BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION: KING ASA AND THE HIGH PLACES

“But the high places were not taken away.” (I Kings 15:14a)

“He took away the foreign altars and the high places.” (II Chronicles 14:3)

“But the high places were not taken out of Israel.” (II Chronicles 15:17)

So the question at hand is, “Did King Asa remove the high places or not?” But before we attempt to answer that one, a more basic question concerns the exact nature of the infamous “high places” that seem to pop up throughout the history books of the Bible.

Petter explains that the Hebrew word for “high place” is bama (bamot in the plural), “a generic term related to places where sacrifices were offered...Prior to the monarchy, bamot were considered legitimate worship places and received no condemnation, neither for their existence nor for their use...During the monarchy, however, bamot were considered illegitimate worship spaces and received considerable condemnation for their existence and use. After the building of Solomon's temple, they continued to sacrifice at and multiply bamot as if no temple existed.”

According to Petter, there are actually four different categories of high places:

    1. those devoted to Yahweh worship,

    2. places devoted to the worship of foreign deities,

    3. “high places of the gates,” and

    4. “houses of the high places.”

Although all four were condemned by the prophets, we are only concerned here with types 1 and 2.

LaSor criticizes Keil for trying to draw a distinction between the first two types and states that since “we find the people carrying on idolatrous practices at the high places...there is little point in trying to explain them away.” While it may be true that the first two categories are both rightly condemned, it may be necessary to distinguish between them in order to better understand the individual texts and resolve any apparent contradictions.

Thus, we really need to establish which type of bama is being referred to in the three summary statements above regarding Asa's reign. Provan first states, “It is not easy to find any consistency in the use of the term 'high places' in Kings.” However, he asserts that in the judgment formulae that commend Judean kings (such as the three passages above), this cannot be the case. In those instances, “the critique of the basically commendatory judgment formulas for most of the Judean kings relates to a failure to centralize the worship of God in the temple in Jerusalem, rather than to a failure to eradicate idolatry as such.” In other words, he asserts (without actually demonstrating) that Category 1 of bamot is always intended.

So if Provan is correct, we definitely have a contradiction not only between I Kings 15:14 and II Chronicles 14:3, but also between the two mentions of high places in II Chronicles 14-15 during Asa's reign. Here is how others attempt to explain the situation:

Both Petter and Ellison look more carefully at the exact wording in II Chronicles 14:3 with its key adjective “foreign.” If that adjective applies to both the altars and high places, then that indicates that the only bamot Asa removed were those of Category 2 devoted to idol worship (those which in Ellison's words “could make no legitimate claim to existence.”), while leaving the various unofficial altars to Yahweh in place.

By contrast, Schibler zeroes in on II Chronicles 15:17 instead with its specific mention of the high places in the Northern Kingdom, Israel. By his understanding, II Chronicles 14:3 commends Judah's king Asa for removing all the high places within the territory of Judah, while I Kings 15:14 and II Chronicles 15:17 both criticize him for not removing the high places existing in Israel also. This view obviously assumes that during part of Asa's reign he had control over some areas of Israel.

In his Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, William Crockett proposes that there were actually two separate reform campaigns carried out during Asa's long reign. I Kings 15:14 and its parallel in II Chronicles 15:17 are descriptions of the first reforms while II Chronicles 14:3 treats a later one. As to why two campaigns were needed, it may very well be that the people kept constructing new makeshift altars on the high places as soon as they were torn down. This would fit in with Cogan's comment that although the king himself is excused from any guilt (see the rest of I Kings 15:14 which states “yet Asa was loyal to YHWH throughout his life”), but the people continued to sacrifice at high places.

And then there are those more critical scholars who do not take the historical veracity of the accounts quite as seriously:

    G.H. Jones discounts the comment in I Kings 15:14a as a stereotyped, and inappropriate, phrase borrowed by the author from descriptions of the reigns of other Judean kings without any historical backing.

    Williamson feels that the author of Chronicles concocted a slightly altered of wording of II Chronicles 14:3 to come up with II Chronicles 15:17, which could then be harmonized with both I Kings 15:14 and II Chronicles 14:3. Others state that II Chronicles 15:17 is a product of a later author or editor.

In conclusion, as with most other supposed contradictions within the Bible, one does not have to come up with fanciful explanations in order to resolve them.