PLACES. The prophets reproach the Israelites for nothing with more zeal than for worshipping upon the high places. The destroying of these high places is a commendation given only to few princes in Scripture; and many, though zealous for the observance of the law, had not courage to prevent the people from sacrificing upon these eminences. Before the temple was built, the high places were not absolutely contrary to the law, provided God only was there adored, and not idols. They seem to have been tolerated under the judges; and Samuel offered sacrifices in several places where the ark was not present. Even in David’s time they sacrificed to the Lord at Shiloh, Jerusalem, and Gibeon. But after the temple was built at Jerusalem, and the ark had a fixed settlement, it was no longer allowed to sacrifice out of Jerusalem. The high places were much frequented in the kingdom of Israel. The people sometimes went upon those mountains which had been sanctified by the presence of patriarchs and prophets, and by appearances of God, to worship the true God there. This worship was lawful, except as to its being exercised where the Lord had not chosen. But they frequently adored idols upon these hills, and committed a thousand abominations in groves, and caves, and tents; and hence arose the zeal of pious kings and prophets to suppress the high places. Dr. Prideaux thinks it probable that the _proseuchæ_, open courts, built like those in which the people prayed at the tabernacle and the temple, were the same as those called high places in the Old Testament. His reason is, that the _proseuchæ_ had groves in or near them, in the same manner as the high places.
[287 words — estimated reading time: 2 minutes]
HIGH PLACE is the rendering invariably given in the authorized English version of the Old Testament Scriptures to a Hebrew word HÇ3 of uncertain derivation but with much plausibility connected by Gesenius with the IndoGermanic root which appears in the Persian bam (roof, summit), and in the Greek βω ∣ H><s (compare βηpα, Doric βiipα). By the LXX. the word is sometimes left untouched (βαμA in 1 Sam. ix. 13 and elsewhere); the prevalent rendering of the plural, when a translation is hazarded at all, is in the Pentateuch <m∕λ<u, in the historical books τα υψηλά, τα υψη, and in the prophetical writings βωpol. The Vulgate invariably gives either excelsa or fana. The habit so widely diffused among primitive peoples of selecting the tops of mountains, or at least elevated sites, as suitable from their comparative isolation from the world and their supposed nearness to the sky for the erection of altars and sacred pillars, is so obviously natural as to require no explanation. Along with that of worshipping under trees or groves (see Grove), it was fully participated in by the Israelites from an early period, and continued to assert itself down to a very late date, as is abundantly shown by the frequency with which bamah and other words (liar, yib t ah, ramaK) signifying height occur in connexion with their public and private worship, whether Jehovistic or idolatrous. Thus one of our earliest notices with regard to Abraham after his departure from Haran is that after setting up a sanctuary at Sichem at the oak of Moreh, he “removed unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and there builded an altar unto the Lord” (Gen. xii. 8). It was on a mountain (Ebal) that the first altar to Jehovah was raised by Joshua after the conquest of Canaan had begun ...(Josh, viii. 30; cf. Deut, xxvii. 4, 5); and many other “high places,” some of them (e.y., Beth-Shemesh, or Ir-Heres, and Ashtaro th Karnaim) apparently taken over directly from the Canaanites, speedily obtained recognition as sanctuaries. A few of these, such as Shiloh, early became important pilgrimage centres, but this was not regarded as inconsistent with the right of each town or village-community to have its own high place, or with the view that Palestine as a whole was the “house” or peculiar territory of God, and that it was therefore lawful on suitable occasions to erect new and extempore altars or high places within its limits. For example, we find in 1 Sam. x., xL repeated references made to the bamαh of Samuel’s native village as if it were a thing of course; from 2 Sam. xv. 32 (Hebt.) we gather that even in David’s time the top of Mount Olivet was a place “where God was wont to be worshipped;” while at a later period we read of Elijah repairing the altar on Mount Carmel that had been broken down, and complaining of the violation of God’s covenant of which those persons had been guilty who had thrown down the altars and slain the prophets (1 Kings xviii. 30; xix. 10, 14). And we read of new altars, generally on high places, being set up by Gideon (Judg. vi. 26, 27), by Manoah (Judg. xiii. 19, 20), and repeatedly by Saul (1 Sam. xiv. 35). The comparatively late author of the books of Kings expressly states, on the one hand, that before the days of Solomon the people “sacrificed in high places because there was no house built unto the name of the Lord” (1 Kings iii. 2), and, on the other hand, that after that king the high places were removed neither by Asa (1 Kings xiv. 15), nor by Jehoshaphat (xxii. 44), Joash (2 Kings xii. 3), Amaziah (xiv. 4), Uzziah (xv. 4), or Jotham (xv. 35). The still later author of the books of Chronicles, indeed, states of Asa (2 Chr. xiv. 5) and Jehoshaphat (xvii. 6) that they did take away the high places “out of all the cities of Judah but this apparent contradiction can best be explained if we assume that the chronicler is alluding only to those high places where heathen deities were worshipped or idolatrous practices allowed, while the earlier author had in view the Jehovistic high places which, during many of the earlier reigns at least, were not discountenanced either in the northern or in the southern kingdom. In reading such a passage as Amos vii. 9, it would be a mistake to interpret it as meaning that the multiplicity of bamoth was regarded as wrong in itself; the prophet’s zeal is directed not against the places but against the cultus and the false value that was attached to it. Hezekiah is the first monarch of whom in the earlier record we read that with some risk to his popularity he removed the high places and altars of Jehovah, and “said to Judah and Jerusalem, ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem” (2 Kings xviii. 4 compared with xviii. 22). But it was not until the reign of Josiah that the high places were finally repressed, not on the ground of direct prophetic revelation, but on that of ħ strict written law. Even then, however, a distinction was made between the “high places” of the southern kingdom, sacred to Jehovah, and those of the northern, dedicated to a mixed worship; the priests of the former were brought to Jerusalem, and, though not allowed to officiate at the altar there, were permitted to share the priests’ portion along with their brethren, while those of the latter were put to death (2 Kings xxiii. 8, 20). As for the altars built upon the high places, their construe tion appears to have been regulated by the law provided for the case in Ex. xx. 24, 25; very often ma<χeboth or pillars were erected beside them (see Ex. xxiv. 4; Josh, xxiv. 26; cf. Isa. xix. 19; Hosea iii. 4); and sometimes they were enclosed in “houses” or “temples” (1 Kings xii. 31, xiii. 32; Amos vii. 13). For the bearing of the facts contained in this article on the criticism of the Pentateuch and of its legislation, see Pentateuch.
[1,038 words — estimated reading time: 6 minutes]
