In 2 Kings 12:3, why were the high places not removed if Jehoash was supposedly following God’s commands? Definition and Text of 2 Kings 12:3 In the Berean Standard Bible, 2 Kings 12:3 states: “Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away; the people continued sacrificing and burning incense on the high places.” This verse appears in the middle of a broader narrative about Jehoash (also called Joash), who “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days he was instructed by Jehoiada the priest” (2 Kings 12:2). It raises the question: If Jehoash was faithful to God, why did he fail to remove the high places, which had long been forbidden (Deuteronomy 12:2–4)? Below is a thorough exploration of the historical, cultural, and theological background to help readers understand why the high places were not removed, even though Jehoash was generally commended for following God’s commands. Historical Setting of Jehoash’s Reign Jehoash was a king of Judah, reigning in the southern kingdom (~835–796 BC, according to common conservative timelines). He came to power after a turbulent period in which his grandmother Athaliah had unlawfully seized the throne and nearly eradicated the Davidic line (2 Kings 11:1–3). Jehoiada the priest protected the child-king, raised him in the temple, and ultimately placed him on the throne amid significant political unrest. Though Jehoash instituted temple repairs and upheld Mosaic worship under Jehoiada’s guidance (2 Kings 12:4–16), the broader environment was one of deeply entrenched practices. Many people had grown accustomed to worshiping or offering sacrifices on high places—sites that often mixed remnants of Canaanite worship structures with worship of the true God. The historical context indicates that while Judah largely remained faithful to the Davidic line and the worship of Yahweh, lingering syncretistic tendencies and local customs persisted. Cultural and Religious Context High places were elevated altars or sanctuaries found throughout the land. In earlier periods, figures such as Samuel and the prophets occasionally offered sacrifices outside Jerusalem (cf. 1 Samuel 7:9, 1 Samuel 9:12–14), especially before the temple was built. However, after the temple's establishment under Solomon, God’s people were progressively instructed to centralize their worship in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12:5–7). Over time, these high places became associated more and more with idolatrous practices, or at best, with improper worship that diverted focus from the temple. By Jehoash’s time, the elevation and local accessibility of these sites made them a longstanding tradition. Some worshipers still used them for offerings to Yahweh, while others adopted or blended pagan forms of worship. Scripturally, the Lord made it clear that only one central place of sacrifice was ordained (Deuteronomy 12:13–14). The persistence of high places was therefore contrary to God’s desire but was often tolerated by kings who either lacked the political power to remove them or were themselves insufficiently zealous to do so. Why Jehoash Did Not Remove the High Places 1. Residual Popular Practice: The people were strongly attached to these local worship sites. Generations of Israelites had grown accustomed to sacrificing on hills and in groves. Removing them often required a direct confrontational stance that provoked political and social unrest. 2. Partial Reformation: The biblical record shows Jehoash was genuinely committed to the temple and its restoration; however, faithfulness is sometimes incomplete. Many kings in Judah had moments of faithful leadership yet left certain reforms unaddressed. In the parallel accounts, other righteous kings (like Asa in 1 Kings 15:14) also declined to remove the high places, despite receiving overall commendation. 3. Influence of Jehoiada: While Jehoiada’s counsel guided Jehoash early on, it primarily focused on reestablishing the rightful king and restoring temple worship. Scripture depicts less emphasis on a widespread purge of local worship sites during that time. The emphasis was on preserving the Davidic covenant promises and the temple’s integrity. 4. Political Complexities: Removing high places across Judah entailed challenging entrenched local regional authorities. The monarchy and the priesthood may have needed more unity or resources to enforce complete removal of all unauthorized altars. Even well-meaning leaders often faced pushback or potential rebellions. 5. Heart vs. Outward Compliance: True religious reform must flow from the people’s transformation as well as the king’s leadership. Some hearts still gravitated toward local altars out of tradition or superstition. In many instances, a leader could commission reforms, but without internal change among the people, high places returned. Parallels with Other Kings • Asa (1 Kings 15:14): “Although the high places were not removed, Asa’s heart was fully devoted to the LORD all his days.” • Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20:32–33): He walked in the ways of his father Asa, “but the high places were not removed, and the people still had not set their hearts on the God of their fathers.” • Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Kings 18:4; 2 Kings 23:8–9): These kings stand out because they did tear down the high places. Their reigns are marked by particularly vigorous spiritual reform. These parallels show that removing high places was often the final hurdle for ancient Judah in the quest for pure worship. Even kings who sincerely honored Yahweh frequently left the high places intact for social or political reasons, or from incomplete commitment. Archaeological and Historical Corroborations Excavations at certain sites in ancient Israel have uncovered remnants of elevated worship structures, validating the biblical portrayal of high places. At Tel Dan, for example, archaeologists discovered a large altar complex on a raised platform. While this particular altar was connected to the northern kingdom (Israel) rather than to Jehoash’s Judah, similar localized shrines existed in Judah as well. Other extra-biblical discoveries, such as the Moabite Stone (or Mesha Stele), the Tel Dan Stele (which references the “House of David”), and bullae and seals referencing Judean kings, all reinforce the historicity of the monarchic period. These findings support the authenticity of biblical records that mention specific kings and their policies, providing strong historical grounding for the narrative in 2 Kings. Scriptural Cohesion and Theological Reflection While 2 Kings 12:3 might appear to contradict a king’s overall devotion to God’s law, it demonstrates the scriptural principle that even good leaders can be imperfect. They may show exemplary fidelity in some respects—such as funding temple repairs or following the priest’s counsel—yet fall short in other areas. In the broader biblical narrative, complete obedience eventually required a king who would restore unadulterated worship and remove every hint of paganism. Kings like Hezekiah and Josiah came closer to this standard in a later era, foreshadowing the ultimate fulfillment of perfect kingship in a Messiah who upholds God’s covenant fully and redeems His people. Practical Implications and Lessons • Obedience and Imperfection: Even faithful individuals can leave certain sins or unhealthy traditions unaddressed. Believers can glean from Jehoash’s story the importance of pursuing wholehearted obedience rather than settling for partial reforms. • Transforming Whole Communities: True and lasting change involves a collective turning of hearts toward God. Leaders may initiate reforms, but the broader community must also embrace them. • God’s Faithfulness: Despite deficiencies found in any king or people, God remains steadfast in His covenant. This is highlighted time and again throughout the chronicles of Israel and Judah. Conclusion Although Jehoash was commended in Scripture for doing what was right under Jehoiada’s guidance, he did not remove the high places because of entrenched cultural customs, political obstacles, and incomplete spiritual reformation among his people. This serves as a scriptural reminder that while human leadership can be earnest, it is often limited or inconsistent. Yet the message of Scripture remains one of divine faithfulness and ultimate fulfillment: God accomplishes His purposes even when earthly rulers fall short. “Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away; the people continued sacrificing and burning incense on the high places.” (2 Kings 12:3) — These words underscore that partial obedience does not negate faithfulness where it does occur, but it also invites the faithful to trust the One who will one day fully remove every barrier between God and His people. |
    |