Didactic Encyclopedia


SEARCH CONTENTS

Custom Search

Bible Highlights: 2 Samuel 4-5-6-7-8 > Theocratic Ministry School

ADS BY GOOGLE

Study information for Theocratic Ministry School

Read and listen to the reading of the Bible in JW.org:

Information for the personal study

2 SAMUEL 4:2


“There were two men in charge of the marauder bands that belonged to the son of Saul: one was named Ba′a•nah and the other Re′chab. They were sons of Rim′mon the Be•er′oth•ite, of the tribe of Benjamin. (For Be•er′oth too used to be counted as part of Benjamin.”

*** it-1 pp. 276-277 Beeroth ***
In describing the assassination of Saul’s son Ish-bosheth by men from Beeroth, the statement is made that “Beeroth, too, used to be counted as part of Benjamin.” This may indicate that the city lay near the border line of a neighboring tribe, hence the need to specify the tribal territory in which it was situated. (2Sa 4:2-6) Mention is made of the flight of its residents to Gittaim, but the reason is not explained; it may have been due to Philistine raids following their victory over Saul’s forces at Mount Gilboa, or it may have taken place after the assassination of Ish-bosheth, the flight being to avoid acts of vengeance in reprisal for that murder.

2 SAMUEL 4:3


“The Be•er′oth•ites ran away to Git′ta•im, and they are foreign residents there down to this day.)”

*** it-1 pp. 276-277 Beeroth ***
In describing the assassination of Saul’s son Ish-bosheth by men from Beeroth, the statement is made that “Beeroth, too, used to be counted as part of Benjamin.” This may indicate that the city lay near the border line of a neighboring tribe, hence the need to specify the tribal territory in which it was situated. (2Sa 4:2-6) Mention is made of the flight of its residents to Gittaim, but the reason is not explained; it may have been due to Philistine raids following their victory over Saul’s forces at Mount Gilboa, or it may have taken place after the assassination of Ish-bosheth, the flight being to avoid acts of vengeance in reprisal for that murder.

2 SAMUEL 5:1


“In time all the tribes of Israel came to David at Heb′ron and said: “Look! We are your own bone and flesh.”

*** w05 5/15 p. 17 par. 2 Highlights From the Book of Second Samuel ***
5:1, 2—How long after Ish-bosheth’s assassination was David made king over all Israel? It seems reasonable to conclude that Ish-bosheth began his two-year-long kingship shortly after Saul’s death, about the same time David began his in Hebron. David ruled over Judah from Hebron for seven and a half years. Soon after being made king over all Israel, he shifted his capital to Jerusalem. Hence, about five years elapsed after Ish-bosheth’s death before David became king over all Israel.—2 Samuel 2:3, 4, 8-11; 5:4, 5.


2 SAMUEL 5:5


“In Heb′ron he reigned over Judah for 7 years and 6 months, and in Jerusalem he reigned for 33 years over all Israel and Judah.”

*** it-1 p. 1224 Ish-bosheth ***
At the time Ish-bosheth was 40 years old, and he is said to have reigned for two years. Since the Bible does not say exactly where this two-year reign fits in with the seven-and-a-half-year period when David ruled as king at Hebron, there is no way of resolving differences of opinion held by scholars on the point. However, it does seem more reasonable to think that Ish-bosheth was made king shortly after the death of his father (rather than five years later), in which case there would have been a lapse of about five years between his assassination and David’s being installed as king over all Israel.—2Sa 2:8-11; 4:7; 5:4, 5.

2 SAMUEL 5:6


“And the king and his men set out for Jerusalem against the Jeb′u•sites who were inhabiting the land. They taunted David: “You will never come in here! Even the blind and the lame will drive you away.” They thought, ‘David will never get in here.’”

*** it-1 p. 343 Blindness ***
The Jebusites were so confident that their citadel was impregnable that they taunted David, saying their own feeble blind, weak though they were, could defend the fortress of Zion against Israel.—2Sa 5:6, 8.

*** it-2 pp. 190-191 Lame, Lameness ***
Illustrative and Figurative Uses. The Jebusites illustrated their boastful confidence in the security of their citadel when they taunted David: “‘You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame ones will certainly turn you away,’ they thinking: ‘David will not come in here.’” They may have actually placed such persons on the wall as defenders, as is stated by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, VII, 61 [iii, 1]), and this may be the reason why David said: “Anyone striking the Jebusites, let him, by means of the water tunnel, make contact with both the lame and the blind, hateful to the soul of David!”

2 SAMUEL 5:7


“However, David captured the stronghold of Zion, which is now the City of David.”

*** gm chap. 7 pp. 95-96 Does the Bible Contradict Itself? ***
Read the Account Carefully
19 Sometimes, all that is needed to resolve apparent contradictions is to read the account carefully and reason on the information provided. This is the case when we consider the conquest of Jerusalem by the Israelites. Jerusalem was listed as part of the inheritance of Benjamin, but we read that Benjamin’s tribe was unable to conquer it. (Joshua 18:28; Judges 1:21) We also read that Judah was unable to conquer Jerusalem—as if it were part of that tribe’s inheritance. Eventually, Judah defeated Jerusalem, burning it with fire. (Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:8) Hundreds of years later, however, David is also recorded as conquering Jerusalem.—2 Samuel 5:5-9.
20 At first glance, all of this might appear confusing, but there are in reality no contradictions. In fact, the boundary between Benjamin’s inheritance and Judah’s ran along the Valley of Hinnom, right through the ancient city of Jerusalem. What later came to be called the City of David actually lay in the territory of Benjamin, just as Joshua 18:28 says. But it is likely that the Jebusite city of Jerusalem spilled across the Valley of Hinnom and thus overlapped into Judah’s territory, so that Judah, too, had to war against its Canaanite inhabitants.
21 Benjamin was unable to conquer the city. On one occasion, Judah did conquer Jerusalem and burn it. (Judges 1:8, 9) But Judah’s forces evidently moved on, and some of the original inhabitants regained possession of the city. Later, they formed a pocket of resistance that neither Judah nor Benjamin could remove. Thus, the Jebusites continued in Jerusalem until David conquered the city hundreds of years later.

*** it-1 p. 724 Enclave Cities ***
A part of ancient Jerusalem remained a Jebusite enclave within Israel’s territory for four centuries until David finally captured it.—Jos 15:63; Jg 1:21; 19:11, 12; 2Sa 5:6-9.

2 SAMUEL 5:8


“So David said on that day: “Those who attack the Jeb′u•sites should go through the water tunnel to strike down both ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hateful to David!” That is why it is said: “The blind and the lame will never enter the house.””

*** w97 6/15 p. 10 Jerusalem in Bible Times—What Does Archaeology Reveal? ***
Scholars have long recognized that the ancient city’s main source of water was the Gihon spring. It was located outside the city walls but close enough to allow for a tunnel and a 36-foot-deep [11 m] shaft to be excavated, which would enable the inhabitants to draw water without going outside the protective walls. This is known as Warren’s Shaft, named after Charles Warren, who discovered the system in 1867. But when were the tunnel and the shaft made? Did they exist in David’s time? Was this the water tunnel used by Joab? Dan Gill answers: “To test whether Warren’s Shaft was in fact a natural sinkhole, we analyzed a fragment of calcareous crust from its irregular walls for carbon-14. It contained none, indicating that the crust is more than 40,000 years old: This provides unequivocal evidence that the shaft could not have been dug by man.”

*** w97 6/15 p. 9 Jerusalem in Bible Times—What Does Archaeology Reveal? ***
For instance, David told his men that “anyone striking the Jebusites, let him, by means of the water tunnel, make contact” with the enemy. (2 Samuel 5:8) David’s commander Joab did this. What exactly is meant by the expression “water tunnel”?

*** it-1 p. 591 David, City of ***
In the Kidron Valley near the foot of the eastern flank of the spur on which the stronghold sat, there is a spring called Gihon. (1Ki 1:33) Archaeological excavations indicate that in ancient times a tunnel or shaft was cut through the rock, making access to the spring possible without leaving the city walls. It has been suggested that it was by climbing up this shaft that Joab and his men were able to penetrate the stronghold and take it.—2Sa 5:8; 1Ch 11:5, 6.

*** it-1 p. 941 Gihon ***
The spring of Gihon is generally believed to have been involved in the method employed by General Joab in penetrating the nearly impregnable Jebusite stronghold at Jerusalem, making possible its capture by David. (1Ch 11:6) Although the translation of the Hebrew text at 2 Samuel 5:8 presents certain problems, the usual rendering indicates the presence of a “water tunnel,” referred to by David when promoting the attack on the city. In 1867 C.E., Charles Warren discovered a water channel running back from the cave in which the spring of Gihon rises and, after a distance of some 20 m (66 ft), ending in a pool or reservoir. A vertical shaft cut in the rock above this pool extended upward 11 m (36 ft), and at the top of the shaft there was a place where persons could stand and let down containers by rope to draw water from the pool below. A sloping passageway led back nearly 39 m (128 ft) from the shaft up into the interior of the city. By this means it is believed that the Jebusites maintained access to their water source even when unable to venture outside the city walls because of enemy attack. Although the spring of Gihon is not directly mentioned in the account, it is suggested that Joab and his men daringly gained entrance to the city through this water tunnel.

*** it-2 p. 41 Jerusalem ***
But David conquered the city, his attack being spearheaded by Joab, who evidently gained entry into the city by means of “the water tunnel.” (2Sa 5:6-9; 1Ch 11:4-8) Scholars are not entirely certain of the meaning of the Hebrew term here rendered “water tunnel,” but generally accept this or similar terms (“water shaft,” RS, AT; “gutter,” JP) as the most likely meaning. The brief account does not state just how the city’s defenses were breached. Since the discovery of the tunnel and shaft leading to the Gihon spring, the popular view is that Joab led men up this vertical shaft, through the sloping tunnel and into the city in a surprise attack. (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 951)

*** it-2 pp. 190-191 Lame, Lameness ***
Illustrative and Figurative Uses. The Jebusites illustrated their boastful confidence in the security of their citadel when they taunted David: “‘You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame ones will certainly turn you away,’ they thinking: ‘David will not come in here.’” They may have actually placed such persons on the wall as defenders, as is stated by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, VII, 61 [iii, 1]), and this may be the reason why David said: “Anyone striking the Jebusites, let him, by means of the water tunnel, make contact with both the lame and the blind, hateful to the soul of David!” These lame and blind ones were the symbol of the Jebusites’ insult to David and, more seriously, their taunt against the armies of Jehovah. David hated the Jebusites, along with their lame and blind, for such arrogance. He may actually have been calling the Jebusite leaders themselves ‘the lame and blind,’ in derision.—2Sa 5:6-8.
As to the statement in verse 8, “That is why they say: ‘The blind one and the lame one will not come into the house,’” several explanations have been offered. In the text this statement is not attributed to David and may mean that others developed this proverbial saying with regard to those who, like the Jebusites, boasted or were overconfident of their secure position. Or, the saying might have meant, ‘No one who holds intercourse with disagreeable people like the Jebusites will enter.’ Others would render the text, “because the blind and the lame continued to say, He shall not come into this house,” or, “Because they had said, even the blind and the lame, He shall not come into the house.”—Barrett’s Synopsis of Criticisms, London, 1847, Vol. II, Part II, p. 518; KJ margin.

Click on the image to Download complete information into digital files for Computer, Tablet PC, Smartphone

Download information for the personal Studio for Computer, Tablet PC, Smartphone

Download information for the personal Studio for Computer, Tablet PC, Smartphone

SEARCH CONTENTS

Custom Search

ADD THIS