"Neutral Territory"
In class last week we discussed theological history. It was interesting to see this same type of history referenced in regards to David conquering Jerusalem. Armstrong was able to describe the legends of Jerusalem being impenetrable, but there was no description of how the city was actually taken. In the Bible, however, this is described as a conquest aided by God. Armstrong goes onto to describe how it was likely that David was more merciful with the Jebusites than with the Philistines (Armstrong 38). This description gives an interesting combination of historical facts and Biblical stories. Additionally, the picture painted by Armstrong of Jerusalem at the time of David is a major contradiction to the Jerusalem we know today. David's treatment of the locals is also very different. Finally, the choices of David assisted in transforming Jerusalem into the city that is so contested today.
Armstrong describes the division among the northern and southern parts of David's kingdom, and Jerusalem provided the perfect "neutral territory" because it did not align with either Israel or Judah (Armstrong 38). Jerusalem would help to unite the two parts of David's kingdom. Again Biblical history is used to describe Jerusalem in David's time. The city was fairly small and David mercifully allowed the Jebusites to stay and live. This is highly contrasted to the Jerusalem we know today. It is hard to even think of Jerusalem as "neutral territory" because Jerusalem today is so highly contested. It is interesting to ponder that the simple fact that because David chose Jerusalem as the capital because it was neutral is one of three major reasons the city is so controversial today.
Part of the transition from neutral territory to contested hotbed can be attributed to one of David's most important moves: moving the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. Again this action was made by David in order to unite the kingdoms. While the first attempt to move the Ark was a failure (which reminds us of Eliade and sacredly revealed spaces) David was eventually successful in moving the Ark into Jerusalem. Yahweh deemed this land sacred and worthy of the Ark. This led David to erect the temple. These ancient decisions are directly linked to the conflict we see today. It is hard to lose sight of the irony that these decisions were made because the city was neutral.
Armstrong describes the division among the northern and southern parts of David's kingdom, and Jerusalem provided the perfect "neutral territory" because it did not align with either Israel or Judah (Armstrong 38). Jerusalem would help to unite the two parts of David's kingdom. Again Biblical history is used to describe Jerusalem in David's time. The city was fairly small and David mercifully allowed the Jebusites to stay and live. This is highly contrasted to the Jerusalem we know today. It is hard to even think of Jerusalem as "neutral territory" because Jerusalem today is so highly contested. It is interesting to ponder that the simple fact that because David chose Jerusalem as the capital because it was neutral is one of three major reasons the city is so controversial today.
Part of the transition from neutral territory to contested hotbed can be attributed to one of David's most important moves: moving the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. Again this action was made by David in order to unite the kingdoms. While the first attempt to move the Ark was a failure (which reminds us of Eliade and sacredly revealed spaces) David was eventually successful in moving the Ark into Jerusalem. Yahweh deemed this land sacred and worthy of the Ark. This led David to erect the temple. These ancient decisions are directly linked to the conflict we see today. It is hard to lose sight of the irony that these decisions were made because the city was neutral.
Comments
Post a Comment