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.<\/P>
Except thou take away the blind … – <\/B>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.<\/P><\/p>\nFuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
2Sa 5:6<\/span><\/p>\n Except thou take away the blind.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Security not safety<\/strong><\/p>\n 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<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Jeering as a war-weapon<\/strong><\/p>\n 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 <\/strong>unlike Chinese warfare; and so far the present is much like the days of David, in the East. (Sunday School Times.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. The king and his men went to Jerusalem<\/B><\/I>] 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<\/I> 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<\/span>. 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.<\/P> <\/P> Except thou take away the blind and the lame<\/B><\/I>] 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<\/I> and blind men<\/I> upon the walls, and thus endeavoured to turn into ridicule David’s attempt to take the place: Thou shalt<\/I> not come in hither, except thou take away the blind and the lame<\/I>; nothing could be more cutting to a warrior.<\/P> <\/P> Dr. Kennicott<\/I> has taken great pains to correct this passage, as may be seen in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text<\/I>, pages 27 to 47. I shall insert our present version with his amended text line for line, his translation being distinguished by italics<\/I>; and for farther information refer to Dr. K.’s work. <\/P> Ver. 6<\/span>. And the king and his men went to K. And the king and his men went to<\/I><\/P> <\/P> Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants K. Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of<\/I><\/P> <\/P> of the land: who spake unto David, saying, K. the land; who spake unto David, saying;<\/I><\/P> <\/P> Except thou take away the blind and the K. Thou shalt not come in hither; for the blind<\/I><\/P> <\/P> lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, K. and the lame shall drive thee away by saying,<\/I><\/P> <\/P> David cannot come in hither. K. “David shall not come in hither.”<\/I><\/P> <\/P> Ver. 8<\/span>. And David said – Whosoever getteth K. And David said – Whosoever smiteth the<\/I><\/P> <\/P> up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, K. Jebusites, and through the subterranean passage<\/I><\/P> <\/P> and the lame and the blind, that are hated K. reacheth the lame and the blind who<\/I><\/P> <\/P> of David’s soul – Wherefore they said, The K. hate the life of David (because the blind and<\/I><\/P> <\/P> blind and the lame shall not come into the K. the lame said, “He shall not come into the<\/I><\/P> <\/P> house. * * * * * * * * K. house,”) shall be chief and captain. So<\/I><\/P> <\/P> * * * * * * * * * K. Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and<\/I><\/P> <\/P> * * * * * * * * * K. was chief.<\/I> <\/P> <\/p>\n 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. <\/P> To Jerusalem; <\/B>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. <\/P> The Jebusites<\/B> continued to dwell there in spite of the Benjamites, to whose lot it fell. See Jos 15:63<\/span>; Jdg 1:21<\/span>; 19:10<\/span>,11<\/span>. <\/P> Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither; <\/B>or, Thou shalt not come in hither, but the blind and the lame shall remove or hinder thee<\/I>. By the blind and the lame<\/I> they understand, either, <\/P> 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<\/I>, 2Sa 5:8<\/span>, 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, <\/P> 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<\/I> and lame<\/I> 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<\/span>,6<\/span>, 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<\/I>. But I prefer the former sense, as being most easy, and natural, and proper; whereas the latter is metaphorical, and seems doubtful and forced. <\/P> David cannot come in hither; <\/B>concluding their fort to be impregnable. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6. the king and his men went toJerusalem unto the Jebusites<\/B>The 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.<\/P><\/p>\n And the king and his men went to Jerusalem<\/strong>,…. 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:<\/p>\n unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land<\/strong>: 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<\/span> Jud 1:21<\/span>;<\/p>\n which spake unto David<\/strong>; when he came up against them, and besieged them:<\/p>\n except thou take away the blind and lame, thou shalt not come in hither<\/strong>; 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:<\/p>\n thinking<\/strong>: or “saying” g; this was the substance of what they said, or what they meant by it:<\/p>\n David cannot come in hither<\/strong>; 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Conquest of the Stronghold of Zion, and Choice of Jerusalem as the Capital of the Kingdom (cf. 1Ch 11:4<\/span>, 1Ch 11:9<\/span>). – 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<\/span>, David reigned in Jerusalem just as many years as he was king over all Israel. <\/p>\n 2Sa 5:6<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> 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<\/em> (the singular is used because is a singular form) to David, Thou wilt not come hither<\/em> (i.e., come in), but the blind and lame will drive thee away: to say<\/em> (i.e., by which they meant to say), David will not come in.”<\/em> 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<\/span>, is to be explained from the fact that the verb precedes, and is only defined precisely by the subject which follows (vid., Ewald<\/em>, 319, a<\/em>.). 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.<\/p>\n 2Sa 5:7-8<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> 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<\/span>). ( Sion<\/em>), 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<\/span>). – In 2Sa 5:8<\/span> 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 <\/em>) in Psa 42:8<\/span>, 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 <\/em> 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.<\/p>\n (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<\/em>, who probably followed the Rabbins, has et tetigisset domatum fistulas <\/em> (and touched the water-pipes); and Luther, “ und erlanget die Dachrinnen <\/em> ” (like the English version, “whosoever getteth up to the gutter:” Tr.). Hitzig’s notion, that zinnor <\/em> 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 <\/em> to a “sword of honour or marshal’s staff,” which David promised to the victor.)<\/p>\n should be pointed as a Hiphil<\/em> . The Masoretic pointing arises from their mistaken interpretation of the whole sentence. The Chethibh<\/em> might be the third pers. perf.<\/em>, “who hate David’s soul;” only in that case the omission of would be surprising, and consequently the Keri<\/em> 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<\/span> 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<\/span>); 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<\/em>;<\/p>\n (Note: This is also inserted in the passage before us by the translators of the English version: “he shall be chief and captain.” – Tr.)<\/p>\n 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 <\/em>) for a long time, according to 2Sa 2:13<\/span>: 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<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n 2Sa 5:9<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> “David dwelt in the fort,”<\/em> i.e., he selected the fort or citadel as his palace, “and called it David’s city.”<\/em> 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,<\/em> i.e., fortified (the city of Zion), round about from Millo and inwards.”<\/em> 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”<\/em> 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<\/span> with Jdg 9:46<\/span> and Jdg 9:49<\/span>, where Millo<\/em> is used interchangeably with Migdal<\/em>). 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<\/em> or completed. The definite article before Millo<\/em> indicates that it was a well-known fortress, probably one that had been erected by the Jebusites. With regard to the situation of Millo<\/em>, we may infer from this passage, and 1Ch 11:8<\/span>, 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<\/span>). This is fully sustained both by 1Ki 11:27<\/span>, where Solomon is said to have closed the breach of the city of David by building (fortifying) Millo, and by 2Ch 32:5<\/span>, where Hezekiah is said to have built up all the wall of Jerusalem, and made Millo<\/em> strong, i.e., to have fortified it still further (vid., 1Ki 9:15<\/span> and 1Ki 9:24<\/span>).<\/p>\n 2Sa 5:10<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> And David increased in greatness, i.e., in power and fame, for Jehovah the God of hosts was with him.<\/p>\n David Takes Mount Sion.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1047.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 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<\/I> 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<\/I> hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain.<\/I> 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<\/B> God of hosts was<\/I> with him.<\/P> If Salem, the place of which Melchizedec was king, was Jerusalem (as seems probable from Ps. lxxvi. 2<\/span>), 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<\/span>. It fell to Benjamin’s lot (Josh. xviii. 28<\/span>), but joined close to Judah’s, Josh. xv. 8<\/span>. The children of Judah had taken it (Judg. i. 8<\/span>), but the children of Benjamin suffered the Jebusites to dwell among them (Judg. i. 21<\/span>), and they grew so upon them that it became a city of Jebusites,<\/I> Judg. xix. 11<\/I><\/span>. 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<\/span>), submitted to him. Here we have,<\/P> 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,<\/I> v.<\/span> 6<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. 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,<\/I> Lam. iv. 12<\/I><\/span>. They confided either, 1. In the protection of their gods, which David, in contempt, had called the blind and the lame,<\/I> for they have eyes and see not, feet and walk not.<\/I> “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,<\/I> or strong-holds<\/I> (Dan. xi. 38<\/span>) and as such relied on them. The name of the Lord is our strong tower,<\/I> 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<\/span>. 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.<\/P> 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,<\/I> or gutter, the lame and the blind,<\/I> 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.<\/I><\/span> 8<\/span> may be read; we fetch our reading of it from 1 Chron. xi. 6<\/span>, 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,<\/I> 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.<\/P> 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.<\/I><\/span> 9<\/span>) 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.<\/I> 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,<\/I> and the city of the living God.<\/I> 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.<\/P> <\/p>\n David in Jerusalem, <\/strong>2Sa 5:6-10<\/span> AND <\/strong>1Ch 11:4-9<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n David recognized the potential <\/em>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<\/span>) and allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:28<\/span>), but they did not drive out the Jebusites (Jdg 1:21<\/span>). 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.<\/em><\/p>\n David issued a challenge <\/em>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<\/span>; Lev 21:17-21<\/span>). Only the perfect were fit for the Lord, as was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1Pe 1:19<\/span>). The pagan Jebusites were all blind and lame spiritually and represented the evil opposers of God, and thus did David envision them.<\/em><\/p>\n It was Joab, <\/em>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.<\/em><\/p>\n The account ends <\/em>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).<\/em><\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n 2Sa. 5:6<\/span>. Went to Jerusalem.<\/strong> 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<\/span>, David reigned in Jerusalem just as many years as he was king over all Israel. (Keil.)<\/em> 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.)<\/em> The Jebusites.<\/strong> These belonged to the great Canaanitish race (Gen. 10:6<\/span>) who dwelt, when the Israelites took possession of Palestine, in the mountain district of Judah. (Comp. Num. 13:30<\/span>, Jos. 11:3<\/span>.) Neither Joshua who conquered them in a battle (Jos. 11:3<\/span> sq<\/em>.), nor the children of Judah, who only got possession of the lower city (Jdg. 1:8<\/span>; comp. Josephus Ant. 2Sa. 5:2<\/span>; 2Sa. 5:2<\/span>), nor the Benjamites, to whom the city had been assigned (Jos. 18:28<\/span>) could conquer the strong citadel of Jebus on Mount Zion. (Erdmann.)<\/em> The blind and the lame.<\/strong> 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<\/span> sq<\/em>.) 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<\/em>, and not hated<\/em> (see 2Sa. 5:8<\/span>) by David.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 5:7<\/span>. The stronghold of Zion.<\/strong> 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<\/em> in the Biblical Dictionary<\/em>, 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<\/span>, 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<\/span>; Psa. 132:13<\/span>; Joe. 3:1<\/span>, etc.), and others in which he thinks Zion is spoken of as a separate city from Jerusalem. (Psa. 51:18<\/span>; Zec. 1:17<\/span>, 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.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 5:8<\/span>. The gutter.<\/strong> The cataract<\/em> or waterfall<\/em>. (So Keil<\/em> and Erdmann<\/em>.) 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<\/span>, which is the only other place in which it occurs. Hated,<\/strong> etc. This clause may be rendered who hate<\/em>, 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<\/strong> 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.)<\/em><\/p>\n 2Sa. 5:9<\/span>. So David dwelt,<\/strong> literally, sat down<\/em>. 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,<\/strong> 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<\/em> or completed. It was probably a well-known fortress erected by the Jebusites. (Keil<\/em>.)<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n