In 1 Kings 22:43, why does the text imply Jehoshaphat removed high places when 2 Chronicles 20:33 suggests otherwise? Background and Context 1 Kings 22:43 states regarding Jehoshaphat: “Jehoshaphat walked in all the ways of his father Asa and did not turn aside from doing what was right in the eyes of the LORD. Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away, and the people continued sacrificing and burning incense on the high places.” Meanwhile, 2 Chronicles 20:33 says: “The high places, however, were not removed; the people had not yet set their hearts on the God of their fathers.” At first glance, some readers notice that in 2 Chronicles 17:6, it appears Jehoshaphat did remove certain high places: “His heart was devoted to the ways of the LORD; furthermore, he removed the high places and Asherah poles from Judah.” Then 2 Chronicles 20:33 and 1 Kings 22:43 both mention that high places remained. This can seem confusing: Did Jehoshaphat remove the high places or not? Below is a comprehensive exploration of historical, textual, and situational factors shedding light on this question. 1. Terminology and Usage of “High Places” High places (Hebrew: בָּמוֹת, bamoth) were elevated sites typically used for worship. Archaeological surveys across the region of ancient Judah and Israel (such as those near Beersheba and Lachish) have uncovered remnants of platforms and altars indicating worship practices. While some high places were dedicated to pagan deities (Baal, Asherah), others may have been used to worship the God of Israel outside of the temple in Jerusalem. In the biblical text, “removing high places” does not always mean every single illicit shrine was completely stamped out; it can also signify either general reform or removal of specific idolatrous groves and altars. Jehoshaphat’s reforms, therefore, may have been robust but not absolute. Some high places might have been reestablished, or new ones could have appeared over time. 2. Scriptural Passages in Detail “His heart was devoted to the ways of the LORD; furthermore, he removed the high places and Asherah poles from Judah.” • The Chronicler highlights Jehoshaphat’s early dedication. • The phrase “high places and Asherah poles” often points to known centers of idolatry. • This may refer to a significant reform campaign in the initial years of his reign. “Jehoshaphat walked in all the ways of his father Asa and did not turn aside from doing what was right in the eyes of the LORD. Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away, and the people continued sacrificing and burning incense on the high places.” • Although Jehoshaphat continued in Asa’s good example, not all high places were removed. • The people persisted in practices outside the central temple worship. • This likely references the state of religious practices later in his reign. “The high places, however, were not removed; the people had not yet set their hearts on the God of their fathers.” • Chronicles again affirms there were still lingering worship sites. • The people’s unwillingness to fully commit to centralized worship in Jerusalem is a key reason. 3. Harmonizing the Passages A. Partial or Gradual Reforms • Jehoshaphat’s initial efforts (2 Chronicles 17) could have targeted the most egregious pagan sites (particularly Asherah poles). • Over time, or in other regions, high places may have persisted or been rebuilt. Thus, while 2 Chronicles 17:6 reports an early, zealous cleansing, the authors of 1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 20 observe that not all sites were eliminated by the end of his reign. B. Different Categories of High Places • Some “high places” may have been directly associated with idol worship, while others could have been informal or unauthorized Yahweh-worship sites. Jehoshaphat may have focused on eradicating overt idolatry but left certain non-sanctioned Yahwistic altars standing, which the biblical writers still consider disobedient to God’s central place of worship in Jerusalem (cf. Deuteronomy 12:13-14). • As a result, a statement “He removed the high places and Asherah poles” (2 Chronicles 17:6) can refer specifically to idol shrines, while passages noting “the high places were not taken away” (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Chronicles 20:33) demonstrate that other high places or newly reestablished sites still existed. C. Fluctuations Over Time • The historical narrative of Judah reveals that even after a righteous king initiated reforms, people sometimes reverted to old practices (cf. Judges 2:16-19 for the cyclical pattern in Israel’s history). • The reappearance of high places could have occurred as Jehoshaphat was occupied with other affairs, including political alliances and military initiatives (see 2 Chronicles 18-19 for alliances and battles). • Thus, the Chronicler acknowledges the initial zeal but notes, in 20:33, the incomplete devotion of the populace. 4. Textual and Manuscript Consistency All existing Hebrew manuscripts present the statements about Jehoshaphat in a consistent manner, without any credible evidence of copying errors on these verses. Early manuscripts such as the Aleppo Codex (10th century AD) and the Leningrad Codex (circa 1008 AD) provide strong testimony to the stable transmission of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles. In line with recognized textual scholars (cf. discussions by James White and Dan Wallace on Old Testament manuscript reliability), the biblical record itself stands as internally coherent: the perceived discrepancy is in our reading, not in the original text. 5. Archaeological and Historical Note Archaeological findings throughout the Levant confirm the prevalence of high-place worship. Excavations at sites like Arad have revealed altars and cultic rooms used at various times in Israel’s history. These discoveries align with the biblical portrayal that local shrines (whether for Yahweh or other deities) were still in use. While we do not have a direct artifact inscribed with Jehoshaphat’s name regarding the destruction or survival of high places, the overall picture supports the biblical narrative of both ongoing worship at unauthorized sites and repeated attempts at reform by devout kings. 6. Theological Observations 1 Kings 22:43 and 2 Chronicles 20:33 together highlight that even a faithful king cannot singlehandedly reform the hearts of his subjects. Scripture consistently teaches that authentic worship demands inner transformation (e.g., Isaiah 29:13), something that political or external efforts alone may not achieve. Jehoshaphat’s reign demonstrates that incomplete obedience among the people often hindered the full implementation of righteous reforms. Moreover, these passages exemplify how the biblical authors are unafraid to record the incomplete success of even the most devout kings. They do not gloss over these inconsistencies. Instead, they underscore a theme running throughout Scripture: humans, even godly rulers, fall short of perfect obedience-pointing to the ultimate need for the perfect King and Savior. 7. Practical Reflection Readers can glean wisdom in understanding that reform requires persistent effort. Jehoshaphat’s initial zeal teaches the value of committed action to remove known stumbling blocks. Yet the people’s relapse reveals that external reform can never replace genuine devotion. For modern application, structural changes to personal or communal life can be beneficial-removing harmful influences, building disciplines of prayer and worship-but true, lasting change hinges on hearts genuinely set on God. Conclusion The question of why 1 Kings 22:43 appears to signal the continued existence of high places while 2 Chronicles 17:6 earlier claims they were removed boils down to understanding context and timing. Jehoshaphat’s reforms, although sincere and significant at one stage, did not eliminate every shrine permanently. Over time, some high places either were not fully destroyed or reemerged-particularly those where the people still worshiped outside the Jerusalem temple. Consequently, both statements accurately reflect different facets of Jehoshaphat’s reign: • He initiated substantial godly reforms and removed many high places (especially overtly idolatrous ones). • Nonetheless, not all high places were eradicated, and the people’s inconsistent devotion allowed certain sites to remain or to be rebuilt. These passages, far from being contradictory, depict the complexities of religious reform under a righteous yet human king. As the manuscripts and archaeological evidence affirm the overall historicity and reliability of these accounts, the biblical text offers a nuanced portrayal that remains consistent with the realities of ancient worship and with Scripture’s wider message. |
    |