|
|
FULL BACKGROUND
Included specifically for theological students and teachers. General readers may prefer to proceed directly to PART 2: A REVELATION OF..
DEFINITION OF TERMS
DAVID — beloved, the eighth and youngest son of Jesse, a citizen of Bethlehem. His father seems to have been a man in humble life. His mother’s name is not recorded. Some think she was the Nahash of 2 Sam. 17:25. As to his personal appearance, we only know that he was red-haired, with beautiful eyes and a fair face (1 Sam. 16:12; 17:42).
His early occupation was that of tending his father’s sheep on the uplands of Judah. From what we know of his after history, doubtless he frequently beguiled his time, when thus engaged, with his shepherd’s flute, while he drank in the many lessons taught him by the varied scenes spread around him. His first recorded exploits were his encounters with the wild beasts of the field. He mentions that with his own unaided hand he slew a lion and also a bear, when they came out against his flock, beating them to death in open conflict with his club (1 Sam. 17:34, 35).
While David, in the freshness of ruddy youth, was thus engaged with his flocks, Samuel paid an unexpected visit to Bethlehem, having been guided thither by divine direction (1 Sam. 16:1–13). There he offered up sacrifice, and called the elders of Israel and Jesse’s family to the sacrificial meal. Among all who appeared before him he failed to discover the one he sought. David was sent for, and the prophet immediately recognized him as the chosen of God, chosen to succeed Saul, who was now departing from the ways of God, on the throne of the kingdom. He accordingly, in anticipation, poured on his head the anointing oil. David went back again to his shepherd life, but “the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward,” and “the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul” (1 Sam. 16:13, 14).
Not long after this David was sent for to soothe with his harp the troubled spirit of Saul, who suffered from a strange melancholy dejection. He played before the king so skilfully that Saul was greatly cheered, and began to entertain great affection for the young shepherd. After this he went home to Bethlehem. But he soon again came into prominence. The armies of the Philistines and of Israel were in battle array in the valley of Elah, some 16 miles south-west of Bethlehem; and David was sent by his father with provisions for his three brothers, who were then fighting on the side of the king. On his arrival in the camp of Israel, David (now about twenty years of age) was made aware of the state of matters when the champion of the Philistines, Goliath of Gath, came forth to defy Israel. David took his sling, and with a well-trained aim threw a stone “out of the brook,” which struck the giant’s forehead, so that he fell senseless to the ground. David then ran and slew him, and cut off his head with his own sword (1 Sam. 17). The result was a great victory to the Israelites, who pursued the Philistines to the gates of Gath and Ekron.
David’s popularity consequent on this heroic exploit awakened Saul’s jealousy (1 Sam. 18:6–16), which he showed in various ways. He conceived a bitter hatred toward him, and by various stratagems sought his death (1 Sam. 18–30). The deep-laid plots of the enraged king, who could not fail to observe that David “prospered exceedingly,” all proved futile, and only endeared the young hero the more to the people, and very specially to Jonathan, Saul’s son, between whom and David a life-long warm friendship was formed.
A fugitive. To escape from the vengeance of Saul, David fled to Ramah (1 Sam. 19:12–18) to Samuel, who received him, and he dwelt among the sons of the prophets, who were there under Samuel’s training. It is supposed by some that the sixth, seventh, and eleventh Psalms were composed by him at this time. This place was only 3 miles from the residence of Saul, who soon discovered whither the fugitive had gone, and tried ineffectually to bring him back. Jonathan made a fruitless effort to bring his father to a better state of mind toward David (1 Sam. 20), who, being made aware of the fact, saw no hope of safety but in flight to a distance. We accordingly find him first at Nob (21:1–9) and then at Gath, the chief city of the Philistines. The king of the Philistines would not admit him into his service, as he expected that he would, and David accordingly now betook himself to the stronghold of Adullam (22:1–4; 1 Chr. 12:8–18). Here in a short time 400 men gathered around him and acknowledged him as their leader. It was at this time that David, amid the harassment and perils of his position, cried, “Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem;” when three of his heroes broke through the lines of the Philistines and brought him the water for which he longed (2 Sam. 23:13–17), but which he would not drink.
In his rage at the failure of all his efforts to seize David, Saul gave orders for the massacre of the entire priestly family at Nob, “persons who wore a linen ephod”, to the number of eighty-five persons, who were put to death by Doeg the Edomite. The sad tidings of the massacre were brought to David by Abiathar, a son of Ahimelech, the only one who escaped. Comp. Ps. 52.
Hearing that Keilah, a town on the western frontier, was harassed by the Philistines, David with his men relieved it (1 Sam. 23:1–14); and then, for fear of Saul, he fled to the strongholds in the “hill country” of Judah. Comp. Ps. 31. While encamped there, in the forest in the district of Ziph, he was visited by Jonathan, who spoke to him words of encouragement (23:16–18). The two now parted never to meet again. Saul continued his pursuit of David, who narrowly escaped from him at this time, and fled to the crags and ravines of Engedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea (1 Sam. 23:29). Here Saul, who still pursued him with his army, narrowly escaped, through the generous forbearance of David, and was greatly affected by what David had done for him. He returned home from pursuing him, and David betook himself to Maon, where, with his 600 men, he maintained himself by contributions gathered from the district. Here occurred the incident connected with Nabal and his wife Abigail (1 Sam. 25), whom David married after Nabal’s death.
Saul again went forth (1 Sam. 26) in pursuit of David, who had hid himself “in the hill Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon,” in the wilderness of Ziph, and was a second time spared through his forbearance. He returned home, professing shame and penitence for the way in which he had treated David, and predicting his elevation to the throne.
Fighting against Israel. Harassed by the necessity of moving from place to place through fear of Saul, David once more sought refuge among the Philistines (1 Sam. 27). He was welcomed by the king, who assigned him Ziklag as his residence. Here David lived among his followers for some time as an independent chief engaged in frequent war with the Amalekites and other tribes on the south of Judah.
Achish summoned David with his men to join his army against Saul; but the lords of the Philistines were suspicious of David’s loyalty, and therefore he was sent back to Ziklag, which he found to his dismay may had been pillaged and burnt during his brief absence. David pursued after the raiders, the Amalekites, and completely routed them. On his return to Ziklag tidings reached him of Saul’s death (2 Sam. 1). An Amalekite brought Saul’s crown and bracelet and laid them at his feet. David and his men rent their clothes and mourned for Saul, who had been defeated in battle near Mount Gilboa. David composed a beautiful elegy, the most beautiful of all extant Hebrew odes, a “lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son” (2 Sam. 1:18–27). It bore the title of “The Bow,” and was to be taught to the children, that the memory of Saul and Jonathan might be preserved among them. “Behold, it is written in the book of Jasher” (q.v.).
David king over Judah. David and his men now set out for Hebron under divine direction (2 Sam. 2:1–4). There they were cordially welcomed, and he was at once anointed as king. He was now about thirty years of age.
But his title to the throne was not undisputed. Abner took Ish-bosheth, Saul’s only remaining son, over the Jordan to Mahanaim, and there crowned him as king. Then began a civil war in Israel. The first encounter between the two opposing armies, led on the one side by Abner, and on the other by Joab, took place at the pool of Gibeon. It resulted in the defeat of Abner. Other encounters, however, between Israel and Judah followed (2 Sam. 3:1, 5), but still success was on the side of David. For the space of seven and a half years David reigned in Hebron. Abner now sided with David, and sought to promote his advancement; but was treacherously put to death by Joab in revenge for his having slain his brother Asahel at Gibeon (3:22–39). This was greatly to David’s regret. He mourned for the death of Abner. Shortly after this Ish-bosheth was also treacherously put to death by two Canaanites of Beeroth; and there being now no rival, David was anointed king over all Israel (4:1–12).
David king over all Israel (2 Sam. 5:1–5; 1 Chr. 11:1–3). The elders of Israel now repaired to Hebron and offered allegiance to David in name of all the people, among whom the greatest enthusiasm prevailed. He was anointed king over all Israel, and sought out a new seat of government, more suitable than Hebron, as the capital of his empire. At this time there was a Jebusite fortress, “the stronghold”, on the hill of Zion, called also Jebus. This David took from the Jebusites, and made it Israel’s capital, and established here his residence, and afterwards built for himself a palace by the aid of Tyrian tradesmen. The Philistines, who had for some time observed a kind of truce, now made war against David; but were defeated in battle at a place afterwards called, in remembrance of the victory, Baal-perazim. Again they invaded the land, and were a second time routed by him. He thus delivered Israel from their enemies.
David now resolved to bring up the ark of the covenant to his new capital (2 Sam. 6). It was in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim, about 7 miles from Jerusalem, where it had been for many years, from the time when the Philistines had sent it home (1 Sam. 6; 7). In consequence of the death of Uzzah (for it was a divine ordinance that only the Levites should handle the ark, Num. 4), who had put forth his hand to steady the ark when the cart in which it was being conveyed shook by reason of the roughness of the road, David stayed the procession, and conveyed the ark into the house of Obed-edom, a Philistine from Gath. After three months David brought the ark from the house of Obed-edom up to Jerusalem. Comp. Ps. 24. Here it was placed in a new tent or tabernacle which David erected for the purpose. About seventy years had passed since it had stood in the tabernacle at Shiloh. The old tabernacle was now at Gibeah, at which Zadok ministered. David now (1 Chr. 16) carefully set in order all the ritual of divine worship at Jerusalem, along with Abiathar the high priest. A new religious era began. The service of praise was for the first time introduced into public worship. Zion became henceforth “God’s holy hill.”
David’s wars. David now entered on a series of conquests which greatly extended and strengthened his kingdom (2 Sam. 8). In a few years the whole territory from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt, and from Gaza on the west to Thapsacus on the east, was under his sway (2 Sam. 8:3–13; 10).
David’s fall. He had now reached the height of his glory. He ruled over a vast empire, and his capital was enriched with the spoils of many lands. But in the midst of all this success he fell, and his character became stained with the sin of adultery (2 Sam. 11:2–27). It has been noted as characteristic of the Bible that while his military triumphs are recorded in a few verses, the sad story of his fall is given in detail, a story full of warning, and therefore recorded. This crime, in the attempt to conceal it, led to another. He was guilty of murder. Uriah, whom he had foully wronged, an officer of the Gibborim, the corps of heros (23:39), was, by his order, “set in the front of the hottest battle” at the siege of Rabbah, in order that he might be put to death. Nathan the prophet (2 Sam. 7:1–17; 12:1–23) was sent by God to bring home his crimes to the conscience of the guilty monarch. He became a true penitent. He bitterly bewailed his sins before God. The thirty-second and fifty-first Psalms reveal the deep struggles of his soul, and his spiritual recovery.
Bathsheba became his wife after Uriah’s death. Her first-born son died, according to the word of the prophet. She gave birth to a second son, whom David called Solomon, and who ultimately succeeded him on the throne (2 Sam. 12:24, 25).
Peace. After the successful termination of all his wars, David formed the idea of building a temple for the ark of God. This he was not permitted to carry into execution, because he had been a man of war. God, however, sent Nathan to him with a gracious message (2 Sam. 7:1–16). On receiving it he went into the sanctuary, the tent where the ark was, and sat before the Lord, and poured out his heart in words of devout thanksgiving (18–29). The building of the temple was reserved for his son Solomon, who would be a man of peace (1 Chr. 22:9; 28:3).
A cloudy evening. Hitherto David’s carrer had been one of great prosperity and success. Now cloudy and dark days came. His eldest son Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam of Jezreel, was guilty of a great and shameful crime (2 Sam. 13). This was the beginning of the disasters of his later years. After two years Absalom terribly avenged the crime against Tamar, and put Amnon to death. This brought sore trouble to David’s heart. Absalom, afraid of the consequences of his guilt, fled to Geshur beyond Jordan, where he remained for three years, when he was brought back through the intrigue of Joab (2 Sam. 14).
After this there fell upon the land the calamity of three years’ famine (2 Sam. 21:1–14). This was soon after followed by a pestilence, brought upon the land as a punishment for David’s sinful pride in numbering the people (2 Sam. 24), in which no fewer than 70,000 perished in the space of three days.
Rebellion of Absalom. The personal respect for David was sadly lowered by the incident of Bathsheba. There was a strong popular sentiment against the taking of the census, and the outburst of the plague in connection with it deepened the feeling of jealously that had begun to manifest itself among some of the tribes against David. Absalom, taking full advantage of this state of things, gradually gained over the people, and at length openly rebelled against his father, and usurped the throne. Ahithophel was Absalom’s chief counsellor. The revolt began in Hebron, the capital of Judah. Absalom was there proclaimed king. David was now in imminent danger, and he left Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:13–20), and once more became a fugitive. It was a momentous day in Israel. The incidents of it are recorded with a fulness of detail greater than of any other day in Old Testament history. David fled with his followers to Mahanarm, on the east of Jordan. An unnatural civil war broke out. After a few weeks the rival armies were mustered and organized. They met in hostile array at the wood of Ephraim (2 Sam. 18:1–8). Absalom’s army was defeated, and himself put to death by the hand of Joab (9–18). The tidings of the death of his rebellious son filled the heart of David with the most poignant grief. He “went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept” (33), giving utterance to the heart-broken cry, “Would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!” Peace was now restored, and David returned to Jerusalem and resumed the direction of affairs. An unhappy dispute arose between the men of Judah and the men of Israel (19:41–43). Sheba, a Benjamite, headed a revolt of the men of Israel. He was pursued to Abelbeth-maachah, and was there put to death, and so the revolt came to an end.
The end. After the suppression of the rebellion of Absalom and that of Sheba, ten comparatively peaceful years of David’s life passed away. During those years he seems to have been principally engaged in accumulating treasures of every kind for the great temple at Jerusalem, which it was reserved to his successor to build (1 Chr. 22; 28; 29), a house which was to be “exceeding magnifical, of fame and of glory throughout all countries” (22:5). The exciting and laborious life he had spent, and the dangers and trials through which he had passed, had left him an enfeebled man, prematurely old. It became apparent that his life was now drawing to its close. A new palace conspiracy broke out as to who should be his successor. Joab favoured Adonijah. The chiefs of his party met at the “Fuller’s spring,” in the valley of Kidron, to proclaim him king; but Nathan hastened on a decision on the part of David in favour of Solomon, and so the aim of Adonijah’s party failed. Solomon was brought to Jerusalem, and was anointed king and seated on his father’s throne (1 Kings 1:11–53). David’s last words are a grand utterance, revealing his unfailing faith in God, and his joyful confidence in his gracious covenant promises (2 Sam. 23:1–7).
After a reign of forty years and six months (2 Sam. 5:5; 1 Chr. 3:4) David died (B.C. 1015) at the age of seventy years, “and was buried in the city of David.” His tomb is still pointed out on Mount Zion.
Both in his prophetical and in his regal character David was a type of the Messiah (1 Sam. 16:13). The book of Psalms commonly bears the title of the “Psalms of David,” from the circumstance that he was the largest contributor (about eighty psalms) to the collection. (See PSALMS.)
“The greatness of David was felt when he was gone. He had lived in harmony with both the priesthood and the prophets; a sure sign that the spirit of his government had been throughly loyal to the higher aims of the theocracy. The nation had not been oppressed by him, but had been left in the free enjoyment of its ancient liberties. As far as his power went he had striven to act justly to all (2 Sam. 8:15). His weak indulgence to his sons, and his own great sin besides, had been bitterly atoned, and were forgotten at his death in the remembrance of his long-tried worth. He had reigned thirty-three years in Jerusalem and seven and a half at Hebron (2 Sam. 5:5). Israel at his accession had reached the lowest point of national depression; its new-born unity rudely dissolved; its territory assailed by the Philistines. But he had left it an imperial power, with dominions like those of Egypt or Assyria. The sceptre of Solomon was already, before his father’s death, owned from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, and from the Orontes to the Red Sea.”, Geikie’s Hours etc., iii. 1
DAVID, CITY OF — (1.) David took from the Jebusites the fortress of Mount Zion. He “dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David” (1 Chr. 11:7). This was the name afterwards given to the castle and royal palace on Mount Zion, as distinguished from Jerusalem generally (1 Kings 3:1; 8:1), It was on the south-west side of Jerusalem, opposite the temple mount, with which it was connected by a bridge over the Tyropoeon valley.
(2.) Bethlehem is called the “city of David” (Luke 2:4, 11), because it was David’s birth-place and early home (1 Sam. 17:12).
DAVID (Heb. dawid, root and meaning doubtful, but see BDB in loc.; the equation with a supposed Old Bab. (Mari) dawidum, ‘chief’, is now discounted (JNES 17, 1958, p. 130; VT Supp 7, 1960, pp. 165ff.); cf. Laesoe, Shemsharah Tablets, p. 56). The youngest son of Jesse, of the tribe of Judah, and second king of Israel. In Scripture the name is his alone, typifying the unique place he has as ancestor, forerunner and foreshadower of the Lord Jesus Christ—‘great David’s greater son’. There are 58 NT references to David, including the oft-repeated title given to Jesus—‘Son of David’. Paul states that Jesus is ‘descended from David according to the flesh’ (Rom. 1:3), while Jesus himself is recorded by John as saying ‘I am the root and the offspring of David’ (Rev. 22:16).
When we return to the OT to find who this is who occupies a position of such prominence in the lineage of our Lord and the purposes of God, the material is abundant and rich. The story of David is found between 1 Sa. 16 and 1 Ki. 2, with much of the material paralleled in 1 Ch. 2-29.
I. Family background
Great-grandson of Ruth and Boaz, David was the youngest of eight brothers (1 Sa. 17:12ff.) and was brought up to be a shepherd. In this occupation he learnt the courage which was later to be evidenced in battle (1 Sa. 17:34-35) and the tenderness and care for his flock which he was later to sing of as the attributes of his God. Like Joseph, he suffered from the ill-will and jealousy of his older brothers, perhaps because of the talents with which God had endowed him (1 Sa. 18:28). Modest about his ancestry (1 Sa. 18:18), David was to father a line of notable descendants, as the genealogy of our Lord in Matthew’s Gospel shows (Mt. 1:1-17).
II. Anointing and friendship with Saul
When God rejected Saul from the kingship of Israel, David was revealed to Samuel as his successor, who anointed him, without any ostentation, at Bethlehem (1 Sa. 16:1-13). One of the results of Saul’s rejection was the departure of the Spirit of God from him, with a consequent depression of his own spirit, which at times seems to have approached madness. There is an awesome revelation of divine purpose in the providence by which David, who is to replace Saul in the favour and plan of God, is selected to minister to the fallen king’s melancholy (1 Sam. 16:17-21). So the lives of these two men were brought together, the stricken giant and the rising stripling.
At first all went well. Saul was pleased with the youth, whose musical skill was to give us part of our richest devotional heritage, appointed him his armour-bearer. Then the well-known incident involving Goliath, the Philistine champion, changed everything (1 Sa. 17). David’s agility and skill with the sling outdid the strength of the ponderous giant, whose slaughter was the signal for an Israelite repulsion of the Philistine force. The way was clear for David to reap the reward promised by Saul—the hand of the king’s daughter in marriage, and freedom for his father’s family from taxation; but a new factor changed the course of events—the king’s jealousy of the new champion of Israel. As David returned from the slaying of Goliath, the women of Israel greeted him, singing, ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands’. Saul, unlike his son *Jonathan in a similar situation, resented this and, we are told, ‘eyed David from that day on’ (1 Sa. 18:7, 9).
III. The hostility of Saul
Saul’s dealings with David declined progressively in amity, and we find the young national hero escaping a savage attack on his life by the king, reduced in military honour, cheated of his promised bride and married to Saul’s other daughter, Michal, after a marriage settlement which was meant to cause David’s death (1 Sa. 18:25). It would appear from 1 Sa. 24:9 that there was a group at Saul’s court which deliberately fomented trouble between Saul and David, and the situation deteriorated steadily. Another abortive attempt by Saul at slaying David with his spear was followed by an attempted arrest, foiled only by a stratagem of Michal, David’s wife (1 Sa. 19:8-17). A marked feature of this period in David’s life is the way in which Saul’s two children, Jonathan and Michal, allied themselves with David and against their own father.
IV. Flight from Saul
The next stages in the story of David are marked by a constant flight from the relentless pursuit of Saul. No resting-place is safe for long; prophet, priest, national enemy—none can give him shelter, and those who help him are cruelly punished by the rage-maddened king (1 Sa. 22:6-19). After a narrow escape from destruction by the Philistine war-lords, David eventually established the Adullam band, at first a heterogeneous collection of fugitives, but later an armed task-force which harried the foreign invaders, protected the crops and flocks of outlying Israelite communities, and lived off the generosity of the latter. The churlish refusal of one of these wealthy sheep-farmers, Nabal, to recognize any indebtedness to David is recorded in 1 Sa. 25, and is interesting in introducing Abigail, later to become one of David’s wives. Chs. 24 and 26 of the same book record two instances when David spared the life of Saul, out of mingled piety and magnanimity. Eventually David, quite unable to curb the hostility of Saul, came to terms with the Philistine king, Achish of Gath, and was granted the frontier town of Ziklag in return for the occasional use of his warrior band. When the Philistines went out in force against Saul, however, the war-lords demurred at David’s presence in their ranks, fearing a last minute change of loyalty, so he was spared the tragedy of Gilboa, which he later mourned in one of the loveliest elegies extant (2 Sa. 1:19-27).
V. King in Hebron
Once Saul was dead, David sought the will of God and was guided to return to Judah, his own tribal region. Here his fellow-tribesmen anointed him king, and he took up royal residence in Hebron. He was then 30 years old, and he reigned in Hebron for 7 1/2 years. The first 2 years of this period were occupied by civil war between the supporters of David and the old courtiers of Saul, who had set up Saul’s son Eshbaal (Ishbosheth) as king in Mahanaim. It may be doubted whether Eshbaal was more than a puppet, manipulated by Saul’s faithful captain, Abner. With the death of these two by assassination, organized opposition to David came to an end, and he was anointed king over the 12 tribes of Israel in Hebron, from which he was soon to transfer his capital to Jerusalem (2 Sa. 3-5).
VI. King in Jerusalem
Now began the most successful period in David’s long reign, which was to last for another 33 years. By a happy combination of personal bravery and skilled generalship he led the Israelites in such a systematic and decisive subjugation of their enemies—Philistines, Canaanites, Moabites, Ammonites, Aramaeans, Edomites and Amalekites—that his name would have been recorded in history quite apart from his significance in the divine plan of redemption. The contemporary weakness of the powers in the Nile and Euphrates valleys enabled him, by conquest and alliance, to extend his sphere of influence from the Egyptian frontier and the Gulf of Aqabah to the upper Euphrates. Conquering the supposedly impregnable Jebusite citadel of Jerusalem, he made it his capital, whence he bestrode the two major divisions of his kingdom, later to become the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel. A palace was built, highways opened, trade routes restored, and the material prosperity of the kingdom secured. This, however, could never be the sole, nor yet the main, ambition of ‘a man after Yahweh’s own heart’, and we soon see evidence of David’s religious zeal. He brought back the ark of the covenant from Kiriath-jearim and placed it in a special tabernacle prepared for it in Jerusalem. It was during the return of the ark that the incident occurred which led to the death of Uzzah (2 Sa. 6:6-8). Much of the religious organization which was to enrich the later Temple worship owes its origin to the arrangements for the service of the tabernacle made by David at this time. In addition to its strategic and political importance, Jerusalem thus acquired the even greater religious significance, with which its name has been associated ever since.
It is all the more to be wondered at and remembered in godly fear, that it was in this period of outward prosperity and apparent religious fervour that David committed the sin referred to in Scripture as ‘the matter of Uriah the Hittite’ (2 Sa. 11). The significance and importance of this sin, both for its intrinsic heinousness and for its consequences in the whole ensuing history of Israel, cannot be overestimated. David repented deeply, but the deed was done, and stands as a demonstration of how sin spoils God’s purpose for his children. The poignant cry of anguish with which he greeted the news of the death of *Absalom was only a feeble echo of the heart’s agony which knew that death, and many more, to be but part of the reaping of the harvest of lust and deceit sown by him so many years before.
Absalom’s rebellion, in which the N kingdom remained loyal to David, was soon followed by a revolt on the part of the N kingdom, led by Sheba, a Benjaminite. This revolt, like Absalom’s, was crushed by Joab. David’s dying days were marred by the scheming of Adonijah and Solomon for his throne, and by the realization that the legacy of internecine bloodshed foretold by *Nathan had still to be spent.
In addition to David’s standing army, led by his kinsman Joab, he had a personal bodyguard recruited mainly from warriors of Philistine stock, whose loyalty to him never wavered. There is abundant evidence in the historical writings to which reference has already been made of David’s skill in composing odes and elegies (see 2 Sa. 1:19-27; 3:33-34; 22; 23:1-7). An early tradition describes him as ‘the sweet psalmist of Israel’ (2 Sa. 23:1), while later OT writings refer to his direction of the musical worship of Israel, his invention of and skill in playing musical instruments, and his composition (Ne. 12:24, 36, 45-46; Am. 6:5). Seventy-three of the psalms in the Bible are recorded as ‘David’s’, some of them in ways which clearly imply authorship. Most convincingly of all, our Lord himself spoke of David’s authorship of at least one psalm (Lk. 20:42), using a quotation from it to make plain the nature of his Messiahship.
VII. Character
The Bible nowhere glosses over the sins or character defects of the children of God. ‘Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction’ (Rom. 15:4). It is part of the task of Scripture to warn by example, as well as to encourage. The sin of David in the matter of Uriah the Hittite is a cardinal instance of this. Let this blot be seen for what it is — a stain on a character otherwise fair and wondrously to the glory of God. It is true that there are elements in the experience of David which seem foreign and even repugnant to the child of the new covenant. Yet ‘he. . . served the counsel of God in his own generation’ (Acts 13:36), and in that generation he stood out as a bright and shining light for the God of Israel. His accomplishments were many and varied; man of action, poet, tender lover, generous foe, stern dispenser of justice, loyal friend, he was all that men find wholesome and admirable in man, and this by the will of God, who made him and shaped him for his destiny. It is to David, not to Saul, that the Jews look back with pride and affection as the establisher of their kingdom, and it is in David that the more farsighted of them saw the kingly ideal beyond which their minds could not reach, in the image of which they looked for a coming Messiah, who should deliver his people and sit upon the throne of David for ever. That this was not idealistic nonsense, still less idolatry, is indicated by the NT endorsement of the excellences of David, of whose seed Messiah indeed came, after the flesh.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. de S. Barrow, David: Shepherd, Poet, Warrior, King, 1946; A. C. Welch, Kings and Prophets of Israel, 1952, pp. 80ff.; D. F. Payne, David: King in Israel, forthcoming. For a concise estimate of the ‘Davidic’ psalms, see N. H. Snaith, The Psalms, A Short Introduction, 1945, where Ewald’s rearrangement is cited with approval. For an important and interesting appraisal of David’s official role as divine representative and the significance of Jerusalem in the religious life of the monarchy, see A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 1955.
— called also Salem, Ariel, Jebus, the “city of God,” the “holy city;” by the modern Arabs el-Khuds, meaning “the holy;” once “the city of Judah” (2 Chr. 25:28). This name is in the original in the dual form, and means “possession of peace,” or “foundation of peace.” The dual form probably refers to the two mountains on which it was built, viz., Zion and Moriah; or, as some suppose, to the two parts of the city, the “upper” and the “lower city.” Jerusalem is a “mountain city enthroned on a mountain fastness” (comp. Ps. 68:15, 16; 87:1; 125:2; 76:1, 2; 122:3). It stands on the edge of one of the highest table-lands in Palestine, and is surrounded on the south-eastern, the southern, and the western sides by deep and precipitous ravines.
It is first mentioned in Scripture under the name Salem (Gen. 14:18; comp. Ps. 76:2). When first mentioned under the name Jerusalem, Adonizedek was its king (Josh. 10:1). It is afterwards named among the cities of Benjamin (Judg. 19:10; 1 Chr. 11:4); but in the time of David it was divided between Benjamin and Judah. After the death of Joshua the city was taken and set on fire by the men of Judah (Judg. 1:1–8); but the Jebusites were not wholly driven out of it. The city is not again mentioned till we are told that David brought the head of Goliath thither (1 Sam. 17:54). David afterwards led his forces against the Jebusites still residing within its walls, and drove them out, fixing his own dwelling on Zion, which he called “the city of David” (2 Sam. 5:5–9; 1 Chr. 11:4–8). Here he built an altar to the Lord on the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sam. 24:15–25), and thither he brought up the ark of the covenant and placed it in the new tabernacle which he had prepared for it. Jerusalem now became the capital of the kingdom.
After the death of David, Solomon built the temple, a house for the name of the Lord, on Mount Moriah ( 1010). He also greatly strengthened and adorned the city, and it became the great centre of all the civil and religious affairs of the nation (Deut. 12:5; comp. 12:14; 14:23; 16:11–16; Ps. 122).
After the disruption of the kingdom on the accession to the throne of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, Jerusalem became the capital of the kingdom of the two tribes. It was subsequently often taken and retaken by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and by the kings of Israel (2 Kings 14:13, 14; 18:15, 16; 23:33–35; 24:14; 2 Chr. 12:9; 26:9; 27:3, 4; 29:3; 32:30; 33:11), till finally, for the abounding iniquities of the nation, after a siege of three years, it was taken and utterly destroyed, its walls razed to the ground, and its temple and palaces consumed by fire, by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon (2 Kings 25; 2 Chr. 36; Jer. 39), 588. The desolation of the city and the land was completed by the retreat of the principal Jews into Egypt (Jer. 40–44), and by the final carrying captive into Babylon of all that still remained in the land (52:3), so that it was left without an inhabitant ( 582). Compare the predictions, Deut. 28; Lev. 26:14–39.
But the streets and walls of Jerusalem were again to be built, in troublous times (Dan. 9:16, 19, 25), after a captivity of seventy years. This restoration was begun 536, “in the first year of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:2, 3, 5–11). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah contain the history of the re-building of the city and temple, and the restoration of the kingdom of the Jews, consisting of a portion of all the tribes. The kingdom thus constituted was for two centuries under the dominion of Persia, till 331; and thereafter, for about a century and a half, under the rulers of the Greek empire in Asia, till 167. For a century the Jews maintained their independence under native rulers, the Asmonean princes. At the close of this period they fell under the rule of Herod and of members of his family, but practically under Rome, till the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, 70. The city was then laid in ruins.
The modern Jerusalem by-and-by began to be built over the immense beds of rubbish resulting from the overthrow of the ancient city; and whilst it occupies certainly the same site, there are no evidences that even the lines of its streets are now what they were in the ancient city. Till 131 the Jews who still lingered about Jerusalem quietly submitted to the Roman sway. But in that year the emperor (Hadrian), in order to hold them in subjection, rebuilt and fortified the city. The Jews, however, took possession of it, having risen under the leadership of one Bar-Chohaba (i.e., “the son of the star”) in revolt against the Romans. Some four years afterwards ( 135), however, they were driven out of it with great slaughter, and the city was again destroyed; and over its ruins was built a Roman city called Aelia Capitolina, a name which it retained till it fell under the dominion of the Mohammedans, when it was called el-Khuds, i.e., “the holy.”
In 326 Helena, mother of the emperor Constantine, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the view of discovering the places mentioned in the life of our Lord. She caused a church to be built on what was then supposed to be the place of the nativity at Bethlehem. Constantine, animated by her example, searched for the holy sepulchre, and built over the supposed site a magnificent church, which was completed and dedicated 335. He relaxed the laws against the Jews till this time in force, and permitted them once a year to visit the city and wail over the desolation of “the holy and beautiful house.”
In 614 the Persians, after defeating the Roman forces of the emperor Heraclius, took Jerusalem by storm, and retained it till 637, when it was taken by the Arabians under the Khalif Omar. It remained in their possession till it passed, in 960, under the dominion of the Fatimite khalifs of Egypt, and in 1073 under the Turcomans. In 1099 the crusader Godfrey of Bouillon took the city from the Moslems with great slaughter, and was elected king of Jerusalem. He converted the Mosque of Omar into a Christian cathedral. During the eighty-eight years which followed, many churches and convents were erected in the holy city. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was rebuilt during this period, and it alone remains to this day. In 1187 the sultan Saladin wrested the city from the Christians. From that time to the present day, with few intervals, Jerusalem has remained in the hands of the Moslems. It has, however, during that period been again and again taken and retaken, demolished in great part and rebuilt, no city in the world having passed through so many vicissitudes.
In the year 1850 the Greek and Latin monks residing in Jerusalem had a fierce dispute about the guardianship of what are called the “holy places.” In this dispute the emperor Nicholas of Russia sided with the Greeks, and Louis Napoleon, the emperor of the French, with the Latins. This led the Turkish authorities to settle the question in a way unsatisfactory to Russia. Out of this there sprang the Crimean War, which was protracted and sanguinary, but which had important consequences in the way of breaking down the barriers of Turkish exclusiveness.
Modern Jerusalem “lies near the summit of a broad mountain-ridge, which extends without interruption from the plain of Esdraelon to a line drawn between the southern end of the Dead Sea and the southeastern corner of the Mediterranean.” This high, uneven table-land is everywhere from 20 to 25 geographical miles in breadth. It was anciently known as the mountains of Ephraim and Judah.
“Jerusalem is a city of contrasts, and differs widely from Damascus, not merely because it is a stone town in mountains, whilst the latter is a mud city in a plain, but because while in Damascus Moslem religion and Oriental custom are unmixed with any foreign element, in Jerusalem every form of religion, every nationality of East and West, is represented at one time.”
Jerusalem is first mentioned under that name in the Book of Joshua, and the Tell-el-Amarna collection of tablets includes six letters from its Amorite king to Egypt, recording the attack of the Abiri about 1480. The name is there spelt Uru-Salim (“city of peace”). Another monumental record in which the Holy City is named is that of Sennacherib’s attack in 702. The “camp of the Assyrians” was still shown about 70, on the flat ground to the north-west, included in the new quarter of the city.
The city of David included both the upper city and Millo, and was surrounded by a wall built by David and Solomon, who appear to have restored the original Jebusite fortifications. The name Zion (or Sion) appears to have been, like Ariel (“the hearth of God”), a poetical term for Jerusalem, but in the Greek age was more specially used of the Temple hill. The priests’ quarter grew up on Ophel, south of the Temple, where also was Solomon’s Palace outside the original city of David. The walls of the city were extended by Jotham and Manasseh to include this suburb and the Temple (2 Chr. 27:3; 33:14).
Jerusalem is now a town of some 50,000 inhabitants, with ancient mediaeval walls, partly on the old lines, but extending less far to the south. The traditional sites, as a rule, were first shown in the 4th and later centuries , and have no authority. The results of excavation have, however, settled most of the disputed questions, the limits of the Temple area, and the course of the old walls having been traced. 1
JERUSALEM.
I. Introduction and general description
Jerusalem is one of the world’s famous cities. Under that name, it dates from at least the 3rd millennium BC; and today is considered sacred by the adherents of the three great monotheistic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The city is set high in the hills of Judah, about 50 km from the Mediterranean, and over 30 km W of the N end of the Dead Sea. It rests on a none-too-level plateau, which slopes noticeably towards the SE. To the E lies the ridge of Olivet. Access to the city on all sides except the N is hampered by three deep ravines, which join in the Siloam Valley, near the well Bir Eyyub, SE of the city. The E valley is Kidron; the W is now called the Wadi al-Rababi, and is probably to be equated with the Valley of Hinnom; and the third cuts the city in half before it runs S, and slightly E, to meet the other two. This latter ravine is not mentioned or named in Scripture (although Maktesh, Zp. 1:11, may well have been the name of part of it), so it is usually referred to as the Tyropoeon Valley, i.e., the Valley of the Cheesemakers, after Josephus.
Eminences rise each side of the Tyropoeon Valley, and the city can at once be divided into W and E halves. Ignoring lesser heights, we may subdivide each of these two sections into N and S hills. When considering the growth and development of the city (see IV) it will be important to visualize these details. In discussing the respective heights and depths of these hills and valleys, it must be realized that they have changed considerably over the centuries. This is inevitable in any city continuously inhabited for centuries, and particularly when periodic destructions have taken place. Layer after layer of rubble and debris piles up, amounting here and there to more than 30 m in parts of Jerusalem. In the case of Jerusalem there is also the factor that deliberate attempts have been made at various periods to fill in valleys (especially the Tyropoeon) and diminish hills.
Jerusalem’s water-supply has always presented problems. Apart from Bir Eyyub, the well mentioned above, there is only the Virgin’s Spring, which is connected by an aqueduct with the Pool of Siloam. There are, and have been, other reservoirs, of course, such as Bethesda in NT times and Mamilla Pool today, but they all depend on the rains or else on aqueducts to fill them. Bir Eyyub and the Virgin’s Spring are in all probability the biblical En-rogel and Gihon respectively. Bir Eyyub lies SE of the city, at the junction of the three ravines mentioned above. The Virgin’s Spring is due N of Bir Eyyub, E and a little S of the Temple area. Thus it is evident that only the SE part of Jerusalem has a reliable water-supply. (See A. Mazar, ‘The Aqueducts of Jerusalem’, in Y. Yadin, Jerusalem Revealed, pp. 79-84.)
II. Name
The meaning of the name is not certain. The Heb. word is usually written yrusalaim in the OT, but this is an anomalous form, since Heb. cannot have two consecutive vowels. The anomaly was resolved in later Heb. by inserting the letter ‘y’, thus giving yrusalayim; this form does in fact occur a few times in the OT, e.g., Je. 26:18. This may well have been understood to be a dual (for the ending -ayim is dual), viewing the city as twofold. (Similarly, the Heb. name for ‘Egypt’, misrayim, appears to be dual.) But there can be little doubt that the original form of the word in Heb. was yrusalem; this is evidenced by the abbreviation salem (Eng. ‘Salem’) in Ps. 76:2, and by the Aramaic form of the name yruslem, found in Ezr. 5:14, etc.
The name is pre-Israelite, appearing in the Egyp. Execration Texts (19th-18th century; the form appears to be Rushalimum) and in later Assyrian documents (as Urusalim or Urisalimmu). The name also occurs in the *Ebla archive, c. 2500 BC. The first part of the name is usually thought to mean ‘foundation’; the second element, though cognate with the Heb. word for ‘peace’, probably originally referred to a Canaanite deity Shalem. Thus ‘foundation of Shalem’ is probably the original sense of the name; in course of time, however, the second element will have been associated with ‘peace’ (Heb. salom) in Jewish minds; cf. Heb. 7:2.
In NT Greek the name is transliterated in two different ways, Hierosolyma (as in Mt. 2:1) and Hierousalem (as in Mt. 23:37). The latter is evidently a close approximation to the Heb. pronunciation, and incidentally an additional evidence for an ‘e’ as the original final vowel in Hebrew. The former is deliberately Hellenized, to make a Greek-sounding word; the first part of the word at once recalls the Greek word hieros, ‘holy’, and probably the whole was understood to mean something like ‘sacred Salem’. LXX has only the form Hierousalem, whereas Greek classical writers use Hierosolyma (e.g. Polybius; so too Latin, e.g. Pliny).
Jerusalem is described in Is. 52:1 as the holy city, and to this day it often receives this title. The Heb. phrase is ir-haq-qodes, literally ‘the city of holiness’. Probably the reason for this title was that Jerusalem contained the Temple, the shrine where God deigned to meet his people. Hence, the word qodes came to mean ‘sanctuary’ as well as ‘holiness’. To Judaism, then, Jerusalem was the holy city without a rival. It was natural for Paul and John, seeing that the earthly city was far from perfect, to designate the place where God dwells in true holiness as ‘Jerusalem which is above’ (Gal. 4:26) and ‘new Jerusalem’ (Rev. 21:2).
For other names the city has borne, see III, in historical sequence.
III. History
Traces of prehistoric settlement at Jerusalem have been found, but its early history cannot be traced. After a bare mention in the Egyptian Execration Texts early in the 2nd millennium, it reappears in the 14th-century el-Amarna letters, ruled by a king named Abd Khiba. At that time it was under the suzerainty of Egypt, and was probably little more than a mountain fortress. Possible pentateuchal references to it are as Salem (Gn. 14:18) and the mountain in the ‘land of Moriah’ of Gn. 22:2. According to very ancient tradition, the latter was the place where later the Temple was built, but there is no possible proof of this. As for Salem, it is almost certainly to be identified with Jerusalem (cf. Ps. 76:2); if so, it was ruled in Abraham’s day by an earlier king, Melchizedek, who was also ‘priest of God Most High’ (el elyon).
When the Israelites entered Canaan they found Jerusalem in the hands of an indigenous Semitic tribe, the Jebusites, ruled over by a king named Adoni-zedek. This ruler formed an alliance of kings against Joshua, who soundly defeated them; but Joshua did not take the city, owing, doubtless, to its natural strength of position. It remained in Jebusite hands, bearing the name Jebus. Comparing Jdg. 1:8 with Jdg. 1:21, it appears that Judah overcame the part of the city outside the fortress walls, and that Benjamin occupied this part, living peaceably alongside the Jebusites in the fortress.
This was the situation when David became king. His first capital was Hebron, but he soon saw the value of Jerusalem, and set about its capture. This was not only a tactical move but also a diplomatic one, for his use of a city on the Benjamin-Judah border would help to diminish the jealousy between the two tribes. The Jebusites felt confident of their safety behind the fortress walls, but David’s men used an unexpected mode of entry, and took the citadel by surprise (2 Sa. 5:6ff.). In this passage we meet a third name, ‘Zion’. This was probably the name of the hill on which the citadel stood; Vincent, however, thinks the name originally applied rather to the fortress building than to the ground it occupied.
Having taken the city, David improved the fortifications and built himself a palace; he also installed the ark in his new capital. Solomon carried the work of fortification further, but his great achievement was the construction of the Temple. After his death and the subsequent division of the kingdom, Jerusalem naturally declined somewhat, being now capital only of Judah. As early as the 5th year of Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam, the Temple and royal palace were plundered by Egyp. troops (1 Ki. 14:25f.). Philistine and Arab marauders again plundered the palace in Jehoram’s reign. In Amaziah’s reign a quarrel with the king of the N kingdom, Jehoash, resulted in part of the city walls being broken down, and fresh looting of Temple and palace. Uzziah repaired this damage to the fortifications, so that in the reign of Ahaz the city was able to withstand the attacks of the combined armies of Syria and Israel. Soon after this the N kingdom fell to the Assyrians. Hezekiah of Judah had good reason to fear Assyria too, but Jerusalem providentially escaped. In case of siege, he made a conduit to improve the city’s water-supply.
Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon captured Jerusalem in 597 and in 587 BC destroyed the city and Temple. At the end of that century the Jews, now under Persian rule, were allowed to return to their land and city, and they rebuilt the Temple, but the city walls remained in ruins until Nehemiah restored them in the middle of the 5th century BC. Alexander the Great ended the power of Persia at the end of the 4th century, and after his death his general Ptolemy, founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, entered Jerusalem and included it in his realm. In 198 BC Palestine fell to Antiochus II, the Seleucid king of Syria. About 30 years later, Antiochus IV entered Jerusalem, destroying its walls and plundering and desecrating the Temple; and he installed a Syrian garrison in the city, on the Akra. Judas the Maccabee led a Jewish revolt, and in 165 BC the Temple was rededicated. He and his successors gradually won independence for Judaea, and the Hasmonaean dynasty ruled a free Jerusalem until the middle of the 1st century BC, when Rome intervened. Roman generals forced their way into the city in 63 and 54; a Parthian army plundered it in 40; and 3 years after that Herod the Great had to fight his way into it, to take control. He first had to repair the damage created by these various incursions; then he launched a big building programme, erecting some notable towers. His most renowned work was the rebuilding of the Temple on a much grander scale, although this was not finished within his lifetime. One of his towers was Antonia, commanding the Temple area (it housed the Roman garrison which came to Paul’s aid, Acts 21:34).
The Jewish revolt against the Romans in AD 66 could have but one conclusion; in AD 70 the Roman general Titus systematically forced his way into Jerusalem, and destroyed the fortifications and the Temple. He left three towers standing; one of them, Phasael, still remains, incorporated in the so-called ‘Tower of David’. But further disaster awaited the Jews: another revolt in AD 132 led to the rebuilding of Jerusalem (on a much smaller scale) as a pagan city, dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus, from which all Jews were excluded. This was the work of the emperor Hadrian; he called the newly constructed city Aelia Capitolina (the name even found its way into Arabic, as Iliya). It was not until the reign of Constantine (early 4th century) that the Jews were again permitted to enter the city. From his reign on, the city became Christian instead of pagan, and many churches and monasteries were built, notably the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Jerusalem has suffered many vicissitudes since the 2nd century, and has been captured and held at various times by Persian, Arab, Turkish, Crusader, British and Israeli troops and administrations. The most important building developments in the Old City (as opposed to the rapidly growing modern suburbs) were due to the early Muslims, the Crusaders and finally the Turkish sultan Suleiman the Magnificent who in 1542 rebuilt the city walls as they can be seen today. The Israelis give the city its ancient Heb. name, yrusalayim; the Arabs usually call it al-Quds (al-Sharîf ‘the (noble) Sanctuary’.
IV. Growth and extent
It must be stated at the outset that there is a good deal of uncertainty about the physical history of Jerusalem. This is, of course, partly due to the periodic disasters and destructions, and to the layers upon layers of rubble that have piled up over the centuries. These factors have caused difficulty elsewhere, of course, but archaeologists have often been able to surmount them to a large extent. The particular problem with Jerusalem is that it has been continuously inhabited and still is, so that excavations can be made only with difficulty. Archaeologists here have to dig where they can, not where they think it might be profitable. On the other hand, there is an abundance of traditions, Christian, Jewish and Muslim; but in many cases it is not easy to evaluate them. So uncertainty and controversy remain; however, much valuable archaeological work has been done during the last century, and it has solved some problems.
Scripture nowhere gives a systematic description of the city. The nearest approach to such a description is the account of the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah. But there are a great number of references giving some information. These have to be pieced together, and fitted in with the picture we get from archaeology. Our earliest description of the city is that of Josephus (BJ 5. 136-141); Josephus is here laying a background for his account of the gradual capture of the city by Titus and the Roman armies. This too has to be fitted into the picture.
Excavations have conclusively shown that the earliest city was on the SE hill, an area now wholly outside the city walls (the S wall was retracted N in the 2nd century AD). It must be clearly borne in mind that the original Zion lay on the E ridge; the name was by the time of Josephus already erroneously attached to the SW hill.
Few traces remain from the pre-Jebusite period, but it may be inferred that a small town grew on the SE ridge, within easy reach of the spring Gihon in the valley to the E. The Jebusites enlarged the city to a limited extent, most notably by the construction of terraces E, so that their E wall lay well down the slope towards the spring. This terracing and E wall seem to have needed frequent maintenance and repair till their final destruction by the Babylonians in the early 6th century BC, after which the E wall was again retracted to the ridge. Present opinion is inclined to consider the word *’Millo’ (e.g. 2 Sa. 5:9; 1 Ki. 9:15), which derives from a Heb. root meaning ‘fill’, to refer to this terracing.
In times of peace it was common practice for houses to be built outside the walls, which from time to time necessitated new walls and fortifications. David’s and Solomon’s city extended N, in particular, the Temple being built on the NE hill; the royal palace was probably situated in the area between the older city and the Temple area.
This intermediate area is probably the ‘Ophel’ of such passages as 2 Ch. 27:3 (the name means ‘swelling’, and was used of the citadel of other cities too, e.g. Samaria, cf. 2 Ki. 5:24, NEB); but some scholars apply the term to the whole E ridge S of the Temple. The Jebusite city, or perhaps more strictly the central fortress of it, already bore the name ‘Zion’ (the meaning of which is uncertain, perhaps ‘dry area’ or ‘eminence’) at the time of David’s capture, after which it was also called ‘the city of David’ (cf. 2 Sa. 5:6-10; 1 Ki. 8:1). The name ‘Zion’ became, or remained, synonymous with Jerusalem as a whole.
It was in the prosperous days of the 8th century BC that the city first spread to the W ridge; this new suburb seems to have been called the Second Quarter or Mishneh (2 Ki. 22:14). A wall later enclosed it, built either in Hezekiah’s reign (cf. 2 Ch. 32:5) or somewhat later. It is certain that this extension included the NW hill, but whether the SW hill was now occupied is as yet unresolved. Israeli archaeologists conclude that it was, and that the Pool of Siloam was inside the city walls in Hezekiah’s reign; but K. M. Kenyon still maintains otherwise.
Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadrezzar’s troops in 587 BC; most of the buildings were destroyed, and the city walls were demolished. The Temple was rebuilt at the end of the century, and Jerusalem had a small population once again; but it was not until the mid-5th century that the Persian authorities permitted the rebuilding of the city walls, by Nehemiah.
No doubt Nehemiah rebuilt earlier walls so far as was practicable but it is clear from excavations that the W ridge was abandoned, and also the E slopes of the SE hill. The Jebusite terracing had been too thoroughly demolished for repair, and Nehemiah therefore retracted the E wall to the ridge itself.
Nehemiah’s description of contemporary Jerusalem unfortunately presents numerous problems. For one thing, it is not clear which gates were in the city wall and which led into the Temple. For another, there are numerous textual difficulties in the relevant passages of Nehemiah. Again, Nehemiah gives no indication of direction or changes of direction. Add to that the fact that names of gates changed from time to time. Earlier attempts to interpret Nehemiah’s data now all require revision in the light of recent excavations. It is fairly clear, however, that the circuit described in Ne. 3 is in an anti-clockwise direction, and begins at the N of the city.
There is little evidence that the city spread to the W ridge again until the 2nd century BC. After the Maccabaean revolt, the city began to grow once more. Herod the Great was responsible for a major building programme in the late 1st century BC, and the city continued to develop until its destruction at the end of the Jewish War (AD 66-70). Our major literary source for this whole period is Josephus; but his information leaves us with a number of problems as yet unresolved.
The first of these problems is the position of the ‘Akra’, the Syrian fortress set up in Jerusalem in 169 BC. Its purpose was plainly to keep the Temple courts under close surveillance, but neither Josephus nor 1 Maccabees makes it clear whether the garrison was located N, W or S of the Temple. Opinions remain divided, but the most recent excavations tend to support the third of these possibilities. (See BASOR 176, 1964, pp. 10f.)
A second problem concerns the course of the ‘Second Wall’ and the ‘Third Wall’ mentioned by Josephus, who tells us that the Romans penetrated Jerusalem in AD 70 by progressively breaching three N walls. Josephus describes the termini of the three walls, but he does not give information as to the line followed by any of them. Excavations have supplemented his information here and there, but many uncertainties remain.
Thus, the remains of an ancient wall at the present-day Damascus Gate have been identified by K. M. Kenyon as part of the Third Wall, but by Israeli archaeologists as part of the Second Wall; and finds considerably further N have been linked with the Third Wall by the latter, but with a wall of circumvallation (erected by Titus, during the siege of Jerusalem) by Kenyon. The Third Wall was begun by Agrippa I (AD 41-44), and scarcely finished by the outbreak of the Jewish War AD 66, so that stratigraphical methods would scarcely serve to distinguish Agrippa’s Wall from Titus’ Wall.
One special point of interest concerning the Second Wall, which must have been built in the 2nd or 1st century BC (Josephus does not date its construction) is its relationship to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. If the church has any claim to marking the authentic site of the crucifixion and burial of Christ, its site must have lain outside the city walls; but for many years it was considered doubtful whether the site lay inside or outside the line of the Second Wall (the Third Wall was not then in existence). It has now been established that this area lay to the N of the wall; the site may therefore be authentic.
The city lay in ruins between AD 70 and the Bar-Kokhba revolt 60 years later. The emperor Hadrian then rebuilt the city, naming it Aelia Capitolina; his city was much smaller than its predecessor, with the permanent retraction of the S wall. During the Christian era, the size of Jerusalem has been by no means constant. The present day walled area (‘the Old City’) was given its definitive shape by Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th century.
V. Theological significance
By natural metonymy, the names ‘Zion’ and ‘Jerusalem’ frequently stand for the bo
|
|
