JOTHAM jō’ thəm (יﯴתָ֛ם; LXX ̓Ιωαθαμ, prob. the Lord is perfect or may the Lord finish). A son of Gideon, who escaped the massacre of his family by the Shechemites and whose curse on them was fulfilled in the sack of the city by Abimelech (Judg 9); the name of a descendant of Caleb’s brother Jerahmeel (1 Chron 2:47); and the name of a son of Uzziah, regent during his father’s illness and later king (2 Kings 15:32-38; 2 Chron 26:21-27:9).
1. Chronology. Uzziah died about 740 b.c. (see Uzziah). According to Kings, Jotham became king in the second year of Pekah of Israel, and was still on the throne when Rezin began trying to force Judah into alliance against Assyria; but it was Ahaz who bore the brunt of this pressure (cf. Isa 7), and who invoked help from Assyria, leading to the fall of Damascus in 732 b.c. Ahaz was followed by Hezekiah, in whose fourteenth year (prob. 701) Sennacherib invaded Judah (2 Kings 18:13). This implies that Ahaz began his sixteen year reign about 730; it could be inferred that Jotham had surrendered the reins of government a few years earlier, and before his own death. The dating of Hoshea’s accession (731) in the twentieth year of Jotham (2 Kings 15:30), whereas v. 33 allows Jotham a reign of only sixteen years, may point to the same conclusion. Jotham’s “twentieth year” may well be reckoned from his co-regency; his “sixteen” could be taken in the same way (Thiele), or emended to “six” (J. Gray, I and II Kings, pp. 57, 67ff.). It is clear that the chronological data in 2 Kings 15-18 is not based on a single system of reckoning. C. Schedl has propounded a theory that some of the original figures have been increased by ten as a result of referring Jotham’s sixteen years to the death of Uzziah, whereas Thiele shows that the synchronisms in 2 Kings 17:1; 18:1, 9, 10, which do not match with the remaining data, could arise from taking Pekah’s years as following those of Menahem and Pekahiah, instead of running concurrently. Jotham on this basis became sole ruler in 740/39, and his reign ended effectively in 736/5 b.c.
2. Regency. Jotham’s position during his father’s illness is described as “over the house”; as Montgomery (ICC, p. 117) and Katzenstein have shown, this office developed in importance during the monarchy, being low on the list in 1 Kings 4:6, whereas in 2 Kings 19:2 the holder is principal deputy for the king. There is no hint elsewhere of this “chamberlain” having judicial functions, which properly belonged to the king; because Uzziah was not actually deposed, Jotham may have held the office purely for status, whereas he was in effect carrying out the royal functions.
It is interesting to compare this recorded co-regency with those inferred by Thiele to solve chronological problems of the divided monarchy. Jehoshaphat, prob. co-regent because of Asa’s incapacitation, provides the clearest precedent. The lack of an explicit statement about this may reflect the difference in circumstances; though Asa’s disease is noted in a context of spiritual failing, there was no dramatic event of direct interest to the Biblical historians that would have led them to mention a co-regency, nor was Asa necessarily deprived of all his royal functions.
A seal bearing Jotham’s name was found at Elath and published by N. Glueck in BASOR, LXXIX. Albright there argued from the absence of any patronymic or official designation that the owner was a very important person indeed; but that, being mounted in copper, the seal was prob. used by a local officer for royal business. Subsequent discussion (BASOR, CLXIII) suggests that Jotham himself might have had charge of the fort before his regency. There is little evidence either way; Elath was in Judean hands for most of Jotham’s lifetime.
3. Achievement. Jotham followed the steps of his father both in religious faith and in other state policy; both Kings and Chronicles credit him with a steadfast loyalty to the Lord, but observe that local sacrifices were still permitted in Judah.
It is recorded in Kings that Jotham built the “upper gate” of the Temple; the Chronicler adds that he built extensively on the Ophel wall and set up other defense works in the country. Simons sees the building in Jerusalem as part of a long-range plan to extend the city walls around the outlying quarters, because later, Hezekiah built a new N wall and Manasseh completed the circuit. It might be inaccurate, however, to think of a “plan” in any more formal sense than the evolution of a response to a continuously growing need. In the country, Jotham seemed to have strengthened and guarded the places of habitation rather than the frontiers; the “wooded hills” (2 Chron 27:4) indicate the western and particularly the NW areas.
The Ammonites, who had brought tribute to Uzziah, were defeated in battle by Jotham, and appear to have paid heavy tribute for three years running (2 Chron 27:5; the text is not clear and may be defective, but there is no doubt of the general sense). The limitation at the third year may be due to the turn of the tide as Rezin of Syria began to press southward (2 Kings 15:37).
Bibliography D. Diringer, Iscrizzioni Ant. Ebr. (1934), 126; W. F. Albright, BASOR, C (1945), 18-21; J. Montgomery, Kings, ICC (1951); J. Simons, Jerusalem in the OT (1952), 330; G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology (1957), 160; Navigated Rivers in the Desert (1959), 166ff.; BASOR, CLXIII (1961), 18-22; H. Katzenstein, IEJ, X (1960), 149ff.; C. Schedl, Vet Test, XII (1962), 90-98; J. Gray, Kings (1964), 57, 69, 559f., 569ff.; S. Horn, Andrews University Seminary Studies II (1964), 40-52; V. Pavlovsky, E. Vogt, Biblica, XLV (1964), 321-330; J. Myers, Chronicles (1965); E. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers2 (1965), 118-140, Vet Test XVI (1966), 83-102.