David Captures The Jebusite Fortress At Jerusalem In Order To Deliver It From The Inhabitants Of The Land And So That He Can Make It His Capital City And Stronghold (2 Samuel 5:6-10).
Note how it is stressed that the main reason for David's venture against Jerusalem was because it was inhabited by ‘the inhabitants of the land', in other words the Canaanites. His initial purpose was thus in order to purify the land in accordance with YHWH's commands which had forbidden making a covenant with them (Exodus 23:31; Exodus 34:12; Exodus 34:15; Numbers 33:15; Numbers 33:52-53; Numbers 33:55). Not for David the compromise of allowing them to stay there as an eyesore to YHWH.
A secondary purpose, however, was almost certainly because, now that David was king of both Israel and Judah it was important that he establish a capital city that would be acceptable to both. Hebron, his present capital, was central for Judah, but was very much a city of Judah, and that fact alone could have caused dissension among the other tribes once David's ‘honeymoon' period was over. But equally no prominent city among the northern tribes would have been remotely acceptable to Judah. It was indicative of his tact and wisdom that he therefore eyed up Jerusalem, which was on the borders of Judah and Benjamin with a view to making it his capital city. It had a number of things in its favour:
1). It was a cosmopolitan city, including both a Judean section and a Benjaminite section, while its main fortress had always been inhabited by a people who were not identified with any tribe. It had thus never been specifically identified with one particular tribe.
2). It was on the borders of both Judah and Benjamin.
3). It was fairly central and yet was in a good defensible position.
4). It had ancient validation in that in the ancient and sacred past Abraham, the father of Israel, had paid tithes to its king, who had been a priest of the Most High God (El Elyon).
Furthermore, knowing David's hatred of anything or anyone responsible for bringing YHWH's Name into disrepute by defying the living God (1Sa 17:26; 1 Samuel 17:36; 1 Samuel 17:45) it must be seen as quite probable that the presence of such an independent Jebusite city had been gnawing at his heart for some time, even though it was something that he had been unable to do anything about while lower Jerusalem was split between Benjamin and Judah, and his kingship had not been recognised by Israel. Now, however, that he was king over both, and Jerusalem was right in the centre of his kingdom, its anomalous situation must have become wholly unacceptable to him. Here was a city which defied YHWH, and did so boastfully and openly, and yet sat proudly in the middle of his kingdom. He would feel that he could not allow it to remains so. So as we have seen this was certainly very much in mind as well.
Jerusalem, which as we have pointed out was on the border of Judah and Benjamin, and was called Urusalim in the Amarna tablets, was fairly widely spread out, being built on a number of closely related hills. The king of Jerusalem and his forces had at one time been defeated by Joshua (Joshua 10), but it does not say there that he had besieged Jerusalem and taken it. That was firstly no doubt because it was not situated in the line of the conquests that followed Joshua's victory, as he swept through the Shephelah clearing the way for Israel's occupation, and perhaps secondly because standing proudly on its high hill it would have required many months of siege to subdue it, when there were more important objects in view. It appears to have initially been taken by Judah (Judges 1:8), but that may only have been the lower city and not have included the impregnable Jebusite fortress. If Judah did take the fortress it is clear that once Judah's forces had moved on to other conquests the Jebusites, the previous inhabitants, had returned and had retaken the original fortress city on its high hill surrounded by valleys, had strengthened its fortifications, and had been there ever since, gloating down on Israel from their proud eminence. Meanwhile Benjamin and Judah had both added to the city and had established their own sections of Jerusalem on other surrounding local hills (Judges 1:8; Judges 1:21), eventually making peace with the Jebusites. It is significant that Saul seemingly did not see it as requiring to be taken. He did not see it as a threat to the nation and he did not have David's passion for YHWH.
That Judah saw Jerusalem as very important from the beginning comes out in that that was where Adoni-Bezek was taken to be executed in the early days of the conquest (Judges 1:7). It was also where David had taken the head of Goliath in order to celebrate his triumph (1 Samuel 17:54). It is clear therefore that it was seen as having religious importance to Judah, which we might, in fact, have expected given its traditional connections with Abraham, who himself had also taken his trophies of victory back to Jerusalem in acknowledgement of its king as ‘priest of the Most High God'. Possibly the tradition had also already grown that it was the same mountain as that on which Abraham had been ready to offer his son, Isaac (compare 2 Chronicles 3:1). Thus for it to be in the hands of the Jebusites would have torn at David's soul, especially in view of Genesis 15:18-21; Exodus 3:8 (and often) where it is stressed that the Jebusites were intended to be brought into submission.
But David was to find, as others had before him, that it was one thing to talk of capturing the fortress city, and quite another actually to do it. This was so much so that the Jebusites were able to mock his attempts, declaring that he would never achieve his aim because even the lame and the blind could defend it. But they had reckoned without David's astuteness, for David realised what its weak spot was (it was the weak spot of most fortified cities). Like all cities it required an abundant water supply, and in order to obtain it a shaft had been dug which went down, either to an underground river which flowed under the city, or more probably to a tunnel which led to an underground water supply outside the walls. Thus he ordered his forces to discover the tunnel, find the shaft, and enter the city in that way, promising a reward for whoever did so. The soldiers on accomplishing the feat would probably emerge from the shaft into an underground cavern from which well worn steps would lead up into the city. If it was done at the right time they could congregate there in the darkness and no one would know of their presence until it was too late. An alternative and less picturesque suggestion is that he was calling on them to block off the water supply, thus making the city surrender through lack of water.
Analysis.
a And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David, saying, “Except you take away the blind and the lame, you will not come in here,” thinking, ‘David cannot come in here' (2 Samuel 5:6).
b Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David 2sa (5:7).
c And David said on that day, “Whoever smites the Jebusites, let him get up to the watercourse, and smite the lame and the blind, who are hated of David's soul.” Which is why they say, “There are the blind and the lame, he cannot come into the house” (2 Samuel 5:8).
b And David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the city of David (2 Samuel 5:9 a).
a And David built round about from Millo and inward (2 Samuel 5:9 b).
Note that in ‘a' the Jebusites stated that David would never enter Jerusalem, and in the parallel David had not only entered it but commenced building fortifications there from the Millo inwards. In ‘b' David took the stronghold of Zion, and in the parallel he dwelt in the stronghold and called it the City of David. Centrally in ‘c' we are told of the David's response to the Jebusite jibe and its consequence.
‘ And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David, saying, “Except you take away the blind and the lame, you will not come in here,” thinking, ‘David cannot come in here.'
Note that it is stressed that the main reason for David's venture against the Jebusites was because they were ‘the inhabitants of the land', in other words ‘Canaanites'. His initial purpose was thus in order to purify the land in accordance with YHWH's commands which had forbidden making a covenant with them (Exodus 23:31; Exodus 34:12; Exodus 34:15; Numbers 33:15; Numbers 33:52-53; Numbers 33:55). Not for David the compromise of allowing them to stay there as an eyesore to YHWH.
This may in fact have been his first action on becoming king, and it may even have been the action that drew the attention of the Philistines to his new position of authority, for if the Jebusites had been included as a tributary in the Philistine Empire, which they almost certainly would have been, they may well then have appealed to the Philistines for help. That in itself would be an indication to the Philistines that David was stepping outside his mandate and ‘rocking the boat'.
Whatever the case the Jebusites, who were Canaanites/Amorites, sneered at David's initial attempts, (and his earlier call on them to surrender), declaring that even the blind and the lame could hold out against him. Thus if he were to take the city he would have to remove even them. Basically the thought was of how totally impossible it was that he should take the city, as the past had proved. On the other hand never previously had they come up against someone who was ‘filled with the Sprit of YHWH' (1 Samuel 16:13).
‘ Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David.'
And how wrong they proved to be. For ‘nevertheless' David ‘took the stronghold of Zion' and renamed it ‘the City of David'. The name Zion was geographical and only occurs five times in the historical books (1 Kings 8:1; 2 Chronicles 5:2, in both of which it is explanatory of the City of David; 2 Kings 19:21; 2 Kings 19:31, in both of which it is a prophetic word; and 1 Chronicles 11:5 which is a parallel passage to this one. It is, however, common in the poetical books and the prophets where it had become symbolic of the place where God dwelt, and was also sometimes used of the people seen as YHWH's unique people).
The naming of it as ‘the City of David' was important. It stressed that it belonged neither to Judah or Israel, but to David, belonging to him from then on by right of conquest because he had taken it in conjunction with ‘his men', his own private army. It will be noted that elsewhere we often have the description of God's people as composed of ‘Israel and the inhabitants of Jerusalem' (2 Chronicles 35:18; Isaiah 8:14; Ezekiel 12:19), or of ‘Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem' (2 Kings 23:2; 2 Chronicles 20:15-20 (three times); 21:13; 33:9; Isaiah 5:3; Isaiah 22:21; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 11:2-12 (three times); 17:25; etc.; Daniel 9:7; Zephaniah 1:4; compare Matthew 3:5) stressing its separateness.
It is quite possible that David had in mind the position that Jerusalem had had in the days of Abraham, when Abraham had acknowledged his responsibility to pay it a portion of the spoils while acknowledging its king Melchi-zedek as the ‘priest of the Most High God' (Genesis 14). He may well therefore have seen it as a city that especially belonged to God and was closely associated with His worship, which would explain why he was so keen to bring the Ark there, in spite of the Tabernacle being elsewhere. Indeed he may well have seen himself as the spiritual successor to Melchi-zedek, and therefore as bound to take the city. Certainly he appears to have perpetuated its priesthood with the result that he and his sons became ‘priests after the order of Melchi-zedek' (Psalms 110:4; compare 2 Samuel 8:18), not as sacrificing priests, but as intercessory priests. We note that kings of the Davidic house regularly appear to have entered into a special ministry of intercession (compare 2 Samuel 5:17-19; 2 Samuel 21:1; 2Sa 24:10; 2 Samuel 24:17; 1 Kings 8:22 ff; 2 Kings 19:1; Ezekiel 44:3. See also 2 Kings 23:2-3).
‘ And David said on that day, “Whoever smites the Jebusites, let him get up to the watercourse, and smite the lame and the blind, who are hated of David's soul.” Which is why they say, “There are the blind and the lame, he cannot come into the house.” '
The derision of the Jebusites angered David, who no doubt saw it as a defiance of the armies of the living God (1 Samuel 17:26; 1 Samuel 17:36; 1 Samuel 17:45), with the result that he devised a plan for bringing the city into submission. Let those who would overcome the city enter it by the ‘water-tunnels' (sinnor - the meaning of the word sinnor is uncertain, but its root meaning is ‘hollow' and in Psalms 42:7 a it undoubtedly relates to something which parallels the waves and billows of a stormy sea, possibly water-spouts), making their way along the underground river or tunnel and up the water shaft. Then they could smite from within the defenders, whom David derisively calls ‘the lame and the blind' in imitation of the original jibe. If the Jebusites thought that the lame and the blind could hold out against David's forces, let their own defenders prove it.
And as a result of this exchange of jibes a proverb arose in Israel which stated, ‘there are the lame and the blind, they cannot come into the house (palace, tabernacle)'. This may mean that any who are insulting or unpleasant will always be left outside and never be invited into someone's house and given hospitality. Or it may have been indicating that it was always dangerous to assume that someone was too weak to hit back, for it might be discovered that they can do so only too well, the negative thereby being proved wrong. Or it may have been a proverb which became a jibe against Canaanites because, as ‘the lame and the blind', like the literal lame and the blind (Leviticus 21:18), they were not welcome into the house of YHWH (Deuteronomy 23:1-2; Zechariah 14:21).
‘ And David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from the Millo and inward.'
Having taken the city David took up residence in it, along with many of his men, together with many priests and Levites, making it his stronghold, and proceeding to fortify it further. The Millo was probably the system of terraces, consisting of retaining walls with levelled filling, discovered in excavations, which David further strengthened and fortified. He then built further fortifications within. No doubt he also in some way made it impossible for any in the future to do what his men had done.
It is clear from its initial mention that the taking of Jerusalem was seen as a high point in his reign. This was possibly precisely because of its associations with Abraham and Melchi-zedek with the idea that a new era had now begun. But for centuries it had resisted Israelite pressure, and had constantly been a bastion against Yahwism, perhaps the last prominent one in central Israel, with the people still worshipping their own gods there. Here were to be found the native Canaanites who should have been driven from the land. And yet even Samuel had seemingly been unable to do it. But now it had been accomplished by David, and the Canaanites had been made to submit to Yahwism. It no longer made Israel a divided land, and David had begun his reign by finally removing the Canaanite religion from at least that part of the land. It augured well for the future.