Actscelerate.com

BrassyTrumpet

Did he or didn't he?

Hey, DOC Posts: 68 **10/21/15 12:38 am**

I have an easy one for all you seminary-trained Bible scholars out there ... and those with good old common horse sense.

1Ch 17:6b states that Jehoshaphat removed the high places from Judah. Then the account states in 20:33 that these high places were not removed.

I'm aware of a number of possible explanations, such as:

yeah, OK.....

I realize that this apparent "discrepancy" neither helps nor hinders the central message of God's Word. I also know that every "discrepancy" in the Bible can be adequately addressed through sound biblical scholarship. Perhaps this answer shall forever lie hidden in the centuries of transcription and translation of this wonderful Book. So, my query is essentially to satisfy my own nagging curiosity and nothing more.
_________________
In the majors, conviction; in the minors, tolerance; in all things, love.

spartanfan

I don't know but.....

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3638 **10/21/15 7:26 am**

when I need to look at a lot of different commentaries to see if there is a consensus opinion I go to places like biblehub.com commmentaries . They (reading many of the comments that compare the 2 scriptures) say things like:

1) 1 Kings 22:43...The high places were not taken away.—This agrees with 2Chronicles 20:33, and stands in apparent contradiction with 2Chronicles 17:6 : “He took away the high places and groves out of Judah.” Probably the key to the apparent discrepancy lies in the words “and groves” (Asherah). The high places taken away were those connected with the base Asherah worship; those which were simply unauthorised sanctuaries remained, at any rate in part. (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers)

2) 1 Kings 22:43...The high places were not taken away.

Object. It is said he did take them away, 2 Chronicles 17:6.

Answer: He took away those which were erected to idols; of which he seems to speak there, because the high places are there joined with groves, which were generally erected to idols, and not to the true God, as will appear to any one that shall compare all the scriptures where groves are mentioned; but he could not take away those which were erected to the true God, of which this; place manifestly speaks; as also that parallel place 1 Kings 15:14, where See Poole "1 Kings 15:14". Or he took them away, but not fully; or not in the very beginning of his reign. (Matthew Poole's Commentary)

Many of them distinguish between the high places with groves and the high places for the worship of the Lord that were used before the Temple was built. If there were 2 kinds of high places as many of them suggest (not just the 2 mentioned) then there is no contradiction.

BrassyTrumpet

Now that you put it like that...

Hey, DOC Posts: 68 **10/21/15 8:28 am**

That seems straight forward enough. Thank you kindly for your insight.
_________________
In the majors, conviction; in the minors, tolerance; in all things, love.

Ventureforth

Acts-celerater Posts: 651 **10/21/15 4:20 pm**

This is an interesting question. I was looking through commentaries.
Here's one possibility. Perhaps this is more toward Spartafan's statement: