Excursus:
Shrines and Centralization in Chronicles
At this juncture, it is worth
considering several ways that Chronicles “comprehensively reworked” the subject
of the “high places,” or more accurately, “shrines” (במות), in ways that
sustain its perspective on Yhwh’s unique mediating institutions. Chronicles omit
references to worship at the shrines from the reigns of Joash/Jehoash, Amaziah,
Azariah/Uzziah, and Jotham. Japhet states that Chronicles’ high view of Solomon
led Chronicles to delete references to the במות from his successors, though
this is difficult to prove. The first mention of illegitimate shrines occurs in
connection with the במות that Jeroboam made in opposition to the Jerusalem cult
(2 Chr 11:15). Regarding Asa and Jehoshaphat, Chronicles follows its source in
Kings, which states that they did not remove the shrines (2 Chr 15:17;
20:33), but then deviates from its sources by stating that they did destroy
them (2 Chr 14:2-4[3-5]; 17:6). Japhet attributes these contradicting accounts
to Chronicles’ desire to follow its source text, but also praise these kings as
reformers. Chronicles makes no attempt at a synthesis. Moreover, Chronicles
states only that these kings removed the shrines from Judah, as the
removal of shrines from all Israel was impossible during their reigns. It is
not until his account of Jehoram that the Chronicler records a Judean king introducing
shrines (2 Chr 21:11).
Non-Jerusalemite sacrifice to
Yhwh at the במות receives mention in relation to three phases in Judah’s
history in Chronicles, the first of which occurs before the temple’s
construction. During that phase, sacrifice occurs during the ark’s transport to
Jerusalem, where the Levites offer seven bulls and rams (1 Chr 15:26) while
David officiates wearing his “linen robe” and “linen priestly vest” (1 Chr
15:27). David’s priestly garb (cf. Exod 29:5) is a fitting accompaniment to his
role as patron and initiator of the Jerusalemite cult (16:1-3). In this
instance, the Chronicler’s effort to depict David as a cult founder takes
precedent over his concern to restrict sacrifice to the “official” altar of
Bezalel. However, the altar and cult at Gibeon were not yet established, and
thus, Chronicles may have reasoned that sacrifice before the ark was entirely
appropriate, especially with David acting in a priestly capacity. After
establishing the Levitical cult before the ark in Jerusalem (16:4-38), David
places Zadok and other Aaronids before the tabernacle and altar in Gibeon
(16:39-40).
Later, when David sees the מלאך יהוה
at Ornan’s threshing floor, the Chronicler states that David sacrificed in
Jerusalem and not Gibeon because “he feared the sword” of the מלאך יהוה
(1 Chr 21:28-30). Thus, Chronicles tolerates a limited bifurcation in the cult
prior to the temple’s establishment. After David institutes the priestly
sacrificial cult at Gibeon, sacrifice at a non-official altar occurs only on
that one occasion (21:28), but even this was at the future temple site.
Chronicles omits the reference to Solomon’s numerous sacrifices before the ark
recorded in 1 Kgs 3:15, and demonstrates a concern to restrict sacrifice to the
official altar in Gibeon.
Chronicles records that Solomon
offered sacrifices at the במה in Gibeon (2 Chr 1:3, 13). Sacrifice at Gibeon is
justified because the tent of meeting and Bezalel’s altar were there “before
Yhwh” (לפני יהוה; 2 Chr 1:3, 5-6), even though the ark sat in the city of David
with musical attendants (v. 4). The “tabernacle of Yhwh” (משכן יהוה) at Gibeon
was staffed by Zadok and his fellow priests, who ministered at the “altar of burnt offering” (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). None of
these details receive mention in Kings, and they clearly arise from priestly
concerns to maintain the distinctiveness of the one Yahwistic altar.
The second phase of Yahwistic
worship at במות occurs during the reign of Manasseh (2 Chr 33:17), though here
there is no indication that priests or Levites participated in this activity,
making it qualitatively different from Gibeon. In contrast to all other
references to plural במות in Kings, this is the only mention of Yahwistic
worship at shrines. A possible reason that Chronicles makes a point of such Yahwistic
worship at the במות is that it still attributes their removal to Josiah (2 Chr
34:3). Thus, Chronicles depicts what it might consider the lesser of two evils,
decentralized worship of Yahweh. The overt mention of Yahwistic worship at the במות,
something never claimed of them in Kings, may also be a concession to the state
of affairs in the Persian period, when Yahwistic worship occurred in various
temples.
A third acknowledgement of
decentralized Yhwh worship at במות occurs in the mouth of Sennacherib’s
messengers: “Is Hezekiah not the one who removed his [Yhwh’s] high places and
his altars, saying to Judah and Jerusalem, ‘Before one altar (מזבח אחד) you shall
worship, and upon it offer incense’?” (2 Chr 32:12).112 Here Chronicles lets an
allusion to decentralized Yhwh worship stand, it seems, to amplify the
significance of Hezekiah’s reforms. Hezekiah eradicated the במות and supported
only “one altar” (אחד מזבח; המזבח הזה in 2 Kgs 18:22), which Sennacherib
infamously mistook as a sign of weakness. This third acknowledgement is only
implicit in Chronicles, and is in service of the portrait of Hezekiah as one
who maintains one unique worship center.
Thus, in contrast to
Samuel–Kings, Chronicles’ overwhelming claim is that since the days of David,
sacrificial worship of Yhwh took place at the one legitimate shrine. Non-
Jerusalemite Yhwh worship in Gibeon appears as a preparatory measure during the
days of David until early days of Solomon (in preparation for the temple), and
after Manasseh’s incomplete restoration of the cult. Only in the latter case
did sacrifice to Yhwh explicitly take place apart from the one
legitimate shrine. (Matthew Lynch, Monotheism and Institutions in the Book
of Chronicles [Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe 64; Studies of the
Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014], 97-99)
