382
HIGH PLACE
HIGH PLACE
expressly mentioned, but in very many other casus tlie existence of sanctuaries of J" all over the eountrj' in the period before the establishment of the monarchy is presupposed, e.q. at Bo'hiiii (liethel?) (Jg 2»), Oplirah [6-* 8-''), Zorah (IS"^-'"), Shiloh (18"), Bethel (eo'"^-" 21--*), Mizpah (Jg 20', 1 S 7"), Raniah (7" 0"), Gibeah (lu» 14"), Cil-al (10» U" 13» 15"), Bethlehem (16- 20«-^), Nob (21'), Hebron (2 S 15'), Giloh (15'=), and the threshinglloor of Araunah (2 S 24'^). For a sanc- tuary that was purely Israelite in origin, cf. that at Dan (.!■' 18*').
But, widespread as was the worship at the local high places, there were •;radually developed ten- dencies towards a centralization of the worship of J". It was very natural, for instance, that the sanctuary at which the ark was stationed should enjoy a certain pre-eminence over the suiTounding high places. Thus Shiloh (IS 1') and, at a later period, Jerus. no doiibt overshadowed the neigh- houring sanctuaries and attracted worshippers from a wide area. Ajjinin, the establisliment of the monarchy indirectly favoured religious, as directly it brouglit at)oiil political, unity. And, lastly, in the worship at high places itself there lurked a danger which eventually brought about their over- throw. This danger was twofold. Many of the more important of the high places had been the sites of Can. shrines (Dt 12--»», Nu 33'=). With the place of worshii) the Isr. had taken over also the symbols of worship, the Mnzzibalis (see PiLLAR) and the Ash(ra?ix(^\\\. see). Wliat was more likely than that the lascivious tendencies which had characterized the older forms of worship should lie hidden beneath these external symbols, and, defj'ing expulsion, should burst forth from time to time into fresh vigour? Or, again, what was more probable than that J" should seem to be brought down to the level of the Can. gods, of whose shrines He had taken possession, and whose name He sometimes assumed, and so be- come confounded with them alike in outward worshij) and in moral characteristics? [For such confusion of ■]" with the Can. Baalim, cf. Hos 2"- ", and the proper names Jerubbaal (Jg G'=), Merib- biial (1 Ch 8^), Beeliada (I Ch 14'); and see Moore on Jg 6^^, with the references there given].
How real these dangers were may be learned from the vigor- ous w.\v in which the propheta of the 8th cent, denounce the worship at high places as it existed in their own day. Cf., for the northern kint,'clom, Hos 108 'The high places of Aven, the sin of Israel shall he destroyed ; the thorn and the thistle shall come up upon their alure''(2. 413. 1.M7 61 85- " loi-i' 1211 132); Am 7^ 'The high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste' (4* 55 713 814); and for Judah see Mic 1* * What are the high places of Judah? are they not Jerusalem?' (where, however, we should probably read, with the LXX, 'sin' for 'high places') (513 67), Micah, writing probably after the fall of the northern kingdom, de- clares that the sanctuary at Jerus. is destined to the same fate that has fallen ui.>on the high places of the sister kingdom. 'Jems, shall become heaps, ana the mountain of tiie house as the high places of a forest,' i.e. as the high places that have been converted into wa-sfe forest-land by the invading army (3H = Jer 2C18; cf. Ezk 362).
It should be noticed that what these writers denoun e is, not the worship at high places in itself, but the corruption that has contaminated the worship of J" at the local high places, and that they regard the approaching destruction of the high places, which tliejy foretell, as part of a temporary loss of a national existence. Cf. Hos 3' •Without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without ephod or teraphim.' The growing feeling against the corrupted local sanc- tuary worship was no doubt fostered by the intro- duction of foreign cults bv some of the kin''s. Thus Solomon, we read, built high places For Clieraosh and for Molech (1 K 11'), for Ashtoreth (2 K 23'3); Ahab built an altar for Baal (I K le^'s^); Monasseh did the same (2K 21'; cf. Jer 7" 19»).
For this corrupt state of things there were twc possible solution^. There might be reformation, or tlicre might be abolition combined with the centralization of the worship of J" at Jerusjilem. The Latter was the course actually taken when the unifj'ing tendencies of which we have spoken ripened into maturity. The compiler of the Bks. of^ Kings ascribes it to Hezekiah (2 K IS-" - 21'), but there are reasons for doubting the accuracy of bus statement. 2 K 18" seems to be a later addition to the original passage; v.^ occurs in a section that is certainly of a late date : 21" is due to the compiler ; ilezekiah's reform, if historical, must have been singularly inellective, for in the accounts of Josiah's reformation we have no hint of earlier steps in the same direction ; lastly, Isaiah betrays no hostility to the high places as such (cf. ^^ ellh. Prulcg. p. 4ti ; Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. 14; Monteliore, Oib. Lects. p. 1(54; and, for a conservative view, Kittel, Hist, of t/ie Ilcb. ii. 356). But, whatever may have been the action of Hezekiah with regard to the high places, the legislation of Josiali (B.C. 639-608) against them was carried through sj-steniatically ana with thor- oughness. Insiiiie<l by the then lately jiromulgated (li.C. 621) law of Deuteronomy (ch. 12'-' and frcij.), the young king caused the destruction of the high places throughout his dominions (2 K os' »■ '3- '"). The iiiolatious priests were appareutlj' put to death (2 K 23"), the priests of J" were to be allowed to come to Jerus., but not as sacrificing priests (2 K 23 ') ; the worship of J" was henceforth to liave its sole sanctuarj' at Jerusalem.