Ark of the Covenant: sadly not the Indian Jones one...

What I found most fascinating in this section is Armstrong’s discussion of sacred space. It seems that every week our readings lead us directly back to the outlook of Eliade however this time around we get a more fleshed our example. When discussing David, Armstrong covers how he desired to move the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem in order to create to intertwine the divine presence into his new territory. The trajectory of this story takes up the “ground rules” of sacred in which “it was not up to human beings to establish a holy place on their own initiative: the sanctify of a site had to be revealed” (Armstrong, 41). This is validated as Uzzah was essentially smited for simply placing a hand on the ark. As I heard this tale of David and the ark, I wondered what significance this tale has and what value is possess for the intended audience and now present day audience. Armstrong would argue that this story reveals the authoritative power of Yahweh and how “if Yahweh came to live in Zion it would be because he- and he alone- had to chose to do so” (Armstrong, 41). I would equate this thought with the notion of this story being a theological history which is embed in the narrative. This attempt to bring the Ark into Jerusalem is an attempt to essentially increase the value of his territory by ensuring that Jerusalem is the “center of the world”. Construction of temples had been a long standing tradition even prior to David wanting to enshrine the ark. Armstrong argues how “Kings often chose sites of former temples which were known to yield access to the divine” (Armstrong, 45). Thus, the land had a historical precedent for why the ark should be enshrined with a temple. Lastly, it could be argued that David’s desire to bring the ark is a long-game calculation in which he could “gradually appropriate the city” as he aimed for “Yahweh’s eventual enthronement in his own temple on Mount Zion”  where he would become the “El Eloyon of Jerusalem” (Armstrong, 45).