Idolatry, the High Places, and the Modern Believer


As I read through the Bible this year, the phrase, “the high places,” caught my attention because it is used as a kind of litmus test and descriptor of the kings of Israel and Judah in Kings and Chronicles. Like a worn-out refrain, and a tired old drumbeat, king after king in Israel and Judah is identified for failing to remove the high places. Only Hezekiah removed them and only Josiah destroyed them completely.

In case you have not read Kings or Chronicles lately, each king is judged by whether he did what was right in the sight of the Lord and removed the high places. The phrase “the high places were not removed” functions like a spiritual diagnostic in Kings. Even of the kings who were not wholly evil, only two (2) of them did something about the high places that were scattered throughout the region.

I have glossed over the phrase every year that I have read through Kings and Chronicles until now. When I recognized I wasn’t exactly sure what the high places were, I took some time to lay my assumptions aside and look into it. What I found is interesting and surprisingly relevant for us today.

What Were the High Places?

The Hebrew word translated “high places” is bamot. These were worship sites, usually located on hills or mountain tops, on ridges, or sometimes even on raised platforms in cities. A typical high place might include a stone altar for sacrifices, standing stones (masseboth), wooden poles associated with goddess worship (Asherah poles), incense altars, or occasionally a sacred tree or grove.

Ancient Near Eastern people believed that worshiping on elevated places brought them closer to heaven. Thus, “high places” became a term synonymous with worship. I wonder, as I write this, whether our phrase for good worship or a good spiritual experience – a mountaintop experience – comes from the idea of “high places” (knowingly or unknowingly).

The First Reference to a High Place

The first explicit mention of a “high place” is in 1 Samuel 9. When Saul goes looking for his father’s lost donkeys and is told to seek out the prophet, Samuel, who was planning to meet the people “at the high place” for a sacrifice. They were waiting for Samuel to get there to bless the sacrifice before they ate. Saul meets Samuel on his way to the high place, and Samuel instructed Saul to go on ahead of him, to wait for him, and to eat with him. (1 Samuel 9:12–14, 19).

This first mention of a high place is interesting because it seems to carry no negative connotation. Samuel had a good reputation as a prophet who did what was right in the Lord’s eyes, and the sacrifice they enjoyed at the high place seems to have been acceptable.

Older Worship Practice


Although the term “high place” is first used in 1st Samuel, worship on high places by some of the most iconic people of God goes back much earlier. For example: Noah builds an altar after leaving the ark; Abraham builds altars at Shechem, Bethel, and Mt. Moriah; Jacob worships at Bethel, and Moses meets God and receives the Law on Mt. Sinai.

Man placing stones near a wooden ark under a cloudy sunrise in the mountains

The pattern of mountaintop worship and encounter with God is repeated and prominent. Just as noticeable, perhaps, is the absence of a negative comment about these practices. They seem to have occurred in ways that advanced relationship and covenant between God and key figures in the Old Testament. The pattern seems to have been acceptable to God, and those older mountaintop places of worship are not called “high places” (bamot).

A Change in the Worship of God

The early encounters of people with God were organic and free-flowing, but that way of relating to God changed with Moses and the Exodus. Although, Moses met with God on the top of Mt. Sinai, God changed the way people would relate to Him and worship Him going forward.

After Moses provided the blueprints from God, the Tent of Meeting (Tabernacle) was constructed to provide a place for the the Ark of the Covenant, for offering sacrifices to God, and for Moses to meet with God. The presence of God came to reside among the people over the Tent of Meeting with a visceral demonstration of fire by night and cloud by day.

Moses was instructed to consecrate the Levites, alone, to care for the Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant, to carry, assemble, and to tear down the structures when they moved, and to conduct all of the ritual sacrifices that were very carefully prescribed.

Anyone who dared to approach God, offer sacrifices, or worship in a way that was not prescribed incurred the consequence of that transgression. No one but a Levite (and Moses) could enter the Tent of Meeting or offer sacrifices, and the Levites had to follow the the detailed instructions prescribed by God or pay the price.

The Problem with High Places

When Israel entered the Promised Land of Canaan, hilltop shrines devoted to gods like Baal and Asherah were scattered throughout the area. At that time, God specifically commanded Israel to destroy the high places (bamot), saying, “You must not worship the  Lord your God in their way.” Instead, the people were instructed to “seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling.” (Deuteronomy 12:1-7).

They were warned, “You are not to do as we do here today, everyone doing as they see fit, since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance the Lord your God is giving you.” (Deut. 12:8-9) Yet, all they had was the mobile Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant, and they moved around until the Temple was built by Solomon. They were not always even in the same location.

The Transitionary Period

It was during this time frame that Samuel met Saul at “the high place.” Other people also offered sacrificed on high places during this period, despite the instruction from Moses. For instance, Joshua builds an altar on Mount Ebel after the conquest of Ai and offered sacrifices as Moses instructed them to do after crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land. (Deuteronomy 27; Joshua 8:30–35)


Stone firepit with smoldering ashes near river in natural valley landscape

Sometime later, the tribes that took the land east of the Jordan built an altar. Joshua and the western tribes prepared to go to war with their brothers, assuming that it was an unauthorized rival worship location. They relented when eastern tribes explained it was not an altar for performing sacrifices; it was a ceremonial altar meant to be a witness that they belong to Israel. (Joshua 22)


God specifically instructed Gideon to build an altar to the LORD and offer sacrifices on it after tearing down an altar his family constructed for Baal. (Judges 6) Samson’s parents built an altar and offered sacrifices in thanks to God that seems to have been acceptable, because the Angel of the LORD ascends in the flame. (Judges 13)

Samuel repeatedly participated in offering sacrifices away from the Tabernacle at Mizpah (1 Samuel 7), Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16), the high place at Ramah (1 Samuel 9) during the period when the priesthood centered at Shiloh had collapsed and the Ark and Tabernacle were no longer together. David also built several altars during this time, including an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24) where Solomon would later build the Temple.

Finally, Solomon offered sacrifices at the high place of Gibeon. In Solomon’s case the text seems to excuse the practice by stating, “[T]here was no house built for the name of the Lord.” (1 Kings 3) This seems to suggest that it was a transitional time.

Not a Hard and Fast Rule

Though God had told them to “seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling,” it didn’t seem to be a hard and fast rule after they entered the Promised Land the Temple was built.

Perhaps, this is because the issue wasn’t locational, but a matter of the heart. With “high places” for pagan worship scattered throughout the land, it was too tempting for God’s people to mix worship of Yahweh with pagan practices or outright idolatry.

After the Temple was built in Jerusalem, continuing to worship at local high places was usually viewed as disobedience to God’s command. That is why the books of Kings repeatedly evaluate rulers with statements like: “Nevertheless, the high places were not removed.” Even kings who were otherwise faithful often failed this test. Once the Temple was dedicated, the transitional period ended. From then on, the high places became symbols of covenant unfaithfulness.

The clearest passage on this theme is Deuteronomy 12, which does not merely forbid worshiping other gods on the high places—it forbids Israel from worshiping the LORD wherever they choose. They were to worship only at the place God chooses.

Notice the contrast:

  • First, Israel is commanded to destroy the Canaanite places of worship: “You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations… served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.” (Deut. 12:2)
  • Then comes the key command: “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way.” (Deut. 12:4)
  • We are to approach God on His terms: “But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose… there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices…” (Deut. 12:5–14)

This theme is repeated. Deuteronomy 16:21–22 forbids setting up sacred poles or standing stones alongside the LORD’s altar, practices commonly associated with high places. Deuteronomy 17:3–9 requires sacrifices to be brought to the tabernacle rather than offered wherever people wish. Deuteronomy 17:9–11 condemns Israel because they “built for themselves high places… and there they burned incense on all the high places.”

The point is not merely, “Don’t worship idols.” It is, “Don’t worship the LORD according to the pattern of the nations or at places you choose yourself.” In other words: the people can only worship and honor God properly on God’s terms – not on their own terms. God is God, and we are not.

The Spirit of the Law

This is the interesting part. Before the temple was built, there were periods when Israel lacked a single permanent sanctuary. During the days of Samuel and even early in the reign of Solomon, sacrifices at places like Gibeon were tolerated because that was where the tabernacle and bronze altar were located (1 Kings 3:2–4). The author of Kings even explains:, “The people were sacrificing at the high places because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD.”


Once the Temple in Jerusalem was established as the place God had chosen, however, continuing to worship at local high places became an act of disobedience. That is why the historian repeatedly criticizes otherwise good kings by saying, “The high places were not removed.”

King kneeling on a prayer rug in front of an ancient temple altar with rising smoke

Deuteronomy is teaching that true worship is defined not by human sincerity or convenience, but by God’s initiative. The temptation of the high places was to approach God on one’s own terms—at a place of one’s own choosing, often borrowing from the belief systems and practices of the surrounding culture.

The prophets continually call Israel back to worship that is shaped by God’s word rather than by human preference. This theme reaches its fulfillment in the New Testament, where worship is no longer centered on a geographic sanctuary but on Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, who becomes the true meeting “place” between God and humanity (see John 2:19–21 and 4:21–24).

Continue reading “Idolatry, the High Places, and the Modern Believer”

The Primacy of Faith in a Post Post-Modern World

Seeking reality in a post, postmodern, metamodern world takes faith

Solitary wooden rowboat floating on calm, foggy water

The primacy of faith may never have been more prominent than it is today in this post-postmodern, metamodern world. AI experts say that “hallucinations” are inevitable and unavoidable in the way AI works. Skepticism has already become the default posture of people in this social-media dominated world in which fake news is old news. It’s no longer what you trust, but who you trust. “Pick your poison, and go with it” is the metamodern response.

The advent of AI and its looming takeover may unravel the very foundation of our confidence in knowledge. If skepticism has long been the province of intellectuals in the know, it is now the common denominator of everyone who trusts only what they know from the people they trust and news outlets that feed them.

If we are not postmodern enough already, our skepticism will increasingly become more necessary than ever. In just a few years of the AI revolution, determining what content on social media is AI, not AI, or only partially AI is becoming increasingly fraught. The challenge will only get more difficult as AI gets better. Even college professors have difficulty determining student work product from AI work product

AI is only going to get better (or worse, depending on your viewpoint). The capacity of AI to churn out convincing content with great confidence (and lurking uncertainty) may overtake our ability to keep up with it. Over fifty percent of all social media content is currently produced by bots, a form of AI, and that statistic is likely to climb higher. Human productivity cannot keep up with the productivity of AI.

AI feeds on itself. Garbage in produces garbage out. AI repeats itself by design, and it will inevitably repeat the good with bad, leaving us ever attempting to discern and decipher which is which.

In a world like the one we are facing, faith becomes more important than ever. By faith, I mean trusting and having confidence in something. What we put our faith in will become more and more important.

This revelation comes as postmodernism is breaking down. That postmodernist, existentialist angst is hard to live with. We have to put our faith somewhere – and this is the meta-modern trend that we are now facing. Faith – where we put our confidence – is the question of the day.

Metamodernism has taken hold on our culture and psyche according to people who study these things. Despite the post-modern assumption that we can trust nothing, we choose to trust something in a metamodern world because the alternative is untenable and unsustainable.

Social psychologists say that we are living in a world marked by anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and isolation, and these problems are falling with heaviest weight on our youngest population. In a world like that, they learn they have to cling to something. They have to find something solid they can hold on to. If they don’t, everything is always falling away from them. They have nowhere to stand.

In a world like that, faith is inevitable and unavoidable. It is necessary for survival.

Perhaps we are arriving at this place too late. It certainly isn’t too soon. In fact, the place where we now stand, where it seems there is nothing solid to stand on, was foretold thousands of years ago in the Book of Ecclesiastes.

Continue reading “The Primacy of Faith in a Post Post-Modern World”

Acknowledging God for His Faithfulness

God’s faithfulness is new every morning

Solar system planets orbiting the sun with multiple galaxies in the background.

I am reminded often that God’s faithfulness is new every morning, and God’s faithfulness is the subject of my inspiration today. I am going to start my meditation with the Euthyphro dilemma – a strange place to begin, maybe, but it sets the stage for some thoughts I have on faithfulness.

The Euthyphro dilemma poses a seeming conundrum: Is God good because He determines what is good as a matter of fiat, or is God good because goodness is objectively required of God just as it is required of us? In other words, does God arbitrarily establish what is good, or is God subject to what is good?

Of course, this is a false conundrum. It assumes there are only two possibilities: that God arbitrarily establishes what is good or that God is subject to what is good.

There is at least a third possibility—that good is determined by the very nature of God. Good is simply a description of who God is. Faithfulness is good because God is faithful, and the virtue of faithfulness is a reflection of God’s very character.

If we take the Bible for our revelation of God, His faithfulness always is, always was, and always will be. It’s not as if God actually trots out a new dose of faithfulness every morning. The saying is poeti:c that God’s faithfulness is new every morning. We experience God’s faithfulness anew every morning.

It dawns on me, though it shouldn’t come as any revelation, that God desires us to be like Him. As our Father, He is proud of and appreciates when His children emulate Him. Just like the child who is proud of her father and wants to be like him, pretends to be him in play because she loves him and honors him in her heart, we are grateful for God’s faithfulness, and we seek to be faithful like Him.

If God is faithful and His faithfulness is new to us every morning, as the psalmist says, then we should desire to be like Him in faithfulness in our own lives. We should desire to be like him in this way.

I am aware that the virtue of faithfulness isn’t the most exciting virtue we could adopt. Faithfulness, perhaps, doesn’t get the kind of attention that faith, hope, and love get, for instance. But where would we be without the faithfulness of God, who gives His word and keeps His promise? Whose yes is yes and no is no. Where would we be if His faithfulness was not new every morning? If we could not count on His grace? If we were uncertain that God would keep His promise to us?

Continue reading “Acknowledging God for His Faithfulness”

The Missional, “Migrational” Nature of Faith

The migratory existence of God’s people in the missional progression of the Bible

Traveler walking on winding desert path toward floating city at sunset with glowing skyscrapers

Lesslie Newbigin says that scripture is missional. Among other things, that means Scripture has a movement to it. It begins with two people, Adam and Eve, who initially walk with God in the garden created for them, but they are naive. They are duped into not trusting God. They are exiled from the garden and are instructed to multiply and populate the earth.

Scripture tracks the story of God’s plan to redeem Adam and Eve. It progresses through God’s interaction with their children, their children’s children, and their descendants along a missional path.

God works through Noah, Abraham, and Moses to move his plans along. All the milestones along the path are missional in the direction of God’s established before the foundations of the earth.

They coalesce in the incarnation, where Jesus picks up all the missional threads, fulfilling them in himself and carrying them forward in his life. He proclaims the presence and the future coming of the kingdom of God. He gives himself up to death, and he rises again to defeat sin and death. Jesus takes his seat at the right hand of the Father after commissioning his followers to carry his message and to the ends of the earth as his ambassadors.

From the promise to Eve that her seed will crush the serpent, to the rainbow covenant to Noah, to promise to Abraham to bless all the nations of the earth through his descendants, the missional progression of God’s plan in Revelation: in the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven and in God establishing His habitation among His people in a new heavens and new earth.

In that final chapter in which God’s plans come to fruition, all God’s people are gathered in one great assembly of people. They are from every nation, tribe, and tongue. (Rev. 7:9)

In this progression, God doesn’t move; people do. God doesn’t change; people do. The mission doesn’t change from beginning to end, but people change in relation to their understanding and involvement as the mission unfolds.

Another way of characterizing the missional character of Scripture from beginning to end is with the word, migration. Scripture is about the migration of people from the garden to the New Jerusalem.

Continue reading “The Missional, “Migrational” Nature of Faith”

Blaise Pascal on True Jews and True Christians

Blaise Pascal on true religion and true believers

Clergyman preaching in historic church with sunlight streaming through stained glass windows

I have been listening to Pensées, by Blaise Pascal on Audible Chapter 45, Section 610 has given me some food for thought that inspires this blog post. Pascal’s analysis may not be politically correct in the 21st Century, but he makes a sound point when we give him some grace.

Leading up to Section 610, Pascal makes the claim that anyone who understands the Jewish religion by its “course of forms” will misunderstand it. He interprets the Law by the prophets who “made it plain enough that they did not interpret the Law according to the letter.”

This distinction is not novel. Paul makes the same point in all of his writings. The Law was temporary. (Galatians 3:19) It was a tutor. (Gal. 3:24) Paul says the Law is just a shadow – specifically that the religious rules about food, drink, festivals, etc. are a shadow of the substance which is in Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17) Jesus, himself, said the religious leaders search Scripture for clues about eternal life, but Scripture bears witness to him. (John 5:39-40; see also Luke 24:27)

Pascal says the Messiah according to “carnal Jews” was to be “a great temporal prince.” They expected a good fortune for them in this life when the Messiah came. In the same vein, Pascal says, “Jesus Christ according to carnal Christians has come to dispense us the love of God and to give us sacraments that should do everything to benefit us without our help.” In other words, “carnal Christians” are also just looking for benefits from God.

Pascal concludes, “Such is not the Christian religion, nor the Jewish.” He says, “True Christians and true Jews have always expected a Messiah that would make them love God and, by that love, triumph over their enemies.” (607) He puts “true Christians” and “true Jews” on the same level. They desire and seek to know and love God for who He is – and not for what He can provide them.

Pascal says, “The carnal Jews hold a midway place before Christians and heathens. The heathens know not God and love the world only. The Jews know the true God and love the world only. Christians know the true God and love not the world. Jews and heathens love the same good. Jews and Christians know the same God. The Jews were of two kinds: the first had only heathen affections; the other had Christian affections.” (608)

Pascal says, among the Christians, the coarser-minded are the Jews of the new law. The carnal Jews looked for a carnal Messiah. The “coarser Christians” believe that the Messiah has dispensed them the love of God. True Jews and true Christians worship a Messiah who makes them love God.” (609) The difference is in desiring the good things God can give them versus desiring God who is good. In these ways, Pascal claims that true Christians are like true Jews, and “coarser Christians” are like the carnal Jews.

And this is where we get to the point. Pascal says that true Jews and true Christians have the same religion. The religion of the Jews seemed to consist of the fatherhood of Abraham, circumcision, sacrifices, ceremonies, the Ark of the Covenant, the temple, Jerusalem, and the Law of Moses. But, Pascal says the true religion of the Jews “consisted of none of those things, but only in the love of God.”

Continue reading “Blaise Pascal on True Jews and True Christians”