High Place
High place
(, bamah’; often in the plural, ; Sept. in the historical books, , ; in the Prophets, ; in the Pentateuch, , Lev 26:30, etc.; and once , Eze 16:16; Vulg. excelsa, fana) often occurs in connection with the term grove. By high places we understand natural or artificial ( , 1Ki 13:32; 1Ki 16:29; comp. 1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 23:15) eminences where worship by sacrifice or offering was made, usually upon an altar erected thereon; and by a grove we understand a plantation of trees around a spot in the open air set apart for worship and other sacred services, and therefore around or upon the high places which were set apart for the same purposes. SEE GROVE.
We find traces of these customs so soon after the deluge that it is probable they existed prior to that event. It appears that the first altar after the deluge was built by Noah upon the mountain on which the ark rested (Gen 8:20). Abraham, on entering the Promised Land, built an altar upon a mountain between Beth-el and Hai (Gen 12:7-8). At Beersheba he planted a grove, and called there upon the name of the everlasting God (Gen 21:33). The same patriarch was required to travel to the Mount Moriah, and there to offer up his son Isaac (Gen 22:2; Gen 22:4). It was upon a mountain in Gilead that Jacob and Laban offered sacrifices before they parted in peace (Gen 31:54). In fact, such seem to have been the general places of worship in those times; nor does any notice of a temple, or other covered or enclosed building for that purpose, occur. Thus far all seems clear and intelligible. There is no reason in the mere nature of things why a hill or a grove should be an objectionable, or, indeed, why it should not be a very suitable place for worship. Yet by the time the Israelites returned from Egypt, some corrupting change had taken place, which caused them to be repeatedly and strictly enjoined to overthrow and destroy the high places and groves of the Canaanites wherever they found them (Exo 34:13; Deu 7:5; Deu 12:2-3). That they were not themselves to worship the Lord on high places or in groves is implied in the fact that they were to have but one altar for regular and constant sacrifice; and it was expressly enjoined that near this sole altar no trees should be planted (Deu 16:21). SEE ALTAR. The external religion of the patriarchs was in some outward observances different from that subsequently established by the Mosaic law, and therefore they should not be condemned for actions which afterwards became sinful only because they were forbidden (Heidegger, Hist. Patr. II, 3 53). It is, however, quite obvious that if every grove and eminence had been suffered to become a place for legitimate worship, especially in a country where they had already been defiled with the sins of polytheism, the utmost danger would have resulted to the pure worship of the one true God (Havernick, Einl. 1, 592). It would infallibly have led to the adoption of nature- goddesses and gods of the hills (1Ki 20:23). It was therefore implicitly forbidden by the law of Moses (Deu 12:11-14), which also gave the strictest injunction to destroy these monuments of Canaanitish idolatry (Lev 26:30; Num 33:52; Deu 33:29; where Sept. ), without stating any general reason for this command beyond the fact that they had been connected with such associations. It seems, however, to be assumed that every Israelite would perfectly understand why groves and high places were prohibited, and therefore they are only condemned by virtue of the injunction to use but one altar for the purpose of sacrifice (Lev 17:3-4; Deuteronomy 12, passim; 16:21; Joh 4:20). This practice, indeed, was probably of great antiquity in Palestine. Upon the summit of lofty Hermon are the remains of a small and very ancient temple, towards which faced a circle of temples surrounding the mountain. SEE HERMON.
That a temple should have been built on a summit of bare rock perpetually covered with snow shows a strong religious motive, and the position of the temples around the mountain indicates a belief in the sanctity of Hermon itself. This inference is supported by a passage in the treaty of Rameses II with the Hittites of Syria, in which, besides gods and goddesses, the mountains and the rivers, both of the land of the Hittites and of Egypt, and the winds, are mentioned, in a list of Hittite and Egyptian divinities. The Egyptian divinities are spoken of from a Hittite point of view. for the expression the mountains and the rivers of the land of Egypt is only half applicable to the Egyptian nature-worship, which had, in Egypt at least, but one sacred river (Lepsius, Denk Eanler, 3, 146; Brugsch, Geographische Inschriften, 2, 29; De Rouge, in Rev. Arch. nouv. ser. 4:372). SEE HITTITE.
That Hermon was worshipped in connection with Baal is probable from the name Mount Baal-Hermon (Jdg 3:3), Baal- Hermon (1Ch 5:23) being apparently given to it, Baal being, as the Egyptian monuments indicate, the chief god of the Hittites. That there was such a belief in the sanctity of mountains and hills seems evident from the great number of high places of the old inhabitants, which is clearly indicated in the prohibition of their worship as compared with the statement of the disobedience of the Israelites. SEE HILT.
The injunctions, however, respecting the high places and groves were very imperfectly obeyed by the Israelites; and their inveterate attachment to this mode of worship was such that even pious kings, who opposed idolatry by all the means in their power, dared not abolish the high places at which the Lord was worshipped. It appears likely that this toleration of an acknowledged irregularity arose from the indisposition of the people living at a distance from the Temple to be confined to the altar which existed there; to their determination to have places nearer home for the chief acts of their religion-sacrifice and offering; and to the apprehension of the kings that if they were prevented from having places for offerings to the Lord in their own neighborhood they would make the offerings to idols. Moreover, the Mosaic command was a prospective one, and was not to come into force until such times as the tribes were settled in the Promised Land, and had rest from all their enemies round about. Thus we find that both Gideon and Manoah built altars on high places by divine command (Jdg 6:25-26; Jdg 13:16-23), and it is quite clear from the tone of the book of Judges that the law on the subject was either totally forgotten or practically obsolete.
Nor could the unsettled state of the country have been pleaded as an excuse, since it seems to have been most fully understood, even during the life of Joshua, that burnt-offerings could be legally offered on one altar only (Jos 22:29). It is more surprising to find this law absolutely ignored at a much later period, when there was no intelligible reason for its violation-as by Samuel at Mizpeh (1Sa 7:10) and at Bethlehem (1Sa 16:5); by Saul at Gilgal (1Sa 13:9) and at Ajalon (1Sa 14:35); by David on the threshing floor of Ornan (1Ch 21:26); by Elijah on Mount Carmel (1Ki 18:30); and by other prophets (1Sa 10:5). It will, however, be observed that in these cases the parties either acted under an immediate command from God, or were invested with a general commission of similar force with reference to such transactions. It has also been suggested that greater latitude was allowed in this point before the erection of the Temple gave to the ritual principles of the ceremonial law a fixity which they had not previously possessed. This is possible, for it is certain that all the authorized examples occur before it was built, excepting that of Elijah; and that occurred under circumstances in which the sacrifices could not possibly have taken place at Jerusalem, and in a kingdom where no authorized altar to Jehovah then existed.
The Rabbins have invented elaborate methods to account for the anomaly: thus they say that high places were allowed until the building of the tabernacle; that they were then illegal until the arrival at Gilgal, and then during the period while the tabernacle was at Shiloh; that they were once more permitted while it was at Nob and Gibeon (compare 2Ch 1:3), until the building of the Temple at Jerusalem rendered them finally unlawful (R. Sol. Jarchi, Abarbanel, etc., quoted in Carpzov, App. Crit. p. 333 sq.; Relanid, Ant. Hebrews 1, 8 sq.). Others content themselves with saying that until Solomon’s time all Palestine was considered holy ground, or that there existed a recognized exemption in favor of high places for private and spontaneous, though not for the stated and public sacrifices. Such explanations are sufficiently unsatisfactory; but it is at any rate certain that, whether from the obvious temptations to disobedience, or from the example of other nations, or from ignorance of any definite law against it, the worship in high places was organized and all but universal throughout Judaea, not only during (1Ki 3:2-4), but even after the time of Solomon. The convenience of them was evident, because, as local centers of religious worship, they obviated the unpleasant and dangerous necessity of visiting Jerusalem for the celebration of the yearly feasts (2Ki 23:9). The tendency was engrained in the national mind; and, although it was severely reprehended by the later historians, we have no proof that it was known to be sinful during the earlier periods of the monarchy, except, of course, where it was directly connected with idolatrous abominations (1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 23:13). In fact, the high places seem to have supplied the need of synagogues (Psa 74:8), and to have obviated the extreme self-denial involved in having but one legalized locality for the highest forms of worship. Thus we find that Rehoboam established a definite worship at the high places, with its own peculiar and separate priesthood (2Ch 11:15; 2Ki 23:9), the members of which were still considered to be priests of Jehovah (although in 2Ki 23:5 they are called by the opprobrious term ). It was therefore no wonder that Jeroboam found it so easy to seduce the people into his symbolic worship at the high places of Dan and Bethel. at each of which he built a chapel for his golden calves. Such chapels were, of course, frequently added to the mere altars on the hills, as appears from the expressions in 1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 17:9, etc. Indeed, the word became so common that it was used for any idolatrous shrine even in a valley (Jer 7:31), or in the streets of cities (2Ki 17:9; Eze 16:31). These chapels were probably not structures of stone, but mere tabernacles hung with colored tapestry (Eze 16:16; Aqu., Theod. ; see Jeremiah ad loc.; Sept. ), like the of the Carthaginians (Diod. Sic. 20:65; Creuzer, Symbol. 5, 176), and like those mentioned in 2Ki 23:7; Amo 5:26. Many of the pious kings of Judah were either too weak or too ill-informed to repress the worship of Jehovah at these local sanctuaries, while they of course endeavored to prevent it from being contaminated with polytheism. It is therefore appended as a matter of blame or a (perhaps venial) drawback to the character of some of the most pious princes, that they tolerated this disobedience to the provisions of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. On the other hand, it is mentioned as an aggravation of the sinfulness of other kings that they built or raised high places (2Ch 21:11; 2Ch 28:25), which are generally said to have been dedicated to idolatrous purposes. It is almost inconceivable that so direct a violation of the theocratic principle as the public existence of false worship should have been tolerated by kings of even ordinary piety, much less by the highest sacerdotal authorities (2Ki 12:3). When, therefore, we find the recurring phrase, Only the high places were not taken away; as yet the people did sacrifice and burn incense on the high places (2Ki 14:4; 2Ki 15:5; 2Ki 15:35; 2Ch 15:17, etc.), we are forced to limit it (as above) to places dedicated to Jehovah only. The subject, however, is made more difficult by a seeming discrepancy, for the assertion that Asa took away the high places (2Ch 14:3) is opposite to what is stated in the first book of Kings (1Ki 15:14), and a similar discrepancy is found in the case of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 17:6; 2Ch 20:33). Moreover, in both instances the chronicler is apparently at issue with himself (14:3; 15:17; 17:6; 20:33). It is incredible that this should have been the result of carelessness or oversight, and we must therefore suppose, either that the earlier notices expressed the will and endeavor of these monarchs to remove the high places, and that the later ones recorded their failure in the attempt (Ewald, Gesch. 3, 468; Keil, Apolog. Versuch. p. 290), or that the statements refer respectively to Bamoth dedicated to Jehovah and to idols (Michaelis, Schulz, Bertheau on 2Ch 17:6, etc.). Those devoted to false gods were removed, those misdevoted to the true God were suffered to remain. The kings opposed impiety, but winked at error (bishop Hall). At last Hezekiah set himself in good earnest to the suppression of this prevalent corruption (2Ki 18:4; 2Ki 18:22), both in Judah and Israel (2Ch 31:1), although, so rapid was the growth of the evil, that even his sweeping reformation required to be finally consummated by Josiah (2 Kings 23), and that, too, in Jerusalem and its immediate neighborhood (2Ch 34:3). The measure must have caused a very violent shock to the religious prejudices of a large number of people, and we have a curious and almost unnoticed trace of this resentment in the fact that Rabshakeh appeals to the discontented faction, and represents Hezekiah as a dangerous innovator who had provoked God’s anger by his arbitrary impiety (2Ki 18:22; 2Ch 32:12). After the time of Josiah we find no further mention of these Jehovistic high places. As long as the nations continued to worship the heavenly bodies themselves, they worshipped in the open air, holding that no walls could contain infinitude. Afterwards, when the symbol of fire or of images brought in the use of temples, they were usually built in groves and upon high places, and sometimes without roofs. The principle on which high places were preferred is said to have been that they were nearer to the gods, and that on them prayer was more acceptable than in the valleys (Lucian, De Sacrif. 1, 4). SEE HILL.
The ancient writers abound in allusions to this worship of the gods upon the hill-tops; and some of their divinities took their distinctive names from the hill on which their principal seat of worship stood, such as Mercurius Cyllenius, Venus Erycina, Jupiter Capitolinus, etc. (see especially Sophocles, Trachin. 1207, 1208; Appian, De Bello Mlithrid. 131; compare Creuzer. Symbol. 1, 150). We find that the Trojans sacrificed to Zeus on Mount Ida (II. 10, 171), and we are repeatedly told that such was the custom of the Persians, Greeks, Germans, etc. (Herod. 1, 131; Xenoph. Cyrop. 8, 7; Mem. 3, 8, 10; Strabo, 15, 732). To this general custom we find constant allusion in the Bible (Isa 65:7; Jer 3:6; Eze 6:13; Eze 18:6; Hos 4:13), and it is especially attributed to the Moabites (Isa 15:2; Isa 16:12; Jer 48:35). Evident traces of a similar usage are depicted on the Assyrian monuments. The groves which ancient usage had established around the places of sacrifice for the sake of shade and seclusion, idolatry preserved, not only for the same reasons, but because they were found convenient for the celebration of the rites and mysteries, often obscene and abominable, which were gradually superadded. According to Pliny (book 12), trees were also anciently consecrated to particular divinities, as the esculus to Jove, the laurel to Apollo, the olive to Minerva, the myrtle to Venus, the poplar to Hercules. It was also believed that as the heavens have their proper and peculiar deities, so also the woods have theirs, being the Fauns, the Sylvans, and certain goddesses. To this it may be added that groves were enjoined by the Roman law of the Twelve Tables as part of the public religion. Plutarch (Nuna, 1, 61) calls such groves. , groves of the gods, which he says Numa frequented, and thereby gave rise to the story of his intercourse with the goddess Egeria. In fact, a degree of worship was, as Pliny states, transferred to the trees themselves. They were sometimes decked with ribbons and rich cloths, lamps were placed on them, the spoils of enemies were hung from them, vows were paid to them, and their branches were encumbered with votive offerings. Traces of this arborolatry still exist everywhere, both in Moslem and Christian countries; and even the Persians, who abhorred images as much as the Hebrews ever did, rendered homage to certain trees. The story is well known of the noble plane-tree near Sardis, before which Xerxes halted his army a whole day while he rendered homage to it, and hung royal offerings upon its branches (Herod. 5, 31). There is much curious literature connected with this subject which we leave untouched, but the reader may consult Sir W. Ouseley’s learned dissertation on Sacred Trees, appended to the first volume of his Travels in the East. SEE IDOLATRY.
Mr. Paine remarks (Solomon’s Temple, etc., Bost. 1861, p. 21), the high place, , mound, was small enough to be made and built in every street, at the head of every way (Eze 16:24-25), in all their cities (2Ki 17:9), and upon every high hill, and under every green tree (1Ki 14:23). It could be torn to pieces, beaten small as dust, and burnt up (2Ki 23:15). Thus it [often] was of combustible materials…. These mounds, with their altars, were built in the streets, where people could assemble around them. When on the hills out of the city they lasted many years; for’ the mounds built by Solomon on the right hand or south side of the Mount of Destruction before Jerusalem, were destroyed by Josiah (2Ki 23:13; 1Ki 11:7), nearly four hundred years after they were built. But mounds of earth no larger than Indian-corn or potato-hills will last a great number of years, and those somewhat larger for centuries (compare the Indian mounds in the West). That the mounds destroyed by Josiah had lasted so many centuries is a proof that they were not wholly of wood; that they could be burnt is a proof that they were not wholly of stone; that they could be beaten to dust indicates that they were made of anything that came readiest to hand, as earth, soil, etc. For the houses of the mounds, or high places, in which were images of their gods, see 2Ki 17:29; priests of these places of worship, 1Ki 12:32; 1Ki 13:2; 1Ki 13:33; 2Ki 17:32; 2Ki 23:9; 2Ki 23:20; beds for fornication and adultery, in the tents about the mounds, Isa 57:3-7; Eze 16:16; Eze 16:25, etc. Some of these houses were tents, for women wove them (2Ki 23:7). The peoplemen, women, children, and priests-assembled in groves, on hills and mountains, or in the streets of their cities; threw up a mound, on which they built their altar; set up the wooden idol [Asherah] before the altar; pitched their tents around it under the trees; sacrificed their sons and daughters, sometimes on the altar (Eze 16:20), and committed fornication and adultery in the tents, where also they had the images of their gods.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
High place
an eminence, natural or artificial, where worship by sacrifice or offerings was made (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:29). The first altar after the Flood was built on a mountain (Gen. 8:20). Abraham also built an altar on a mountain (12:7, 8). It was on a mountain in Gilead that Laban and Jacob offered sacrifices (31:54). After the Israelites entered the Promised Land they were strictly enjoined to overthrow the high places of the Canaanites (Ex. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:2, 3), and they were forbidden to worship the Lord on high places (Deut. 12:11-14), and were enjoined to use but one altar for sacrifices (Lev. 17:3, 4; Deut. 12; 16:21). The injunction against high places was, however, very imperfectly obeyed, and we find again and again mention made of them (2 Kings 14:4; 15:4, 35: 2 Chr. 15:17, etc.).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
High Place
1. General
(1) High place is the normal translation of , bamah, a word that means simply elevation (Jer 26:18; Eze 36:2, etc.; compare the use in Job 9:8 of the waves of the sea. For the plural as a proper noun see BAMOTH). In the King James Version of Eze 16:24, Eze 16:25, Eze 16:31, Eze 16:39, high places is the translation of , ramah (the Revised Version (British and American) lofty places), a common word (see RAMAH) of exactly the same meaning, indistinguishable from bamah in Eze 16:16. In three of these verses of Ezek (Eze 16:24, Eze 16:31, Eze 16:39) ramah is paralleled by , gabh, which again has precisely the same sense (eminent place in the King James Version, the English Revised Version), and the vaulted place of the American Standard Revised Version (English Revised Version margin) is in disregard of Hebrew parallelism. In particular, the high places are places of worship, specifically of idolatrous worship. So the title was transferred from the elevation to the sanctuary on the elevation (1Ki 11:7; 1Ki 14:23; compare the burning of the high place in 2Ki 23:15), and so came to be used of any idolatrous shrine, whether constructed on an elevation or not (note how in 2Ki 16:4; 2Ch 28:4 the high places are distinguished from the hills). So the high places in the cities (2Ki 17:9; 2Ch 21:11 (Septuagint)) could have stood anywhere, while in Eze 16:16 a portable structure seems to be in point. (2) The use of elevations for purposes of worship is so widespread as to be almost universal, and rests, probably, on motives so primitive as to evade formal analysis. If any reason is to be assigned, the best seems to be that to dwellers in hilly country the heaven appears to rest on the ridges and the sun to go forth from them – but such reasons are certainly insufficient to explain everything. Certain it is that Israel, no less than her neighbors, found special sanctity in the hills. Not only was’ Sinai the Mount of God, but a long list can be drawn up of peaks that have a special relation to Yahweh (see MOUNT; MOUNTAIN; and for the New Testament, compare Mar 9:2; Heb 12:18-24, etc.). And the choice of a hilltop for the Temple was based on considerations other than convenience and visibility. (But bamah is not used of the Temple Mount.)
2. Description
Archaeological research, particularly at Petra and Gezer, aided by the Old Testament notices, enables us to reconstruct these sanctuaries with tolerable fullness. The cult was not limited to the summit of the hill but took place also on the slopes, and the objects of the cult might be scattered over a considerable area. The most sacred objects were the upright stone pillars (maccebhah), which seem to have been indispensable. (Probably the simplest high places were only a single upright stone.) They were regarded as the habitation of the deity, but, none the less, were usually many in number (a fact that in no way need implicate a plurality of deities). At one time they were the only altars, and even at a later period, when the altar proper was used, libations were sometimes poured on the pillars directly. The altars were of various shapes, according to their purpose (incense, whole burnt offerings, etc.), but were always accompanied by one or more pillars. Saucer-shaped depressions, into which sacrifices could be poured, are a remnant of very primitive rites (to this day in Samaria the paschal lamb is cooked in a pit). The trees of the high place, especially the terebinths (oaks?), were sacred, and their number could be supplemented or their absence supplied by an artificial tree or pole (‘asherah, the grove of the King James Version). (Of course the original meaning of the pillar and asherah was not always known to the worshipper.) An amusing feature of the discoveries is that these objects were often of minute size, so that the gods could be gratified at a minimum of expense to the worshipper. Images (ephods?; the teraphm were household objects, normally) are certain, but in Palestine no remnants exist (the little Bes and Astarte figures were not idols used in worship). Other necessary features of a high place of the larger size were ample provision of water for lustral purposes, kitchens where the sacrifices could be cooked (normally by boiling), and tables for the sacrificial feasts. Normally, also, the service went on in the open air, but slight shelters were provided frequently for some of the objects. If a regular priest was attached to the high place (not always the case), his dwelling must have been a feature, unless he lived in some nearby village. Huts for those practicing incubation (sleeping in the sanctuary to obtain revelations through dreams) seem not to have been uncommon. But formal temples were very rare and houses of the high places in 1Ki 12:31; 1Ki 13:32; 2Ki 17:29, 2Ki 17:32; 2Ki 23:19 may refer only to the slighter structures just mentioned (see the comm.). In any case, however, the boundaries of the sanctuary were marked out, generally by a low stone wall, and ablutions and removal of the sandals were necessary before the worshipper could enter.
For the ritual, of course, there was no uniform rule. The gods of the different localities were different, and in Palestine a more or less thorough rededication of the high places to Yahweh had taken place. So the service might be anything from the orderly worship of Yahweh under so thoroughly an accredited leader as Samuel (1Sa 9:11-24) to the wildest orgiastic rites. That the worship at many high places was intensely licentious is certain (but it must be emphasized against the statements of many writers that there is no evidence for a specific phallic cult, and that the explorations have revealed no unmistakable phallic emblems). The gruesome cemetery for newly born infants at Gezer is only one of the proofs of the prevalence of child-sacrifice, and the evidence for human sacrifice in other forms is unfortunately only too clear. See GEZER, and illustration on p. 1224.
3. History
(1) The opposition to the high places had many motives. When used for the worship of other gods their objectionable character is obvious, but even the worship of Yahweh in the high places was intermixed with heathen practices (Hos 4:14, etc.). In Amo 5:21-24, etc., sacrifice in the high places is denounced because it is regarded as a substitute for righteousness in exactly the same way that sacrifice in the Temple is denounced in Jer 7:21-24. Or, sacrifice in the high places may be denounced under the best of conditions, because in violation of the law of the one sanctuary (2Ch 33:17, etc.).
(2) In 1 Samuel, sacrifice outside of Jerusalem is treated as an entirely normal thing, and Samuel presides in one such case (1Sa 9:11-24). In 1 Ki the practice of using high places is treated as legitimate before the construction of the Temple (1Ki 3:2-4), but after that it is condemned unequivocally. The primal sin of Northern Israel was the establishment of high places (1Ki 12:31-33; 1Ki 13:2, 1Ki 13:33 f), and their continuance was a chief cause of the evils that came to pass (2Ki 17:10 f), while worship in them was a characteristic of the mongrel throng that repopulated Samaria (2Ki 17:32). So Judah sinned in building high places (1Ki 14:23), but the editor of Kings notes with obvious regret that even the pious kings (Asa, 1Ki 15:14; Jehoshaphat, 1Ki 22:43; Jehoash, 2Ki 12:3; Amaziah, 2Ki 14:4;Azariah, 2Ch 15:4; Jotham, 2Ki 15:35) did not put them away; i.e. the editor of Kings has about the point of view of Deu 12:8-11, according to which sacrifice was not to be restricted to Jerusalem until the country should be at peace, but afterward the restriction should be absolute. The practice had been of such long standing that Hezekiah’s destruction of the high places (2Ki 18:4) could be cited by Rabshakeh as an act of apostasy from Yahweh (2Ki 18:22; 2Ch 32:12; Isa 36:7). Under Manasseh they were rebuilt, in connection with other idolatrous practices (2Ki 21:3-9). This act determined the final punishment of the nation (2Ki 21:10-15), and the root-and-branch reformation of Josiah (2 Ki 23) came too late. The attitude of the editor of Chronicles is still more condemnatory. He explains the sacrifice at Gibeon as justified by the presence of the Tabernacle (1Ch 16:39; 1Ch 21:29; 2Ch 1:3, 2Ch 1:13), states that God-fearing northerners avoided the high places (2Ch 11:16; compare 1Ki 19:10, 1Ki 19:14), and (against Kings) credits Asa (2Ch 14:3, 2Ch 14:5) and Jehoshaphat (2Ch 17:6) with their removal. (This last notice is also in contradiction with 2Ch 20:33, but 1Ch 16:17 is probably meant to refer to the Northern Kingdom, despite 1Ch 16:17.) On the other hand, the construction of high places is added to the sins of Jehoram (2Ch 21:11) and of Ahaz (2Ch 28:4, 2Ch 28:5).
(3) Among the prophets, Elijah felt the destruction of the many altars of God as a terrible grief (1Ki 19:10, 1Ki 19:14). Amos and Hosea each mention the high places by name only once (Amo 7:9; Hos 10:8), but both prophets have only denunciation for the sacrificial practices of the Northern Kingdom. That, however, these sacrifices were offered in the wrong place is not said. Isa has nothing to say about the high places, except in Isa 36:7, while Mic 1:5 equates the sins of Jerusalem with those of the high places (if the text is right), but promises the exaltation of Jerusalem (Mic 4:1 f). In the references in Jer 7:31; Jer 19:5; Jer 32:35; Eze 6:3, Eze 6:1; Eze 16:16; Eze 20:29; Eze 43:7, idolatry or abominable practices are in point (so probably in Jer 17:3, while Jer 48:35 and Isa 16:12 refer to non-Israelites).
(4) The interpretation of the above data and their historical import depend on the critical position taken as to the general history of Israel’s religion. See RELIGION OF ISRAEL; CRITICISM; DEUTERONOMY, etc.
Literature
See, especially, IDOLATRY, and also ALTARS; ASHERAH, etc. For the archaeological literature, see PALESTINE.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
High Place
The word commonly used for the high place is bamah, signifying what is high or elevated (cf. Eze 20:29), and then the hills on which altars were erected. There were such places in Canaan before the Israelites entered it, which they were told to destroy. Num 33:52. If the Israelites had such, God would destroy them and cut down their images. Lev 26:30.
In the above passages the high places are connected with idolatry; but it would appear that before the temple was built, altars for the worship of God had been erected elsewhere than at the tabernacle. With Samuel at Zuph, there was ‘a sacrifice of the people’ in the ‘high place’ (God having forsaken the tabernacle at Shiloh, this disorder resulted). It was evidently on elevated ground, for they went up to it and came down. 1Sa 9:12-25. At the beginning of the reign of Solomon the people sacrificed in high places because the temple was not yet built. This was failure, for we read that “Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places.” 1Ki 3:2-4. The tabernacle was there (Gibeon), 1Ch 16:39; 2Ch 1:3, so that it appeared to be the right place to go to, and it was where God appeared to Solomon in the night; yet it was ‘the great high place.’ The reason of this implied disapproval is doubtless because the ark was not there, the symbol of God’s presence, which was the true place of worship. At the close of Solomon’s life he sinned greatly in building a high place for the gods of all his strange wives. 1Ki 11:7-8. On the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam set up his idols and “ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.” 2Ch 11:15. With these two examples it is not surprising that in the whole land there were many high places. Hezekiah and Josiah zealously destroyed the high places, which included the buildings thereon and the idols connected therewith. The word bamah is used apparently for any idolatrous erection, for we once read of high places in a valley. Jer 7:31.
The term ‘high places’ has another application under the Hebrew word ramah, which also signifies ‘exalted;’ for Israel is charged with making a high place in every street, and at every head of the way, which doubtless refers to some shrine or symbol of idolatry connected with abominable practices. Eze 16:24-25; Eze 16:31; Eze 16:39. They courted the favour of the heathen by adopting their idolatrous worship and customs.