentance. God’s judgments always begin gently, allowing space for repentance before increasing in severity.

Notes on Key Phrases

a. “The LORD began to send”

This was not random geopolitics. God Himself directed these events as discipline.
Amos 3:6 says,
“Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”
This means calamity does not occur apart from His sovereign permission.

b. A warning before greater judgment

This was the beginning of pressures that would later intensify dramatically under Ahaz. Dilday notes that the full weight of these invasions was not felt until the next generation. This matches God’s pattern in Leviticus 26, where He promises escalating discipline if the nation refuses to listen.

Leviticus 26:18 states,
“And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.”

Judah was receiving the early warnings.