Deuteronomy Revamps King Hezekiah’s Failed Reform

The law of the Single Altar (Deut 12:1–28), which opens the Deuteronomic Law Collection (chs. 12–26), has no comparable statute in the Torah’s other legal traditions.^[1] In contrast to the multiple sites at which the Canaanites worshipped their gods, Israel was to serve YHWH at the one site He would choose out of all the tribes:

^{דברים יב:ב} אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כָּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם... ^יב:ד לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַי־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. ^יב:ה כִּי אִם אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל שִׁבְטֵיכֶם לָשׂוּם אֶת שְׁמוֹ שָׁם לְשִׁכְנוֹ תִדְרְשׁוּ וּבָאתָ שָׁמָּה.

^{Deut 12:2} You must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped their gods… ^12:4 Do not worship YHWH your God in like manner, ^12:5 but look only to the site that YHWH your God will choose amidst all your tribes as His habitation, to establish His name there. There you are to go.

Thus, while no motive clause accompanies this law, explaining the rationale for restricting all worship of YHWH to a single site,^[2] context suggests that the centralization of worship was meant to draw a distinction between the manner in which the Canaanites worshipped their gods and the one to be followed by Israel. Canaanites serve their many gods at many sites, therefore Israel was bidden to worship its God at a single site.^[3]

When Does the Law Take Effect?

Delivered by Moses to the people in the plains of Moab, its implementation is set in the future, described in the most general terms: after Israel was peacefully settled in its inheritance.^[4]

^{דברים יב:י} וַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן וִישַׁבְתֶּם בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מַנְחִיל אֶתְכֶם וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכָּל אֹיְבֵיכֶם מִסָּבִיב וִישַׁבְתֶּם בֶּטַח. ^יב:יא וְהָיָה הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בּוֹ לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם שָׁמָּה תָבִיאוּ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם...

^{Deut 12:10} When you cross the Jordan and settle in the land that YHWH your God is allotting to you, and He grants you safety from all your enemies around you and you live in security, ^12:11 then you must bring everything that I command you to the site where YHWH your God will choose to establish His name…^[5]

The implication is that the practice of worship at any and all sites remains permissible until the Israelites are living in security, after which YHWH will choose a permanent site, and worship at all other such sites would end. And yet, although the Bible describes Israel as settling comfortably in the land following Joshua’s conquest, biblical sources do not tell of any attempt to establish a single altar during the period of the judges and the earliest period of the monarchy. Instead, cultic activity continued undisturbed at many sites, for example, at Shiloh (1 Sam 1:3, 21), Ramah (1 Sam 9:12), Nob (1 Sam 21:2–5), Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4).

According to the Book of Kings, it was King Solomon (late 10^th cent. B.C.E.) who undertook his Temple project because he understood that Israel had reached its safe haven, as Solomon explains to King Hiram of Tyre:

^{מלכים א ה:יח} וְעַתָּה הֵנִיחַ יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהַי לִי מִסָּבִיב אֵין שָׂטָן וְאֵין פֶּגַע רָע. ^ה:יט וְהִנְנִי אֹמֵר לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לְשֵׁם יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהָי...

^{1 Kgs 5:18} But now YHWH my God has given me respite all around; there is no adversary and no mischance, ^5:19 and so I propose to build a house for the name of YHWH my God...^[6]

Even following the construction of the Temple, however, we hear nothing about Solomon or any other king closing down local cult sites until centuries later, during the reign of King Hezekiah, who ruled from 727–698 B.C.E.^[7] This long period of inaction suggests the likelihood that Deuteronomy is projecting a later development back in time and that the single altar law did not exist prior to the late eighth century.^[8]

Hezekiah’s Cult Reform

For decades, the Temple in Jerusalem was to all intents and purposes a royal temple. This changed, when Hezekiah attempted to establish this Temple as the only legitimate place to worship YHWH. His historic reform is concisely reported:

^{מלכים ב יח:ד} הוּא הֵסִיר אֶת הַבָּמוֹת וְשִׁבַּר אֶת הַמַּצֵּבֹת וְכָרַת אֶת הָאֲשֵׁרָה וְכִתַּת נְחַשׁ הַנְּחֹשֶׁת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה כִּי עַד הַיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה הָיוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְקַטְּרִים לוֹ וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ נְחֻשְׁתָּן.

^{2 Kgs 18:4} He abolished the high places (NJPS: “shrines”) and smashed the pillars and cut down the sacred post. He also broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until that time the Israelites had been offering sacrifices to it; it was called Nehushtan.

Like the abolishment of the high places, the removal of the pillars (singular: מצבה; matzevah) and posts (singular: אשרה; asherah)—appurtenances that were part of the service of YHWH in those days—is in keeping with Deuteronomic law which forbids their use:

^{דברים טז:כא} לֹא תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה כָּל עֵץ אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ. ^טז:כב וְלֹא תָקִים לְךָ מַצֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ.

^{Deut 16:21} You shall not plant (NJPS: “set up”) a sacred post—any kind of pole beside the altar of YHWH your God that you may make—^16:22 or erect a stone pillar; for such YHWH your God detests.

Matzevah—Pillars were associated with the worship of YHWH from the earliest times; it is likely that these “standing stones” were seen as memorials, marking the sites of divine revelations. For example, Jacob sets up one at Bethel (Gen 28:18–22) and Moses sets up twelve at Mount Sinai (Exod 24:4).

Asherah—The sacred post was a wooden object of some sort; in Deuteronomy, it is a tree that was planted near the altar (cf. Judg 6:25–26). Sacred trees were long known in Israel (cf., e.g., Gen 21:33), and they shared a common name with the Canaanite goddess Asherah,^[9] but the use of the term in biblical Hebrew shows it had lost reference to the goddess and was solely a cultic object.^[10]

Nehushtan—The venerable bronze serpent was associated with Mosaic tradition (Num 21:4-9).^[11]

Even though some of these have counterparts in Canaanite practice, the thrust of Hezekiah’s actions is directed at curbing native, long-standing Yahwistic practices within Israel that were now declared out of bounds.

Is the Reform Historical?

Unlike what is reported about Josiah a century later—that “the scroll of the Teaching” (ספר התורה), considered by many to be Deuteronomy, which was found repairs to the Temple, led him to undertake a similar reform (2 Kgs 23:1–14)—Hezekiah is not said to have been prompted by a written document. Nor does Kings offer any other motivation, though the report clearly smacks of Deuteronomic influence.

Indeed, some scholars doubt the factualness of the report on Hezekiah’s reform, noting its “artificiality” in the times before Deuteronomy, the conclusion being that “[n]o pre-Deuteronomistic written source referring to a large-scale cultic reform can be discovered in the history of Hezekiah.”^[12]

According to this reasoning, Hezekiah is considered to have been a good king, and thus the Deuteronomist credits him with instituting reforms in line with Deuteronomic law. As the breaking into pieces of the Nehushtan image is out of step with Deuteronomy only its removal may be credited, and the rest of the reform was grafted onto this.

In support of the thesis that the reform is a literary fiction, scholars have noted that incense burners (most likely cult vessels) are depicted on the Lachish reliefs of Sennacherib as being carried off by Assyrian soldiers as spoils from the city of Lachish captured in 701 B.C.E. This is read as a sign that a cult shrine was functioning at Lachish at the time of the Assyrian attack; it had not been eradicated by Hezekiah.^[13]

In contrast, several archaeologists have pointed to what seems to be the remains of destroyed cultic installations at several major Judean sites from Hezekiah’s time.^[14] For example, at Beersheba, large stones with horn-shaped corners that once were part of a now dismantled altar were found used in a secondary context. At Arad, the cult complex of altar and a “holy of holies” (דביר) was found buried and later reused. Nevertheless, the dates of the archaeological levels of these finds and others remain hotly debated by archaeologists.^[15]

Reasons for the Reform

Assuming Hezekiah’s reform has a historical basis—as many scholars do—it is related to Deuteronomy’s Single Altar Law; perhaps it is even its harbinger. The date and circumstances for Hezekiah’s iconoclastic actions are not given, so we do not know what brought about this attempt to change worship practice.^[16] Scholars have suggested various possibilities, depending on the context:

Revolt Against Assyria—Some suggest that this centralizing move was associated with the revolt against Assyria led by Hezekiah after the death of Sargon in 705 and the rise of Sennacherib to the throne of Assyria. Thus, Miller and Hayes write that his “religious reforms [were] related to his nationalistic ambitions.”^[17]

Connecting Israelites to Judah—The closing of the high places is understood as being part of Hezekiah’s plan to strengthen the ties between the outlying areas of Judah to the capital. After the fall of Samaria in 720 B.C.E., Jerusalem and its Temple became the main site for the worship of YHWH, the unrivaled center for Israelite unity.^[18]

Israel’s Fall Itself—In my own view, the fall of the kingdom of Israel itself was likely the inspiration for a reform movement in Judah that saw the multiplicity of cult sites as a religiously corrupting influence that would lead to Judean destruction as it had in Israel. Accordingly, the reform was aimed at establishing the principle one altar for the one God. The teachings of northern prophets like Amos and Hosea, who had warned of Israel's impending destruction because of its cultic aberrations, appear to have reached Judah as seen in the admonitions of the prophet Micah of Moresheth Gath (in the Judean Shephelah), who pointed to similar idolatries in Judah’s cult:

^{מיכה ה:ט} וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יְ־הוָה וְהִכְרַתִּי סוּסֶיךָ מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְהַאֲבַדְתִּי מַרְכְּבֹתֶיךָ. ^ה:י וְהִכְרַתִּי עָרֵי אַרְצֶךָ וְהָרַסְתִּי כָּל מִבְצָרֶיךָ. ^ה:יא וְהִכְרַתִּי כְשָׁפִים מִיָּדֶךָ וּמְעוֹנְנִים לֹא יִהְיוּ לָךְ. ^ה:יב וְהִכְרַתִּי פְסִילֶיךָ וּמַצֵּבוֹתֶיךָ מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְלֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה עוֹד לְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ. ^ה:יג וְנָתַשְׁתִּי אֲשֵׁירֶיךָ מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְהִשְׁמַדְתִּי עָרֶיךָ.

^{Mic 5:9} In that day – declares YHWH – I will destroy the horses in your midst and wreck your chariots. ^5:10 I will destroy the cities of your land and demolish all your fortresses. ^5:11 I will destroy the sorcery you practice, and you shall have no more soothsayers. ^5:12 I will destroy your idols and the sacred pillars in your midst; and no more shall you bow down to the work of your hands. ^5:13 I will tear down the sacred posts in your midst and destroy your cities.

For Hezekiah, Israel’s fall was an object lesson and became a catalyst for reforming the cult in Judah by banning the use of all physical accoutrements in its practice^[19] and concentrating it at a single chosen site.^[20] And yet, the reform was doomed to failure from the start.

Lack of Spiritual Centers

Hezekiah’s reform failed to recognize that for the individual Israelites/Judeans – those who lived on and worked the land – the local cult sites served as their spiritual lifeline, the readily accessible channel through which YHWH their God was served, functioning under the watchful eye of local clergy. The closure of the bāmôt in effect removed YHWH from daily life and created a vacuum. Two textual clues point to the unpopularity of the reform.

Centralization Weakens rather than Strengthens

During the negotiations for the surrender of Judah to Sennacherib, the lead Assyrian representative, the Rabshaqeh,^[21] sought to weaken the defenders’ resistance by pointing to Hezekiah’s reform as an act that caused YHWH to desist from coming to their aid:

^{מלכים ב יח:כב} וְכִי תֹאמְרוּן אֵלַי אֶל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ בָּטָחְנוּ הֲלוֹא הוּא אֲשֶׁר הֵסִיר חִזְקִיָּהוּ אֶת בָּמֹתָיו וְאֶת מִזְבְּחֹתָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לִיהוּדָה וְלִירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם לִפְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַזֶּה תִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ בִּירוּשָׁלָ͏ִם.

^{2 Kgs 18:22} And if you tell me that you are relying on YHWH, your God, He is the very one whose shrines and altars Hezekiah did away with, telling Judah and Jerusalem, “You must worship only at this altar in Jerusalem.”

The Rabshaqeh’s argument, that YHWH would not lend his support to those who removed his altars, could have been effective, even welcomed by the opponents of the reform. Centralization by its very nature upended local traditions, and it would have been ill-advised to do so if unity was its goal.

King Manasseh’s Reinstates the High Places

When he came to the throne, Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, supported the reopening of the bāmôt:

^{מלכים ב כא:ג} וַיָּשָׁב וַיִּבֶן אֶת הַבָּמוֹת אֲשֶׁר אִבַּד חִזְקִיָּהוּ אָבִיו...

^{2 Kgs 21:3} He rebuilt the shrines that his father Hezekiah had destroyed…

Notably, Manasseh was only twelve years old when he ascended the throne (2 Kgs 21:1). Thus, it was not he, but those who administered state affairs during Manasseh’s minority, who showed themselves as having been opponents of the Hezekian reform.^[22] As I argued together with Hayim Tadmor in our commentary on Kings:

[T]he idolatry of Manasseh’s age was a popular reaction to the religious policies of Hezekiah, which set in after the king’s death. Hezekiah’s cult reform did not prevent the disastrous rout of Judah at the hands of Assyria. Rather than meeting defeat and disaster on the hills of Judah, as prophesied by Isaiah (cf. e.g., Isa 10:12-19), Assyria reached the apogee of its power.^[23]

In other words, Judah was disillusioned with Hezekiah’s reform and rejected it on the first possible occasion.

Overcoming the Single Altar Law’s Handicap

Though it may have been a limited reform, centered at Jerusalem’s Temple and royally sponsored sites in select cities, it ultimately failed. Yet, in the long Assyrian seventh-century, the idea of a single altar at a divinely chosen site continued to develop and emerged at the close of the century during the reign of Josiah in the Deuteronomic movement that called for the purging of bāmôt worship as well as all foreign accretions (2 Kgs 23:4–14).

A hallmark of Deuteronomic teaching, the Single Altar Law is prominently expressed in the Book of Kings in which service of YHWH at the Temple in Jerusalem is considered the axis around which Israel’s fate rotates – it was the guarantor for Israel’s continued residence in the Land.

Deuteronomy projects the law requiring a single altar back into the time of Moses, and explains, as noted, that multiple worship sites were the hallmark of Canaanite practice. To his chagrin, the author of Kings repeatedly relates the failure of Judahite kings to remove the high places:

^{מלכים א ככ:מד} אַךְ הַבָּמוֹת לֹא סָרוּ עוֹד הָעָם מְזַבְּחִים וּמְקַטְּרִים בַּבָּמוֹת.

^{1 Kgs 22:44} However, the high places (NJPS: “shrines”) were not removed, the people still sacrificed and offered at the high places.^[24]

Some of the inherent difficulties of the Single Altar Law, which seem to have scuttled Hezekiah’s attempt at reform, were understood by the authors of Deuteronomy, whose revampings newly appeared in the time of Josiah. Its presentation of the law attends to some of the practical problems with the reform, setting it on a stronger footing in this second attempt.

The Unemployed Levites

The reform was inimical to the sacred personnel of the local cult sites, namely those levitical priests who would find themselves unemployed with the closing of the local sites.^[25] The Deuteronomic authors of the law collection are aware of this, and in its laws—and only in them!—is the Levite included in the list of society’s disadvantaged who are to be cared for. For example, in the requirement to celebrate festivals:

^{דברים טז:יא} וְשָׂמַחְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבֶּךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם.

^{Deut 16:11} You shall rejoice before YHWH your God with your son and daughter, your male and female slave, the Levite in your settlements, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow in your midst, at the place where YHWH your God will choose to establish His name.^[26]

This hardly solves the problem of the unemployed Levite, and thus an additional enactment prescribes conditions for those local Levites who wish to join their brethren and serve at the site of single altar in Jerusalem:

^{דברים יח:ו} וְכִי יָבֹא הַלֵּוִי מֵאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ מִכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הוּא גָּר שָׁם וּבָא בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשׁוֹ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְ־הוָה. ^יח:ז וְשֵׁרֵת בְּשֵׁם יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהָיו כְּכָל אֶחָיו הַלְוִיִּם הָעֹמְדִים שָׁם לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה. ^יח:ח חֵלֶק כְּחֵלֶק יֹאכֵלוּ לְבַד מִמְכָּרָיו עַל הָאָבוֹת.

^{Deut 18:6} If a Levite would go, from any of the settlements throughout Israel where he has been residing, to the place that YHWH has chosen, he may do so whenever he pleases. ^18:7 He may serve in the name of YHWH his God like all his fellow Levites who are there in attendance before YHWH. ^18:8 They shall receive equal shares of the dues, without regard to personal gifts or patrimonies.

This might solve the problem for any given Levite, but is hardly a complete solution to the loss of status and need for financial support.^[27]

The Institution of Profane Slaughter

Israelite practice until the promulgation of the Single Altar Law had been that animals destined for personal food consumption were ritually slaughtered at altars found in every settlement throughout the country. As it was forbidden to consume meat without this type of ritual slaughter, meat meals would become well-nigh impossible without a local altar.

In order to overcome this drawback, the Deuteronomic legislator clarifies that the single altar requirement at the chosen site was restricted for divine worship: votive offerings and tithes as well as free-will contributions (Deut 12:6). In contrast, animals that were to be served up as food could be slaughtered at home, without an altar and without the accompanying sacred personnel,^[28] the only requirement being the removal of the animal’s blood before eating:

^{דברים יב:טו} רַק בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ בָשָׂר כְּבִרְכַּת יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ בְּכָל שְׁעָרֶיךָ הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יֹאכְלֶנּוּ כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל. ^יב:טז רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם.

^{Deut 12:15} But whenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in any of your settlements, according to the blessing that YHWH your God has granted you. The unclean and the clean alike may partake of it, as of the gazelle and the deer.^{[29] 12:16} But you must not partake of the blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.^[30]

This solves the problem of meat eating but, given that slaughtering was once an offering to YHWH and is now just a “profane” killing of an animal, it does not address what may have been perceived as a sudden lessening of the spiritual significance of everyday meals. And this is just one aspect of a broader problem created by the reform.

Infrequency of Worship: A Spiritual Vacuum

Before the Single Altar Law, Israelites could make private family trips to major shrines in various parts of the land, e.g., Elkanah’s annual visit to Shiloh (1 Sam 1:21); Jesse’s family did not have to journey far to celebrate their “yearly sacrifice” (1 Sam 20:6) as there was likely a cult site in Bethlehem.^[31] With the closing of these sites, Deuteronomy’s altar law introduced pilgrimage to the chosen city during the three major agricultural festivals—Matzot, Shavuot, Sukkot—as spelled out in the modifications to the festal calendar (Deut 16:1-17).

Considering that this relocation would require travel for individuals and families at great cost and time, only these three journeys were legislated, and would likely have been the only interactions between the average Judahite and the sacrificial service in the Temple. Thus, the law severely curtails access to the sacred and its rituals. Indeed, Jeffrey H. Tigay notes this problem in his insightful commentary on Deuteronomy:

The limitation also affected the personal religious lives of individuals. With sacrifice restricted to one location, distant from the homes of most people, it became difficult to give thanksgiving and sin offerings, to undergo purificatory ceremonies, and pay vows; and meat meals were deprived of their religious dimension…

He goes on to postulate that Deuteronomy must have had an unspoken solution:

Deuteronomy must have expected that some other religious activities would take the place of sacrifice in people’s lives throughout the year. A book so concerned with the religious attitudes of all the people could not have intended to leave a religious vacuum in their lives, to be filled by the three annual pilgrimage festivals. It is likely that prayer and study were expected to fill the gap.^[32]

But on the contrary, the Deuteronomists neglected to attend to the spiritual vacuum that the Single Altar Law created; they did not provide alternate means for the populace to express its yearning for contact with the divine. Instead, they left a spiritual gap that the triannual pilgrimages to the chosen site could not fill. It would take centuries – long after the destruction of Judah and the exile to Babylon – before a sufficient and adequate instrument—i.e., the synagogue—would develop to answer to the needs of Judeans who sought to serve YHWH daily without a nearby altar.^[33]