Comentarios bíblicos

V.

Chapters 5-6. contain the account of the first half of David’s reign over the whole nation. All the events mentioned in them occurred within this period, but are not arranged with a strict regard to chronology within themselves, it being the object of the historian to describe first the internal improvement of the kingdom, and then afterwards the external development of its power.

(1) All the tribes.—Not only as represented by their elders (2Samuel 5:3), but by the large bodies of their warriors enumerated in 1Chronicles 12:23-40. It is to be noticed, then, that the “children of Judah” (1Chronicles 12:24), over whom David was already king, joined in the assembly, and that there were 4,600 Levites with Jehoiada as the leader of the priestly family of Aaron, while Zadok appears only as a conspicuous member of that family (1Chronicles 12:27-28).

Thy bone and thy flesh.—The Israelites, oppressed by the Philistines and their other enemies, and having seen the utter failure of the house of Saul and the death of their head, Abner, felt the necessity of union under a competent leader, and it is probable that this gathering to David, already prepared for by the negotiations of Abner, took place immediately after the death of Ish-bosheth. They assign three reasons for their action: (1) that they were of the same flesh and bone with David (comp. Genesis 29:14; Judges 9:2; 2Samuel 19:12)—i.e., were of such common descent that it was unfitting for them to constitute separate nations; (2) that David, even in Saul’s reign, had been their military leader, and hence they knew him and had confidence in his prowess and sagacity; (3) that the Lord had chosen him for their king. The exact language of the Divine promise quoted is not found in the record, but is either (as in the case of Abner’s words, 2Samuel 3:18) a summary of the communications made to David, or else some unrecorded language of one of the prophets.

(3) Made a league with them.—It would be an anachronism to understand this of the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, but the “league” may have had reference to certain special matters, such as leading them against their enemies, not destroying the remnant of the house of Saul or its late adherents, and not showing partiality (as Saul had done) to the members of his own tribe.

(4) Thirty years old.—This statement of the age and of the length of the reign of David (which is repeated in 1Chronicles 29:26-27, at the end of the history of David’s life) shows us approximately the length of time since the combat with Goliath as some ten or twelve years. It also proves that the greater part of Saul’s reign is treated very briefly in 1 Samuel, and further shows that David was seventy years old at his death.

(5) Seven years and six months.—The six months is also mentioned in 2Samuel 2:11; 1Chronicles 3:4, but, as being only the fraction of a year, is generally omitted in the summary of the length of his reign, as in 2Samuel 5:4; 1Chronicles 29:27. It was the habit of the sacred historians either to omit such fractions or else to count them as whole years, thus introducing a certain element of indefiniteness into the chronology, which is very marked in the parallel narratives of the kings of Israel and of Judah.

(6) Went to Jerusalem.—The king of Jerusalem had been defeated and slain by Joshua (Joshua 10:23-26; Joshua 12:10), and the city had been subsequently taken and destroyed by Judah (Judges 1:7-8). It was, however, only partially occupied by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Judges 1:21; Judges 15:63), and at a later time fell again entirely into the hands of the Jebusites (Judges 19:11-12). That Jebus and Jerusalem were two names of the same city is stated in 1Chronicles 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 2Samuel 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.

(8) Getteth up to the gutter.—The sense of this passage is obscure, partly from the difficulty of the Hebrew construction, partly from the uncertainty of the meaning of the word translated gutter. This word occurs elsewhere only in Psalm 42:7, where it is translated waterspouts. The ancient versions differ in their interpretations, but the most probable sense is watercourses, such as were connected with the precipices around Mount Zion. The two clauses also are unnecessarily transposed in our version, and the word getteth, by a very slight change in the Masoretic vowels, becomes cast or hurl. The whole clause will then read, “Whosoever smites the Jebusites, let him hurl into the watercourses (i.e., down the precipice) the lame and the blind.” David thus applies to all the Jebusites the expression they had just used of those who would suffice to resist his attack. The clause “that are hated of David’s soul,” shows that in this siege no quarter was to be given; the Jebusites were under the old ban resting upon all the Canaanites, and were to be destroyed. The English version inserts the clause, “he shall be chief and captain,” which is not in the original, and is here obscure. In 1Chronicles 11:6, however, the same statement is made more fully and is important: “David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up and was chief.” It thus appears that David promised the command of his army to the man who should successfully lead the forlorn hope; Joab did this, and won the place in the armies of all Israel which he had hitherto filled in that of Judah. This fact helps to explain the sense of obligation and restraint which David afterwards felt towards Joab.

Wherefore they said.—Rather, they say. This became a proverbial expression: no intercourse is to be had with such people as the Jebusites, here again called “the blind and the lame.”

(9) The fort.—The same word as strong hold in 2Samuel 5:7.

Millo.—A word always used in Hebrew with the definite article (except in Judges 9:6; Judges 9:20), the Millo. It is probably an old Canaanitish name for the fortification on the northern end of Mount Zion, “inward” from which the palace was situated. Subsequent kings, as Solomon (1Kings 11:27) and Hezekiah (2Chronicles 32:5), saw its importance and added to its strength. On all other sides Zion was protected by precipitous ravines. There is, however, some difference of opinion about the topography of ancient Jerusalem.