The Life and Times of

David Captures Jebus, Which Becomes Jerusalem, the “City of David.” (5:6-10)

There are a lot of long stories. When I ask someone how they became a Christian, they usually smile and say, “Well, that's kind of a long story.” The story of the city of Jerusalem is a long one as well. Jerusalem was, until the time that David captured it, known as Jebus. Its inhabitants were known as the Jebusites. The Jebusites are first named in Genesis 10;15-16, where we are told that they are truly Canaanites, the descendants of Canaan, the third son of Ham (Genesis 10:6). It was this Canaan who saw the nakedness of Noah (Genesis 9:22), and who brought a curse upon himself and his descendants (Genesis 9:25). It was on Mt. Moriah that Abraham offered up his son, Isaac (Genesis). This Mt. Moriah is the same mountain on which Solomon built the Temple (2 Chronicles 3:1).

Repeatedly, God promised the Israelites that He would bring them into the promised land. This land was possessed by the Canaanites (including the Jebusites), and God promised to drive them out (Genesis 15:18-21; Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11). When the spies were sent into the promised land to check it out, among those inhabitants of the land the spies named the Jebusites (Numbers 13:29). God not only promised to drive out the Canaanites (Joshua 3:10), He commanded the Israelites to do so (Deuteronomy 7:1ff.; 20:17). When the Israelites crossed the Jordan, the Jebusites were among those Canaanite peoples who joined forces to oppose Israel's entrance into the land (Joshua 9 & 11; 24:11).

In the Book of Joshua, Jebus was first described as one of the cities belonging to the sons of Judah, who were not able to drive them out (Joshua 15:63). In Joshua 18:28, Jebus seems to be a Benjamite city, and the Benjamites are not able to drive out the Jebusites, either (Judges 1:21). This leads to a kind of coexistence, which results in the Israelites embracing the sins of the Jebusites (Judges 3:1-7). The result of this was oppression from their neighbors as a divine chastening (3:8ff.). In Judges 19:10-12, the city of Jebus is still portrayed as non-Israelite. There may have been times when Jebus was under Israelite control (cf. 1 Samuel 17:54), but the victory was far from complete. It is not until David's day (and our text-- see also 1 Chronicles 21:15) that Jebus falls to the Israelites once and for all. There is even more to say about this city of Jebus, now to become Jerusalem, but we shall wait until our next lesson on chapter 6 to do this.

I believe that the taking of Jebus in verses 6-10 is to be understood in comparison to verses 17-25, where David twice defeats the Philistines. It is not difficult to understand why David fought against the Philistines in this chapter, because it was a matter of self-defense. The Philistines attacked the Israelites, and specifically David. I can imagine how they felt, knowing that they (or at least Achish, the King of Gath) had given David sanctuary in their land. They had even allowed him to be a part of their army. There was little David did not know about them, their methods, their routes, their resources. David would be a formidable foe. Better to deal with him quickly, before he was too entrenched. When the Philistines came up against David, there was little choice but to fight them. But the Jebusites were not at war with the Israelites. They had come to some form of coexistence. There was no apparent “need” for this fight. Why, then, Did David lead all of Israel up against this city, a city which the Israelites had never been able to thoroughly defeat before?

I believe that that there are several reasons. First and foremost, it was a city that God had promised to give to the Israelites, and a people that He had ordered the Israelites to destroy. Their presence among the Israelites was corrupting God's people (Judges 3:5-6). Saul was reluctant to deal decisively with attacks from Israel's enemies from without. He was even willing to live with the enemy dwelling within Israel. The Jebusites were left alone, so far as we can tell. Even the garrison of Philistines was not resisted, until Jonathan could bear their presence no longer, virtually forcing both the Philistines and his father to act (1 Samuel 13:3). David recognized that no kingdom could be viewed with fear (or even respect) if it were not able to expel its enemies from its midst. The Jebusites had to be dealt with, and David knew it. It was time for these enemies of God to be defeated. The defeat of the Jebusites and the taking of Jebus would be the first step in Israel's conquest of their enemies, a conquest that was partial in the times of Joshua and the judges. This victory would overshadow the victory of Saul and the Israelites over the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11). What a way to start a reign as king!

Second, David needed a new capital city. When David had been king of Judah alone, Hebron served well as his capital city. But now David was the king of all Israel. He needed a capital that was farther north. He needed a capital which would be more centrally located, and one which would unify the nation. Jebus was the perfect city. Israel's victory over the Jebusites would unite the nation. The possession of Jebus as David's new capital would do likewise. The city was virtually on the border of Judah and Benjamin. It was a city that neither the sons of Judah nor the sons of Benjamin had been able to capture. Thus, taking this city as his capital would not seem to favor either of these two tribes. In addition to all of this, its natural setting made it difficult to defeat (which is why the Israelites had not taken and held it before). It was in the hill country, on the top of more than one mountain, and with valleys around it. With a little work, it was a virtual fortress (5:9).

There is a three fold reference to the “blind and the lame” in verses 6-10. Nearly everyone would agree that this must be significant, but there is little agreement as to what the significance is. I am inclined to take these words at face value, and to interpret them in the light of the context. I do not believe that the people of Jebus have anyone particular in mind when they say, “You shall not come in here, but the blind and the lame shall turn you away” (verse 6). We know that they said this because they believed there was no way that David could ever enter the city and overtake it.

Have you ever been charged by a mean dog, only to learn that he was chained, and the angry dog was stopped just inches short of you? If the dog were loose, you would either run or talk very kindly to it, trying to talk it out of mauling you. You would certainly not aggravate or tease the dog, if you thought it was loose. But once you see that it is confined by a large chain or a fence, you suddenly find the courage to speak harshly to the dog, and perhaps even to tease it. When we feel smugly secure, we speak with much more boldness.

Now, when the people of Jebus saw David and the Israelite soldiers coming against their city, it was not something new or frightening to them. In their history, such attacks had occurred with some frequency, but never successfully. And so, safely behind the walls of the city, the Jebusites mocked David and his men. It was something like an arrogant bully threatening, “I can whip you with one arm tied behind my back.” Were they intimidated by David's army? Not at all! And so they mocked them by bragging that they were so secure they could turn their defense over to those who were blind and lame.

David's anger is aroused, much as it was by Goliath's arrogant boasting. He took up the words of their boast in his orders to his men. “Let his men go and do battle with the 'lame and the blind,' and let them reach them by entering the city through the water tunnel. This they did, and when they did they defeated the Jebusites. And from that time on there was a saying amongst David's followers,¹ “The blind or the lame shall not come into the house.” This seems to be an excuse, a pretext, for those who have no compassion on the handicapped, and who have seized upon an incident to justify their lack of mercy. I believe that these words much have been recorded in the light of 2 Samuel 4:4 and 9:1-13. Would Ish-bosheth's own servants kill their master in his bed? Would the Israelites actually forbid the handicapped to be in their house? David would seek out the handicapped Mephibosheth, to show him love for Jonathan's sake by having him eat at his own table.

Is this attitude and action on David's part not a foreshadowing of the ultimate King of Israel, when He came to this earth? Would the self-righteous not look the other way, and walk on the other side of the street, lest they come into contact with a wounded man (see Luke 10:25-37). They wondered why Jesus would associate with sinners and be touched by the impure. The very people that they shunned, Jesus sought. David was a prototype of the One who would come after him, who would seek out those who were infirmed, and minister to them (see Luke 4:16-21; 5:29-32; 7:18-23). And just as David represents the Messiah, the arrogant and boastful Jebusites represent the self-righteous, who scorn Jesus, and will eventually suffer defeat at His hand. David's enemies were defeated, as he became greater and greater. He could not be stopped for God was with him.