 |
| Small silver calf and clay shrine, from Canaanite Ashkelon |
Arad
Beersheba
What would have been some of the social benefits of centralized worship at Jerusalem, and Jerusalem alone (as the Bible frequently demands)? What would have been some of the drawbacks?
7 comments:
The centralization of worship at Jerusalem would have had the benefit of all Hebrews accepting Jerusalem as the spiritual center of their existence. The drawbacks however would havwe been multifold. First the fact that all peoples of Isreal and Judah would have to travel to Jerusalem to conduct their offerings and worship to YAHWEH. Second this would put great strain on the outlying cities, especially in the North, to make the trip to Jerusalem to pay worship. Third the greater distance and lessened access of some would make the people who live in and around Jerusalem into thinking themselves better and more blessed by the LORD.
first post by Bob
It would be good to have a centralized worship area so people could gather together and sing, talk about their blessings, praise the Lord and gather strength from each other for any upcoming problems they may encounter.
One drawback would be the distance some people would have to travel. It could cause a strain on them on many levels.
Lisa
Socially, centralizing worship in Jerusalem could have acted as a catalyst to completely unite the Christian community. However, we have to remember that the the two kingdoms spanned a great region and hauling themselves down to Jerusalem to worship might not have been an option for everyone. In that way, I almost feel as though it could be rather alienating for those in the North. Sort of an "our land is holier than yours so deal with it"-eque statement. Could have bred contempt?
Sophie
The social benefits of worshiping in only Jerusalem would be to unite everyone all over Israel and Judah. I agree, however, that it made more sense to build to shrines because people who lived in the north may have not been able to make it down to the very south to be able to worship.
Saryn
The benefits of centralized worship would be that people from all over would be forced to unite in a common area. While this is a benefit, it is also a drawback. Traveling a great distance would have been hassle and not possible for everyone.
I also think it is possible that some people (especially from the North) may have felt resentment towards the notin of central worship at Jerusalem, because the centralization of worship would have discredited the value of worship sites that were not in Jerusalem.
Lauren
I think having one centralized place of worship made sense with this religious tradition - worship of one god, only one god is true, only one true place to worship the one true god would make some sense. However, I think the belief that Jerusalem would be the only place were valid worship could be preformed was a mistake. True practicers of the faith, many of them poor, would be unable to truly worship their god. This would make many people at the very least, frustrated and slightly sorrowful. If instead Jerusalem was a 'holiest city', and people were encouraged to visit it if it was within their means (like Mecca in Islam (though technically the pilgrimage to Mecca is for reasons a little different, but the idea still applies)), and other shrines in the north were still recognized as places of worship, then the social tensions that arose as a result from centralized worship would have been greatly eased.
Sydney
Post a Comment