Why did the people continue sacrificing at the high places in 2 Chronicles 33:17? Historical Context of High Places Israelite “high places” (בָּמוֹת, bamōt) were elevated or man-made platforms used for worship. Excavations at Tel Dan, Megiddo, Beersheba, and Arad have yielded standing stones, altars, and cultic rooms that match the biblical description of bamōt, confirming that such sites were widespread from the Late Bronze Age through the 7th century BC (cf. Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions; A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 2015, pp. 472-487). Their continued presence explains why the populace found them convenient long after centralized worship had been commanded. Biblical Background Leading to 2 Chronicles 33:17 The Law was explicit: “…you are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose…to put His Name there. There you are to bring your burnt offerings…” (Deuteronomy 12:5-6). Solomon’s temple became that chosen site (1 Kings 8:29). Even so, high-place worship lingered. From Solomon to Hezekiah, Scripture repeatedly notes, “The people still sacrificed on the high places” (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Kings 15:4). King Hezekiah broke the pattern by removing the bamōt (2 Kings 18:3-4). His son Manasseh initially reversed those reforms (2 Chronicles 33:3-9), but following divine judgment and repentance in Babylon (vv. 11-13), Manasseh “removed the foreign gods…He repaired the altar of the LORD” (vv. 15-16). Yet v. 17 records: “But the people still sacrificed at the high places, although only to the LORD their God.” (2 Chronicles 33:17). Theological Significance of High Places 1. Authority: High places represented worship on human terms versus God’s designated order. 2. Syncretism risk: Even when directed “to Yahweh,” unauthorized sites easily reverted to idolatry (cf. 1 Kings 12:26-33). 3. Covenant breach: The centralization command in Deuteronomy 12 was tied to covenant fidelity and national unity. Why Did the People Continue Sacrificing? 1. Accessibility and Convenience Rural Israelites faced a several-day journey to Jerusalem. Archaeologist Amihai Mazar notes that high-place altars closely served local villages (2015, p. 475). Behavioral studies of habit persistence show people favor proximate rituals over distant obligations when change requires significant effort. 2. Incomplete Reformation Infrastructure Manasseh repaired the temple altar (2 Chronicles 33:16) but did not fully dismantle every outlying bamah. Without removal, people defaulted to the old locations. 3. Generational Momentum Seventy-plus years of Manasseh’s initial apostasy entrenched high-place use. Cultural patterns tend to lag behind leadership changes (cf. 2 Kings 23:15-20; sociological principle of cultural lag). 4. Misunderstanding of the Law Some worshippers may have equated “as long as it’s to Yahweh” with obedience, forgetting that location was part of the covenant. Hosea addresses this misconception: “Their altars will be heaps of stone on the furrows of the field” (Hosea 10:8). Incomplete Reformation Under Manasseh Manasseh’s repentance was genuine (2 Chronicles 33:12-13), yet reforms executed late in life lacked the scope and vigor of Hezekiah’s earlier purge. The Chronicler’s purpose is to highlight the limitation of mere external action without wide-scale teaching (cf. 2 Chronicles 15:3). Comparison with Earlier Kings • Solomon tolerated high places (1 Kings 3:3). • Asa “did not remove the high places” (2 Chronicles 15:17). • Jehoshaphat likewise left them (2 Chronicles 20:33). Hezekiah alone “removed the high places” (2 Kings 18:4). Manasseh’s late reforms therefore represented a partial return to Hezekiah’s gold standard but not its completeness. Archaeological Corroboration of High Places 1. Tel Arad: A Judahite temple with two incense altars and standing stones, dismantled in Hezekiah’s era, fits 2 Kings 18:4. 2. Lachish Level III: Shrine areas destroyed circa 701 BC align with Hezekiah’s reforms. 3. Tel Dan: A monumental high-place platform indicates how entrenched such cultic centers were. Their sheer number elucidates why eradicating them was a logistical challenge. Lessons for Believers Today 1. Partial obedience is disobedience—worship must align with God’s revealed parameters, not merely good intentions. 2. Leaders bear responsibility to couple personal repentance with thorough discipleship of the people (cf. Matthew 28:20). 3. Cultural habits require decisive, ongoing correction; otherwise, remnants of past compromise re-emerge. Christocentric Fulfillment and Worship The temple pointed forward to Christ, in whom true worship is centralized: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Believers are now “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5), called to offer sacrifices of praise (Hebrews 13:15) in Spirit and truth (John 4:23-24). The persistence of high-place worship foreshadows humanity’s tendency to devise its own approaches to God—remedied only through the perfect obedience and atoning resurrection of Jesus Christ. |
    |