Monday, February 12, 2018

Jerusalem - Eli Sporn


Jerusalem Tiyul
Photos courtesy of Twiggy!
Yesterday, two days ago, or a few days ago if you’re really procrastinating on your homework, we visited the old city of Jerusalem, also known as Ir David. The city was made capital by King David, the second king of the Israelite, seven years into his reign. However, the first king Saul ruled at Hevron, the site of the Cave of Machpelah. Saul, a Benjaminite, became king as chosen by God through the prophet Samuel by the process of Mashiach. Mashiach is a process in which one becomes anointed, which in Hebrew literally means having oil poured over one’s head. Saul shows purpose for being leader through his skill in warfare, his ability to provide security, and his ability to unite the land of Judah and the land of Israel into the United Monarchy. However, Saul falls out of favor of the people through his disobedience to God and a lack of checks and balances through Samuel.

This places David in power, as he is the most popular choice for king. David showed strength and reason for kingship through his various military victories, including the defeat of Goliath (see photographic evidence to the left) and the capture of Jerusalem, and the approval of the descendants of Saul. David, however, also makes mistakes. David has a child with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and covers it up by having Uriah killed. This causes Samuel to get mad and make David unable to construct the temple on Mount Moriah. The most important part of this story was the idea of t’shuvah, or repentance. David’s act of t’shuvah made him a good king, as he did not deny that he did the crime, but accepted the consequences of his actions. Both of these early kings are shown as great people, yet both are imperfect, which shows how the Tanach knows that we as people are not going to be perfect, thus making the people and events in the story relatable and realistic.

On our trek through Jerusalem, our first stop was one during which we acted out the battle between David and Goliath, during which Evan tormented a poor, lonely cat. At the spot, we could see the city of Jerusalem and parts of the original city built by David. The city was placed at a tall point above a large hill, which provided natural defenses for the people and it was located to the north of the tribe of Judah and the south of the tribe of Benjamin, making it a connector to many different locations. It also had access to groundwater springs, which provided drinking water for the residents of the city. Our last and main stop was this waterway. 
Some of us chose to wade through the waters of the underground wells developed by king Hezekiah to provide safety for the water during times of war while others traversed the original Canaanite wells including myself. The wet pathway was dug by two individuals who came from opposite sides of the well and converged, eventually meeting at a point. This is evident through an ostracon found within the well which describes the events that took place to dig the tunnels. Additionally, a rich man’s house was excavated near the waterway and it showed the lavish lifestyle of the time, complete with four whole rooms and a toilet. The name of the man, Achiel, could even be identified by seals called Buleis on jars. These seals could be cross referenced with the Tanach to determine the profession of this rich person and the time at which this person, as well as king David, lived, which was around 1000 BCE.


The first kings were generally mixed people. While Saul was a great first king, he also was a bit corrupt and disobeyed God, and David was an amazing king, yet he committed adultery and murder. Overall, were each king good or bad? Did they deserve to be king after their heinous acts or should they be allowed to continue their reign? Should they have been punished more harshly, more leniently, or was their punishment just?

14 comments:

  1. When David was in repentance, did he repent simply because God told him to? or did he learn from his mistake and realize what he did was wrong? Distinguishing the two is so important because it's more important to know and identify motives than the actual outcome so that next time and the times to come you are in the same situation you can make the right decision. Sometimes it's more about the journey and what is learned from it and not the outcome in that particular instance. David's falter taught him (and myself) a valuable lesson about managing morals when dealt a good hand.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel that both Shaul and David were great kings. For both, the mistakes made didn't really seem to have a negative impact on the kingdom itself, so I can't say they deserved to be kicked off the throne. Shaul sacrificed without Samuel, but he did it to keep the people together and to keep them from losing hope after waiting for a week. He wasn't trying to be disobedient; he was trying to help the kingdom. Then, he didn't kill the Amalek king. This one seems like more of an issue, and yet it doesn't really cause any problems. I think that, sure, if G-d tells you to do something, you probably should, but his intentions were good. As for David, his mistake is a lot worse morally. He commits adultery, which is against the ten commandments, then tries to right his wrong by murder, also against the ten commandments. He does realize his mistake and repent, which is respectable, but that doesn't really fix what happened. I feel like the adultery could've been forgiven and shouldn't have cost him his crown, but the cold-hearted murder of a loyal subject? That seems like something kings should be heavily punished for, but losing his kingdom entirely might be too much.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Overall, they were all good kings. Shaul united the tribes, David sets up Jerusalem as the capital, and Solomon builds many structures, including the first Temple. I believe Shaul had a just crime because his lineage just ended and Solomon had a just crime because his cruel son was overthrown and the kingdom was divided. However, I believe David's crime was fair, but not just. While he did kill a man and commit adultery, one life does not make up for another. Just because one man was killed, does not mean another should be too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In my opinion, Saul and David were both good kings. Every king has thieir ups and downs, Saul and David were no exception to this. Saul united the monarchy and David changed the capitol to Jeruselum. For Saul, because he disobyed God I agree he shouldn't be allowed to continue to reign. If the idea of being king is particpating in a sytem of checks and balences with a prophet who communocates with God for you, you can't just ignore the system.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Overall, they were both good kings. Shaul created a system of checks and balances with the prophet's and he united the monarchy of the tribes. David was a good king becuase he moved the capital to Jerusalem. Shaul did many bad things as king such as sacrifice without a prophet. He was punished for his heinous crimes because his family blood line ended. David commits adultery and later on murder which is against the ten commandments. His punishment is just because he repented and God forgave him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David and Saul both had a good impact on the land and people of Israel. I still consider them both good people because Saul's downfall started with not murdering people and David made Tshuva to God. I think it was good their reigns ended when they did because if they didn't we wouldn't be where we are today and lessons would have never been taught or learned. We may have not experienced life if they kept their reign longer than they did. I believe Saul's punishment should've been less harsh because his intention were good. I believe David's punishment could've been harsher because he committed two crimes that now adays are unforgivable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that at first David was a good King. He helped the Kingdom of Israel grow and prosper and his military strength defended it; however, when David committed adultery and murder he was unfit to rule. Even though he practiced Tshuva, murder and adultery is not something that can simply be forgiven. In my opinion, after David's transgression God should have immediately replaced him. I know that not everyone is flawless but a ruler should set a good example of how to act to their people. The same goes for Saul. He did help unite the tribes of Israel and form the system of checks and balances but his unfaithfulness to God made him unsuitable for the crown.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The kings were all good at first until they stopped listening to God’s commandments. However, I think that their bad actions outweighed the good. Being good at war doesn’t excuse killing. Being wise doesn’t excuse having thousands of wives. The kings were not held adequately accountable to God’s moral standards and should not have been allowed to rule after what they did. The kings should’ve had more personal punishments, not the death of other people or punishment to the kings ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Overall, it would seem that both King Saul and King David were good, however they were human and made mistakes. Just because they did good things for Israel and the kingdom still does not excuse them from their actions. I feel that Saul was punished too harshly for what he had done. Though he disobeyed God, he did not kill and he did not commit adultery like King David. King David broke two of the ten commandments, but still got to keep his throne. King Saul didn't break an commandments, only that he sacrificed without his prophet and didn't kill an enemy king, and his punishment was that he lost his throne and went slightly mad. The punishment seems unfair to me. Just because King David practiced t'shuva, does not excuse the fact that his wrongdoings were much worse than those of King Saul. King Saul should have been punished less and King David should have been punished more.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that each King got a fair punishment for there actions. Saul lost his throne to David, David repented for his sins so he was able to stay in gods good grace and Solomon lost the kingdom for his son. So they definitely got what they deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think that it’s unfair to compare Saul and David on if they deserved to be Kings after there heinous acts. That is because murder and sacrificing without a prophet present shouldn’t be compared. Because of this I feel that David should not have stayed as king and Saul should have.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The reigns of Saul and David should not be tarnished by their wrongdoings. Although, I definetly think David’s sin of adultery and intentional murder was way more harsh than Saul simply not carrying out God’s orders. However, they were both overall great Kings in their many achievements, so I don’t think they deserved the shame that they were given. Every human makes mistakes, and deserves a second chance to make up for it. Without pain, there is no gain. If David and Saul hadn’t made a single mistake, it would have set an unrealistic precedent for the future rulers of the Israelites, and all future rulers everywhere else in the world aswell. If the rulers were perfect people then we wouldn’t be to learn any morals from them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe that their accomplishments shouldn't be ignored, but at the same time it does not justify their actions against God and man. Each king payed the price in one way or another, and ended up dying. They still deserved to be kings, they were chosen by God.

    ReplyDelete

Security Tiyul - Caleb Ernst   Last Wednesday, Kitat Keshet had it's final real tiyul which focused on three main things, Second Intif...