Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 5:6

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 5:6” utilice nuestra app.

And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spoke unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.

David immediately after being anointed king of Israel, probably wished to signalize his accession by an exploit which would be popular with all Israel, and especially with Sauls tribe, Benjamin. He discerned the importance of having Jerusalem for his capital both because it belonged as much to Benjamin as to Judah, and on account of its strong position.

Except thou take away the blind … – Rather, and (the Jebusite) spake to David, saying, Thou shalt not come hither, but the blind and the lame shall keep thee off, i. e. so far shalt thou be from taking the stronghold from us, that the lame and blind shall suffice to defend the place.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

2Sa 5:6

Except thou take away the blind.

Security not safety

A graphic picture of the haughty security of the Jebusites and of their consequent weakness is given in Stanleys Sinai and Palestine. The late Dean wrote: When David appeared under the walls of Jebus the old inhabitants of the land, the last remnant of their race that clung to that mountain home, exulting in the strength of these ancient everlasting gates looked proudly down on the army below and said, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in thither; thinking David cannot come in thither. The blind and the lame they thought were sufficient to defend what nature had so strongly defended. It was the often-repeated story of the capture of fortresses through what seemed their strongest and therefore became their weakest point. Precipitous, and therefore neglected. Such was the fate of Sardis, and of Rome, and such was the fate of Jebus. (Sunday School Times.)

Jeering as a war-weapon

Long before the origin of the comic-caricature as a political war-weapon, scoffs and jeers were a favourite projectile in Oriental warfare–as they are, in the East, at the present time. The jeer of Tobiah, against the Jews who were rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem Under Nehemiah, was: Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall. This was, in spirit, much like the Jebusite jeer at David, Our blind and lame can keep your host at bay. Come on, thou rider of a kadesh! (a hack-horse) was the cry of one shaykh to another in a combat in Palestine, as reported by Mrs. Finn. And the response of the other was: At least I am not the son of a gypsy! Arab warfare is so far not unlike Chinese warfare; and so far the present is much like the days of David, in the East. (Sunday School Times.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 6. The king and his men went to Jerusalem] This city was now in the hands of the Jebusites; but how they got possession of it is not known, probably they took it during the wars between Ish-bosheth and David. After Joshua’s death, what is called the lower city was taken by the Israelites; and it is evident that the whole city was in their possession in the time of Saul, for David brought the head of Goliath thither, 2Sa 17:54. It appears to have been a very strong fortress, and, from what follows, deemed impregnable by the Jebusites. It was right that the Israelites should repossess it; and David very properly began his reign over the whole country by the siege of this city.

Except thou take away the blind and the lame] Scarcely a passage in the sacred oracles has puzzled commentators more than this. For my own part, I do not think that it is worth the labour spent upon it, nor shall I encumber these pages with the discordant opinions of learned men. From the general face of the text it appears that the Jebusites, vainly confiding in the strength of their fortress, placed lame and blind men upon the walls, and thus endeavoured to turn into ridicule David’s attempt to take the place: Thou shalt not come in hither, except thou take away the blind and the lame; nothing could be more cutting to a warrior.

Dr. Kennicott has taken great pains to correct this passage, as may be seen in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, pages 27 to 47. I shall insert our present version with his amended text line for line, his translation being distinguished by italics; and for farther information refer to Dr. K.’s work.

Ver. 6. And the king and his men went to K. And the king and his men went to

Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants K. Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of

of the land: who spake unto David, saying, K. the land; who spake unto David, saying;

Except thou take away the blind and the K. Thou shalt not come in hither; for the blind

lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, K. and the lame shall drive thee away by saying,

David cannot come in hither. K. “David shall not come in hither.”

Ver. 8. And David said – Whosoever getteth K. And David said – Whosoever smiteth the

up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, K. Jebusites, and through the subterranean passage

and the lame and the blind, that are hated K. reacheth the lame and the blind who

of David’s soul – Wherefore they said, The K. hate the life of David (because the blind and

blind and the lame shall not come into the K. the lame said, “He shall not come into the

house. * * * * * * * * K. house,”) shall be chief and captain. So

* * * * * * * * * K. Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and

* * * * * * * * * K. was chief.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Having the advantage of so great a confluence of his people to make him king, he thought fit to begin his reign with some eminent action, and to lead them forth in this expedition; wherein doubtless he asked advice from God, and the consent of the elders now present.

To Jerusalem; as the place which God had designed for his worship; and in the centre and heart of his kingdom, and therefore fittest for his royal city.

The Jebusites continued to dwell there in spite of the Benjamites, to whose lot it fell. See Jos 15:63; Jdg 1:21; 19:10,11.

Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither; or, Thou shalt not come in hither, but the blind and the lame shall remove or hinder thee. By the blind and the lame they understand, either,

1. Their own people; and so they imply that the place was so impregnable, that a few blind and lame men were able to defend it against all Davids assaults. And these may be called and were the hated of Davids soul, 2Sa 5:8, not because they were blind and lame, but because they were Jebusites, a people hated and accursed by God: and the Jebusites of this place were more hateful to him than the rest of that nation; partly, because they possessed this place, which David knew was designed for the one and only place of Gods solemn worship; and partly because they did so wickedly and insolently defy the armies of Israel, and consequently, the God of Israel. Or,

2. Their gods or images; which, after the manner of the heathens, they worshipped as their tutelary gods, and placed in their gates or walls. These they call blind and lame sarcastically, and with respect to Davids opinion; as if they said, These gods of ours, whom you Israelites reproach, as blind and lame, Psa 115:5,6, and so unable to direct and protect us, they will defend us against you; and you will find they are neither blind nor lame, but have eyes to watch for us, and hands to fight against you; and you must conquer them before you can take our city. And these may well be called the hated of Davids soul. But I prefer the former sense, as being most easy, and natural, and proper; whereas the latter is metaphorical, and seems doubtful and forced.

David cannot come in hither; concluding their fort to be impregnable.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

6. the king and his men went toJerusalem unto the JebusitesThe first expedition of David, asking of the whole country, was directed against this place, which hadhitherto remained in the hands of the natives. It was stronglyfortified and deemed so impregnable that the blind and lame were sentto man the battlements, in derisive mockery of the Hebrew king’sattack, and to shout, “David cannot come in hither.” Tounderstand the full meaning and force of this insulting taunt, it isnecessary to bear in mind the depth and steepness of the valley ofGihon, and the lofty walls of the ancient Canaanitish fortress.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And the king and his men went to Jerusalem,…. Which, at least part of it, belonged to the tribe of Benjamin; and therefore until all Israel, and that tribe, with the rest, made him king, he did not attempt the reduction of it, but now he immediately set out on an expedition against it:

unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: who inhabited the country about it, and even dwelt in that itself; for the tribe of Judah could not drive them out at first from that part of it which belonged to them, nor the tribe of Benjamin from that part which was theirs; in short, they became so much masters of it, that it was called, even in later times, Jebus, and the city of the Jebusites; see Jos 15:63 Jud 1:21;

which spake unto David; when he came up against them, and besieged them:

except thou take away the blind and lame, thou shalt not come in hither; which many understand of their idols and images, which had eyes, but saw not, and feet, but walked not, which therefore David and his men in derision called the blind and lame; these the Jebusites placed for the defence of their city, and put great confidence in them for the security of it, and therefore said to David, unless you can remove these, which you scornfully call the blind and the lame, you will never be able to take the place. And certain it is the Heathens had their tutelar gods for their cities as well as their houses, in which they greatly trusted for their safety; and therefore with the Romans, when they besieged a city, the first thing they attempted to do was by any means, as by songs particularly, to get the tutelar gods out of it b; believing otherwise it would never be taken by them; or if it could, it was not lawful to make the gods captives c: and to this sense most of the Jewish commentators agree, as Kimchi, Jarchi, Ben Gersom, and R. Isaiah, who take them to be images; some say, made of brass, which were placed either in the streets of the city, or on the towers: it was usual with all nations to place on their walls both their household and country gods, to defend them from the enemy d. A learned countryman of ours e is of opinion that these were statues or images talismanically made, under a certain constellation, by some skilful in astrology, placed in the recess of the fort, and intrusted with the keeping of it, and in which the utmost confidence was put: but it seems better with Aben Ezra and Abarbinel, and so Josephus f, to understand this of blind and lame men; and that the sense is, that the Jebusites had such an opinion of the strength of their city, that a few blind and lame men were sufficient to defend it against David and his army; and perhaps in contempt of him placed some invalids, blind and lame men, on the walls of it, and jeeringly told him, that unless he could remove them, he would never take the city:

thinking: or “saying” g; this was the substance of what they said, or what they meant by it:

David cannot come in hither; it is impossible for him to enter it, he cannot and shall not do it, and very probably these words were put into the mouths of the blind and lame, and they said them frequently.

b Vid. Valtrinum de re militar. Rom. l. 5. c. 5. c Vid. Macrob. Saturnal. l. 3. c. 9. Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 6. c. 4. d Cornel. Nepot. Vit. Themistocl. l. 2. c. 7. e Gregory’s Notes and Observations, &c. ch. 7. f Antiqu. l. 7. c. 3. sect. 1. g “dicendo”, Pagninus, Montanus.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Conquest of the Stronghold of Zion, and Choice of Jerusalem as the Capital of the Kingdom (cf. 1Ch 11:4, 1Ch 11:9). – These parallel accounts agree in all the main points; but they are both of them merely brief extracts from a more elaborate history, so that certain things, which appeared of comparatively less importance, are passed over either in the one or the other, and the full account is obtained by combining the two. The conquest of the citadel Zion took place immediately after the anointing of David as king over all the tribes of Israel. This is apparent, not only from the fact that the account follows directly afterwards, but also from the circumstance that, according to 2Sa 5:5, David reigned in Jerusalem just as many years as he was king over all Israel.

2Sa 5:6

The king went with his men (i.e., his fighting men: the Chronicles have “all Israel,” i.e., the fighting men of Israel) to Jerusalem to the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, i.e., the natives or Canaanites; “and they said (the singular is used because is a singular form) to David, Thou wilt not come hither (i.e., come in), but the blind and lame will drive thee away: to say (i.e., by which they meant to say), David will not come in.” is not used for the infinitive, but has been rightly understood by the lxx, Aben Ezra, and others, as a perfect. The perfect expresses a thing accomplished, and open to no dispute; and the use of the singular in the place of the plural, as in Isa 14:32, is to be explained from the fact that the verb precedes, and is only defined precisely by the subject which follows (vid., Ewald, 319, a.). The Jebusites relied upon the unusual natural advantages of their citadel, which stood upon Mount Zion, a mountain shut in by deep valleys on three different sides; so that in their haughty self-security they imagined that they did not even need to employ healthy and powerful warriors to resist the attack made by David, but that the blind and lame would suffice.

2Sa 5:7-8

However, David took the citadel Zion, i.e., “the city of David.” This explanatory remark anticipates the course of events, as David did not give this name to the conquered citadel, until he had chosen it as his residence and capital (vid., 2Sa 5:9). ( Sion), from , to be dry: the dry or arid mountain or hill. This was the name of the southern and loftiest mountain of Jerusalem. Upon this stood the fortress or citadel of the town, which had hitherto remained in the possession of the Jebusites; whereas the northern portion of the city of Jerusalem, which was upon lower ground, had been conquered by the Judaeans and Benjaminites very shortly after the death of Joshua (see at Jdg 1:8). – In 2Sa 5:8 we have one circumstance mentioned which occurred in connection with this conquest. On that day, i.e., when he had advanced to the attack of the citadel Zion, David said, “Every one who smites the Jebusites, let him hurl into the waterfall (i.e., down the precipice) both the lame and blind, who are hateful to David’s soul.” This is most probably the proper interpretation of these obscure words of David, which have been very differently explained. Taking up the words of the Jebusites, David called all the defenders of the citadel of Zion “lame and blind,” and ordered them to be cast down the precipice without quarter. signifies a waterfall ( catarracta ) in Psa 42:8, the only other passage in which it occurs, probably from , to roar. This meaning may also be preserved here, if we assume that at the foot of the steep precipice of Zion there was a waterfall probably connected with the water of Siloah. It is true we cannot determine anything with certainty concerning it, as, notwithstanding the many recent researches in Jerusalem, the situation of the Jebusite fortress and the character of the mountain of Zion in ancient times are quite unknown to us. This explanation of the word zinnor is simpler than Ewald’s assumption that the word signifies the steep side of a rock, which merely rests upon the fact that the Greek word originally signifies a plunge.

(Note: The earliest translators have only resorted to guesses. The Seventy, with their , have combined with , which they render now and then or . This is also done by the Syriac and Arabic. The Chaldee paraphrases in this manner: “who begins to subjugate the citadel.” Jerome, who probably followed the Rabbins, has et tetigisset domatum fistulas (and touched the water-pipes); and Luther, “ und erlanget die Dachrinnen ” (like the English version, “whosoever getteth up to the gutter:” Tr.). Hitzig’s notion, that zinnor signifies ear (“whosoever boxes the ears of the blind and lame”) needs no refutation; nor does that of Fr. Bttcher, who proposes to follow the Alexandrian rendering, and refer zinnor to a “sword of honour or marshal’s staff,” which David promised to the victor.)

should be pointed as a Hiphil . The Masoretic pointing arises from their mistaken interpretation of the whole sentence. The Chethibh might be the third pers. perf., “who hate David’s soul;” only in that case the omission of would be surprising, and consequently the Keri is to be preferred. “From this,” adds the writer, “the proverb arose, ‘The blind and lame shall not enter the house;’ “ in which proverb the epithet “blind and lame,” which David applied to the Jebusites who were hated by him, has the general signification of “repulsive persons,” with whom one does not wish to have anything to do. In the Chronicles not only is the whole of 2Sa 5:7 omitted, with the proverb to which the occurrence gave rise, but also the allusion to the blind and lame in the words spoken by the Jebusites (2Sa 5:6); and another word of David’s is substituted instead, namely, that David would make the man who first smote the Jebusites, i.e., who stormed their citadel, head and chief;

(Note: This is also inserted in the passage before us by the translators of the English version: “he shall be chief and captain.” – Tr.)

and also the statement that Joab obtained the prize. The historical credibility of the statement cannot be disputed, as Thenius assumes, on the ground that Joab had already been chief ( sar ) for a long time, according to 2Sa 2:13: for the passage referred to says nothing of the kind; and there is a very great difference between the commander of an army in the time of war, and a “head and chief,” i.e., a commander-in-chief. The statement in 2Sa 5:8 with regard to Joab’s part, the fortification of Jerusalem, shows very clearly that the author of the Chronicles had other and more elaborate sources in his possession, which contained fuller accounts than the author of our books has communicated.

2Sa 5:9

“David dwelt in the fort,” i.e., he selected the fort or citadel as his palace, “and called it David’s city.” David may have been induced to select the citadel of Zion as his palace, and by so doing to make Jerusalem the capital of the whole kingdom, partly by the natural strength of Zion, and partly by the situation of Jerusalem, viz., on the border of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, and tolerably near to the centre of the land. “And David built, i.e., fortified (the city of Zion), round about from Millo and inwards.” In the Chronicles we have , “and to the environs or surroundings,” i.e., to the encircling wall which was opposite to the Millo. The fortification “inwards” must have consisted in the enclosure of Mount Zion with a strong wall upon the north side, where Jerusalem joined it as a lower town, so as to defend the palace against the hostile attacks on the north or town side, which had hitherto been left without fortifications. The “Millo” was at any rate some kind of fortification, probably a large tower or castle at one particular part of the surrounding wall (comp. Jdg 9:6 with Jdg 9:46 and Jdg 9:49, where Millo is used interchangeably with Migdal). The name (“the filling”) probably originated in the fact that through this tower or castle the fortification of the city, or the surrounding wall, was filled or completed. The definite article before Millo indicates that it was a well-known fortress, probably one that had been erected by the Jebusites. With regard to the situation of Millo, we may infer from this passage, and 1Ch 11:8, that the tower in question stood at one corner of the wall, either on the north-east or north-west, “where the hill of Zion has the least elevation and therefore needed the greatest strengthening from without” (Thenius on 1Ki 9:15). This is fully sustained both by 1Ki 11:27, where Solomon is said to have closed the breach of the city of David by building (fortifying) Millo, and by 2Ch 32:5, where Hezekiah is said to have built up all the wall of Jerusalem, and made Millo strong, i.e., to have fortified it still further (vid., 1Ki 9:15 and 1Ki 9:24).

2Sa 5:10

And David increased in greatness, i.e., in power and fame, for Jehovah the God of hosts was with him.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

David Takes Mount Sion.

B. C. 1047.

6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. 7 Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David. 8 And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. 9 So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward. 10 And David went on, and grew great, and the LORD God of hosts was with him.

If Salem, the place of which Melchizedec was king, was Jerusalem (as seems probable from Ps. lxxvi. 2), it was famous in Abraham’s time. Joshua, in his time, found it the chief city of the south part of Canaan, Josh. x. 1-3. It fell to Benjamin’s lot (Josh. xviii. 28), but joined close to Judah’s, Josh. xv. 8. The children of Judah had taken it (Judg. i. 8), but the children of Benjamin suffered the Jebusites to dwell among them (Judg. i. 21), and they grew so upon them that it became a city of Jebusites, Judg. xix. 11. Now the very first exploit David did, after he was anointed king over all Israel, was to gain Jerusalem out of the hand of the Jebusites, which, because it belonged to Benjamin, he could not well attempt till that tribe, which long adhered to Saul’s house (1 Chron. xii. 29), submitted to him. Here we have,

I. The Jebusites’ defiance of David and his forces. They said, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither, v. 6. They sent David this provoking message, because, as it is said afterwards, on another occasion, they could not believe that ever an enemy would enter into the gates of Jerusalem, Lam. iv. 12. They confided either, 1. In the protection of their gods, which David, in contempt, had called the blind and the lame, for they have eyes and see not, feet and walk not. “But,” say they, “these are the guardians of our city, and except thou take these away (which thou canst never do) thou canst not come in hither.” Some think they were constellated images of brass set up in the recess of the fort, and entrusted with the custody of the place. They called their idols their Mauzzim, or strong-holds (Dan. xi. 38) and as such relied on them. The name of the Lord is our strong tower, and his arm is strong, his eyes are piercing. Or, 2. In the strength of their fortifications, which they thought were made so impregnable by nature or art, or both, that the blind and the lame were sufficient to defend them against the most powerful assailant. The strong-hold of Zion they especially depended on, as that which could not be forced. Probably they set blind and lame people, invalids or maimed soldiers, to make their appearance upon the walls, in scorn of David and his men, judging them an equal match for him. Though there remain but wounded men among them, yet they should serve to beat back the besiegers. Compare Jer. xxxvii. 10. Note, The enemies of God’s people are often very confident of their own strength and most secure when their day to fall draws nigh.

II. David’s success against the Jebusites. Their pride and insolence, instead of daunting him, animated him, and when he made a general assault he gave this order to his men: “He that smiteth the Jebusites, let him also throw down into the ditch, or gutter, the lame and the blind, which are set upon the wall to affront us and our God.” It is probable they had themselves spoken blasphemous things, and were therefore hated of David’s soul. Thus v. 8 may be read; we fetch our reading of it from 1 Chron. xi. 6, which speaks only of smiting the Jebusites, but nothing of the blind and the lame. The Jebusites had said that if these images of theirs did not protect them the blind and the lame should not come into the house, that is, they would never again trust their palladium (so Mr. Gregory understands it) nor pay the respect they had paid to their images; and David, having gained the fort, said so too, that these images, which could not protect their worshippers, should never have any place there more.

III. His fixing his royal seat in Sion. He himself dwelt in the fort (the strength whereof, which had given him opposition, and was a terror to him, now contributed to his safety), and he built houses round about for his attendants and guards (v. 9) from Millo (the town-hall, or state-house) and inward. He proceeded and prospered in all he set his hand to, grew great in honour, strength, and wealth, more and more honourable in the eyes of his subjects and formidable in the eyes of his enemies; for the Lord God of hosts was with him. God has all creatures at his command, makes what use he pleases of them, and serves his own purposes by them; and he was with him, to direct, preserve, and prosper him, Those that have the Lord of hosts for them need not fear what hosts of men or devils can do against them. Those who grow great must ascribe their advancement to the presence of God with them, and give him the glory of it. The church is called Sion, and the city of the living God. The Jebusites, Christ’s enemies, must first be conquered and dispossessed, the blind and the lame taken away, and then Christ divides the spoil, sets up his throne there, and makes it his residence by the Spirit.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

David in Jerusalem, 2Sa 5:6-10 AND 1Ch 11:4-9

David recognized the potential for a strong capital in the Jebusite city known as Jebus, but later to be much better known as Jerusalem. The city had been conquered by Joshua (Jos 12:10) and allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:28), but they did not drive out the Jebusites (Jdg 1:21). The city was so naturally strong that the inhabitants believed it could be successfully defended by the blind and lame who made up a large number of the population. The rocky ridge on the west side provided a formidable natural barrier there, while on the other sides it had to be approached up steep hills surmounted by strong walls.

David issued a challenge that whoever could go up by way of the gutter and take the city would be made captain of his army. The gutter refers to the shaft or tunnel by which water was conducted into the city from outside the walls. The reference to the blind and the lame being hated of David’s soul does not refer literally, to the physically unfortunate people of Jebus. The deformities and blemishes of persons and animals under the law made them unfit for the services of the tabernacle and offerings (Lev 22:20; Lev 21:17-21). Only the perfect were fit for the Lord, as was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1Pe 1:19). The pagan Jebusites were all blind and lame spiritually and represented the evil opposers of God, and thus did David envision them.

It was Joab, the son of Zeruiah,_David’s troublesome nephew, who faced the challenge and successfully assault9d the city of Jerusalem. David kept his promise and made Joab captain of his host. Though David may have preferred another than this insubordinate relative for his captain he had in Joab, nevertheless, a brave and courageous man, who was loyal to his kingdom until the very end of his reign. Joab immediately undertook the fortification of the city of Jerusalem, building outward from Millo, which was a rampart or wall. This rampart seems to have been first erected by the Jebusites, and David and Joab added to it, eventually taking in Zion. The castle, or fort, became the dwelling of David.

The account ends with a significant statement, “David waxed greater and greater: for the Lord of hosts was with him.” Men may always grow strong in and by the Lord (Php_4:13).

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES

2Sa. 5:6. Went to Jerusalem. That this took place immediately after the anointing of David as king of Israel is apparent not only from the fact that the account follows directly afterwards, but also from the circumstance that, according to 2Sa. 5:5, David reigned in Jerusalem just as many years as he was king over all Israel. (Keil.) Whether David was directed by the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, or whether he was left solely to his own judgment regarding it, we cannot but admire the wisdom of the arrangement he made in the choice of Jerusalem in contrast to the shortsighted policy of Saul in reference to the same matter. The son of Kish set up his court in his native town of Gibeaha place of no intrinsic importanceand bearing reproach among the people as having been the scene of one of the foulest outrages ever committed in the land. Moreover, it was within the territory of his own tribe of Benjamin, and his preference for it was apt to provoke the jealousy of the others. David, however, proceeded upon other and more statesmanlike principles. He would not continue in Hebron. No doubt that city was equally sacred to all the people, from its connection with their common father Abraham, but it had been recognised as the special capital of Judah; and if David had remained in it, some overzealous partisan of Judah might have said that the other tribes had been merely annexed to or absorbed in the little kingdom which for seven years and a half had its seat of government there. Hence, just as in our own times Victor Emanuel, when he was called to the throne of a united Italy, removed his capital first from Turin to Florence, and afterward from Florence to Rome, feeling that it was due to the other portions of his people that he should be no longer a mere Sardinian or Tuscan prince, so David wisely considered that a regard to the feelings of the other tribes demanded that some other city than Hebron should be chosen as the metropolis. But in determining what place should be selected, many difficulties would present themselves. Bethlehem, though dearer to him than all other cities, could not be thought of; and if he had gone into the territory of any other tribe than his own he might have been liable to the imputation of partiality, and might have provoked jealousy throughout eleven-twelfths of his dominions. In these circumstances the easiest solution of the difficulty would be to get hold of some place of requisite strength and importance not presently identified with any of the tribes, and in the acquirement of which all of them might have a share. Such a place was the fortress of Zion, held by the tribe of the Jebusites, whom, up to this time, no army had been able to dislodge. It was situated at the extreme verge of the territory of Judah, where it abutted on that of Benjamin, and belonged, properly speaking, to neither. (Taylor.) The Jebusites. These belonged to the great Canaanitish race (Gen. 10:6) who dwelt, when the Israelites took possession of Palestine, in the mountain district of Judah. (Comp. Num. 13:30, Jos. 11:3.) Neither Joshua who conquered them in a battle (Jos. 11:3 sq.), nor the children of Judah, who only got possession of the lower city (Jdg. 1:8; comp. Josephus Ant. 2Sa. 5:2; 2Sa. 5:2), nor the Benjamites, to whom the city had been assigned (Jos. 18:28) could conquer the strong citadel of Jebus on Mount Zion. (Erdmann.) The blind and the lame. It is impossible to decide with certainty to what or to whom this expression refers. Some, including several Jewish expositors, and Luther, regard it as describing the idols of the Jebusites, which they had placed upon their battlements, and upon which they relied for defence, and whom they knew the Israelites regarded with scorn. (See Psa. 115:4 sq.) The most probable interpretation seems to be that the Jebusites felt so secure in their citadel, shut in as it was by deep valleys on three sides, that they taunted the men of Israel with the assurance that blind and lame men would suffice to keep them out. Keil and most modern scholars thus interpret it. Wordsworth, however, objects to it on the ground that if the reference was to such persons they would have been pitied, and not hated (see 2Sa. 5:8) by David.

2Sa. 5:7. The stronghold of Zion. There is great difference of opinion as to which height was originally known as Mount Zion. It is certain that from the time of Constantine the name has been given to the western hill, on which has always stood the city of Jerusalem, but Mr. Fergusson, in his article on Jerusalem in the Biblical Dictionary, produces a mass of evidence in favour of identifying the ancient Mount Zion with the eastern hill (now called Mount Moriah), upon which the Temple was built, and to which he says it is certain the name was exclusively applied up to the time of the destruction of the city by Titus. He adduces in proof the words of Psa. 28:2, and other passages, in which Zion is spoken of as a holy place in such terms as are never applied to Jerusalem (Psa. 2:6; Psa. 132:13; Joe. 3:1, etc.), and others in which he thinks Zion is spoken of as a separate city from Jerusalem. (Psa. 51:18; Zec. 1:17, etc.) The Rabbis, he adds, with one accord place the Temple on Mount Zion, and contends that the transference of the name Zion from the western to the eastern hill solves all the difficulties which have hitherto surrounded the identification of many sites mentioned in Sacred History.

2Sa. 5:8. The gutter. The cataract or waterfall. (So Keil and Erdmann.) Some understand simply a declivity; but the first rendering agrees with the meaning which must be given to the Hebrew word in Psa. 43:5, which is the only other place in which it occurs. Hated, etc. This clause may be rendered who hate, but the other rendering is the more probable. Erdmann remarks, Both these admissible renderings point to the fact that the Israelites had to maintain a furious, embittered combat with the enemy. But the entire passage is very obscure, and has received various interpretations. Wherefore they said is generally taken to mean that these classes were excluded from the Temple, but for that assertion we have no proof, and it is hard to see what this proverb could have to do with the Temple, which was not at that time in existence. The true explanation seems to be, The blind and the lame are therelet him enter the place if he can: a proverb which came to be current with regard to any fortress that was reputed to be impregnable. (Taylor.)

2Sa. 5:9. So David dwelt, literally, sat down. Whichever eminence is here referred to, this was the foundation of that city which was to become the most memorable in the history of the world. Those only, says Dean Stanley, who reflect on what Jerusalem has since been to the world can appreciate the grandeur of the moment when it passed from the hands of the Jebusites, and became the city of David. Its situation is in keeping with its history, and is thus described by Dean Stanley. The situation of Jerusalem is in several respects singular among the cities of Palestine. Its elevation is remarkable, not from its being on the summit of one of the numerous hills of Judea, like most of the towns and villages, but because it is on the edge of one of the highest table-lands of the country. From the south, the approach is by a slight descent (Hebron being higher still), but from every other side the ascent is perpetual; and, to the traveller approaching Jerusalem from the west or east, it must always have presented the appearance beyond any important city that has ever existed on the earth, of a mountain city; breathing, as compared with the sultry plains of the Jordan or of the coast, a mountain air; enthroned, as compared with Jericho or Damascus, Gaza or Tyre, on a mountain fastness. In this respect it concentrated in itself the character of the whole country of which it was to be the capitalthe mountain thronethe mountain sanctuary of God. Again, Jerusalem was on the ridge, the broadest and most strongly marked ridge of the backbone of the complicated hills which extend through the whole country from the desert to the plain of Esdraelon. Every wanderer, every conqueror, every traveller who has trod the central route of Palestine from north to south must have passed through the table-land of Jerusalem. Abraham, as he journeyed from Bethel to HebronJacob, as he wandered on his lonely exile from Beersheba to Bethel; Joshua, as he forced his way from Jericho, and met the kings in battle at Gibeon; the Philistines, as they came up from the maritime plain and pitched in Michmash; no less than Pompey, when in later times he came up from the valley of the Jordan, or the Crusaders when they came from Tyre with the express purpose of attacking Jerusalemmust all have crossed the territory of Jebus. Ancient writers thought Jerusalem to be so much in the midst of the then known world that they called it literally the navel of the earth. In reference, says Dr. Jamieson, to the actual circumstances and after history of the Jews, Jerusalem was, of all sites in the country, the best that could be chosen; and yet on its mountain height, far away from the roads between the great empires, and accessible only by steep and winding passes, it was secluded, so that it was freed, as it now is, from any necessary implication in the great movements of the world. So secluded, and yet so central, it was marvellously fitted as the scene of the events that were to be transacted in it. Millo, or the filling. At any rate some kind of fortification, probably a large tower or castle. The name probably originated in the fact that through this tower or castle the fortification of the city, or the surrounding wall, was filled or completed. It was probably a well-known fortress erected by the Jebusites. (Keil.)

2Sa. 5:11. Hiram. From 2Ch. 2:2, and 1Ki. 5:15, it seems clear that this is the same man who was afterwards Solomons ally. Hence some have supposed that this embassy was not sent until a long time after the conquest of Zion, and that the arrangement of the events in this chapter is topical rather than strictly chronological. (Keil.) As Hiram was still reigning twenty years after the erection of the temple (1Ki. 9:10), Keil places this embassy from six to ten years after Davids accession to the sovereignty of the entire kingdom. Cedar trees. The eastern part of Lebanon (Antilibanus), which belonged to Israel, did not produce cedar trees; but the north-western range, belonging to Phenicia, was then covered with cedar forests.

2Sa. 5:13. Out of, etc. In Jerusalem, as in 1 Chronicles 14.

2Sa. 5:14. Shammuah, etc. These are the sons of Bathsheba, although there is a slight difference in the termination of two of the names in 1Ch. 3:5.

2Sa. 5:15-16. There are seven names here and nine in 1 Chronicles 3. Keil suggests that the two first-named, Eliphat and Nogah, died in infancy, and that two younger children received the same names.

2Sa. 5:17. To the hold. Keil and others understand this to refer to some mountain fortress outside the citadel of Zion, and Keil further contends that this event must have therefore taken place before the Jebusites were driven out, as it is most unlikely David would have quitted the fortification to attack the enemy. Erdmann considers that it refers to the citadel itself, and thinks the expression went down is not against this view, for, though the citadel was so high than one ascended from it on all sides, yet its plateau was by no means a horizontal plain, but was made up of higher and lower parts, and David of course made his residence upon the highest and safest part, the most favourable position for a military outlook, while the fortifications must have necessarily lain upon the relatively lower north-western side, and with this agrees the fact that the Philistines advanced to the attack from the west. Maurer remarks, David was not yet certain whether to defend himself at the walls, or to advance to meet the enemy.

2Sa. 5:18. Valley of Rephalm. Many writers identify this locality with a fruitful plain nearly three miles long by two wide, lying to the south-west of Jerusalem, and only separated from the valley of Hinnom by a narrow ridge of land. But Mr. Grove (Bib. Dictionary) contends that it does not answer to the description of the Hebrew word, which always designates an enclosed valley. It was the scene of some of Davids most remarkable adventures, It doubtless derived its name from the ancient Rephaim, or giants. (Jos. 15:8, etc.)

2Sa. 5:20. Baal-perazim. The place of breaches, or bursts. (See 2Sa. 5:20.) There may have been previously a sanctuary of Baal on this spot. (Bib. Dict.)

2Sa. 5:21. Images. Probably small tutelary deities which they brought with them into the field for protection.

2Sa. 5:23. Mulberry trees. Baca-shrubs. From baca, to weep. Hence either some drooping tree like the weeping willow, or one which sheds gum like the balsam. The Arabs now give the name to a tree of the latter kind, from which, if a leaf is broken off, there flows sap like a white tear.

2Sa. 5:24. The sound of a going. As if an army was advancing. The word signifies a majestic stately tread or stepping, often used of God. (Psa. 68:7.) (Tr. of Langes Commentary.)

2Sa. 5:25. Geba. Probably Gibeah of Saul or of Benjamin, a city to the north of Benjamin, the present Jeba, Gazer, or Gezer, at the extreme north of the Philistine country.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 5:6-25

THE CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM AND THE DEFEAT OF THE PHILISTINE

I. Mans true security and strength lies not in his possession of the seen, but in his relation to the unseen. When David and his men advanced upon the fortified city of Jerusalem, all appearances were against them and for the Jebusites. To the eye of sense it seemed impossible that this hitherto impregnable fort should yield to the attack of any army. When we remember what it cost the legions of Rome to reduce it by siege, we can form some idea how altogether unlikely it appeared that such a force as that which David led could carry it by assault. If there had been no agencies at work beyond those which appealed to the eye of sense, we can well believe that the boast of the Jebusites would have been justified by the result. But a power was with the men of Israel of which the dwellers in Jerusalem took no account. The God of battles was on the side of the former, and He had decreed that for purposes of mercy to the world at large, the stronghold of Zion should become the city of David. It was not gained by him by strength of arm or skill in warfare, but given to him as a servant of the Lord God of Hosts. And when he was established there he dwelt securely, not by reason of the towers and walls which he built round about, but because the same God established and exalted him for His peoples sake. But though we read that David perceived this truth (2Sa. 5:12), is there not reason to fear that his trust in the unseen and real was far from perfect and undivided? In the multiplication of wives and concubines, after the manner of the heathen nations, there seems to be a reaching out after some apparent but unreal sources of strength, which afterwards proved themselves to be indeed elements of insecurity and weakness. Assuming that his action in this matter must have been prompted in great measure by political motives, and remembering the disastrous consequences which followed, we learn how fatal is any attempt to look for success and security anywhere but in the service of God.

II. The enemies of Gods kingdom on the earth are undaunted and persevering in the face of continued defeats. The conquest of the Jebusites, although so striking and complete, did not prevent the Philistine host from seeking David, and the entire rout of their army at Baal-perazim did not discourarge them from coming up yet again. In the struggle that is ever waging between the Church of God and her foes, the servants of God have ever found their enemies as undaunted by reverses as were these people by the previous successes of David. It might have been thought that his name, associated as it had so often been with such signal disaster to this nation, would have ensured to him exemption from their attacks, but this was so far from being the case that they hesitated not to attack him even now when his position was stronger and his followers more numerous than ever. The courage and pertinacity of these Philistines were worthy of a better cause, and the same may be said of many a host since which has arrayed itself against the Lord and against His anointed. The history of the world plainly teaches us that it is not only those who fight for God and right who can persevere in the face of defeats, for their opponents have often proved to be equal to them in this respect. It behoves them to see to it that they never surpass them.

III. Those who follow Gods commands will have Him go before with needful help. In both the instances before us, David, as was his custom, asked guidance from above. By this act he acknowledged that he did not trust in his bow, and that he knew his sword could not save him (Psa. 40:6), and that he went forth now, as in the days of his youth (1Sa. 17:45), only as the servant of the Lord God of Israel. And the result of this reverent waiting upon God for direction was what it always was and ever will be. God never commands His people to go where He will not go before them, and never sends them to battle for Him at their own charges. But while they see to it that they keep close to the Divine directions and patiently fulfil the conditions imposed by Divine wisdom, they must be energetic in doing their part, and bestir (2Sa. 5:24) themselves to make use of the intervention of God on their behalf.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

2Sa. 5:9. The establishment of Davids capital illustrates the principles upon which his kingdom stood, and shows wherein it differed from the great Asiatic empires which were contemporary with it. The first sign of the unity of these monarchies was the building of some great city the inhabitants felt they were a people because they were encompassed with walls The commonwealth of Israel began in open plains and pastures. A single man, who had not a foot of earth for his possession, was its founder Only after centuries of conflicts, discomfitures, humiliations, they acquired a king, and a city which he could make the centre of their tribes. Here are the two kinds of civilisation; the civic life is in one the beginning, in the other the result of a long process. But in the first you have a despotism which becomes more expansive and oppressive from day to day in the other sometimes a weary struggle, but it is the struggle of spirits, a struggle for life. And God Himself is helping that struggle and bringing out of confusion a real, at last even something of a visible and outward unity.Maurice.

2Sa. 5:12. This language, some may think, would have been more suitable and pious if an extraordinary, evidently miraculous, event had raised David to the throne of Israel. Such an event might have enabled him to perceive that he was divinely elected to reign; he might have continued to reign with the same comfortable assurance. But he appears to have risen quite as slowlyunder the same course of accidentsas other leaders. What man who has not taken some very outrageous method of establishing his power, might not say that the Lord had bestowed his dominion upon him, if that phrase became the lips of the shepherd sovereign? This is a question which I am not able to answer. I do not know what king might not safely adopt these words and ought not to adopt them. The danger, I fancy, is in the idle use of them when no definite meaning is attached to them. So far from admitting that David would have had more right to think and speak as he did, if some angel suddenly appearing had placed the crown upon his head, I apprehend that the strength and liveliness of his conviction arose from the successiveness, the continuity, of the steps in his history, which assured him that Gods hand had been directing the whole. One startling event he might have referred to chance, or to the rare irregular interference of an omnipotent Being. Only such a Being as the Lord God of Abraham could have woven the web of his destinies. The two clauses of the sentence are inseparably connected. A government which a man wins for himself he uses for himself. That which he inwardly and practically acknowledges as conferred upon him by a righteous Being cannot be intended for himself. The deepest lesson which David had learnt was that he himself was under government; that in his heart and will was the inmost circle of that authority which the winds and the sea, the moon and the stars, obeyed. To understand that the empire over wills and hearts is the highest which man can exercise, because it is the highest which God exercises; to understand that his empire cannot be one of rough compulsion, because Gods is not of that kind; to understand that the necessity for stern, quick, inevitable punishment, arises from the unwillingness of men to abide under a yoke of grace and gentleness; to understand that the law looks terrible and overwhelming to the wrong-doer, just because he has shaken off his relation to the Person from whom law issues, in whom dwells all humanity and sympathy, all forgiveness and reclaiming mercythis was the highest privilege of a Jewish king, that upon which the rightful exercise of all his functions depended.Maurice.

2Sa. 5:23-24. The rustling of the Lords approaching help in the tops of the trees.

1. Dost thou wait for it at His bidding?
2. Dost thou hear it with the right heed?
3. Dost thou understand it in the right sense?
4. Dost thou follow it without delay?Langes Commentary.

These words are important for us also, in a figurative sense, in our warfare with the children of unbelief in this world. They teach us that in our own strength, and merely with the human weapons of reason and science, we are not to make war against the adversary. Success can only be calculated upon when the conflict is undertaken under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, breathed forth and in the immediate blessed experience of the gracious presence of the Lord, and of the truth of his Word. Then there breaks forth from our hearts that which we call testimony;a speaking from the present enjoyment of salvation; a speaking arising from a comprehensive, vital, powerful conception of the infallibility of that for which the undertaking has been begun; a speaking of the whole animated personality. This breaks through the enemy. No bulwark of science falsely so called withstands this.Krummacher.

2Sa. 5:22-25. We cannot but be struck, in this narrative, with the humble piety of David in asking guidance from the Lord, and with his willingness implicitly to obey the commands which he received. Nor can we fail to observe the clear and explicit nature of the answers which he received from the Urim and Thummim. The ancient heathens had their oracles in connection with the temples in which they worshipped their divinities; but the responses given at these places to those who consulted them were generally expressed so ambiguously that no great guidance was given by them, and they could not be falsified by any event. But here, in the replies given by the sacred breastplate, there is no obscurity. Everything is definite and clear, and David could have no hesitation as to his duty in each case. Of course, there is not now any such means of obtaining the unerring guidance of God as David then enjoyed, in so far as the contingencies of our daily lives are concerned; but still, in answer to prayer, God will lead us in the right way, provided only we unfeignedly commit ourselves to Him, and willingly accept His direction step by step. Here is the warrant on which every one of us is entitled to proceed: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and and it shall be given him. Let us, therefore, use the Bible and the throne of grace as David employed the Urim and Thummim, and we may depend upon it that, even as the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees indicated to him when he was to advance, there will be something, either within ourselves or in the arrangement of Gods providence external to us, which will guide us.Taylor.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

David in Jerusalem. 2Sa. 5:6-16

8 And David said unto that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of Davids soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.

9 So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward.
10 And David went on, and grew great, and the Lord God of hosts was with him.

11 And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons: and they built David a house.
12 And David perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israels sake.
13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

14 And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon,

15 Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia,
16 And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet.

How was Jerusalem taken? 2Sa. 5:6-7

There was no better place in the promised land for a capitol than the city of Jebusites which had formerly borne the name, Jebus. All former attempts to capture the city had failed. So secure did the inhabitants of the city feel that they taunted David by saying, Except thou shalt take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither (2Sa. 5:6). The men dwelling in Jerusalem thought that even those who were halt and blind and lame among them could successfully defend the city against the onslaughts of Davids men.

Zion and Millo are both ridges in the city of Jerusalem, Zion is the more easterly and the higher of the two. Millo was a stronghold built up by David. This same stronghold was strengthened by Solomon and rebuilt by Hezekiah.
Joab, the son of Zeruiah, first smote the Jebusites. He entered the city through a water main that emptied at a point below the main stronghold. David had announced that whoever was first to get into the city would become his captain. Joab performed this feat and thus became captain of Davids armies.

Where was the stronghold of Zion? 2Sa. 5:7

In Davids time the city of Jerusalem was confined to the summit of Mount Zion, and the stronghold of its defenses was a fortification called Millo. Recent excavations have been made at the southern end of Mount Moriah, leading to the erroneous conclusion that Mount Zion, the city of David, was down on Ophel. This was disproved by Warren and Conder in their excavations during the middle of the nineteenth century. Mount Zion itself, was completely isolated by surrounding ravines, except at the northwest corner, where a narrow saddle of rock connected it with higher ground, stretching off in that direction. The modern Joppa gate stands at the top of this saddle. This would be the usual way to attack the city, but David went in from the south through the water course and was able to surprise the people. Josephus tells of Davids capturing a lower city before he assaulted the citadel, but this cannot be verified. The city was indeed a great city, and found its way into the heart of David who praised it in such lines as those in the forty-eighth Psalm:

Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.

Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

God is known in her places for a refuge . . .

12.

Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof.

13.

Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following. For this our God is our God for ever and ever; He will be our guide even unto death.

Psalms 48

The city has continued as one of the worlds most ancient and most important centers of human activity. A rundown of some important incidents in the history of Jerusalem reveals these dates and events:

1010 B.C.

Taken by David

967

First Temple built by Solomon

587

City taken by Nebuchadnezzar

537

Reoccupied by the Jews

516

Second Temple dedicated

168

City taken by Antiochus Epiphanes and Temple desecrated

165

Temple cleansed by Judas Maccabaeus

City taken by Pompey

Third Temple built by Herod

70 A.D.

City taken and Temple destroyed by Titus

136

City rebuilt by Hadrian

614

City taken by the Persians

629

Retaken by Heraclitus

637

Taken by the Mohammedans

1099

Taken by the Crusaders

1187

Taken by Saladin

1229

Surrendered to the Emperor Frederic II

1244

Taken by the Tartars

1247

Taken by the Sultan of Egypt

1517

Taken by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I

1917

Taken from the Turks by the Allied Forces of Great Britain, France, and Italy

1956

Divided between Israel and Jordan

Why did Hiram, king of Tyre, send messengers to David? 2Sa. 5:11-12

Significant is the statement, And David waxed greater and greater; for Jehovah, the God of hosts, was with him (2Sa. 5:10). Hiram, the king of Tyre, could see that David was growing stronger and stronger. Hiram knew that the cedar trees, carpenters, and masons would be needed by a king of a growing empire. He knew too, that the new king would need a palace. He provided these and enabled David to have a place to live befitting a king. The people of Tyre depended upon the south-country for their food supply. The king of Tyre wanted to be a friend of Davids.

Why did David take more wives? 2Sa. 5:13

David was taking his place among kings of the Near East; these kings normally had many wives. David already had seven wives, according to the account in 2Sa. 3:2-5, if we include Michal. His family is not only mentioned here and in the third chapter, but throughout this narrative. We know that David later married Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (2Sa. 11:27). In all of these listings we find that he also had nineteen sons. Mention is made of only one daughter, Tamar (2Sa. 13:1).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(6) Went to Jerusalem.The king of Jerusalem had been defeated and slain by Joshua (Jos. 10:23-26; Jos. 12:10), and the city had been subsequently taken and destroyed by Judah (Jdg. 1:7-8). It was, however, only partially occupied by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Jdg. 1:21; Judges 15:63), and at a later time fell again entirely into the hands of the Jebusites (Jdg. 19:11-12). That Jebus and Jerusalem were two names of the same city is stated in 1Ch. 11:4. This expedition must have taken place immediately after the coronation, since the length of reign over all Israel and of the reign in Jerusalem are said in 2Sa. 5:5 to be the same. David doubtless saw the importance of at once uniting the tribes in common action as well as the advantages of Jerusalem for his capital (Hebron being much too far southward), and the necessity of dislodging this remnant of the old Canaanites from their strong position in the centre of the land.

Except thou take away.A better translation is, Thou shalt not come hither; but the blind and the lame shall keep thee off. The Jebusites, confident in the natural strength of their fortress, boast that even the lame and the blind could defend it. Their citadel was upon Mount Zion, the highest of the hills of Jerusalem, south-west of the temple hill of Moriah, and surrounded on three sides by deep valleys.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

CAPTURE OF ZION, 2Sa 5:6-10.

This account of the capture of Zion (see parallel history in 1Ch 11:4-9) is brief but very important. In the days of Joshua cities of refuge had been appointed on both sides of the Jordan, (Joshua 20,) and, until the death of Eli, Shiloh had been the seat of the sanctuary. Beth-el, Gilgal, Mizpeh, Ramah, and other places, had their particular celebrity, but as yet the nation had no metropolis. The first great enterprise of David, after becoming king of all the land, was to gain full possession of this strong city of the hills, and make it the capital of his kingdom. The lower portion of the city had, in the time of the Judges, been besieged and burned, (Jdg 1:8,) but the fortress on Zion had remained impregnable, and the neighbouring tribes of Judah and Benjamin had been obliged to tolerate the Jebusites among them. Jos 15:63; Jdg 1:21. According to an uncontradicted tradition of centuries past, the stronghold of Zion occupied the southwestern hill of the modern city, which overhangs the deep valley of Hinnom. This valley guarded it on the west and south, while its northern and eastern defence was the Tyropoeon valley.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

6. The Jebusites An ancient tribe descended from Canaan, son of Ham, (Gen 10:16,) who from the days of Abraham had been well known inhabitants of the land. They were a most hardy and warlike tribe, as is shown from their ability to maintain their ancient position in Central Palestine so long.

Except thou take away Literally, and after the order of the Hebrew, the passage reads thus: Thou shalt not come hither, for to drive thee away, the blind and the lame saying. Let not David come hither, ( will suffice.) Or we may regard as the preterit of the verb and explain the use of the singular from the fact that the verb precedes its subjects. We then translate: For the blind and the lame have driven thee away. In either case the meaning is the same. The Jebusites ridiculed and derided David’s attempts to subdue them, and, relying upon their strong fortifications, tauntingly said that a few blind and lame men would be sufficient to turn away all the assaults he could make against them. By the blind and the lame some, without sufficient reason, have understood the idols of the Jebusites, which the Israelites called in derision blind and lame, because, having eyes they didnot see, and having feet they did not walk. Psa 115:5; Psa 115:7.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

David Captures The Jebusite Fortress At Jerusalem In Order To Deliver It From The Inhabitants Of The Land And So That He Can Make It His Capital City And Stronghold ( 2Sa 5:6-10 ).

Note how it is stressed that the main reason for David’s venture against Jerusalem was because it was inhabited by ‘the inhabitants of the land’, in other words the Canaanites. His initial purpose was thus in order to purify the land in accordance with YHWH’s commands which had forbidden making a covenant with them (Exo 23:31; Exo 34:12; Exo 34:15; Num 33:15; Num 33:52-53; Num 33:55). Not for David the compromise of allowing them to stay there as an eyesore to YHWH.

A secondary purpose, however, was almost certainly because, now that David was king of both Israel and Judah it was important that he establish a capital city that would be acceptable to both. Hebron, his present capital, was central for Judah, but was very much a city of Judah, and that fact alone could have caused dissension among the other tribes once David’s ‘honeymoon’ period was over. But equally no prominent city among the northern tribes would have been remotely acceptable to Judah. It was indicative of his tact and wisdom that he therefore eyed up Jerusalem, which was on the borders of Judah and Benjamin with a view to making it his capital city. It had a number of things in its favour:

1). It was a cosmopolitan city, including both a Judean section and a Benjaminite section, while its main fortress had always been inhabited by a people who were not identified with any tribe. It had thus never been specifically identified with one particular tribe.

2). It was on the borders of both Judah and Benjamin.

3). It was fairly central and yet was in a good defensible position.

4). It had ancient validation in that in the ancient and sacred past Abraham, the father of Israel, had paid tithes to its king, who had been a priest of the Most High God (El Elyon).

Furthermore, knowing David’s hatred of anything or anyone responsible for bringing YHWH’s Name into disrepute by defying the living God ( 1Sa 17:26 ; 1Sa 17:36; 1Sa 17:45) it must be seen as quite probable that the presence of such an independent Jebusite city had been gnawing at his heart for some time, even though it was something that he had been unable to do anything about while lower Jerusalem was split between Benjamin and Judah, and his kingship had not been recognised by Israel. Now, however, that he was king over both, and Jerusalem was right in the centre of his kingdom, its anomalous situation must have become wholly unacceptable to him. Here was a city which defied YHWH, and did so boastfully and openly, and yet sat proudly in the middle of his kingdom. He would feel that he could not allow it to remains so. So as we have seen this was certainly very much in mind as well.

Jerusalem, which as we have pointed out was on the border of Judah and Benjamin, and was called Urusalim in the Amarna tablets, was fairly widely spread out, being built on a number of closely related hills. The king of Jerusalem and his forces had at one time been defeated by Joshua (Joshua 10), but it does not say there that he had besieged Jerusalem and taken it. That was firstly no doubt because it was not situated in the line of the conquests that followed Joshua’s victory, as he swept through the Shephelah clearing the way for Israel’s occupation, and perhaps secondly because standing proudly on its high hill it would have required many months of siege to subdue it, when there were more important objects in view. It appears to have initially been taken by Judah (Jdg 1:8), but that may only have been the lower city and not have included the impregnable Jebusite fortress. If Judah did take the fortress it is clear that once Judah’s forces had moved on to other conquests the Jebusites, the previous inhabitants, had returned and had retaken the original fortress city on its high hill surrounded by valleys, had strengthened its fortifications, and had been there ever since, gloating down on Israel from their proud eminence. Meanwhile Benjamin and Judah had both added to the city and had established their own sections of Jerusalem on other surrounding local hills (Jdg 1:8; Jdg 1:21), eventually making peace with the Jebusites. It is significant that Saul seemingly did not see it as requiring to be taken. He did not see it as a threat to the nation and he did not have David’s passion for YHWH.

That Judah saw Jerusalem as very important from the beginning comes out in that that was where Adoni-Bezek was taken to be executed in the early days of the conquest (Jdg 1:7). It was also where David had taken the head of Goliath in order to celebrate his triumph (1Sa 17:54). It is clear therefore that it was seen as having religious importance to Judah, which we might, in fact, have expected given its traditional connections with Abraham, who himself had also taken his trophies of victory back to Jerusalem in acknowledgement of its king as ‘priest of the Most High God’. Possibly the tradition had also already grown that it was the same mountain as that on which Abraham had been ready to offer his son, Isaac (compare 2Ch 3:1). Thus for it to be in the hands of the Jebusites would have torn at David’s soul, especially in view of Gen 15:18-21; Exo 3:8 (and often) where it is stressed that the Jebusites were intended to be brought into submission.

But David was to find, as others had before him, that it was one thing to talk of capturing the fortress city, and quite another actually to do it. This was so much so that the Jebusites were able to mock his attempts, declaring that he would never achieve his aim because even the lame and the blind could defend it. But they had reckoned without David’s astuteness, for David realised what its weak spot was (it was the weak spot of most fortified cities). Like all cities it required an abundant water supply, and in order to obtain it a shaft had been dug which went down, either to an underground river which flowed under the city, or more probably to a tunnel which led to an underground water supply outside the walls. Thus he ordered his forces to discover the tunnel, find the shaft, and enter the city in that way, promising a reward for whoever did so. The soldiers on accomplishing the feat would probably emerge from the shaft into an underground cavern from which well worn steps would lead up into the city. If it was done at the right time they could congregate there in the darkness and no one would know of their presence until it was too late. An alternative and less picturesque suggestion is that he was calling on them to block off the water supply, thus making the city surrender through lack of water.

Analysis.

a And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David, saying, “Except you take away the blind and the lame, you will not come in here,” thinking, ‘David cannot come in here’ (2Sa 5:6).

b Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David 2sa (5:7).

c And David said on that day, “Whoever smites the Jebusites, let him get up to the watercourse, and smite the lame and the blind, who are hated of David’s soul.” Which is why they say, “There are the blind and the lame, he cannot come into the house” (2Sa 5:8).

b And David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the city of David (2Sa 5:9 a).

a And David built round about from Millo and inward (2Sa 5:9 b).

Note that in ‘a’ the Jebusites stated that David would never enter Jerusalem, and in the parallel David had not only entered it but commenced building fortifications there from the Millo inwards. In ‘b’ David took the stronghold of Zion, and in the parallel he dwelt in the stronghold and called it the City of David. Centrally in ‘c’ we are told of the David’s response to the Jebusite jibe and its consequence.

2Sa 5:6

‘ And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David, saying, “Except you take away the blind and the lame, you will not come in here,” thinking, ‘David cannot come in here.’

Note that it is stressed that the main reason for David’s venture against the Jebusites was because they were ‘the inhabitants of the land’, in other words ‘Canaanites’. His initial purpose was thus in order to purify the land in accordance with YHWH’s commands which had forbidden making a covenant with them (Exo 23:31; Exo 34:12; Exo 34:15; Num 33:15; Num 33:52-53; Num 33:55). Not for David the compromise of allowing them to stay there as an eyesore to YHWH.

This may in fact have been his first action on becoming king, and it may even have been the action that drew the attention of the Philistines to his new position of authority, for if the Jebusites had been included as a tributary in the Philistine Empire, which they almost certainly would have been, they may well then have appealed to the Philistines for help. That in itself would be an indication to the Philistines that David was stepping outside his mandate and ‘rocking the boat’.

Whatever the case the Jebusites, who were Canaanites/Amorites, sneered at David’s initial attempts, (and his earlier call on them to surrender), declaring that even the blind and the lame could hold out against him. Thus if he were to take the city he would have to remove even them. Basically the thought was of how totally impossible it was that he should take the city, as the past had proved. On the other hand never previously had they come up against someone who was ‘filled with the Sprit of YHWH’ (1Sa 16:13).

2Sa 5:7

‘ Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David.’

And how wrong they proved to be. For ‘nevertheless’ David ‘took the stronghold of Zion’ and renamed it ‘the City of David’. The name Zion was geographical and only occurs five times in the historical books (1Ki 8:1; 2Ch 5:2, in both of which it is explanatory of the City of David; 2Ki 19:21; 2Ki 19:31, in both of which it is a prophetic word; and 1Ch 11:5 which is a parallel passage to this one. It is, however, common in the poetical books and the prophets where it had become symbolic of the place where God dwelt, and was also sometimes used of the people seen as YHWH’s unique people).

The naming of it as ‘the City of David’ was important. It stressed that it belonged neither to Judah or Israel, but to David, belonging to him from then on by right of conquest because he had taken it in conjunction with ‘his men’, his own private army. It will be noted that elsewhere we often have the description of God’s people as composed of ‘Israel and the inhabitants of Jerusalem’ (2Ch 35:18; Isa 8:14; Eze 12:19), or of ‘Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem’ (2Ki 23:2; 2Ch 20:15-20 (three times); 21:13; 33:9; Isa 5:3; Isa 22:21; Jer 4:4; Jer 11:2-12 (three times); 17:25; etc.; Dan 9:7; Zep 1:4; compare Mat 3:5) stressing its separateness.

It is quite possible that David had in mind the position that Jerusalem had had in the days of Abraham, when Abraham had acknowledged his responsibility to pay it a portion of the spoils while acknowledging its king Melchi-zedek as the ‘priest of the Most High God’ (Genesis 14). He may well therefore have seen it as a city that especially belonged to God and was closely associated with His worship, which would explain why he was so keen to bring the Ark there, in spite of the Tabernacle being elsewhere. Indeed he may well have seen himself as the spiritual successor to Melchi-zedek, and therefore as bound to take the city. Certainly he appears to have perpetuated its priesthood with the result that he and his sons became ‘priests after the order of Melchi-zedek’ (Psa 110:4; compare 2Sa 8:18), not as sacrificing priests, but as intercessory priests. We note that kings of the Davidic house regularly appear to have entered into a special ministry of intercession (compare 2Sa 5:17-19; 2Sa 21:1; 2Sa 24:10 ; 2Sa 24:17; 1Ki 8:22 ff; 2Ki 19:1; Eze 44:3. See also 2Ki 23:2-3).

2Sa 5:8

‘ And David said on that day, “Whoever smites the Jebusites, let him get up to the watercourse, and smite the lame and the blind, who are hated of David’s soul.” Which is why they say, “There are the blind and the lame, he cannot come into the house.” ’

The derision of the Jebusites angered David, who no doubt saw it as a defiance of the armies of the living God (1Sa 17:26; 1Sa 17:36; 1Sa 17:45), with the result that he devised a plan for bringing the city into submission. Let those who would overcome the city enter it by the ‘water-tunnels’ (sinnor – the meaning of the word sinnor is uncertain, but its root meaning is ‘hollow’ and in Psa 42:7 a it undoubtedly relates to something which parallels the waves and billows of a stormy sea, possibly water-spouts), making their way along the underground river or tunnel and up the water shaft. Then they could smite from within the defenders, whom David derisively calls ‘the lame and the blind’ in imitation of the original jibe. If the Jebusites thought that the lame and the blind could hold out against David’s forces, let their own defenders prove it.

And as a result of this exchange of jibes a proverb arose in Israel which stated, ‘there are the lame and the blind, they cannot come into the house (palace, tabernacle)’. This may mean that any who are insulting or unpleasant will always be left outside and never be invited into someone’s house and given hospitality. Or it may have been indicating that it was always dangerous to assume that someone was too weak to hit back, for it might be discovered that they can do so only too well, the negative thereby being proved wrong. Or it may have been a proverb which became a jibe against Canaanites because, as ‘the lame and the blind’, like the literal lame and the blind (Lev 21:18), they were not welcome into the house of YHWH (Deu 23:1-2; Zec 14:21).

2Sa 5:9

‘ And David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from the Millo and inward.’

Having taken the city David took up residence in it, along with many of his men, together with many priests and Levites, making it his stronghold, and proceeding to fortify it further. The Millo was probably the system of terraces, consisting of retaining walls with levelled filling, discovered in excavations, which David further strengthened and fortified. He then built further fortifications within. No doubt he also in some way made it impossible for any in the future to do what his men had done.

It is clear from its initial mention that the taking of Jerusalem was seen as a high point in his reign. This was possibly precisely because of its associations with Abraham and Melchi-zedek with the idea that a new era had now begun. But for centuries it had resisted Israelite pressure, and had constantly been a bastion against Yahwism, perhaps the last prominent one in central Israel, with the people still worshipping their own gods there. Here were to be found the native Canaanites who should have been driven from the land. And yet even Samuel had seemingly been unable to do it. But now it had been accomplished by David, and the Canaanites had been made to submit to Yahwism. It no longer made Israel a divided land, and David had begun his reign by finally removing the Canaanite religion from at least that part of the land. It augured well for the future.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jerusalem made the Capital

v. 6. And the king and his men, all the soldiers of the regular army, went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, for this heathen tribe of the hill country still held the fortress of the city, Jdg 1:21; which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither, literally, “Not wilt thou come in, but there will drive thee away the blind and the lame”; thinking, the Jebusites meant to say, David cannot come in hither. They were so firmly convinced that their fortress was impregnable that they considered the blind and the lame a sufficient guard for the defense of its walls.

v. 7. Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, the southern and highest hill of Jerusalem; the same is the City of David. The name Zion afterwards was applied to the Temple of Jehovah situated on this hill, and so finally was used as a designation of the Church of God, both in the Old and in the New Testament. A special incident of the siege of Jerusalem is now mentioned.

v. 8. And David said on that day, while preparing to storm the fortress, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter and smiteth the Jebusites and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain, 1Ch 11:6-9. The difficult passage is best rendered: Every one who conquers the Jebusites, let him cast into the waterfall both the lame and the blind, hated of David’s soul. The expression “blind and lame” applied to all the Jebusites, and the order to throw the slain down the declivity was given in order to gain space for the hand-to-hand encounter in the fortress. Wherefore they said, it became a proverbial saying, The blind and the lame, undesirable people like the Jebusites, shall not come in to the house.

v. 9. So David dwelt in the fort, making the castle his residence, and called it the City of David. And David built round about from Millo, the citadel or fortification proper, and inward; the fort being on the most exposed point, he strengthened the defenses between it and his residence. Thus the entire upper city became one huge fortress.

v. 10. And David went on and grew great, he continued to gain in power, influence, and prestige, and the Lord God of hosts, Jehovah God of Sabaoth, was with him. He owed not only his kingdom, but all the success which attended him to the blessing of the covenant God. Jerusalem, nearer to the center of Canaan than Hebron, was now the capital of all the tribes.

v. 11. And Hiram, king of Tyre, sent messengers to David, a formal embassy, in order to establish friendly relations with the neighboring state, and cedar-trees, whose wood was much used for costly buildings, and carpenters, and masons; and they built David an house, the first fine palace of the kings of Judah.

v. 12. And David perceived, from the success which attended all his undertakings, that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake, because He had chosen Israel for His people and promised to make it great and powerful.

v. 13. And David took him more concubines and wives of Jerusalem, according to the custom of Oriental monarchs, after he was come from Hebron. In the law pertaining to kings, Deu 17:17, the taking of many wives had indeed been forbidden the kings of Israel, and David found out to his sorrow that his following the custom of the heathen kings brought him much trouble and heartache. And there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

v. 14. And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon,

v. 15. Ibhar also, and Elishua (or Elishama, 1Ch 3:6), and Nepheg, and Jephia,

v. 16. and Elishama, and Eliada (or Beeliada, 1Ch 14:7), and Eliphalet. Thus God was with David and established his rule, for under His blessing alone true progress is possible.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

2Sa 5:6. The king and his men went to Jerusalem David was of an enterprising genius, which he always employed for the honour and interest of his country. His siege of Jerusalem was founded in justice, and the taking it was necessary to the safety of his government and people. It was situated in the middle of the tribe of Benjamin, and taken by the Hebrews soon after Joshua’s death; not indeed the whole of it, but the lower city: for the Jebusites kept possession of the fortress of Zion, the Hebrews and Jebusites dwelling together in the other part of the city after it was rebuilt. The Hebrews dwelt in it in the reign of Saul; for David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem, 1Sa 17:54. But the whole city, as well as the fort, was now in the hands of the Jebusites; for, when David demanded the restitution of the city, the Jebusites said, Thou shalt not come in hither. Josephus also affirms, that they were in possession both of the city and the fortress. How it came into the possession of the Jebusites, is not said: probably, they seized it during the war between Saul and the Philistines, or the contest between David and Ish-bosheth, which lasted for above seven years. David, therefore, had a right to recover it, as the ancient possession and property of his people; and would have been an impolitic, negligent prince, had he suffered so strong a fortress, in the midst of his dominions, to have remained in the hands of his enemies. And what fixed David the more in his resolution to become master of it, was the insult offered him by the Jebusites in the town and fortress, upon the supposition that it was impregnable. See Joseph. Antiq. l. vii. c. iii. sect. 1.

Except thou take away the blind, &c. Some imagine, that by the blind are to be understood the Jebusite deities, called the blind and lame by way of derision. Yet it is not likely that the Jebusites should revile their own deities; and we must remember, that these deities are supposed to be here called blind and lame by the Jebusites themselves. But, admitting them to be idol deities, what meaning can there be in the Jebusites telling David, he should not come into the city unless he took away the deities upon the walls? If he could scale the walls, so as to reach these guardian deities, he need not ask leave of the Jebusites to enter the citadel. And what can be the meaning of the latter end of 2Sa 5:8 wherefore they said, &c.? For, who said? Did the Jebusites say their own deities should not come into the house,should not come where they were; or should not come into the house of the Lord? Or could these deities say that David and his men should not come into the house? The absurdity of such a speech attributed to these idols, whose known character is, that they have mouths, and speak not, needs no illustration. But though the deities could not enounce these words, some imagine the Jebusites might; that it is possible the blind and the lame may signify the Jebusites, and that the Jebusites in general are called blind and lame, for putting their trust in blind and lame idols. This seems too refined a sense; and the blind and lame means the same both in the 6th and 8th verses. It is farther observed, that the words, 2Sa 5:8. Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, shew, that they are spoken of as different from the Jebusites. Perhaps, then, they were so; perhaps they were, in fact, a few poor creatures who laboured under the infirmities of blindness and lameness, and therefore were different from the general body of the Jebusites. But we may ask, How we can rationally account for that bitterness which David expresses against these blind and lame; and how it was possible for a man of David’s humanity to detest men for mere unblameable, and, indeed, pitiable infirmities? The Jebusites looked upon David’s attempt as vain, and fit to be treated with insolence and raillery. Full of this fond notion, they placed the blind and lame upon the walls, and told David he should not come in thither, for the blind and the lame were sufficient to keep him off; which they should effect only by their shouting, David shall not come hither,No! David shall not come hither. That the blind and the lame were contemptuously placed upon the walls by the Jebusites, as before described, we are assured by the concurrent testimony of Josephus. Now, that these blind and lame, who appear to have been placed upon the walls, were to insult David in the manner before mentioned, seems evident, from the impossibility of otherwise accounting for David’s indignation against these naturally pitiable people. The Hebrew particles ki im, rendered nevertheless, should be rendered for, as in Pro 23:18. The Hebrew verb hesirka, translated thou take away, should be translated shall keep thee off: the LXX have rendered it plural. Should it be objected, that the word is, in the original, in the preter tense, still it may be asserted, that it should be rendered as if it were in the future; it being agreeable to the genius of the Hebrew language, frequently to speak of events yet future, as having actually happened, when the speaker would strongly express the certainty of such events. It is very remarkable, that the sense affixed to this passage is confirmed by Josephus; and it is further remarkable, that the same sense is given to these words in the English Bible of Coverdale, printed in 1535, where they are rendered, Thou shalt not come hither, but the blynde and lame shal dryve the awaie. That it was improperly rendered before that edition, appears from Wickliffe’s Manuscript version of 1383, where we read, Thou shalt not entre hidur; no, but thou do awaie blynd men and lame, &c. According to these emendations, this verse will be, “And the inhabitants of Jebus said, Thou shalt not come hither; for the blind and the lame shall keep thee off, by saying, David shall not come in hither.” See Kennicott’s Dissert. vol. 1: p. 32, &c.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

SECOND DIVISION
DAVID KING OVER ALL ISRAEL

2Sa 5:6 to 2Sa 14:25

FIRST SECTION
Davids reign at its culmination and greatest splendor

2Sa 5:6 to 2Sa 10:19

I. Its Glorious Establishment And Confirmation

2Sa 5:6 to 2Sa 6:23

A.WITHOUT: 1) BY THE VICTORY OVER THE JEBUSITES AND THE CONQUEST OF THE CITADEL OF ZION, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH JERUSALEM BECOMES THE CAPITAL CITY OF THE KINGDOM. 2Sa 5:6 to 2Sa 16:2) BY TWO VICTORIES OVER THE PHILISTINES. 2Sa 5:17-25.

I. The victory over the Jebusites and the conquest of the citadel of Zion. 2Sa 5:6-16.

6And the king2 and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land. Which [And they] spake unto David, saying, Except3 thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither; thinking [saying], David 7cannot [shall not] come in hither. Nevertheless [And] David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David. 8And David said on that day, Whosoever4 getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of Davids soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said [say], 9The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. So [And] David dwelt in the fort [stronghold], and called it the city of David. And David built5 round about from Millo and inward. 10And David went on and grew great [David kept growing greater and greater], and the Lord God [Jehovah the God] of hosts was with him.

11And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees and carpenters and masons; and they built David an house. 12And David perceived that the Lord [Jehovah] had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted6 his kingdom for his people Israels sake.

13And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron; and there were yet sons and daughters born to David. 14And these be [are] the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem: Shammuah 15[Shammua] and Shobab and Nathan and Solomon, Ibhar also [And Ibhar] and 16Elishua and Nepheg and Japhia, And Elishama and Eliada and Eliphalet.

2. Davids two victories over the Philistines. 2Sa 5:17-25

17But when [And] the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, [ins. and] all the Philistines came up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down7 to the hold. 18The Philistines also [And the Philistines] came and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim. 19And David enquired of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, Shall I go up to the Philistines? wilt thou deliver them into mine hand? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto David, Go up; for I will doubtless 20[certainly] deliver the Philistines into thine hand. And David came to Baal-pera-zim,8 and David smote them there, and said, The Lord [Jehovah] hath broken forth upon [broken asunder] mine enemies before me as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baal-perazim. 21And there they left [they left there] their images,9 and David and his men burned them [took them away].

22And the Philistines came up yet again, and spread themselves in the valley of 23Rephaim. And when [om. when] David enquired of the Lord [Jehovah], [ins. and] he said, Thou shalt not go up; but [om. but] fetch a compass behind10 them, and come upon them over against the mulberry-trees [baca-trees]. 24And let it be, when thou hearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry-trees [baca-trees], that then thou shalt bestir thyself; for then shall [will] the Lord [Jehovah] go out before thee to smite the host of the Philistines. 25And David did so, as the Lord [Jehovah] had commanded him, and smote the Philistines from Geba until thou come to Gazer [Gezer].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

I. 2Sa 5:6-16. Victory over the Jebusites, conquest of the citadel of Zion, and fixing of Jerusalem as the capital.In keeping with the reminder of the elders that he had before led the people out and in to battle and victory, David now proceeds without delay to fulfil the warlike duties that devolved on him as king of Israel against the external enemies of the kingdom; for a principal condition of the establishment of internal unity and of the vigorous theocratic development of the national life was the purging of the land from the still powerful remains of the Canaanitish peoples.

2Sa 5:6-10. See the parallel 1Ch 11:4-9. The two accounts agree substantially; being taken from a common source, they complement and confirm one another in particular statements, of which each has some peculiar to itself. [In respect to these differences it is important to remember that in general Samuel is more biographical and annalistic, Chronicles more historiographical.Tr.]-2Sa 5:6. And the king and his men wentthat is, according to the Chronicler, the Israelitish warriors who gathered around him from all Israel, and were now united with his former soldiersto Jerusalem against the Jebusites.This undertaking followed immediately on the anointing in Hebron, as is evident from the statement (2Sa 5:5) that Davids reign in Jerusalem was co-extensive with his reign over all Israel (Keil). After the word Jerusalem, instead of unto the Jebusites saying, Chronicles has: that is Jebus, and there (are) the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, and the inhabitants of Jebus said to David. Which of the two forms is nearer to the original account in the common source must remain undetermined. [Well-hausen remarks that the original author would not have written Jerusalem, that is, Jebus, but more naturally Jebus, that is, Jerusalem; the Chron. inserts this statement in order to explain the transition from Jerusalem to the Jebusitesand this leads to the further remark that the Jebusites were dwelling in the land According to this, the author of Chronicles (who wrote after the Exile) introduces this historical explanation as necessary for his time.Tr.] The Jebusites11 belonged to the great Canaanitish race (Gen 10:6), who dwelt, when the Israelites took possession of Palestine, in the mountain-district of Judah by the Hittites and Amorites (comp. Num 13:30; Jos 11:3), especially at the place afterwards called Jerusalem, and under kings, Jos 10:1; Jos 10:23. Neither Joshua (Jos 15:8; Jos 15:63; Jos 18:28), who conquered the Jebusites along with other Canaanitish tribes in a battle (Jos 11:3 sq.), nor the children of Judah, who only got possession of the lower city (Jdg 1:8; comp. Jos. Ant. V. 2, 2), nor the Benjaminites, to whom the city had been assigned (Jos 18:28), could conquer the strong citadel of Jebus on Mount Zion, which was the centre of their dwellings spread out in the land, that is, around Jerusalem (Jdg 1:21; Jdg 19:11 sq.). In the time of the Judges Jebus is still called a strange city, in which are some of the children of Israel (Jdg 19:12). But as long as this point was unconquered, the possession of southern and middle Palestine was unassured; and so Davids first act was the siege and capture of the citadel. Relying on its hitherto invincible strength, they declared that David could not get into it; but the blind and the lame repel theethat is, if only blind and lame defend it, thou canst not take the citadel,12 saying (=namely, the Jebusites meant to say), David will not come in hither. Some have supposed (after Josephus) that the Jebusites had really in derision of David put lame and blind men on the wall, trusting to the strength of their citadel; an expression that is by no means so strange (Then.) as that which regards the blind and lame as the idol-images of the Jebusites, which they had placed on their walls for protection, and had so called in order to scoff at the Israelites, who (Psa 115:4 sq. et al.) described heathen idols as blind and lame (Cler., Luth., Wasse [de ccis et claudis Jebusorum, Witt., 1721]). Would the Jebusites have used such expressions of their gods?13 This saying of the Jebusites is not found in Chronicles. [Omitted in Chron. perhaps as being obscure, or else as unnecessary to the general sense, Chronicles avoiding details that do not bear on its main aim, the history of the development of the theocratic cultus.Tr.]

2Sa 5:7 it is briefly remarked that in spite of this braggart reliance of the Jebusites on the impregnability of their fortress, David took it. This old Jebusite city and fortress lay on the highest of the hills or mountains that surrounded Jerusalem, Mount Zion (2Ki 19:31; Isa 4:5; Isa 29:8; Psa 48:3), which stretched out in the south and south-west of the city, mount Ophel and Moriah on the east (more precisely north-east) lying opposite, separated from it by a precipitous ravine. See more in Winer s. v. [and in the Bible Dictionaries and books of travel; Philippson has a good description of Jerusalem in his Comm. on this passage. It is not yet possible however to restore with precision the Jerusalem of Davids time.Tr.] The name Zion probably=the dry mountain (from to be dry). [See Psa 78:17; Psa 105:41; Isa 25:5, where the root occurs. Some take the name to mean sunny (Ges.), others lofty (Abarb. in Philippson). The rock-formation on which the city stands is limestone.Tr.] The explanatory addition, city of David, anticipates what is narrated in 2Sa 5:9. From this mountain, where David built (whence arose the city of David, that is, the Upper City) and resided, the city extended itself northward and eastward. [The name City of David was sometimes given afterwards to Jerusalem, Isa 29:1; and see 1Ki 11:43; 1Ki 15:8 for its use as burial-place of the kings.Tr.]

2Sa 5:8. David had said, the sense requiring the Plup. (Then.)an appended incident of the capture in connection with the derisive words of the Jebusites. We must undoubtedly assume a reference to those words in the treatment of the following difficult and variously explained saying of David. The blind and lame are the Jebusites themselves, so called by David in answer to their scornful words. We must further suppose that the assailants had a difficult task before them, and were all the more embittered by the derisive remarks of the Jebusites, as Davids words indicate. In the attempt to explain this obscure passage, the principal point is the meaning of the expression ba-zinnor, [Eng. A.V.: to the gutter]. Zinnor occurs elsewhere only Psa 42:8, where the meaning assigned by several expositors (mostly with regard to our passage), conduit, canal, does not suit at all, but the connection (in which the Psalmist speaks of the roaring of violently swelling and plunging waves) indicates the signification to be that adopted (after Sept. ) by Keil, Moll, Delitzsch, and others, cataract, waterfall. Ewald accordingly translates: Every one who conquers the Jebusites, let him cast down the precipice both the lame, etc.; and this of all the attempts at explanation is the simplest in sense and construction, suiting the locality also, since Mount Zion had steep declivities on the east, south and west, which, with the opposite-lying heights, formed deep gorges. Yet it is better with Keil to keep more strictly to the signification of the word according to Psa 42:8, and to take it as meaning not with Ewald the precipitous declivity of the rock that produces the waterfall, but the waterfall itself. We are therefore not to think of an aqueduct, by cutting off which the capture of the citadel was decided (Sthelin), nor water pipes for carrying off the rain from the height (Vatab., Cler.), nor gutters (Luther), nor a subterranean passage (Joseph.). But there is nothing opposed to the supposition of a waterfall on one of the declivities. At present the south-east part of the ridge, which slopes somewhat toward the northwest (the ridge running from south to north) is still the point where appear the only springs in Jerusalem, at the foot of the declivity (comp. E. Hoffmann, Das gelobte land, 1871, p. 116 sq.). There is the pool of Siloah in the valley Tyropon [cheesemongers valley], on the border of Zion and Moriah, which receives its water from a lofty-lying basin hewn out of the rocky side of Zion,14 into which it flows from springs that break forth higher up. Might not this be conjecturally the precipice spoken of in our passage, if the question of locality (a precise answer to which is impossible) is to be raised? But in another place also, for example, on the west, where is found the lower pool under the highest part of the northwestern corner of Zion, there might be waterfalls which in the precipitous descent of the rocky declivity plunged into a gorge. According to this view, David gives strict orders that when the Jebusites are overcome in the fortress, where the space was relatively limited, their slain should be thrown into the waterfall. He calls them the lame and the blind, taking up their own words, with reference, perhaps, at the same time, to the expression every one that smiteth, etc; the fallen and slain in the battle (regarded as a victory) are to be cast down15 the precipice, that the citadel may be free and habitable for the Israelites. The next clause may be rendered they hate, or who hate, pointing the verb as 3 plu. Perf.; the absence of the Eel. Pron. (Keil) is not a decisive objection to this rendering; comp. Ges. 123, 3; Ew. 332, 333 b. But the connection and warlike tone make the marginal pointing (Pass. Partcp.) also appropriate: who are hated of Davids soul, that is, hated by David in his soul. Both of these admissible renderings point to the fact that the Israelites had to maintain a furious, embittered combat with this enemy who so confidently and scornfully boasted of his strong fortress, and they were directed to make short work of it with the blind and lame in the assault, and clear the ground of the enemy straightway. Therefore they say: Blind and lame will not come into the house.That is, one holds no intercourse with disagreeable, hateful people like the Jebusites; or, with reference to the crippled condition of lame and blind persons, the sense is: will not get home, like those blind and lame plunged into the precipice and unable to get back.16 Into the house. Some (Buns., Then.) understand by this the temple, and assume (with reference to Act 3:2; Joh 9:1; Joh 8:59) an old law, forbidding the blind and the lame to enter the temple, which law the narrator derives from this incident; but this view is wholly without support. This explanation [Erdmanns explanation of the whole passage] avoids the difficulty that ensues when Davids address is taken as protasis merely, and the apodosis supplied [as in Eng. A. V., Philippson]. Against Thenius rendering: he who smites the Jebusites (paves the way to the capture of the city, in that he first) reaches the battlements and the lame and the blindhim Davids soul envies apart from its unwarranted changes of text17it is rightly remarked by Bttcher that its tone is too modern: one cannot well think of David as showing envy at such a military exploit (unfortunately not open to him), in order to inflame the ardor of his warriors. Bttcher translates: he who smites the Jebusites shall attain the staff, that is, become captain; against which it is to be remarked with Thenius that he has not succeeded in showing (Zeitschr. d. morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1857, p. 541 sq.) that zinnor means captains staff, and that, according to the unrestricting phrase every one that smites, David would have had a good many staffs of the sort to bestow; and for the same reason the remark of the Chronicler (1Ch 11:6, which omits our 2Sa 5:8) that David announced that whoever first smote the Jebusites should be chief and captain, and Joab won this prize, is not to be taken as an exhibition of the sense of our passage (against Bttcher). Maurer changes the text18 and translates: He who has smitten the Jebusites and reached the canal, let him slay those blind and lame, to which the objection is the tautology in protasis and apodosis. Maurers other rendering:19 whoever shall slay the Jebusites and reach with the sword either the lame or the blind, him will Davids soul hate [that is, as Maurer explains, David forbids his men to slay the Jebusites with the sword, in order that these boasters might die a shameful death.Tr.], contains, as Thenius rightly remarks, a contradictio in adjecto, and David would, according to this, have desired something impossible. Joab, having led the stormers in the attack, was named by David head and prince, that is, elevated to the rank of general-in-chief of the whole army of Israel, which, according to 2Sa 2:13, he could not yet have been. [The decisive objection to Erdmanns rendering: let him cast into the waterfall the blind, etc., is that the verb () whether in Qal or in Hiphil, cannot be so translated. In Qal it means only to reach, touch, strike, the object reached being usually introduced by ; in Hiph it means to cause to touch, to join, to raze, usually followed by , , or . In the passages most favorable to Erdmanns rendering, such as Eze 13:14; Isa 26:5, the object introduced by the Prep, is that to which something is brought (corresponding to the signification touch of the verb), not that into which it is cast. Similarly, for reasons derived from the construction of the verb, we must reject the interpretation of Bib. Com.: whosoever will smite the Jebusites, let him reach both the lame and the blind, who are the hated of Davids soul, by the water-course, and he shall be chief, which, moreover, hardly renders the in the first ) (it must here= and, though it might as an emendation of text be omitted). The natural conception of the passage would lead us to take zinnor as the object reached (so Eng. A. V., Philippson, Cahen), but it is very difficult in that case to find a satisfactory meaning for this word, or to construe the following words. Wellhausen would take it to mean some part of the body, a blow on which or violent grasping of which produces death, and Hitzig suggested the ear, others the throat (zinnor being supposed to mean a tube); but the absolute form of the word (let him seize the throat) is opposed to this rendering, and the construction of the following words presents a difficulty, even if we suppose the to be used as equivalent to . Taking zinnor (as seems safest) to mean channel, canal, the whole context and tone suggests that the blind and the lame is the object of the verb smite, or some similar verb, and it is not unlikely that the inversion of the Eng. A. V. (though an impossible translation of the present text) gives the general sense. The supplying of an apodosis is harsh, but we have here only a choice of difficulties. No defensible translation of the passage has yet been proposed, and it is natural to conjecture that the text is corrupt, though its restoration is now perhaps impossible.Tr.]

2Sa 5:9. Two things are here said: 1) David took up his abode in the conquered Jebusite citadel, which with its buildings formed the Upper City, and called it the City of David. Chron.: therefore it is called the city of David. He made it the royal residence (which was equivalent to making Jerusalem the capital), on account of its remarkable strength, through which alone the Jebusites had been able to hold it so long, and on account of its very favorable position on the border between Judah and Benjamin, almost in the centre of the land. 2) The building up of this city. And David built round about from the Millo and inward.The Def. Art. before Millo shows that this work was already in existence at the time of the capture, having been founded by the Jebusites. From the connection the Millo must have belonged to the citadel on Zion and have formed a part of the fortification. This alone would set aside the explanation of the word (founded on the etymology = a filling out) as = outfilling embankment, an earthwall, which ran aslant through the Wady and connected Mount Zion with the opposite-lying temple-mountain (Krafts Topog., p. 94, Schultz, Jerus. 80, Ewald and others)apart from the fact that that connection is shown by the latest investigations to have been not an earthwall, but a bridge resting on arches (Tobler, Dritte Wande-rung, p. 223 sq.). But a comparison of Jdg 9:6; Jdg 9:20; Jdg 9:46-49, puts it beyond doubt that Millo is the castle proper of the citadel or fortification=Bastion, a strong fortified tower or separate fortification which is called house in Jdg 9:6; Jdg 9:20; 2Ki 12:21. The fort designed to protect the citadel and Upper City on Zion, lay no doubt at the point most exposed to hostile attack, that is, the northwest end of Zion, where the castle still stands. From the Millo out David built around and inward, that is, while Millo formed the most advanced fortification, he built in connection with it and out from it on Zion, 1) roundabout the city and citadel for further fortification, as was necessary especially on the north towards the Lower City, where an attack could be most easily made, and 2) inward, so that the Upper City (City of David or of Zion) was extended by houses and defensive edifices, and more and more covered the mountain. The Chronicler (1Ch 11:8) expresses substantially the same thing: from one surrounding to the other, that is, the whole space between the fortifications which were built around. As it is here clearly only buildings designed to fortify and extend the city on Zion that are spoken of, Josephus has misunderstood this passage when he relates (Ant. 7, 3, 2) that David surrounded the Lower City and the citadel with a wall, and united them into one. Comp. Winer. s. v. and Arnold in Herzog, s. v. Zion (XVIII. 623 sq.). On the extension of the Millo and the other fortifications by Solomon see 1Ki 9:15; 1Ki 9:24; 1Ki 11:27. [See also 2Ch 32:5.Bib. Com. refers to Lewins Siege of Jerusalem. p. 256 sq., where it is argued from the etymology and the mentions in the Bible that the great platform, called the Haram esh-Sherif (1500 by 900 feet) was itself Millo, and Mr. Lewin thinks that Solomons Palace (Beth-Millo, so called from abutting on Millo) was built on a terrace immediately below, and to the south of the Temple-area.Patrick: Some take Millo to be the low place between the fort and the city, which was now filled with people.On the Palace of Solomon see Recovery of Jerusalem (Am. Ed.) pp. 84, 91, 222, 249, and see also the remarks on the Haram esh-Sherif.Tr.]. According to 1Ch 11:9, Joab renewed the rest of the city, that is, he restored at Davids command what was destroyed in the capture. He thus seems as chief and captain to have been charged also with other than military affairs.

2Sa 5:10. General statement of the continuous advance and growth of David in power and consideration. Observe, 1) how this is referred to the highest source, not merely to Gods assistance, but to the fact that God was with him, and 2) how God is in this connection called the God of Hosts.

2Sa 5:11-16. Davids house. Building of a royal residence, and extension of his family. Comp. 1Ch 14:1-7.And Hiram, king of Tyre, sent messengers unto David.This name is written variously, Heb. Hiram or Huram ( 2Ch 2:2), Phnician Hirom (1 Kings 5:24, 32), Sept. (Cheiram), Joseph., Eiram and Eirom. That this king Hiram, who was in friendly connection with David, is the same Hiram that was Solomons friend and ally, and his helper in building the Temple and palace, is clear not only from 2Ch 2:2 : as thou hast done to David my father, (so do to me also), but also from 1Ki 5:15 : Hiram had always been Davids friend. We can neither suppose therefore, with Ewald, that this king Hiram is the grandfather of Solomons friend of the same name, nor with Thenius that his (our Hirams) father is here meant, whose name according to Menander of Ephesus (in Joseph, cont. Ap. I. 18) was Abibaal, whether this be considered a surname to the proper name Hiram, or it be held that the two persons are here confounded. The occasion to this hypothesis has been given by the difference that exists between the Biblical chronological statements and those of Josephus after Menander. The latter relates (Jos. ubi sup.) that Hiram succeeded his father Abibaal, and that he died in the thirty-fourth year of his reign and the fifty-third of his life. With this is to be connected the statement of Josephus (ubi sup. and Ant. 8, 3, 1) that Solomon began the temple in the twelfth year of Hiram. Now, according to 1Ki 9:10 sq., Hiram was still living after twenty years of Solomons reign, counting from the beginning of the Temple-building (and therefore twenty-four years of his reign in all) had elapsed, namely seven years for the building of the Temple (1Ki 6:38, and thirteen years for the building of the palace (2Sa 7:1). On comparing these statements of the Bible and Josephus, it appears that Hiram reigned at the most eight years contemporaneously with David, and that therefore David began his palace in about the seventh year before his death, that is, in the sixty-third year of his life, and that his determination to build a temple to the Lord (which was after the completion of his palace, 2Sa 7:2) was not made till the last years of his life. Both these conclusions, however, are incompatible with our passage and with 2 Samuel 7.; for the position of these two narratives in the connection of the history leaves no doubt that both things belonged to Davids prime of manhood. It has indeed been declared, in order to set aside the discrepancy, that the Books of Samuel narrate events not so much in chronological order as in the connection of things, and that here the building of the palace, which occurred much later, is related in connection with other buildings (Movers, Phniz. . 1, 147 sq., Rtschi in Herzog. s. v. Hiram, Sthelin, spez. Einl. 107). And in fact it must be admitted that Davids palace-building, which must have taken time, and supposes a corresponding period of rest and peace, probably did not (as might appear from the narrative) follow immediately on the conquest of Zion, before the Philistine war (2Sa 5:17) which broke out as soon as the Philistines heard of Davids anointment as king over Israel, but after this war. The historian has rather attached to the conquest of Zion and its choice as Davids residence not only what David gradually did to strengthen and beautify the new capital, but also the account of his wives and the children that were born to him in Jerusalem. (Keil). But though in detached instances a topical rather than a chronological arrangement of the material is to be recognized, it is nevertheless not probable in itself that David would have deferred the building of a royal palace till the last part of his life; and further, this, as Winer rightly observes, would not accord with 2Sa 11:2, where the palace whence David sees Bathsheba is called the kings palace, which is to be understood, not of the simple house that David took as his dwelling-place on Mount Zion immediately after its capture, but of the place that he had had built for himself there. Comp. 2Sa 7:1-2. And if the affair with Bathsheba occurred when David was an old man, which is in itself highly improbable, Solomon, who was born a couple of years later, would have been a little child when he ascended the throne. If David had not resolved on the building of the Temple till in advanced life, or towards the close of his life, we could not harmonize this fact with 1Sa 7:12, and 1Ch 22:9, according to which Solomon was not yet born when David received the divine promise there mentioned. If therefore the account of the palace-building is in this place chronologically anticipatory, the building is nevertheless not to be put towards the end of Davids reign. We are therefore forced to assume a longer reign for king Hiram, and to suppose inaccuracies in the chronological statements of Josephus, as has been shown to be true in the periods of reign of the succeeding Tyrian kings, even when he refers to Menander. See more in Movers (ubi supra) and Keil on this verse.[On Tyre see Movers and Arts, in Bib. Dict.Tr.]

It is not said that the object of this embassy, as in Solomons case (1Ki 9:15), was to congratulate David on his accession to the throne (Then.), and this is improbable from the length of time (presupposed in his purpose to build) that must have elapsed since his accession. We should rather infer from the sending of cedar wood and workmen along with the messengers, that David had previously put himself in connection with Hiram, partly to maintain a good understanding with a powerful neighbor, partly and especially to obtain the help of this king (who was renowned for his magnificent edifices, Mov. . 1, 190 sq.) in his building plans.The eastern part of Lebanon (Antilibanus), which belonged to Israel, produced only firs, pines and cypresses (Rob. Pal. . 723)20; the northwestern part, which alone was covered with cedar-forests, and furnished the best cedar for building, belonged to Phnicia. On account of its strength, durability, beauty and fragrance, the cedar-wood was much used for costly building and wainscoting.Through Tyrian workmen David began the splendid structures of cedar in Jerusalem, which had so increased in Jeremiahs time that he could exclaim to the city: Thou dwellest on Lebanon and makest thy nest in the cedars [ Jer 22:23].

2Sa 5:12. And David perceived, namely, from his success externally against Israels enemies and in the connection with the friendly king of Tyre, and internally in the establishment of unity in Israel and in the execution of his plans, that the Lord had established him King over Israel; the established (in contrast with the previous divine choice of David as king and the fate of Sauls kingdom) refers to the divine providences, through Which, as David clearly saw, all doubt as to the permanence of his kingdom was ended, and it immovably established. And that he had exalted his kingdom (Chron: and that his kingdom was exalted on high [I. 2Sa 14:2]) for his people Israels sake, that is, not for the sake of the blessing that rested on his people Israel (Bunsen), nor simply because he had chosen them (Then.), but because he wished to rule them as his (chosen) people through Davids kingdom, glorify himself in them and make them a great and mighty people according to his covenant-faithfulness.

2Sa 5:13-16. Account of the growth of Davids house and family, appended to the summary statement concerning the establishment of his kingdom and his palace-building. Concubines and wives.David follows the custom of eastern princes, and gathers a numerous harem. See the law against this, Deu 17:17. The concubines are mentioned first in order to bring out prominently the extension of the harem, as an essential part of oriental court-state, and as a symbol of royal power. The omission of the concubines in 1Ch 14:3 is not to be regarded as intentional (against Then.), for Davids concubines are mentioned in 1Ch 3:9.From Jerusalem () is not = elsewhere than in Jerusalem, which view (Keil) cannot be based on the following words, after he came from Hebron, but (because of this very chronological statement) = from, that is, out of Jerusalem, substantially agreeing with Chron.: in Jerusalem. After changing his residence from Hebron to Jerusalem, David took concubines and wives in the latter place also.The statement: sons and daughters were born to him shows clearly that, in all these summary accounts concerning family and building, a greater space of time than at the beginning of his reign is assumed; and this statement is here put proleptically not only before the following notice of the Philistine wars, but also before the narrative concerning Bathsheba. For among the sons of David (given in 1Ch 14:5-7, and also in 2Sa 3:5-8) occur here first the names of the four sons of Bathsheba: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. For Shammua Chron. (I. 2Sa 3:5) has Shimea, and for Elishua it has (2Sa 5:6) Elishama, a clerical error from the following Elishama. After Elishua, 1Ch 3:6; 1Ch 14:6 sq. have the two names Eliphalet (or Elpalet) and Nogah. This last is not to be taken as miswriting of Nepheg (Mov.). Thenius supposes that the latter (Nogah) has fallen out of our text by oversight, and that the former (Eliphalet) got into the text of Chron. by mistake from the following verse (2Sa 5:16), that David had, therefore, only eight sons, not nine (as in 1Ch 3:8) born in Jerusalem.Keil thinks that the names of these two sons are omitted in our passage because they died early, and the late-born Eliphalet (whose name stands last) received the name of his dead brother; but the question is involved in doubt. According to the former view David had in all eighteen sons, according to the latter nineteen, of whom six were born in Hebron (2Sa 3:2 sq.). Instead of Eliada 1Ch 14:7 has Beeliada, another form of the name, with Baal [= lord] instead of El [= God]. No daughter is named (see 2Sa 5:13), because daughters are in general not considered in genealogical lists. The only daughter that appears by name in the following history is Tamar, 2Sa 13:1. [Patrick: Kimchi says that Sam. gives the sons of the wives only, Chron., those of wives and concubines, which does not agree with 1Ch 3:9.It was looked on as a piece of political wisdom in princes to endeavor to have many children, that by matching them into many potent families they might strengthen their interest and authority.Tr.]

II. 2Sa 5:17-25. Davids victories over the Philistines, 1Ch 14:8-17.

2Sa 5:17. And when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israelthis was the occasion of the war. From Davids elevation to the throne of all Israel and the consequent unification of the people, the Philistines feared (and did their best to prevent) such increase in his power as would endanger their power and foot-hold not only in Palestine [Israel], but also in their own land. Hence, according to the narrative, their attack followed on the receipt of intelligence of his anointment, which must have come on them as a surprise. Ewald conjectures (but it is a mere conjecture, and unnecessary) that the occasion of the war was Davids withholding the tribute that he had paid the Philistines while he was in Hebron.And all the Philistines marched up, namely, from the lowlands of Judah which they held, or from their own land against the Israelitish army (with which David had attacked the Jebusites) which was on the mountain-plateau of Judah. As this Jebusite war followed immediately on Davids anointment (comp. 2Sa 5:3; 2Sa 5:6), and the gathering of all the Philistines was not the affair of a moment, it is for this reason alone an untenable view that these two victories probably belonged in the interval between the second anointment at Hebron and the capture of Zion (Keil). But the following words: And when David heard of it, he marched down to the hold, are decisive, for the reference (as the context shows) is here to Mount Zion, which is mentioned just before (2Sa 5:7; 2Sa 5:9); and this is proved also by the Def. Art., which (from the context) cannot refer to some other stronghold in Judah resorted to by David in Sauls time (so Keil, who cites 2Sa 23:14), but points to the citadel of Zion which is here twice named with emphasis as the centre of Davids position. The expression he went down to the hold is not against this view; for, though the citadel of Zion was so high that one ascended to it from all sides, yet its plateau was by no means a horizontal plain, but was made up of higher and lower parts, and David of course made his residence on the highest and safest part, the most favorable position for a military outlook, while the fortifications most protective against the enemy (enlarged by him, 2Sa 5:9) must certainly have lain on the relatively lower north-western side (in accordance with their design), and with this agrees the fact that the Philistines advanced to the attack from the west. David, accordingly, on hearing of the approach of the Philistines, went down from his residence to the fortifications on Zion, in order to make at this rendezvous and sally-point of his army the necessary preparations whether for defence (Maur.) or for attack. Maurer: David was not yet certain whether to defend himself at the walls, or to advance to meet the enemy, comp. 2Sa 5:19. There is no need, therefore, to change the text21 (Syr., Mich., Dathe) to siege (besiegers), the narrative giving no hint of a siege. It is by no means sure (Then.) from 2Sa 23:13-14, that the hold here referred to is the cave of Adullam; for, even if the incident here related was an episode in this Philistine war, it may very well have occurred after David had left the citadel to march against the Philistines, while they were encamped in the valley of Rephaim. [Still, the impression made on us is that David went down into the plain against the Philistines; thus in 2Sa 5:20 he does not go down, but comes to Baal-perazim, as if he were already in the plain. Perhaps the editor has here inserted a separate narrative of this war, so that the hold here may be different from the hold in 2Sa 5:9. Adullam was a strong place, and was fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch 11:7). If we take the narrative in 2Sa 23:13-17 to belong to the time of this war, it would show that David was at one time hard pressed; but this cannot be determined with certainty.Tr.]The phrase: to seek David, cannot prove that David had at this time not yet taken up his residence on Zion (Keil), but only that the aim of the Philistines was to get possession of the person of David so dangerous to them.

2Sa 5:18. The strategical position of the Philistines. Instead of our text-word spread themselves, 1Ch 14:9 has made an inroad (). The valley of Rephaim, according to Jos 15:8, was a fruitful plain,22 nearly three miles long by two wide, separated from the valley of Ben-hinnom (south and southwest of Jerusalem) by a ridge, and large enough to hold a large army in camp; it was named after the old Canaanitish giant-tribe, the Rephaim (Gen 14:5). Comp. Rob. I. 365 [Am. Ed. I. 219, 469], Tobl., Top. Jerus. II. 401 sq., and 3 Wand. 202, Winer II. 322, Thenius in Kuffers Stud. II. 137 sq. [For various opinions see Kitto, Porter, Bonar, Frst.Tr.] The Philistines had probably advanced from the west by way of Bethshemesh (comp. 1Sa 6:9).

2Sa 5:19. David inquires of the Lord (comp. 2Sa 2:1; 1Sa 23:2), 1) whether he shall march out against the Philistines, and 2) whether he shall get the victory over them. The expression shall I go up? is explained by the fact that David has led his army down from Mount Zion, the defence of which he had first to keep in view. He now advances to the attack from his position in the plain, which lay lower than the Philistines, perhaps near the cave of Adullam (Then.), after having inquired of the Lord and received an affirmative answer. He no doubt made a sudden impetuous attack, as is clear from the meaning of the name Baal-perazim, the place where he smote the Philistines. He said, namely (referring the victory to the Lord according to the Lords answer, 2Sa 5:19): The Lord hath broken asunder (or through) my enemies before me as the breach of waters, that is, as a violent torrent makes a rift or breach. All other explanations, that make the point of comparison the division of the water-mass itself, depart from the conception of the expression, and weaken the force of the image. The place where the battle was fought was thus called, from the way that David won it, Water breach, Bruch-hausen, Brechendorf (Keil) [Breach-ham, Break-thorpethe Heb. name = possessor of breaches.23Tr.]. It cannot have been far from the Valley of Rephaim. In Isa 28:21 it is called (with allusion to this battle) mount Perazim. This fills out the topographical description of the place, and in exact accordance with the name water-breach. As a torrent plunging from the mountain rends asunder everything before it, so David rushed with his army suddenly and unexpectedly on the Philistines, from a gorge opening into the valley of Rephaim, burst through and scattered them with impetuous and irresistible power. Perhaps he marched northward around the position of the Philistines, and attacked them from the rocky height (the border of the valley of Hinnom), that bounds the valley of Rephaim on the north, comp. Jos 15:8.

2Sa 5:21. And there they left their images behind, which they were doubtless accustomed to carry with them to war, in order to make the victory more certain.24 Clericus: as if they would feel the help of the gods more present, if they had their statues along. Perhaps they imitated the Hebrews, who sometimes carried the ark of God into camp. Their abandonment of their sacred images confirms the supposition (founded on the name of the scene of battle) that David made a sudden attack. Chron. has (by way of explanation) gods instead of images. According to our passage David took them away as spoil; according to Chron., they were at Davids command burned with fire. It cannot be determined whether this text of Chron. is an addition from another source (Movers), or taken from the same source as our text (Keil), or an explanatory remark of the Chronicler himself according to Deu 7:5; Deu 7:25, where the burning of heathen idols is prescribed. Thus the disgrace of the Philistine capture of the Ark was wiped out.

2Sa 5:22-25. Second invasion by the Philistines and victory over them.

2Sa 5:22. Their approach is described (as 2Sa 5:17) by the phrase: came up. They had therefore fled as far as the lowland on the west, but, as David had not pursued them, soon assembled again. They advance (as 2Sa 5:18) to the valley of Rephaim. Chron. (2Sa 5:13) has simply: in the valley, Rephaim being understood from the context, and in fact supplied by Sept., Syr. and Arab. [Joseph., Ant. 12, 7, 14) and Gadaris (Strabo XVI. 759)an old Canaanitish royal city (Jos 12:12), belonging to the tribe of Ephraim, who did not drive the Canaanites out of it (Jos 16:9-10; Jdg 1:29), in the south of Ephraim (whose border passed from Lower Beth-horon over Gezer to the sea north of Joppa), north-west of Beth-horon on the western declivity of Mount Ephraim, where the latter sank into the Philistine plain (Plain of Sharon). Solomon fortified it, along with other important military positions (1Ki 9:15-17), inasmuch as it formed a strong defence towards the south against the Philistines; for from this point an army might penetrate into the country and reach the capital far more easily than over the mountains of Judah (see Then. and Bhr in loco). It is noteworthy that this place plays an important part as fortress in the Maccabean time also, and that the route taken by Judas Maccabus from Emmaus to Gazer (1Ma 4:15) and from Adasa to Gazer (1Ma 7:45) is the same as this, namely, the north-westerly. Comp. v. Raumer, p. 191, and his map. For the Geba, from which David pursued the Philistines, is not = Gibeon (according to the inexact reading of Chron., which constantly changes the Gibeah of First Samuel into Gibeon, Sthelin, Leben Davids 38), which is adopted by Movers, Then., Keil, Dchselnor = Gibeah, whether Gibeah in Judah (Jos 15:57), 810 miles south-west of Jerusalem (Bertheau, Sthelin), or Gibeah of Samuel (Cler., Budd., O. v. Gerlach), neither of which could here come into consideration as a military positionbut it is the place known from 1Sa 13:15-23 as the camping-ground of Saul and Jonathan, on the southern border of the Wady-es-Suweinit, opposite Michmash (now Mukhmas) which is on the northern border of the Wady, where Rob. found a place Jeba (with ruins) still existing. Comp. Isa 10:29. See Rob., Bibliotheca Sacra, 1844, p. 598, and v. Raumer, 196, Furrer, Wanderungen, 212217, Fay [in Langes Biblework] on Jos 18:24. The battle therefore passed from the valley of Rephaim on the west of Jerusalem about nine miles northward to the plateau of Geba, where the Philistines vainly tried to make a stand, and, having the deep gorge of Michmash before them, took a north-westerly direction towards Bethhoron and Gezer. Here the pursuit ceased, because the Philistines were driven into the plain, and no danger could be apprehended from them. According to Joseph. (Ant. 7, 4. 1) Gazer was then their extreme northern limit. On the great extension of their power northward comp. Stark, Gaza, 170.[Gibeon (instead of Geba) is here preferred by many critics, because Gibeon lies more nearly on the road from Rephaim to Gezer; but the pursuit may easily have gone first north to Geba and then west to Gezer, as Erdmann points out. It is not to be expected, however, that we can settle with absolute certainty these minute geographical points.The phrase: till thou come to Gezer, does not necessarily mean: up to Gezer, but, like the similar expression: as thou goest, may = on the way to. See on 1Sa 27:8.Tr.]

In reference to the chronological relation of the account here, 2Sa 5:17-25, and that in 1Ch 14:8-17 it is to be remarked that the two differ, in that the former puts these victories without further statement in the beginning of Davids government over all Israel, the latter in the interval between the unsuccessful and the successful attempts to remove the Ark. Whether this exacter statement of time is correct cannot be determined with certainty (Sthelin, ubi sup., p. 37).

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

1. In his first royal deed of arms David, by a victory over the last Canaanites of any power that were left, completed the conquest of the land for the Lords covenant-people, and thus concluded the military work that was first entrusted by divine command to Joshua (Jos 1:1-9), but had been completed neither by him, nor by the Judges, nor by Saul. The result of this first exploit against the Jebusites was the firm establishment of the royal rule in the strongest position and in the centre of the land.

2. In Davids person and government the Covenant-God, the King of His people, takes His royal seat on Mount Zion, and the city that David builds there is (with old Jerusalem under Zion) called, as being the theocratic dwelling-place and holy city of God, the city of the great King (Mat 5:35). In the historical books the City of David (2Sa 5:9) always has the narrower signification of the old Upper City or Davids city, being used only in poetry of the whole city (Isa 22:9; comp. Isa 31:1) while according to 1Ki 8:2; 2Ch 6:2; 1Ch 15:1; 1Ch 15:29; it is distinctly differenced from Jerusalem as a whole. So Zion in the historical books means originally only Mount Zion, on which the city of David lay, but is used by Poets and Prophets for Jerusalem in general, in allusion to its character as Gods royal dwelling-place and throne (see Arnold, Zion in Herzog XVIII., Hupfeld in Zeitschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. ges. XV., p. 224, Rem. 67). From the time of Davids making his residence on Mount Zion dates in the theocratic language of the Old Covenant the terminology of Gods royal dwelling and enthronement in the midst of His people on His regnal seat, Mount Zion. See Psa 3:5 [4]: He hears me from His holy mountain. Psa 9:12 [11]: Sing ye to the Lord, who is enthroned on Zion. Psa 15:1; Psa 24:3; Isa 8:18; Joel 4:16, 21, and other passages. Zion is the royal seat of the future Anointed of the Lord, of whom David with his theocratical kingdom is the type, and concerning whom the promise in 2 Samuel 7 comes to him, the fulfillment of which is the matter of the prophetic declaration in Psalms 2, 89, 110. Mount Zion is the geographical-historical symbol of the dominion of the Messiah to be sent by God to His people, and of the extension of the Messianic kingdom of God from this as centre. Hengstenberg on Psa 2:6 : Zion, the holy mountain of the Lord, is the fitting seat for His king; for as after Davids time it was the centre of Israel, so is it destined to become some day the centre of the world, for from Zion goes forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isa 2:3).

3. The military stamp of the first part of Davids reign is the pre-indication of the military character of the whole of it. That the theocracy in Israel may be developed, he purges the land of the remains of the heathen, extends the borders of Israel, and secures for the people the possession of the land and the maintenance of their boundaries by mighty victories over all their enemies. In the Psalms of David we hear the echo of this warlike and victorious theocracy. They are mostly songs of conflict and victory in praise of the God who saved His people from their enemies. Psalms 9. may serve as an example of them all, much of it corresponding with Davids experiences in these first wars and victories, though it cannot be said that it was composed with special reference thereto.

4. Several prominent features characteristic of the prophetical-theocratical historiography appear in this section (which embraces the elevation of David to the throne of Israel, his wars against internal and external enemies): 1) the relation between king and people is described as essentially a covenant before the Lord (2Sa 5:3); 2) it is declared to be the task and calling of the theocratic king to be shepherd and captain of the people (2Sa 5:2); 3) the reference of all the kings successes to the highest and last source, the God of Sabaoth, who was with him, whereby all his own human merit is excluded (2Sa 5:10); 4) the conception of all these events whereby Davids kingdom was confirmed and recognized even by the powerful heathen king of Tyre, through whose friendly relations with David it was exalted and honored at home and abroad, as ordinations of God, the object of which was to establish Davids kingdom as a divine institution, and give him the assurance that he was confirmed by the Lord immediately as king over Israel (2Sa 5:12); 5) the repeated exhibition of Davids humble subjection of his will to the will of God, which he seeks and asks after, that he may have a sure path in what he is to do, which path the divine answer shows him (2Sa 5:19; 2Sa 5:23); and 6) the express declaration of Davids unconditional active obedience to the Lords will, which is revealed to him in a definite Yes and No (2Sa 5:25).

5. All the powers and goods of the world which have their origin in the might and goodness of God, are employed by Him also for the ends of His wisdom in the government of His kingdom of grace (which is founded on His positive self-revelation) and of His people. The help of the heathen king in Davids Zion-buildings (and so in Solomons Temple) sets forth the great truth that all the art and treasures of the lower, natural world are to be subservient to the higher world, which has entered humanity through the kingdom of God, and to contribute to the glorification of the name of God. Bhr on 1Ki 5:15-18 : Israel was destined not to foster the arts, but to be the bearer of divine revelation, and to secure for all nations the knowledge of the one living and holy God; thereto had God chosen this people out of all peoples, and therewith is closely connected its manner of life and occupation, yea, its whole development and history. To the attainment of this its destiny the other nations had to contribute with the special gifts and powers which had been lent them. Israel, in spite of faults and errors, stood as high above the Phnicians in the knowledge of the truth, as they above Israel in technic and artistic performances (comp. Duncker, Gesch. u. Alterth., p. 317320); distinguished as was Phnicia for arts and industries, its religion was nevertheless the most perverted and its cultus the rudest (Duncker, ubi sup., 155 sq.).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

2Sa 5:6-9. The stronghold25 on Mount Zion: 1) How it is gained: a) by holy war against the enemies of Gods kingdom; b) by holy victory, which God vouchsafes. 2) How it is maintained: a) in defiance of Gods enemies, and b) as a reliance for Gods friends.

2Sa 5:10-12. The true kingdom by the grace of God: 1) It is firmly founded through the Lords power; 2) It grows and prospers under the Lords blessing; 3) It renders subservient to itself the Lords enemies; 4) It serves the Lord in the Lords people.

2Sa 5:12. The true salutary relation between government and people rests on two things: 1) That the people recognize the authorities as set over them by Gods grace, and honor them. 2) That the authorities regard themselves as constituted by God only for the peoples welfare, and fulfil their calling to that end.

2Sa 5:17-25. The war-counsel from on high: 1) How it is inquired afterby looking above. 2) How it is impartedby the voice from above. 3) How it is carried outby help from above.Victory comes from the Lord: 1) When it is beforehand humbly asked for according to the Lords will and word; 2) When the battle is undertaken in the Lords name and for His cause; 3) When it is fought with obedient observation of the Lords directions and guidance.

The Lord will go out before thee (2Sa 5:24): 1) A word of consolation in sore distress; 2) A word of encouragement amid inward conflict; 3) A word of exhortation to unconditional obedience of faith; 4) A word of assurance of the victory which the Lord gives.

The rustling of the Lords approaching help in the tops of the trees (2Sa 5:24): 1) Dost thou wait for it at His bidding? 2) Dost thou hear it with the right heed? 3) Dost thou understand it in the right sense? 4) Dost thou follow it without delay?

2Sa 5:6-9. Krummacher: David dwells now in Mount Zion, the crown of the land, and from here on begins the history of Jerusalem, which as the history of a city has not its like in grandeur, in change of fortunes, and in importance for the whole world.Now exalted to heaven, now cast down to hell, thrice destroyed to the foundations and always rising again from the ruins, now given up to the heathen, plundered, covered with shame, and then again crowned with the highest honors, the city stands on its seven hills amid the cities of the earth as a high seven-branched candlestick, from which shines forth into the world both the consuming flame of Gods holiness and justice, and the mild and blessed light of the divine long-suffering, love, compassion and covenant-faithfulness.

2Sa 5:6 sq. S. Schmid: In that which God has commanded, we must not look to what others have done before us, but to Gods command (1Sa 15:22-23).Schlier: The Lord, who delivered Jerusalems stronghold into Davids hand, still lives to-day, and will, so far as it is good for us, always help us still in every time of need, and well is it for all them that trust in Him.

2Sa 5:10. [Henry: Those that have the Lord of hosts for them need not fear what hosts of men or devils can do against them. Those who grow I great must ascribe it to the presence of God with them, and give Him the glory of it.Tr.]Berl. Bible: The world thinks little of it when it is said, God be with a man. But it is assuredly no trifle, it is the greatest of all things, for one to have with him the God of all the hosts of heaven and earth.Krummacher: O blessed is the man on whose heart nothing so presses as this, that in all his doings he may be with God and God with him.

2Sa 5:11. Cramer: A glorious testimony that even the heathen will serve Christ.Starke: God knows how to incline towards pious rulers the minds of neighboring princes and kings, so that they may show them all friendly good-will (Pro 21:1)

2Sa 5:12. J. Lange: Great lords exist for the sake of their subjects, not these for their sake: O that the fact might be recognized![2Sa 5:13-16. Scott: Alas! even good men are apt to grow secure and self-indulgent in prosperity, and to sanction by their example those abuses which they should oppose or repress; and all our returns for the Lords mercies are deeply tinged with ingratitude.Tr.

2Sa 5:17. Schlier: Then might David clearly enough see that there is appointed to man no true resting-time upon earth. Davids life was a warfare, and from one strife it went on into another, and when he thought to have found rest, then battle and strife began anew. Our life upon earth is not yet the resting-time; what awaits us is strife and warfare.Cramer: The pious never cease to encounter opposition; therefore whoever wishes to be pious, let him prepare for this (Luk 14:28).Krummacher: The old enemy of Israel stood again in arms upon the plain. God the Lord knows how to mingie always with the encouragements which He gives His friends so much also of the humbling as suffices to secure them against the danger of losing their equilibrium.

2Sa 5:19 sqq. Schlier: Whatever we undertake then, we must look to the Lord in beginning it, and it should be to us a matter of earnest concern that we may really have the Lords word and will on our side.So long as we have a good cause, we too may comfort ourselves with the help of the Lord; but what does it help if we pray and have a bad cause, or use Gods word, and yet do not walk in the Lords ways! Gods word and prayer make no bad cause good, but help only when we undertake a good, God-pleasing work. And there is one more thing we must not overlook if we wish really to have the Lords help, namely, that we must be acting only and entirely for the Lords cause and honor. How did it stand, properly speaking, between Israel and the Philistines? On the one side was the Lord, and on the other the idols; there was the Lords people, and here an idolatrous or heathen people. So the conflict was the cause of the Lord; the Lords name and kingdom was in question; Davids defeat would have been the Lords defeat; a victory for David was the Lords victory.

2Sa 5:20. Berl. Bible: David will not agree that the honor of the victory which he has gained by the help of Gods goodness shall be ascribed to him, but rather to God.Cramer: Believers when they have been rescued from distress should heartily thank God for it, and recognize that the victory comes from Him; for He fights for His Church (Psa 50:15; Psa 115:1).

2Sa 5:21. Berl. Bib.: Men do not commonly let their idols go until they have been smitten by God, and do not quite let them go even then.

2Sa 5:23-25. Krummacher: It rustles in the tops of the baca-trees, as if an invisible host were passing over them. We know what this meant for him. Nothing less than what was once meant for Jacob by his dream of the heavenly ladder, for Moses by the burning bush that was not consumed, for Elijah by the still, small voice on Horeb, and for Saul by the light which shone round him from heaven. The Lord was near and would go out for him.Berl. Bible: God Himself gives to those who tranquilly trust in Him to know His will, and also places them in a position to be able to carry it out.Krummacher: The word of the Lord: As soon as thou shalt hear the rustling in the tops bestir thyself, applies figuratively to us also in our spiritual conflict with the children of unbelief in the world. There too it comes to nothing that one should make war with his own prowess and merely in the human equipment of reason and science. Success can only be reckoned on when the conflict is waged amid the blowing of the Holy Spirits breath and with the immediate gracious presence of the Lord and of the truth of His word.[Henry: But observe, though God promised to go before them and smite the Philistines, yet David, when he heard the sound of this going, must bestir himself, and be ready to pursue the victory. Gods grace must quicken our endeavors. Php 2:12-13.Tr.]

[2Sa 5:6-7. Men are prone to rely on strong fortifications, so as to feel no fear of successful attack, and no need of help from God. So at a later period the men of the southern kingdom were at ease in this same Zion, and those of the northern kingdom trusted in the mountain of Samaria, which was also a very strong place, and neither Judah nor Israel felt that their help came from Jehovah (Amo 6:1-8). The same principle applies as to all reliance on mere human agencies, without recognizing our dependence on God; for example, on religious societies and boards, eloquent preachers, active pastors, famous revivalists, beautiful houses of worship, etc.Tr.]

[2Sa 5:12. A good man in great prosperity. 1) He ascribes it all to the Lord. 2) He regards it as given him for the benefit of his fellow-men. (This is the text of Maurices Sermon on David the King, see Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament.Tr.]

[2Sa 5:17 sqq. The Philistines could conquer Saul, who had been forsaken by God for his disobedience; but they only stimulate David to fulfil his divine calling (2Sa 3:18), and to seek divine guidance (2Sa 5:19).Tr.]

[2Sa 5:24. In like manner, when we perceive signs of the Spirits special presence among us, we should bestir ourselves to secure the blessed results.Tr.]

[Chap. 5. King Davids first years of sunshine. After struggling through so many years of darkness, he now gains 1) a new crown, 2Sa 5:1-3; 2 Samuel 2) a new capital, 2Sa 5:6-9; 2 Samuel 3) a new palace, 2Sa 5:11; 2 Samuel 4) new victories over the old enemy, 2Sa 5:17-25; and in them all, 5) new proofs of Jehovahs favor, 2Sa 5:2; 2Sa 5:10; 2Sa 5:22; 2Sa 5:19; 2Sa 5:24.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[2]2Sa 5:6. Instead of king we find David in several MSS., in Sept., and in 1Ch 11:4, and king David in Syr., Ar.; we can feel the differences that these readings make in the tone of the narrative, but it is hardly possible to decide which of them is original.Tr.]

[3][2Sa 5:6. Eng. A. V. has here unnecessarily inverted the clauses; read: thou shalt not come in hither except, etc.; so Sym., Chald., Syr., Vulg., pointing as Inf. But others point it Perf. plu. and render: thou shalt not come in hither, but ( ) the blind and the lame will keep thee away (Sept., Then., Bttch., Wellh., Bib. Com., Erdmann and others), which rendering (making the blind and the lame the subject of the sentence) Philippson declares to be unnecessary and ungrammatical. The sentence presents serious grammatical difficulties: on the one hand the requires a finite verb after it (when a noun follows it, it is always as object of a preceding verb, which the Inf. cannot here be), on the other hand the verb should here be Impf. (Philippsons difficulty is not serious). The difficulty might be removed by prefixing to the Infin. (so Symm., Chald.), or by reading Perf. 2 sing. masc. (so Syr., Vulg. perhaps).Wellhausen thinks the subjoined explanation (saying, David shall not, etc.) unnecessary (the meaning being clear enough), and therefore hardly original, perhaps a marginal gloss; but it is not merely a repetition, since it puts absolutely what was before put as conditional.Tr.]

[4][2Sa 5:8. In this sentence there are three points of difficulty: 1) the construction of , whether it is to be joined to the preceding protasis, or regarded as beginning the apodosis, that is, whether the whole sentence is to be taken as protasis, the apodosis being omitted (so Then., Philippson, Cohen, Eng. A. V., which supplies the apodosis from 1Ch 11:6), or as containing protasis and apodosis (so Bttch., Ew., Erdmann). 2) The pointing and construction of , and 3) the meaning of . For the discussion see the Exposition.Tr.]

[5][2Sa 5:9. Read after Sept. built it (so Wellh.).-From Millo Aq. has , Sym. (Jerome says that Sym. and Theod. had adimpletionem), Sept. .Tr.]

[6][2Sa 5:12. Piel 3 sing. masc.; 1Ch 14:2 , Niph. 3 sing. fem. According to Wellh. the final in Chr. represents the first in the following word in Sam. Which reading is original can hardly be determined.Tr.]

[7][2Sa 5:17. 1Ch 14:8 : And went out before them (= against them.). The Chr. omits the details of the movement, but this does not show that he could not reconcile the went down of Sam. with the preceding (against Wellh.). Nor is there any good reason why the same narrator should not apply the same word ( hold) to two different places in consecutive paragraphs. It is a common noun, and moreover the use in 2Sa 5:9 is defined in 2Sa 5:7 by the phrase of Zion.Tr.]

[8][2Sa 5:20. Baal perazim = possessor (= place, margin of Eng. A. V. plain) of breaches. Sept. = , etc. Aq. . The point of the comparison seems to be not the dividing of waters (Sept. . Vulg., sicut dividuntur aqu), but the violent rending asunder by a torrent of waterTr.]

[9][2Sa 5:21. Aq. . Sym. , Sept. .Instead of took them away, Eng. A. V. has taken the text of 1Ch 14:12 burned them, supposing perhaps that this was the true explanation of our text. The meaning here rather is that David carried off the images, either to destroy them, or to bear them in triumph. The margin of Eng. A. V. has took them away.Tr.]

[10][2Sa 5:23. Instead of some MSS. and EDD. and Syr., Ar. have , which does not change the sense. In a few MSS. the Prep. is omitted, as in 1Ch 14:14. The difference between the texts in Sam. and Chr. is obvious, perhaps in the latter an attempt at greater clearness; the meaning is the same in both. It is not necessary to supply anything here after go up (), since the word implies going to meet.Tr.]

[11]Heb. Jebusite (), poetically individualizing Sing. for Plu. Inhabitant (), the proper, aboriginal people. [The Sing, is not poetic, but collective; see its use in Gen 10:16; Gen 15:21; Num 13:29 : Jdg 19:1 [the name of the tribe as an individual.Tr.] So the verb is Sing.

[12] after a negation = but, Ew. 356 a. The is not Inf., but Perf., expressing a complete action. The Sing, is used because it precedes the subject (Keil, Ew. 119 a). But we may with Then, point it as Plu. (comp. Gen 1:28; Isa 53:3-4, where also has fallen out). = namely. [On the grammatical difficulties here see Text, and Gramm. The sense, however, is tolerably plain.Tr.]

[13][According to the Midrash (Targ. and Pirke Eleazar 36) the images of the blind Isaac and the lame Jacob are here meant, Abraham having agreed with the Jebusites (Genesis 23.) not to lay claim to their city. See Patr. and Philipps.Tr.]

[14][Instead of Zion we should here read Moriah. See Art. Siloam in Smiths Bib. Dict.Tr.]

[15]The verb is to be pointed as Hiph. cast down.

[16][Or because they are poor defenders (Philippson).Tr.]

[17]He changes into , and into = envies him.

[18]He reads instead of .

[19]Following Sept. (Hesych. ) he reads for , referring to Psa 89:44 .

[20][See Am. Ed. of Rob. III. 441, 485, 489, 491, 547, 548 and 420; also II. 437, 438, and for the cedars II. 493, III. 588593; see also Articles in the Bible Dictionaries and later books of travel, as Thomsons Land and Book, 1. p. 292297.Tr.]

[21] instead of .

[22] , comp. Isa 17:5. [See Stanleys Sinai and Pal., App. 1.Tr.

[23][Or, possibly lord (= God) of breaches. Comp. Gen 22:14; Gen 16:13 (El-roi).Tr.]

[24][So the Edomites, 2Ch 25:14. The heathen idols were carried off with impunitynot so the Ark of God (Pat.).Tr.]

[25][There is here an allusion to Luthers famous hymn, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(6) And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. (7) Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David. (8) And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. (9) So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built roundabout from Millo and inward.

Israel had suffered the Jebusites to remain among them contrary to the Lord’s command, and therefore they became a snare to them as the Lord had said. See Jdg 1:21 ; Deu 7:16-18 , etc. It should seem that the Jebusites had so fortified Jerusalem, that even blind men and lame (speaking after the manner of men), might defend it. But some have thought by the blind and lame here spoken of, is meant the images and figures on the walls. But I conceive that an higher and more interesting illustration may, without violence, be given to the passage, considered spiritually, and with an eye to Jesus, of whom David was, in many points, an eminent type. Till Jesus takes away the blindness of our eyes, and cures the palsied faculties of our mind, there is no entrance for him in the strong holds of the heart, while the strong men armed keepeth the palace. But, when he comes, and opens both the blind eye, and heals the crippled state of our souls, the strong holds of sin and Satan are thrown open, and thrown down. Come, then, Lord Jesus, come to thy lawful dominion; take possession of the city of thy people, both as the gift of thy Father, the purchase of thy blood, and the conquest of thy Spirit; and do thou dwell in us, and call it, as it rightly is, thine own, the city of the living God; build both inward, and outward, and roundabout; and upon all the glory let there be thy defense. Isa 4:3-6 ; 1Co 6:19 , etc.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2Sa 5:6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.

Ver. 6. And the king and his men. ] Those of the several tribes that came unto him at this time armed and well appointed, fit for some noble exploit.

Went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites. ] Who still held the tower of Zion, Jdg 1:23 ; Jdg 19:10-11 being a company of ungracious people there gathered together, such as were in that city of Thracia called Poneropolis, whither King Philip had assembled all the infamous persons, and men of evil demeanour, that many places might not be troubled with them. a

Which spake unto David. ] Scommate militari, by a military scoff, which did not weaken but waken David’s courage.

Except thou take away the blind and the lame. ] Which are the best men that we need to set for defence of this our impregnable fort. These thou hadst best deal with first, and then with us: whom thou shalt find to have both eyes and legs to withstand thee. Others think that by “blind and lame” these Jebusites mean their tutelary gods – called by the Israelites blind and lame idols in contempt – who would not fail to defend them against all adverse forces.

a Theopomp. xiii. Philip.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

men. Hebrew. ‘enosh. App-14.

saying. What they said must be rendered thus “Thou shalt not come in hither, for the blind and the lame shall drive thee away [by saying]`David shall not come in hither. ‘ ”

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2. Davids Conquest of Zion and Victory over the Philistines

CHAPTER 5:6-25

1. Davids conquest of Zion (2Sa 5:6-10)

2. Hiram King of Tyre (2Sa 5:11-12)

3. Davids additional concubines and wives (2Sa 5:13-15)

4. The victory over the Philistines (2Sa 5:17-25)

Zion is closely linked with Davids anointing as king over all Israel. Here 1 Chronicles 11 must be read for a more complete account of what took place. Jerusalem is now to become the capital of the great kingdom. The oldest name was Salem; the name of Jebus was given to it by the Jebusites (Jdg 19:10). After Davids conquest the ancient name was restored and it became known as Jerusalem (habitation of peace). The town had previously been taken (Jdg 1:8) but the stronghold of the upper city, Mount Zion, remained in the hands of the Jebusites. David took the stronghold. Jebusite means the one who treads down. It reminds us of the words of our Lord, Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luk 21:24). Jerusalem and Zion are still trodden down by the Gentiles. The day is coming when the King will end all this. Jerusalem is yet to be the city of the great King. (Ps. 48). Here we have once more a prophetic foreshadowing of what will take place, only on a larger scale, when He, who is greater than David, begins His long promised reign in the midst of His people. After this we shall find much more about Zion, especially in the prophets and in the psalms. It is the place Jehovah has chosen (Psa 132:13-14). To this place, where his throne was, David also brought the ark. When our Lord establishes His kingdom, Zion will be the glorious and the beautiful Place. This is my rest forever; here will I dwell; I have desired it (Psa 132:14). Then He will bless out of Zion (Psa 128:5); and out of Zion shall go forth the law (Isa 2:3). He will be enthroned upon the holy hill of Zion (Psa 2:6); the rod of His strength cometh out of Zion (Psa 110:2); Zion will be the joy of the whole earth (Psa 48:2).

Then Hiram, the King of Tyre, is mentioned. He sent messengers to David, as well as cedar trees, carpenters and masons, and they built David a house. It must be understood that we have in this and the events which follow not a strict chronology. The children mentioned here were born at a later period. All is put in here to show how David grew great and that the Lord was with him. Hiram, the Gentile king, and the messengers he sent, are typical of that day, when our Lord reigns in Zion and the Kings of Tarshish and the isles shall bring presents–when all nations shall serve Him (Psa 72:10-11).

The Hebrew names of the eleven sons of David are of deep significance. It seems the story of the redemption which is in Him, whom David foreshadows, is made known in these names. Shammuah (heard); Shobab (returning); Nathan (he is given); Solomon (peace); Ibhar (the Lord chooses); Elishua (my God is salvation); Nepheg (budding); Japhia (glorious); Elishama (God heareth); Eliada (whom God knoweth); Eliphalet (my God is escape). This is a most blessed revelation contained in those names; and some Christians can say there is no meaning in names! Read them in their meaning and ponder over each as telling forth the very gospel story from start to finish.

Twice David enquired of the Lord concerning the Philistines. Once he is told to go up and the Lord gave him the victory and he burned the images of the Philistines. It is another picture of how the coming King will make an end of idolatry. Again he asked the Lord and was told not to go up. Then the Lord smote the Philistines Himself. In all David was obedient.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Jerusalem: Gen 14:18, Jos 10:3, Jdg 1:8, Heb 7:1

the Jebusites: Jos 15:63, Jos 18:28, Jdg 1:8, Jdg 1:21, Jdg 19:10-12

which spake: etc. Dr. Kennicott’s amended translation is as follows: “Who spake unto David, saying, Thou shalt not come in hither; for the blind and the lame shall drive thee away, by saying, David shall not come in hither” 2Sa 5:8. “And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites, and through the subterraneous passage reacheth the lame and the blind, who hate the life of David – because the blind and the lame said, he shall not come into the house shall be chief and captain. So Joab, the son of Zeriah, went up first, and was chief.”

Except: Jer 37:10

thinking, David cannot: or, saying, David shall not, etc

Reciprocal: Jdg 19:11 – the Jebusites 2Sa 2:23 – the fifth rib 1Ch 11:4 – David Neh 3:15 – the stairs Psa 9:5 – rebuked Psa 10:5 – he puffeth Jer 21:13 – Who

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

GOING AND GROWING

CONQUERING FOES (2 Samuel 5)

The title of this lesson is the literal rendering of 2Sa 5:10, David went on and grew great. The margin reads, going and growing.

First, he overcame the inhabitants of Jerusalem known as the Jebusites and, capturing the city, made it his capital (2Sa 5:6-9). The parallel passage in 1Ch 11:4-9 will show the two accounts to complement and confirm one another, Samuel being the more biographic and analistic and Chronicles the more historical.

The reference to the blind and the lame may mean that the Jebusites felt themselves so strongly fortified on Mount Zion, that in derision they put such persons on the wall as defenders even then David could not take the citadel, they thought.

This is the first time Zion is referred to (2Sa 5:7), and it is well to identify it as the southwest hill of Jerusalem, the older and higher part of the city. It was here that later David brought the ark of the covenant, from which time the hill became sacred. After the building of the temple by Solomon on Mount Moriah, a different eminence, and the transfer of the ark thither, the name Zion was extended to comprehend it also (Isa 8:18; Joe 3:17; Mic 4:7). Often it is used, however, for the whole of Jerusalem (1Ki 19:21), occasionally for the Jewish system of religion (Psa 126:1), and once, at least, for heaven (Heb 12:22).

David next overcomes the Philistines (2Sa 5:17-25). Note the supernatural interposition in verses 23-24. The sound of a going, means probably the sound of human steps as of an advancing army, the symbol of Jehovahs approach in power. Thou shalt bestir thyself, means, Rush quickly!

So, victory comes from the Lord: (1) when it is humbly asked for according to His will and word; (2) when the battle is undertaken in His name and for His cause; and (3) when it is fought in obedience to His directions and guidance.

But observe, as Matthew Henry says, that though God promises to go before them, yet David must bestir himself and be ready to pursue the victory. Gods grace must quicken our endeavors (Php 2:12-13).

Broadus calls the chapter King Davids first year of sunshine. After years of darkness, he now gains a new crown, a new capital, a new palace, a new victory over an old enemy, and in them all a new proof of Gods favor.

INSTALLING THE ARK (2 Samuel 6)

The first attempt to bring up the ark is unsuccessful (2Sa 6:1-11) because of the sacrilegious act of Uzzah (Num 4:14-15; Num 7:9; Num 18:3); but the motive of Davids heart was laudable, and unlike anything we read of Saul.

Baale of Judah is another name for Kirjath-jearim (1Sa 6:21; Jos 15:60). The second attempt was successful (2Sa 6:11-19), because the Levitical law was obeyed (see 1Ch 15:1-14), an incidental evidence that this law had been recorded, though overlooked. This, so far, answers the destructive criticism which would relegate the Pentateuch to a later period than David.

There may have been too much abandon in Davids dancing (2Sa 6:16), but the spirit of Michals criticism (2Sa 6:20) was not God-glorifying, for Davids rebuke of her seemed to have the divine sanction (2Sa 6:23). See 1 Chronicles 16, the psalm composed on this occasion.

THE MESSIANIC COVENANT (2 Samuel 7)

We have here one of the most important chapters in the Old Testament, ranking in Messianic significance with Genesis 3, 12, 49, and Deuteronomy 18. The seed of the woman, who was to come in the line of Abraham and Judah, is now seen to belong to the family of Jesse; and the prophet like unto Moses is to be also a king on the throne of his father David.

A great honor for David is now to be revealed. He has a lofty motive in desiring to build a temple for the ark, and Nathan, not taking counsel of the Lord, is disposed to favor it, until differently informed (2Sa 7:1-17).

In these words of the Lord by Nathan observe the promise of Israels future prosperity and peace still future (2Sa 7:10-11). Observe further that the

house God promises to build for David (2Sa 7:11; 2Sa 7:13) is neither material nor spiritual, but political. It is a house in the sense of an earthly kingdom to be set up in his son. But clearly the son is not merely Solomon who immediately succeeded to the throne, but the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom, in a limited sense, Solomon is a type. The word forever in 2Sa 7:13 foreshadows this, but when 2Sa 7:14 is compared with Heb 1:8, that settles it.

In this connection Bishop Horsleys and Adam Clarkes translation of the latter part of that verse is interesting and significant: When iniquity is laid upon Him, I will chasten Him with the rod of men a parallel to Isaiah 53 concerning the suffering Messiah.

Davids adoration and thanksgiving at the revelation of this great truth is beautiful (2Sa 7:18-29). Its humility, faith, and gratitude reach a sublimity unequaled since Moses. He seemed to have recognized by faith the Messianic character of Nathans words, if we may judge by Horsleys and Clarkes translation of verse 19: O Lord God, Thou hast spoken of Thy servants house for a great while to come, and hast regarded me in the arrangement about the Man that is to be from above, O God, Jehovah.

QUESTIONS

1. From what do we obtain the title of this lesson?

2. What other book of the Old Testament parallels Second Samuel?

3. Give the meaning of Zion in the Bible.

4. When may victory be expected from the Lord?

5. What makes this Davids year of sunshine?

6. How was the ark brought up the second time?

7. What makes chapter 7 so important?

8. What kind of a house does God promise David?

9. How would you prove the Messianic character of this promise?

10. Which, to you, is the best verse in chapter 7?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

2Sa 5:6. The king and his men went to Jerusalem His first warlike enterprise, after he was made king of all Israel, was against that part of Jerusalem which was still in the hands of the Jebusites, namely, the strong fort of Zion, which they held, although the Israelites dwelt in the other parts of the city. Which spake unto David When he came with his army to attack the fortress; saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come hither In this translation the order in which the words stand in the Hebrew is not observed, nor are they exactly rendered. They are literally, The king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusite, inhabiting the land, and he (the Jebusite) spake to David, saying, Thou shalt not come hither except thou remove the blind and the lame; or, rather, as , chi im esihreka, may be properly rendered, For the blind and lame shall keep thee off, which is the sense given to the words in the English Bible of Coverdale, printed in 1535, where they are translated, Thou shalt not come hither, but the blind and the lame shall drive thee away. The Seventy render the passage, , , &c. Thou shalt not come hither, for the blind and the lame resist, or, have resisted, thee, saying, That David shall not come hither. They confided in the strength of their fortifications, which they thought so impregnable that the blind and the lame were sufficient to defend them against the most powerful assailant. And probably they appointed a number of blind and lame people, invalids, or maimed soldiers, to make their appearance on the wall, in contempt of David and his men. There is another interpretation of these words which Dr. Delaney and many others prefer, namely, that they imagined their fortress to be impregnable and secure under the protection of their gods, whom the Israelites were wont to despise, and to call them gods who had eyes, but saw not; feet, but walked not. As if they had said, Our gods, whom you call blind and lame, shall defend us, and you must overcome them before you overcome us. These blind and lame, says a learned writer, were the idols of the Jebusites, which, to irritate David, they set upon their walls, as their patrons and defenders. And they as good as said, Thou dost not fight with us, but with our gods, who will easily repel thee.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

5:6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the {c} blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.

(c) The children of God called idols blind and lame guides: therefore the Jebusites meant that they should prove that their gods were neither blind nor lame.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles