High Places, Altars and the Bamah

High Places, Altars and the Bamah Not all they are cracked up to be Ellen White The open-air altar shrine, called a bamah (plural bamot), is known through several books of the Biblical canon—but none more so than the Book of Kings, where they play a prominent role in assessing the performance of a king. Often referred to as “high places” in translations of the Bible, bamot were worship sites that usually contained an altar. A general understanding about the bamah and how it functioned can be gained by using evidence from the Biblical text as well as archaeology. The term bamah can mean back, hill, height, ridge or cultic high place.1 In the Biblical text it is used to mean “the back of one’s enemies” (Deuteronomy 33:29), “heights” (Deuteronomy 32:13; Isaiah 58:14; Micah 1:3; Amos 4:13; Haggai 3:19; Psalm 18:34), “back of clouds” (Isaiah 14:14) or “waves of sea” (Job 9:8).2 Because of this, eminent scholar Roland de This rock-hewn altar Vaux said, “The idea which the word expresses, therefore, is something was carved out of which stands out in relief from its background, but the idea of a mountain or limestone and was hill is not contained in the word itself.”3 This could explain why this word is approximately 8 feet on used even though some of the shrines were not located on hills. The Ugaritic each side and 5 feet and Akkadian cognate usually means an animal’s back or trunk.4 The high. It is located about Akkadian can also mean land that is elevated.5 In the text of the Bible they a mile from Shiloh, and can be found on hills (2 Kings 16:4; 17:9-10; 1 Kings 11:7), towns (1 Kings the four corners point to 13:32; 2 Kings 17:29; 23:5) and at the gate of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:8). the four directions on a Ezra 6:3 says they were in the ravines and valleys. The position of a bamah compass (Exodus 27:1- in the valley can also be seen in Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35. 2). The remains clearly demonstrate that Even though some scholars translate bamah as “high place” or “hill shrines,” animals were sacrificed there is reason to believe that many of the shrines were located in urban on this high place. centers.6 Since they are often found on hills, at city gates (2 Kings 23:8) and Photo: Yoel Elitzur. in valleys (Jeremiah 7:31), Martin J. Selman, director of postgraduate studies and deputy principal at Spurgeon’s College, London, says, “The essential feature of a bamah was, therefore, not its location or height, though it usually consisted of at least a [human-formed] platform, sometimes with an associated building or buildings (2 Kings 17:29, 23:19), but its function as a site for religious purposes.”7 It may then be easiest to understand high places not as a reference to temporal space, but to a “higher” theological place. It is believed that bamot were artificially-made mounds, which may or may not include a prominent rock.8 There is some debate as to whether the word bamah refers to a naturally occurring mound that is already present or whether it refers to the altar itself.9 If it was something that was built, it could account for references to bamot being built (1 Kings 11:7; 14:23; 2 Kings17:9; 21:3; Jeremiah 19:5) and destroyed (2 Kings 23:8; 18:4). Often attached to the bamot were buildings (1 Samuel 9:22; 1 Kings 3:5)—houses/temples—where services were conducted and idols were kept (1 Kings 12:31; 2 Kings 17:29, 32; 23:19).10 Famed archaeologist W. F. Albright has claimed that the bamot were used for funerary purposes, but this has been challenged by W. Boyd Barrick.11 De Vaux suggested that Israelite bamot were modeled after the Canaanite ones.12 The bamah is also known from the Ras Shamra text.13 In Megiddo, located in the Carmel Ridge overlooking the Jezreel Valley from the west, a bamah was believed to have been found. The structure was a 24 x 30-foot oval platform, which stood six feet tall, was made of large stones and had stairs that lead to the top.14 A wall surrounded the structure. A cultic structure found in Nahariyah, located in Western Galilee, was discovered in 1947 and dates to the Middle Bronze Age, but was used until the Late Bronze Age.15 It consisted of a circular open-air altar, which compares to the one found in Megiddo, and a rectangular building probably used as a temple workshop.16 It is also believed that two bamot were found on a hill near Malhah from the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. De Vaux says, “There is no need for hesitation: these installations were bamah. Their dates range from the old Canaanite epoch to the end of the monarchy in Judah.”17 Therefore, it seems that the archaeological evidence supports the Biblical account in placement of the bamot and the time periods in which they were used. It is the general consensus that before the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the people legitimately worshiped at the bamot.18 Leading scholar Beth Alpert Nakhai says, “The long legitimate bamot and the ancient sanctuary at Bethel were not viewed as symbols of Israel’s wicked past.”19 However, the text does not really say that this type of worship was all right even at that time. In fact, the stress on “the place” suggests that Solomon should be getting on with the building of the Temple in order for these shrines to be done away with and that the shrines were slowing down the process. Even at this stage the This bamah altar came from the shrines were viewed as less than the ideal, especially considering that high place found in Beersheba the ideal was possible. Yet, the understanding of “the place” is not and dates to the eighth century simple. The phrase “the place where God is to set his name” is only B.C.E. It had been found in three Old Testament books, Deuteronomy, Chronicles and disassembled, some think Kings. during the time of King Hezekiah’s religious reforms (c. Some scholars, such as Selman, believe that as long as authentic 715 B.C.E.). They were later Yahweh worship was performed at the bamot, there was not a used as wall stones, but the problem with their existence, particularly the shrine at Gibeon (1 altar was easily reconstructed, Samuel 9:16-24; 1 Kings 3:4-5; 2 Chonicles 1:3-7).20 They argue that as the stones were a different it was not until the reforms of Josiah that the shrines were viewed as color than the rest of the stones unacceptable. These scholars have not ignored the earlier in the wall. The four horns are pronouncements against the bamot, but have interpreted them as a typical altar style that likely judgments against foreign worship or syncretism, especially derive from Exodus 27:2. regarding the asherah poles and the massebot.21 Photo: Tamarah/Wikimedia Commons. Some argue that the bamot were not the issue themselves, but the issue was syncretism and sacred pillars and poles. However, the vast majority of times the bamot are mentioned, it is in connection to kings who receive a positive review (1 Kings 15:14; 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:4; 15:4; 15:35; 16:4; 18:4; 18:22; 23:5-20). In fact, in the case of Asa (15:14) he is said to have displaced the Queen mother because of her use of an asherah (v.13). Walsh says, “A king’s attitude toward the high places will be one of the criteria on which the narrator judges him: If he attempts to destroy them, he is good; if he leaves them alone, he is mediocre; if he worships there, he is evil to the core.”22 This suggests that while there were times when syncretism and asherim use were a part of the bamot (1 Kings 11:7; 12:31-32; 13:2; 13:22-33; 14:23; 17:9-11; 17:29-32; 21:3), there were more times when these elements were not present. Therefore, the text seems to indicate that there was something wrong with the bamot themselves. Therefore, one must determine why the bamot are so problematic. The most convincing theory is that after the Temple was built in Jerusalem, it was no longer appropriate to worship elsewhere (1 Kings 3:2), especially in light of Deuteronomy 12.23 However, when exactly this was understood by historical Israel is harder to determine. Richard D. Nelson of the Perkins School of Theology claims that this is to set the worship of Yahweh apart from the worship of Baal: “The plurality of shrines inevitably reflected the local multiplicity of Canaanite Baal worship, implying a Yahweh of Dan and another Yahweh at Bethel.”24 Theological heavyweight Walter Brueggeman concurs with this analysis and says that these shrines compromised Yahweh’s jealous claim to Israel.25 This does not mean that those who were living in Israel during the monarchal period would have recognized this shift, but that the condemnation is a reflection of the author/redactor’s theology.26 This theory that the condemnation is a reflection of a later understanding would also explain the exceptions to criticism of the high place, such as 1 Samuel 9:12-14, 19, 25 and 1 Samuel 10:5, 13.

Load more