The king and his men went to Jerusalem— David was of an enterprising genius, which he always employed for the honour and interest of his country. His siege of Jerusalem was founded in justice, and the taking it was necessary to the safety of his government and people. It was situated in the middle of the tribe of Benjamin, and taken by the Hebrews soon after Joshua's death; not indeed the whole of it, but the lower city: for the Jebusites kept possession of the fortress of Zion, the Hebrews and Jebusites dwelling together in the other part of the city after it was rebuilt. The Hebrews dwelt in it in the reign of Saul; for David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem, 1 Samuel 17:54. But the whole city, as well as the fort, was now in the hands of the Jebusites; for, when David demanded the restitution of the city, the Jebusites said, Thou shalt not come in hither. Josephus also affirms, that they were in possession both of the city and the fortress. How it came into the possession of the Jebusites, is not said: probably, they seized it during the war between Saul and the Philistines, or the contest between David and Ish-bosheth, which lasted for above seven years. David, therefore, had a right to recover it, as the ancient possession and property of his people; and would have been an impolitic, negligent prince, had he suffered so strong a fortress, in the midst of his dominions, to have remained in the hands of his enemies. And what fixed David the more in his resolution to become master of it, was the insult offered him by the Jebusites in the town and fortress, upon the supposition that it was impregnable. See Joseph. Antiq. l. vii. c. iii. sect. 1.
Except thou take away the blind, &c.— Some imagine, that by the blind are to be understood the Jebusite deities, called the blind and lame by way of derision. Yet it is not likely that the Jebusites should revile their own deities; and we must remember, that these deities are supposed to be here called blind and lame by the Jebusites themselves. But, admitting them to be idol deities, what meaning can there be in the Jebusites telling David, he should not come into the city unless he took away the deities upon the walls? If he could scale the walls, so as to reach these guardian deities, he need not ask leave of the Jebusites to enter the citadel. And what can be the meaning of the latter end of 2 Samuel 5:8 wherefore they said, &c.? For, who said? Did the Jebusites say their own deities should not come into the house,—should not come where they were; or should not come into the house of the Lord? Or could these deities say that David and his men should not come into the house? The absurdity of such a speech attributed to these idols, whose known character is, that they have mouths, and speak not, needs no illustration. But though the deities could not enounce these words, some imagine the Jebusites might; that it is possible the blind and the lame may signify the Jebusites, and that the Jebusites in general are called blind and lame, for putting their trust in blind and lame idols. This seems too refined a sense; and the blind and lame means the same both in the 6th and 8th verses. It is farther observed, that the words, 2 Samuel 5:8. Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, shew, that they are spoken of as different from the Jebusites. Perhaps, then, they were so; perhaps they were, in fact, a few poor creatures who laboured under the infirmities of blindness and lameness, and therefore were different from the general body of the Jebusites. But we may ask, How we can rationally account for that bitterness which David expresses against these blind and lame; and how it was possible for a man of David's humanity to detest men for mere unblameable, and, indeed, pitiable infirmities? The Jebusites looked upon David's attempt as vain, and fit to be treated with insolence and raillery. Full of this fond notion, they placed the blind and lame upon the walls, and told David he should not come in thither, for the blind and the lame were sufficient to keep him off; which they should effect only by their shouting, David shall not come hither,—No! David shall not come hither. That the blind and the lame were contemptuously placed upon the walls by the Jebusites, as before described, we are assured by the concurrent testimony of Josephus. Now, that these blind and lame, who appear to have been placed upon the walls, were to insult David in the manner before mentioned, seems evident, from the impossibility of otherwise accounting for David's indignation against these naturally pitiable people. The Hebrew particles אם כי ki im, rendered nevertheless, should be rendered for, as in Proverbs 23:18. The Hebrew verb הסירךֶ hesirka, translated thou take away, should be translated shall keep thee off: the LXX have rendered it plural. Should it be objected, that the word is, in the original, in the preter tense, still it may be asserted, that it should be rendered as if it were in the future; it being agreeable to the genius of the Hebrew language, frequently to speak of events yet future, as having actually happened, when the speaker would strongly express the certainty of such events. It is very remarkable, that the sense affixed to this passage is confirmed by Josephus; and it is further remarkable, that the same sense is given to these words in the English Bible of Coverdale, printed in 1535, where they are rendered, Thou shalt not come hither, but the blynde and lame shal dryve the awaie. That it was improperly rendered before that edition, appears from Wickliffe's Manuscript version of 1383, where we read, Thou shalt not entre hidur; no, but thou do awaie blynd men and lame, &c. According to these emendations, this verse will be, "And the inhabitants of Jebus said, Thou shalt not come hither; for the blind and the lame shall keep thee off, by saying, David shall not come in hither." See Kennicott's Dissert. vol. 1: p. 32, &c.