The prophet Jeremiah inveighs on multiple occasions against worship that takes place on bamot (singular, bamah), a term usually translated as “high places.” With even greater frequency, the book of Kings condemns the Israelites for maintaining such sanctuaries, which are mentioned in other biblical books as well. Ellen White describes the archaeological and linguistic evidence, and some of the theories proffered by scholars, as to what exactly the bamot were:

The term bamah can mean back, hill, height, ridge, or cultic high place. In the biblical text it is used to mean “the backs of one’s enemies,” “heights,” “top of clouds.” or “waves of sea.” Because of this, the scholar Roland de Vaux said, “The idea which the word expresses . . . is something which stands out in relief from its background, but the idea of a mountain or hill is not contained in the word itself.” This could explain why this word is used even though some of the shrines were not located on hills. The Ugaritic and Akkadian cognates usually mean an animal’s back or the trunk of its body. The Akkadian can also mean land that is elevated. In the text of the Bible, bamot can be found on hills, in towns, and at the gate of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:8). Ezra 6:3 says they were in the ravines and valleys. The location of a bamah in a valley can also be seen in Jeremiah 7:31 and 32:35. . . .

It is believed [by most experts] that bamot were artificial mounds, which may or may not include a prominent rock. There is some debate as to whether the word bamah refers to [the mound or] to the altar itself. [Such explanations] could account for references to bamot being “built” and “destroyed.” Often attached to the bamot were buildings—houses or temples—where services were conducted and idols were kept. . . .

De Vaux suggested that Israelite bamot were modeled after the Canaanite ones. . . . In [the ancient fortress of] Megiddo, located in the Carmel Ridge overlooking the Jezreel Valley from the west, a bamah was believed to have been found. The structure was a 24-by-30-foot oval platform, which stood six feet tall, was made of large stones, and had stairs that lead to the top. A wall surrounded the structure.

A cultic structure found in Nahariyah, in the western Galilee, was discovered in 1947 and dates to the Middle Bronze Age, but was used until the Late Bronze Age [i.e., it was used during the second millennium BCE]. It consisted of a circular open-air altar, [similar] to the one found in Megiddo, and a rectangular building probably used as a temple workshop. It is also believed that two bamot from the 7th and 6th centuries BCE were found on a hill near Malhah [in southwestern Jerusalem].

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.