SHRINES ON THE HILLS

SHRINES ON THE HILLS

The Persistent Puzzle

Many a time we notice that the Bible records good events the good kings did and it pleased the Lord. Their reigns were marked by righteous deeds, reformations, and acts that brought divine favor upon the nation. Yet even in the midst of their commendable service, there remained a glaring inconsistency. They did not destroy completely all the things that the Lord asked them to. They always left the shrines on the hills untouched. This persistent omission stands as a theological puzzle that demands our careful attention. Why would men who loved God, who sought to please Him, who instituted reforms and restored worship, consistently fail to eradicate these elevated sites of spiritual compromise?

The Reign of Joash

Joash, king of Judah, presents us with the first clear example of this pattern. All his life Joash did what was right because Jehoiada the High Priest instructed him. This is significant. Joash did not stumble into righteousness by accident. He was deliberately taught, carefully mentored, and faithfully guided by one of the most godly priests in Israel's history. Jehoiada had hidden him from Athaliah's murderous purge as an infant, had orchestrated his coronation as a boy, and had stood beside him as a spiritual father throughout his reign. Under this tutelage, Joash repaired the temple, restored the worship of Yahweh, and led the nation in covenant renewal.

Yet even so he did not destroy the shrines on the hills. The people still sacrificed and burned incense there, as recorded in 2 Kings 12:2-3. The phrase "even so" carries weight. Despite all the good, despite all the instruction, despite all the divine favor, this one area remained unaddressed. The shrines stood. The idolatrous practices continued. The compromise persisted. Joash had the courage to confront Athaliah, to restore the temple, and to collect offerings for repairs. But he lacked the courage or the conviction to tear down the high places. The hills remained dotted with shrines that drew the hearts of the people away from the centralized worship God had commanded.

The Reign of Amaziah

Amaziah, king of Judah, followed in his father's footsteps in more ways than one. He was a good king in the Lord's sight, though not quite like his ancestor David. The standard of David remained the benchmark, and Amaziah fell short of it. But he was as good a king as his father Joash. This comparison is telling. He matched his father's righteousness. He replicated his father's reforms. He maintained his father's standards. But he also replicated his father's failure.

However, he did not destroy the shrines on the hills, so the people still sacrificed and burned incense there, as we read in 2 Kings 14:3-4. The same phrase, the same omission, the same compromise. The shrines on the hills had become an accepted part of the landscape, a tolerated deviation, a normalized disobedience. Amaziah had defeated the Edomites in battle. He had maintained the temple worship. He had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord. But the shrines stood undisturbed, and the people continued their illicit worship. The pattern was not broken. It was inherited.

The Nature of the High Places

The shrines on the hills were located on high places. They were places of worship on elevated pieces of ground. The elevation was not merely geographical. It was theological. High places lifted worship above the ordinary, creating a sense of transcendence, of reaching toward the divine. The height suggested proximity to the heavens, a closer connection to the realm of the gods. But this elevation was also a departure from the command of God.

High places were originally dedicated to idol worship, as clearly stated in Numbers 33:52 and Leviticus 26:30. They were especially prevalent among the Moabites, as Isaiah 16:12 records. These were not neutral sites that Israel later corrupted. They were born in paganism, nurtured in idolatry, and dedicated to false gods from their inception. The high places were not empty spaces waiting to be filled. They were already occupied by demonic principalities, by the worship of Baal, Asherah, and a host of Canaanite deities.

These shrines often included an altar and a sacred object such as a stone pillar or wooden pole in various shapes identified with the object of worship. The imagery was graphic and seductive. Animals represented the forces of nature. Constellations connected worship to the stars and seasons. Goddesses appealed to feminine spirituality and maternal longing. Fertility deities promised abundant crops, healthy livestock, and numerous children. The high places offered a religion that was tangible, sensual, and immediately relevant to the agricultural concerns of an ancient people. They were attractive precisely because they addressed felt needs through visible means.

The Original Command

When the Israelites first entered the promised land, they were told to destroy the high places, idols, and molten images of the Canaanite inhabitants. This command in Numbers 33:52 was comprehensive and unambiguous. They were also instructed not to worship at high places that were Canaanite sites, as Deuteronomy 12:2-3 makes clear. The destruction was to be total. The altars were to be torn down. The pillars were to be smashed. The Asherim were to be burned. The carved images were to be destroyed. The names of the idols were to be erased from those places.

They were told Yahweh wanted to be worshiped in another way. "You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way. But you shall seek the place that the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there," as Deuteronomy 12:4-5 declares. The worship of Yahweh was not to be a matter of personal preference or local convenience. It was to be centralized, focused, and exclusive. God would choose the place. God would put His name there. God would make His habitation there. The high places represented decentralized worship, the freedom to approach God on human terms, in human locations, according to human traditions. This was precisely what God rejected.

The Complexity of High Places

Not all high places were dedicated to idol worship. This complexity adds nuance to our understanding and perhaps explains some of the hesitation of the good kings. High places played a major role in Israelite worship, and the earliest biblical mention of a site of worship, later called a "high place," is found in Genesis 12:6-8 where Abram built altars to the Lord at Shechem and Hebron. Abraham, the father of faith, worshipped on high ground. These were not pagan sites. They were places where the one true God met with His servant.

Abraham built an altar in the region of Moriah and was willing to sacrifice his son there, as Genesis 22:1-2 records. This site is traditionally believed to be the same high place where the temple of Jerusalem was built. The most significant act of worship in Abraham's life, the supreme test of his faith, occurred on a high place. Jacob set up a stone pillar to the Lord at Bethel, as Genesis 28:18-19 describes. Moses met God on Mount Sinai, as Exodus 19:1-3 recounts. Joshua set up stone pillars after crossing the Jordan, as Joshua 4:20 tells us, and considered this a high place of worship because the Israelites "came up from" the Jordan onto higher ground.

The high places were visited regularly by the prophet Samuel, as 1 Samuel 7:16 indicates. Samuel, the last of the judges and the first of the prophets, moved in a circuit among these sites, offering sacrifice and judging Israel. High places as sites of Canaanite idol worship extended into the period of Elijah, as the dramatic confrontation on Mount Carmel in 1 Kings 18:16-40 demonstrates. The same geographical feature that hosted true worship also hosted false worship. The same elevation that drew Israelites to seek Yahweh also drew them to serve Baal.

The Singular Authorization

God would name only one high place where sacrifice was authorized, and that was the temple in Jerusalem, as 2 Chronicles 3:1 establishes. All other high places, regardless of their history, regardless of their previous use by patriarchs and prophets, were to be destroyed. The temple became the exclusive center of sacrificial worship, the unique dwelling place of God's name, the singular location where atonement could be made and fellowship restored. The shrines on the hills, even if they had once been sites of genuine encounter with God, were now unauthorized, illegitimate, and dangerous.

God commanded that all other high places be destroyed. This command was absolute, without exception, and without compromise. King Josiah finally fulfilled this command in 2 Kings 22-23, bringing a thoroughness of reformation that none of his predecessors had achieved. He tore down the high places, broke the pillars, cut down the Asherim, and defiled the altars. He executed the priests of the high places upon their own altars. He brought bones out of the tombs and burned them upon the altars to defile them. The shrines that had stood for generations, that had been tolerated by good kings and exploited by evil ones, finally fell before the zeal of Josiah.

The Failure of the Good Kings

Why did Joash, Amaziah, and other good kings fail to do what Josiah eventually accomplished? Several factors may explain their hesitation. The high places were deeply entrenched in the culture. They had existed for generations. They were familiar, convenient, and popular. Destroying them would have required confronting deeply held traditions, alienating influential families, and challenging the religious status quo. The good kings may have feared political backlash. They may have prioritized stability over purity. They may have convinced themselves that partial obedience was sufficient, that as long as the temple worship was maintained, the high places could be tolerated as a lesser evil.

Perhaps the complexity of the high places' history confused them. Since Abraham, Jacob, and Samuel had worshipped at high places, perhaps the good kings hesitated to destroy sites that carried such venerable associations. They may have failed to distinguish between the provisional use of high places before the temple was built and the absolute prohibition after the temple was established. They may have allowed sentiment to override command, tradition to trump revelation, and convenience to substitute for conviction.

Whatever the reasons, the result was the same. The shrines remained. The people sacrificed and burned incense there. Syncretism flourished. The worship of Yahweh was diluted with the practices of Canaanite religion. The good kings pleased the Lord in many areas, but in this one critical area, they fell short. Their legacy was tarnished by tolerated disobedience. Their reformations were incomplete. Their obedience was partial.

The Lesson for Today

The shrines on the hills speak to us across the centuries with uncomfortable relevance. What are the high places in our lives that we have left untouched? What are the compromises we have normalized, the sins we have tolerated, the idols we have accommodated because they are familiar, convenient, or culturally entrenched? Like the good kings, we may serve God sincerely in many areas while preserving pockets of disobedience that undermine our entire witness.

The lesson is clear. Partial obedience is not obedience. Tolerated sin is not harmless. The shrines that remain will eventually corrupt the worship that is offered at the temple. The high places that are spared will become the footholds from which the enemy launches his assaults. Only complete demolition, only thorough reformation, only uncompromising obedience will secure the blessing and presence of God.

Josiah showed us what is possible when a leader determines to obey fully, without reservation, without exception, and without fear of consequence. The shrines on the hills can fall. The high places can be destroyed. But it requires more than good intentions. It requires the courage to act, the conviction to obey, and the determination to finish what others left undone.