The king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David, saying, “The blind and the lame will keep you out of here;” thinking, “David can’t come in here.”
Parallel Translations
-
The king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David, saying, “The blind and the lame will keep you out of here;” thinking, “David can’t come in here.”
-
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.
-
And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who 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.'
Cross-references (9)
Passages linked to 2 Samuel 5:6 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Judges 1:8 The children of Judah fought against Jerusalem, took it, struck it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.
- Joshua 15:63 As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah couldn’t drive them out; but the Jebusites live with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.
- Joshua 18:28 Zelah, Eleph, the Jebusite (also called Jerusalem), Gibeath, and Kiriath; fourteen cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the children of Benjamin according to their families.
- Judges 1:21 The children of Benjamin didn’t drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.
- 1 Chronicles 11:4-9 David and all Israel went to Jerusalem (also called Jebus); and the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, were there. The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, “You will not come in here.” Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion. The same is David’s city. David said, “Whoever strikes the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain.” Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was made chief. David lived in the stronghold; therefore they called it David’s city. He built the city all around, from Millo even around; and Joab repaired the rest of the city. David grew greater and greater; for Yahweh of Armies was with him.
- Jeremiah 37:10 For though you had struck the whole army of the Chaldeans who fight against you, and only wounded men remained among them, they would each rise up in his tent and burn this city with fire.’ ”
- Judges 19:10-12 But the man wouldn’t stay that night, but he rose up and went near Jebus (also called Jerusalem). With him were a couple of saddled donkeys. His concubine also was with him. When they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said to his master, “Please come and let’s enter into this city of the Jebusites, and stay in it.” His master said to him, “We won’t enter into the city of a foreigner that is not of the children of Israel; but we will pass over to Gibeah.”
- Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
- Genesis 14:18 Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (21 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain The children of God called idols blind and lame…
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.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 2Sa 5:6 And the king and his men went…
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.
Read full note →
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.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Having the advantage of so great a confluence of…
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.
Read full note →
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 David’s assaults. And these may be called and were the hated of David’s 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 God’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain If Salem, the place of which Melchizedec was king,…
If Salem, the place of which Melchizedec was king, was Jerusalem (as seems probable from Psa 76:2), it was famous in Abraham's time. Joshua, in his time, found it the chief city of the south part of Canaan, Jos 10:1-3. It fell to Benjamin's lot (Jos 18:28), but joined close to Judah's, Jos 15:8. The children of Judah had taken it (Jdg 1:8), but the children of Benjamin suffered the Jebusites to dwell among them (Jdg 1:21), and they grew so upon them that it became a city of Jebusites, Jdg 19:11. 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 (Ch1 12:29), 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, Sa2 5:6. 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 4:12. 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 11:38) 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 37:10. 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.
Read full note →
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 Sa2 5:8 may be read; we fetch our reading of it from Ch1 11:6, 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 (Sa2 5:9) 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the king and his men went to Jerusalem,....…
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 Jdg 1:21,
Read full note →
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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Cannot come - They confided in the strength of…
Cannot come - 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 set a parcel of blind and lame people, invalids or maimed soldiers, to make their appearance on the wall, in contempt of David and his men.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 6. The king and his men went to…
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.
Read full note →
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain 2Sa 5:6. The king and his men went to…
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 כי אם הסירךְ, 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, Ουκ εισελευση ωδε, οτι αντεστησαν οι τυφλοι, &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.”
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain David immediately after being anointed king of Israel, probably…
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 Saul’s 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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Land. This was the only canton which the infidels…
Land. This was the only canton which the infidels still retained, as they had still possession of the citadel of Jebus, (Calmet) though the Israelites had been in the country above 400 years. (Kennicott) --- Nothing could reflect greater glory on the beginning of David’s reign, than the seizing of this place, (Calmet) which was deemed so impregnable, that the Jebusites thought the blind and the lame were sufficient to defend it. (Haydock) --- They placed some upon the walls, (Menochius) "despising him, on account of the strength of their walls."
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain 2Sa_5:6 to 2Sa_14:25
SECOND DIVISION
DAVID KING OVER ALL ISRAEL
Read full note →
2Sa_5:6 to 2Sa_14:25
FIRST SECTION
David’s 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 David’s 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 Israel’s 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. David’s 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 went—that is, according to the Chronicler, the Israelitish warriors who gathered around him from “all Israel,” and were now united with his former soldiers—to Jerusalem against the Jebusites.—This undertaking followed immediately on the anointing in Hebron, as is evident from the statement (2Sa_5:5) that David’s 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 Jebusites—and 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 David’s 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 thee—that 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 cœcis et claudis Jebusœorum, 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 David’s time.—Tr.] The name “Zion” probably=“the dry mountain” (from צָיָה “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 David’s words indicate. In the attempt to explain this obscure passage, the principal point is the meaning of the expression ba-zinnor, בַּצִּנּוֹר [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. καταῤῥαικταί) 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 (Stähelin), 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 Tyropœon [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 David’s 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 [Erdmann’s explanation of the whole passage] avoids the difficulty that ensues when David’s 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 blind—him David’s soul envies” apart from its unwarranted changes of text17—it is rightly remarked by Böttcher 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. Böttcher 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 “captain’s 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 Böttcher). 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. Maurer’s other rendering:19 “whoever shall slay the Jebusites and reach with the sword either the lame or the blind, him will David’s 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 Erdmann’s rendering: “let him cast into the waterfall the blind,” etc., is that the verb (נגע) 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 בְּ; in Hiph it means “to cause to touch, to join, to raze,” usually followed by עַד ,עַל ,אֵל or לְ. In the passages most favorable to Erdmann’s 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 David’s soul, by the water-course, and he shall be chief,” which, moreover, hardly renders the וְ in the first וְאֶת) (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 אֵת to be used as equivalent to בְּ. 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 (Kraft’s 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 Lewin’s “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 Solomon’s 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 David’s 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 God’s 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. David’s 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 (חוּרָם 2Ch_2:2), Phœnician Hirom (1 Kings 5:24, 32), Sept. Χειράμ (Cheiram), Joseph., Eiram and Eirom. That this king Hiram, who was in friendly connection with David, is the same Hiram that was Solomon’s 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 David’s friend.” We can neither suppose therefore, with Ewald, that this king Hiram is the grandfather of Solomon’s friend of the same name, nor with Thenius that his (our Hiram’s) 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 Solomon’s 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 David’s 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, Phöniz. ΙΙ. 1, 147 sq., Rütschi in Herzog. s. v. Hiram, Stähelin, spez. Einl. 107). And in fact it must be admitted that David’s 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 David’s anointment as king over Israel, but after this war. “The historian has rather attached to the conquest of Zion and its choice as David’s 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 “king’s 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 David’s 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 Solomon’s 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. ΙΙ. 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. ΙΙΙ. 723)20; the northwestern part, which alone was covered with cedar-forests, and furnished the best cedar for building, belonged to Phœnicia. 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 Jeremiah’s 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 Israel’s 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 Saul’s 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 Israel’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 David’s concubines are mentioned in 1Ch_3:9.—“From Jerusalem” (מִן) 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. David’s victories over the Philistines, 1Ch_14:8-17.
2Sa_5:17. And when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel—this was the occasion of the war. From David’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 Saul’s 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 David’s 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” (פשׁט). 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 Käuffer’s Stud. II. 137 sq. [For various opinions see Kitto, Porter, Bonar, Fürst.—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 Lord’s 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-thorpe—the Heb. name = “possessor of breaches.”23—Tr.]. 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 David’s 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 Bähr 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 Maccabæus 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, Stähelin, Leben Davids 38), which is adopted by Movers, Then., Keil, Dächsel—nor = Gibeah, whether Gibeah in Judah (Jos_15:57), 8–10 miles south-west of Jerusalem (Bertheau, Stähelin), or Gibeah of Samuel (Cler., Budd., O. v. Gerlach), neither of which could here come into consideration as a military position—but 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, 212–217, Fay [in Lange’s 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 David’s 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” (Stähelin, 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 Lord’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 God’s 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 David’s making his residence on Mount Zion dates in the theocratic language of the Old Covenant the terminology of God’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 king’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 David’s unconditional active obedience to the Lord’s 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 David’s Zion-buildings (and so in Solomon’s 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. Bähr 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 Phœnicians in the knowledge of the truth, as they above Israel in technic and artistic performances (comp. Duncker, Gesch. u. Alterth., p. 317–320); distinguished as was Phœnicia 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 God’s kingdom; b) by holy victory, which God vouchsafes. 2) How it is maintained: a) in defiance of God’s enemies, and b) as a reliance for God’s friends.
2Sa_5:10-12. The true kingdom by the grace of God: 1) It is firmly founded through the Lord’s power; 2) It grows and prospers under the Lord’s blessing; 3) It renders subservient to itself the Lord’s enemies; 4) It serves the Lord in the Lord’s 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 God’s grace, and honor them. 2) That the authorities regard themselves as constituted by God only for the people’s welfare, and fulfil their calling to that end.
2Sa_5:17-25. The war-counsel from on high: 1) How it is inquired after—by looking above. 2) How it is imparted—by the voice from above. 3) How it is carried out—by help from above.—Victory comes from the Lord: 1) When it is beforehand humbly asked for according to the Lord’s will and word; 2) When the battle is undertaken in the Lord’s name and for His cause; 3) When it is fought with obedient observation of the Lord’s 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 Lord’s 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 God’s 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 God’s command (1Sa_15:22-23).—Schlier: The Lord, who delivered Jerusalem’s stronghold into David’s 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 Lord’s 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. David’s 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 Lord’s 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 God’s word, and yet do not walk in the Lord’s ways! God’s 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 Lord’s help, namely, that we must be acting only and entirely for the Lord’s 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 Lord’s people, and here an idolatrous or heathen people. So the conflict was the cause of the Lord; the Lord’s name and kingdom was in question; David’s defeat would have been the Lord’s defeat; a victory for David was the Lord’s victory.
2Sa_5:20. Berl. Bible: David will not agree that the honor of the victory which he has gained by the help of God’s 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 Spirit’s 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. God’s 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 Maurice’s 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 Spirit’s special presence among us, we should bestir ourselves to secure the blessed results.—Tr.]
[Chap. 5. King David’s 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 Jehovah’s 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 הֱםִירְךָ as Inf. But others point it Perf. plu. הֱםִירֻךָ and render: “thou shalt not come in hither, but (כּי אִם) the blind and the lame will keep thee away” (Sept., Then., Böttch., 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 כִּי אִם 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. (Philippson’s difficulty is not serious). The difficulty might be removed by prefixing בּ to the Infin. (so Symm., Chald.), or by reading Perf. 2 sing. masc. הֱםִירֹתָ (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 וְיִגַּע, 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 Böttch., Ew., Erdmann). 2) The pointing and construction of שנאו, and 3) the meaning of צִנּוֹר. For the discussion see the Exposition.—Tr.]
[5][2Sa_5:9. Read after Sept. וַיִּבְנֶהָ “built it” (so Wellh.).-From “Millo” Aq. has ἀπὸ πληρώματος , Sym. ἀπὸ προθἐματος (Jerome says that Sym. and Theod. had adimpletionem), Sept. ἀπὸ τῆς ἄκρας.—Tr.]
[6][2Sa_5:12. נִשֵא Piel 3 sing. masc.; 1Ch_14:2 נִשֵּׂאת, Niph. 3 sing. fem. According to Wellh. the final ת in Chr. represents the first מ 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 (מְעוּדָת “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. ἐκ τῶν ἐπάνωδιακοπῶν = מִמּעל, etc. Aq. ἔχων διακοπάς. The point of the comparison seems to be not the dividing of waters (Sept. ὡς διακόπτεται ὕδατα. Vulg., sicut dividuntur aquœ), but the violent rending asunder by a torrent of water—Tr.]
[9][2Sa_5:21. Aq. τὰ διαποδήματα. Sym. τὰ γλυπτά, Sept. τούς θεούς.—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 אֶל־אַחֲרֵיהֶם some MSS. and EDD. and Syr., Ar. have מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶם, 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” (תַעֲלֶה), since the word implies “going to meet.”—Tr.]
[11]Heb. “Jebusite” (יְבֻסִי), poetically individualizing Sing. for Plu. “Inhabitant” (יושׁב), 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 וַיּאמֶר is Sing.
[12] כִּי אִם after a negation = “but,” Ew. §356 a. The הֱסִירְךָ 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. הֱסִירֻךָ (comp. Gen_1:28; Isa_53:3-4, where also וּ has fallen out). אֵאמרֹ = “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 Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.]
[15]The verb is to be pointed as Hiph. יגּע “cast down.”
[16][Or because they are poor defenders (Philippson).—Tr.]
[17]He changes בַצִנּוֹר into בַּפִּנוֹת, and שׂנאו into קנְּאוֹ = “envies him.”
[18]He reads יַכֶּה instead of וְאֶת.
[19]Following Sept. ἐν παραξιφίδι (Hesych.—ἐν μαχαίρᾳ) he reads בַּצּוּר for בַּצִּנּוֹר, referring to Psa_89:44 צוּר חֶרֶב.
[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. 588–593; see also Articles in the Bible Dictionaries and later books of travel, as Thomson’s Land and Book, 1. p. 292–297.—Tr.]
[21] מְצוּרָה instead of מְצוּרָה.
[22] עֵמֶק, comp. Isa_17:5. [See Stanley’s “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 impunity—not so the Ark of God (Pat.).—Tr.]
[25][There is here an allusion to Luther’s famous hymn, Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain HE TAKES ZION FROM THE JEBUSITES. (Sa2 5:6-12)
HE TAKES ZION FROM THE JEBUSITES. (Sa2 5:6-12)
the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites--The first expedition of David, as king of the whole country, was directed against this place, which had hitherto remained in the hands of the natives. It was strongly fortified and deemed so impregnable that the blind and lame were sent to man the battlements, in derisive mockery of the Hebrew king's attack, and to shout, "David cannot come in hither." To understand the full meaning and force of this insulting taunt, it is necessary to bear in mind the depth and steepness of the valley of Gihon, and the lofty walls of the ancient Canaanitish fortress.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain CAPTURE OF ZION, 2Sa_5:6-10.
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.
Read full note →
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 הסירךְ as the preterit of the verb סֶור 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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (6) Went to Jerusalem.—The king of Jerusalem had been…
(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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain The king and his men went to Jerusalem. This…
The king and his men went to Jerusalem. This expedition took place immediately after David"s coronation, and probably he was moved to it by the presence of so large a number of the warriors of Israel. He had long foreseen the arrival of the time when he would be king of all the tribes, and must have debated in his mind the problem of his future capital. He could not remain in Hebron, as it was too far to the south, nor would haughty tribes such as Ephraim have consented to be merged into Judah. On the other hand, he could not move far away, as Judah was his main strength. But living in its neighbourhood, he must often have noticed the remarkable position of the city of Jebus, and admired its rock girt strength. (Psa_48:2) Though the Jebusites had been conquered by Joshua, (Jos_11:3) and Jerusalem captured, (Jud_1:8) yet, as the children of Judah did not occupy it, but "set the city on fire," it seems to have been soon repeopled by its old inhabitants, who there maintained their independence, and, owing to the impregnable nature of its site, could not be treated as Saul treated the Gibeonite inhabitants of Beeroth. Even subsequently, the Jebusite chief who possessed what probably was Mount Moriah, still bore the titular rank of king; for the words in ch. 24:23 literally are, "All this did Araunah the king give unto the king." The explanation of this long independence of the Jebusites is to be found not only in the feebleness of the tribes during the troubled times of the judges, but even mere in the conformation of the site of their stronghold. Jerusalem is situated on the edge of the precipitous wall which forms the western boundary of the valley of the Jordan, and occupies a promontory, on three sides of which are ravines so abrupt and steep that, were it not for their vast depth, they might seem to have been the work of man. On the north side alone it is open to attack, but even there, when the besieger has obtained an entrance, he finds the city divided by another ravine into two parts; whereof the western portion contains the strong citadel of Mount Zion, while the eastern and smaller portion contains the less elevated mountain of Moriah. Though actually raised above the sea level several hundred feet less than Hebron, it seems to the eye more emphatically a mountain-city; and being well nigh encircled by the valleys of Ben-Hinnom and Jehoshaphat, it seems to sit enthroned above the Jordan valley, compared with which it enjoys a cool and refreshing climate. To its inhabitants it was "beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth"; (Psa_48:2, Revised Version) to the exiles it was "the city of God," to which their hearts ever turned; to us Christians it is the type of Christ"s Church on earth, and of his kingdom in heaven. It was an act worthy of David"s genius to foresee the great future of the place, and to inaugurate his kingdom by its capture. We gather from Eze_16:45 that at the time when the Hittites were the dominant race in Syria, Jerusalem was one of their fortresses. The name is a dual, literally Yerushalaim, and probably the town was so called because it consisted of two parts the upper and the lower city. Shalaim means the "two Salems," thus carrying our minds back to the city of Melchizedek. (Gen_14:18) In Psa_76:2 Salem is apparently contrasted with Zion, and so would be the lower town, containing Mount Moriah. Of the other part of the word, Yeru, numerous derivations are given, of which the only probable one is that which connects it with "Yehovah-yireh will see to it," the name given to the spot where Abraham on this mountain offered a vicarious sacrifice for his son. We must, however, bear in mind that towns retain the names which they bore in primitive times, and that the name of a Hittite fortress belongs probably to the language of that people. Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither. These words have been a sore puzzle to commentators, and many strange explanations have been given. Rashi says that the blind meant Isaac, and the lame Jacob, and that the words referred to an old compact by which Abraham gave Jerusalem to the Jebusites, and that Isaac and Jacob had confirmed this agreement. Unless, then, David was prepared to violate this covenant, he must abstain from the attack. We get no help from 1Ch_11:5, as the words are there omitted, probably because they were not supposed to have any important meaning. The Orientals delighted in dark sayings, and possibly there was here some local reference which the people of Jerusalem would understand, but which is lost for us. But evidently it was a boastful defiance, and may mean that the Jebusites pretended that it would be enough to post only their feeblest men, the blind and the lame, for defense, and that David would try in vain to break through them. Thinking; Hebrew, to say; answering to our phrase "that is It should be translated, "meaning." Vers. 6-9 (1Ch_11:4-9)
Jerusalem.
Read full note →
David"s first act after his anointing amidst the assembled tribes (1Ch_12:38-40) was to place himself at the head of his army, and march against Jebus, the capital of the Jebusites. With this place he was familiar from his boyhood, and often, perhaps, wondered why it was suffered to remain so long unsubdued. (Jos_1:3, Jos_1:4) He perceived its advantages as a site for the capital of his kingdom, and the necessity of its reduction in order to the establishment and extension thereof. His enterprise, whatever may have been its immediate cause, was completely successful. Henceforth supreme interest centres in Zion, the city of David, Jerusalem ("foundation of peace"), beyond any other city mentioned in sacred history, poetry, or prophecy. "Jerusalem was destined to become the seat of the Hebrew government, and the scene of the most extraordinary events, and more strange and awful vicissitudes, than any other city of the universe, not excepting Rome" (Milman). Note
I ITS PECULIAR SITUATION. In the heart of the country, remote from the great roads of communication with the East; on a mountainous table land, and entrenched on a cluster of hills, the highest of which was crowned with the stronghold, rock fortress, or acropolis of Zion (ver. 7); on the borderline between Benjamin and Judah, belonging equally to both parts of the now united kingdom. Its selection was a striking proof of David"s military ability and political insight, and was probably determined by a higher wisdom (Deu_12:5; 2Ch_6:6) "God intended not Jerusalem for a staple of trade, but for a royal exchange of religion, chiefly holding correspondency with heaven itself, daily receiving blessings thence, duly returning praises thither; besides, God would not have his virgin people the Jews wooed with, much less wedded to, outlandish fashions" (Thos. Fuller).
II ITS PREVIOUS HISTORY. As the city of Melchizedek Psa_77:2; Josephus, "Wars," 6:10), traditions of whose ancient greatness may have lingered around the spot, and fired the poet"s imagination; (Psa_110:4) of Adonizedec the Amorite, (Jos_10:1) a man of different character, lille Adonibezek smitten; (Jud_1:7) by Judah, occupied by Benjamin conjointly with the Jebusites (not, perhaps, driven out of their citadel), and afterwards entirely by the latter (Jos_15:63; Jud_1:8, 21 3:5-7 19:10-12) "Joshua, and Deborah, and Samuel, and Saul, and David must have passed and repassed the hills, and gazed on the tower of the city, unconscious of the fate reserved for her in all subsequent time" (Stanley, "Sinai and Palestine").
III ITS HEROIC CONQUEST. David found little resistance in taking the lower city, in contrast With the upper city or citadel (Josephus), the defenders of which, relying on the strength of their position, said, derisively, that "blind and lame" were sufficient to repel his attack. But:
1. Self-confidence is fraught with danger. (1Sa_14:22) "The enemies of God"s people are often very confident of their own strength, and most secure when their day to fall draws nigh" (Matthew Henry).
2. Scorn is a spur to a resolute spirit. "And David said on that day
"Whoso smiteth a Jebusite (first), Let him hurl down the precipice (watercourse) Both the lame and blind, Who are hateful to David"s soul.
And "he shall be chief and captain". (1Ch_11:6)
1. Great inducements procure great achievements.
2. The prize is sometimes won by those for whom it is least intended. "So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief," his power, of which David bitterly complained, (2Sa_3:39) being thereby confirmed.
3. The language of contempt comes back on those who employ it, to their lasting humiliation. It became a proverb: "The blind and lame ironically applied to the over confident shall not come into the house succeed in anything.
4. Severity should be joined with mercy. Although a hard fate befell some, yet most of the Jebusite inhabitants were incorporated into Israel, (Zec_9:7) and one of them (2Sa_24:18) dwelt peacefully on an adjacent hill. (2Ch_3:1)
5. One victory is often followed by many. The capture of a fortress by national and world-wide consequences.
IV ITS PERMANENT OCCUPATION, STRENGTHENING, AND EXTENSION. "And David dwelt in the stronghold of Zion, and called it the city of David" (see Conder, "Handbook," p. 337). "And David built round about from Millo "the citadel," LXX and inward" (ver. 9). "And Joab restored the rest of the city". (1Ch_11:9) "The erection of the new capital at Jerusalem introduces us to a new era, not only in the inward holms of the prophet king, but in the external history of the monarchy" (Stanley, "Jewish Church;" Ewald).
V ITS THEOCRATIC RELATION, WHICH WAS ITS CHIEF DISTINCTION. AS the metropolis of the chosen people, the residence of the Lord"s Anointed (Messiah), the seat of government, the centre of religion and Divine service, the source of far-reaching influence, it was "the city of the great King", (Mat_5:35) where he dwelt, reigned, manifested his glory, and "commanded his blessing, even life forevermore." So Jerusalem was described by psalmists and prophets, and won the passionate attachment of her children, in which love of country and home, devotion to God, and hope for the world were inseparably blended.
things are spoken of thee, O city of God". (Psa_86:3 Ps 48 Ps 122 Psa_125:1, 2 Ps 137)
VI ITS EXTRAORDINARY VICISSITUDES. "In the fifteen centuries which elapsed between those two points (Jud_1:8; Luk_21:20) the city was besieged no fewer than seventeen times; twice it was razed to the ground; and on two occasions its walls were levelled. In this respect it stands without a parallel in any city, ancient or modern" (Smith"s "Dictionary"). What a scene did it present during these ages of military, political, religious strife, of prophetic activity and demoniacal wickedness, of mercy and of judgment! (Amo_3:2) With its rejection of "the Son of David" its lingering theocratic glory departed, and its walls became a desolate heap. "O Jerusalem!". (Luk_13:34 Luk_20:41-44)
VII ITS SPIRITUAL FORESHADOWING. "In the progress of the city of God through the ages, David first reigned in the earthly Jerusalem as a shadow of that which was to come" (Augustine, "City of God," 17:14. 20); "Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem"; (Heb_12:22) the spiritual kingdom of which Christ is King, the general assembly and Church of which he is the Head; the lofty, free, mother city of us all; (Gal_4:25, Gal_4:26) "the holy city, new Jerusalem"; (Rev_21:1) glorious, unchanging, everlasting. (Heb_11:10 Heb_13:14) "O holy Zion! where all is abiding, and nothing passes away!
O happy harbour of the saints! O sweet and pleasant soil! In thee no sorrow may be found, No grief, no care, no toil. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain Except thou take away the blind.
2Sa_5:6
Except thou take away the blind.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain 2Sa_5:6. “Went to Jerusalem.” “That this took place immediately…
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 Gibeah—a place of no intrinsic importance—and 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.
Read full note →
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 there—let 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 capital—the “mountain throne”—the “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 Hebron—Jacob, 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 Jerusalem—must 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 Solomon’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 Lange’s 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. Man’s 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 people’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 David’s 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 slowly—under the same course of accidents—as 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 mercy—this 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 Lord’s 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?—Lange’s 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 God’s providence external to us, which will guide us.—Taylor.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 2. David’s Conquest of Zion and Victory over the…
2. David’s Conquest of Zion and Victory over the Philistines
CHAPTER 5:6-25
Read full note →
1. David’s conquest of Zion (2Sa 5:6-10)
2. Hiram King of Tyre (2Sa 5:11-12)
3. David’s additional concubines and wives (2Sa 5:13-15)
4. The victory over the Philistines (2Sa 5:17-25)
Zion is closely linked with David’s 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 David’s 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.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Jerusalem made the Capital
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.
Read full note →
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 General Information:
General Information:
David and the army of Israel attack Jerusalem.
Read full note →
You will not come here except to be turned away by the blind and the lame
This can be stated in a positive form. AT: "If you come here, even the blind and the lame will be able to turn you away"
the blind and the lame
Here "the blind" and "the lame" are nominal adjectives. AT: "those people who cannot see and those who cannot walk" (See: Nominal Adjectives)
translationWords
Jebus
turn
stronghold
Zion
city of David
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 5:6-10 David acquired a new capital city, Jerusalem, for…
5:6-10 David acquired a new capital city, Jerusalem, for the newly extended kingdom.
5:6 The Jebusites resided in Jerusalem prior to its conquest by David (see Exod 34:11; Deut 7:1-6; 20:17; Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21). Nothing is known of them outside the Bible. In archaeological discoveries from Mari in Syria, a similar name (Yabasi) appears as both a clan name and a geographic location. • Even the blind and lame: The Jebusites had a false notion of invincibility. Another possible translation is you won’t enter here unless you can get rid of the blind and lame, implying that David’s capture of Jerusalem was as likely as achieving a miraculous cure for blindness and lameness.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.