where we have alleged the prior sanctity of Salem, now called Jerusalem, as an argument against the admission of David into this city. Here we might ask, why should David wish to establish himself in this city particularly? was it because, here had been the scene of those transactions in ancient time, to which we have already alluded? because, this was the place the Lord had chosen, to put his name there? Certainly, this is plausible at least; and it agrees with our answer to the question, what could induce the Jebusite to refuse David? i.e. the place was already sacred, and the addition of the royal residence was by no means desirable in the opinion of those who had long venerated it. But, we ought to inquire, who was this Jebusite? If we look back to Josh. xviii. 28. we find Jebusi is the name of Jerusalem, which is varied, Judg. xix. 10. to Jebus, and it appears to have been one of the cities of the Jebusites, and in the possession of a people "not of the children of Israel." 1 In Gen. x. 16. we read, that Canaan was the father of the Jebusite; and it seems that so early was this family settled here. These I take to have been the truly ancient Canaanites; such as those with whom Abraham and Isaac covenanted; but, as Canaan was overrun by the Palli, while Israel was in Egypt, I suppose, that these intruders were chiefly those who were to be expelled by the Israelites, Exod. xxxiv. 11. This notion admits the more ancient inhabitants to retain their original possessions, as we find they did, Numb. xiii. 29; Josh. xv. 63. "the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day:" meaning, I suppose, that the Judahites had a town adjacent to that of the Jebusites; for, that Jebus itself was "in the hands of strangers," appears from the conduct of the Levite, Judg. xix. 10. already quoted. And thus, I think, may be reconciled, those passages which speak of the slaughter of its king, i.e. its Palli king, Josh. xii. 10. and the expulsion of its people, i.e. its Palli people, who certainly accompanied their king to battle, and shared his fate: so, Judg. i. 8. the children. of Judah had smitten and burnt Jerusalem, i.e. the Palli city, but if the ancient Canaanite part of the city was spared, or, if these people escaped to mount Moriah, rendered sacred by the ancestors of Judah themselves, then these people might still "dwell among the children of Judah." This hypothesis of two kinds of Canaanites, solves every difficulty, which otherwise seems almost impossible, as we are told, in the same chapter, verse 26. that "Benjamin did not expel the Jebusites, but they dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem, unto this day." And something like this is necessary: for, if neither Judah nor Benjamin drove out the Jebusites, then they were not driven out; but, if the king of Jerusalem was slain, if Jerusalem was fought against, taken, smitten with the edge of the sword, and burned, then surely its inhabitants were effectually expelled. We are now prepared to give reasons for two circumstances which have strangely puzzled interpreters; the first is, that, 2 Sam. xxiv. 23. Araunah the Jebusite is called "king," and in all copies and versions, as Dr. Geddes notes with surprise, meaning I suppose that he was descended from the ancient Canaanite kings of the place, and now held at least family authority over his clan, the inhabitants of the town. Perhaps, too, the name Ornan by which he is called, 1 Chron. xxi. 18. was his Hebrew, or Jewish name, while Araunah was his Canaanite, or Jebusite, appellation. But the second circumstance is of greater consequence; for we read, 1 Chron. xxi. 29. that the Jewish national altar, whereon David certainly ought to have sacrificed, was at this time stationed at Gibeon; now, what could induce the angel of the Lord to tell Gad, and Gad to tell David, verse 18. that he should go up, and raise an altar to the Lord, in the threshing floor of Ornan, or Araunah, the Jebusite, unless here had been a consecrated place, formerly? Why did David go out from his royal palace, &c. mount Zion, and pass through the interjacent city? was there not ample space on Zion? and plenty of conveniencies, of the king's own property, but he must go down mount Zion, and up mount Moriah, to raise an altar, on premises not his own? But, if this threshing floor was adjacent to the consecrated spot on mount Moriah, then it was the nearest approach to the ancient Fanum, which was in the power of David; as he could not enter this holy place personally, he sacrifices as near it as possible, close to it. This threshing floor he purchases of Araunah, with cattle, &c. for "fifty shekels of silver;" but, afterward, explaining to the Jebusite his intention of building a magnificent temple on mount Moriah, he purchases for that purpose, the site of the ancient Fanum also, i.e. the whole summit of the mountain, from its natural guardian Araunah, for "six hundred shekels of gold," 1 Chron. xxi. 25. This seems to me to have been a very great price; too great indeed for the mere value of the ground: but thus I think we may account for it, that it was sacred property; that it would not have been alienated, even though for the purposes of a royal establishment, palace, &c. vide on 2 Sam. vi. but, as its sacred character was to be perpetuated, and indeed additional honour was intended it, it was parted with to David for this purpose; but yet at a great price; so that Araunah received fifty shekels of silver for his own private property, and six hundred shekels of gold for the public property of his family, and that of his people. Thus the sacred character of the place points it out as a proper station for an altar, on this extraordinary occasion, and this extraordinary occasion induces David to purchase it, and induces Araunah to part with it, perhaps not without reluctance, and certainly at a price liberal, if not magnificent. The reader will turn to our Plate No. II. and will perceive the relative situations of mount Zion, and mount Moriah, and how far David went from one, that he might erect an altar on the other. N.B. David afterward brought the tabernacle-altar, &c. into his own palace, mount Zion, and Solomon transferred them to the temple on mount Moriah; which seems to show a pretty steady adherence on the part of the Jebusite to the honour of his possession, which he did not relinquish, till every thing was ready for constructing the intended temple: [too sacred to be made a working place, 1 Kings, vi. 7.] There is another passage, which must not be overlooked in this inquiry; we know, that it was customary for victors to carry the trophies of their victory to the temples of their deities; and we find the Philistines, 1 Sam. xxxi. 10, 12. suspending in triumph the bodies of Saul and his sons, on the walls of Beth Shan; [the temple of Shan] but, the armour of Saul they put in the temple of Ashtaroth; in like manner, 1 Sam. xvii. 54. David carried the head of Goliath in triumph to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in the sacred tent; not David's own tent, for he had none, being merely sent on a message; but the national tabernacle, for here we find part of it, i.e. the sword, long after; and from hence he received it again from Ahimelech, 1 Sam. xxi. 9. Now, I ask what could induce David to carry Goliath's head to Jerusalem, unless Jerusalem was a place of renowned sanctity? Was the national ark here? No: was this city, at this time, a royal residence? No: had it superior claims to Bethlehem, where the victor lived? not unless we allow its character of sanctity: under which allowance all comes easy, and we see that the after proceedings of the Philistines with the body of Saul corresponded to what David had formerly done with the head of Goliath. The result of these considerations is, the strengthening our principle, that here was a sacred place of worship before Solomon embellished it, by erecting his temple on it. It is proper, therefore, strongly to urge the distinction between mount Zion and Jerusalem: those names are frequently used by our theological writers, as if they were identically the same place; whereas, one of them, Zion, refers to the royal or kingly office among the Jews, it being the seat of the royal palace: the other refers to the priestly office, it being the seat of the national worship; now though these are often associated, and connected by sacred writers, after the days of David, yet they are not the same, nor equivalent to each other, but are distinct though combined. As we are not writing a history of the city of Jerusalem at length, we shall merely hint at its subsequent enlargements by succeeding kings of Judah. VOL. IV. 46 The city of Jerusalem was built on hills, and encompassed with mountains, Psalm cxxv. 2. in a stony and barren soil, and was about sixty furlongs in length, according to Strabo, lib. xvi. Adjacent to Jerusalem, were the fountains of Gihon and Siloam, and the brook Kidron: also the waters of Ethan, which Pilate conveyed through aqueducts into the city, Joseph. lib. ii. cap. 15. de Bello. The ancient city of Jebus, which David took from the Jebusites, was not large. It stood on a mountain, south of the temple. The opposite mountain is Sion, where David built a new city, which he called the city of David, wherein was the royal palace. Between these mountains lay the valley of Millo, which separated the ancient Jebus from the city of David, but which was filled up by David and Solomon, to join the two cities, 1 Kings, ix. 15, 24; xi. 27. After the reign of Manasseh, there is mentioned a new city, called the Second, enclosed with walls by that prince, 2 Chron. xxiv. 22; xxxiii. 14. and 2 Kings, xxii. 24. The Maccabees considerably enlarged it on the north, by enclosing a third hill, as part of Jerusalem. Josephus speaks of a fourth hill called Bezetha, which Agrippa joined to the city. This new city lay north of the temple, along the brook Kidron. Wherefore Jerusalem had never been so large, as when attacked by the Romans. It was then thirty-three furlongs in circumference: nearly four miles and a half. Josephus informs us, that the wall of circumvallation, which Titus made, was thirtynine furlongs; or four miles, eight hundred seventyfive paces. Others admit a much larger extent. See Vallalpandus for the affirmative; and M. Reland for the negative, Palestin. t. 2. lib. iii. See Dictionary, article JERUSALEM. The condition of Jerusalem in the time of Christ was pretty much the same as afterward when assaulted by the Romans; and what this was, Tacitus, as being a Roman, and a military man, may inform us. We shall use Mr. Murphy's translation. "Jerusalem stood upon an eminence, difficult of approach. The natural strength of the place was increased by redoubts and bulwarks, which, even on the level plain, would have made it secure from insult. Two hills, that rose to a prodigious height, were enclosed by walls constructed with skill, in some places projecting forward, in others retiring inwardly, with the angles so formed, that the besiegers were always liable to be annoyed in flank. The extremities of the rock were sharp, abrupt, and craggy. In convenient places, near the summit, towers were raised sixty feet high, and others, on the declivity of the sides, rose no less than a hundred and twenty feet. These works presented a spectacle altogether astonishing. To the distant eye they seemed to be of equal elevation. Within the city there were other fortifications enclosing the palace of the kings. Above all was seen, conspicuous to view, the tower Antonia, so called by Herod, in honour of the triumvir, who had been his friend and benefactor. "The temple itself was a strong fortress, in the nature of a citadel. The fortifications were built with consummate skill, surpassing, in art as well as labour, all the rest of the works. The very porticoes that surrounded it were a strong defence. A perennial spring supplied the place with water. Subterraneous caverns were scooped under the rock. The rain water was saved in pools and cisterns. Since the reduction of the place by Pompey, experience taught the Jews new modes of fortification; and the corruption and venality, that pervaded the whole reign of Claudius, favoured all their projects. By bribery they obtained permission to rebuild their walls. The strength of the works plainly showed that, in profound peace, they meditated future resistance. The destruction of the rest of their cities served to increase the number of the besieged. A prodigious conflux poured in from all quarters, and among them the most bold and turbulent spirits of the nation. The city, by consequence, was distracted by internal divisions. They had three armies, and as many generals. The outward walls, forming the extent, were defended by Simon John, otherwise called Bargioras, commanded in the middle precinct: Eleazar kept possession of the temple. The two former commanded the greatest number of soldiers; the latter had the advantage of situation. The three parties quarrelled among themselves. Battles were fought within the walls; stratagems were practised; conflagrations destroyed part of the city, and a quantity of grain was consumed in the flames. Under colour of performing a sacrifice, John contrived to send a band of assassins, to cut off Eleazar and his whole party in one general massacre. By this atrocious deed he gained possession of the temple. From that time two contending factions threw every thing into confusion, till the enemy at their gates obliged them to unite in their common defence," Tacitus, Hist. lib. v. We are particularly interested in these accounts, because they clearly illustrate the natural strength of Jerusalem, and justify the boastings of the nation, of which Scripture itself gives us instances, Psalm cxxii. 3; cxxv. 2. Under these circumstances, how very unlikely, perhaps even ridiculous, did the prophecy of our Lord appear to the Jews, Luke xix. 43. every word of which opposes their confidence in these defences. "Thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, rather raise a circumvallation, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee, and they shall not leave within thee one stone on another." It is not impossible that this was literally fulfilled in every particular, so far as regarded Jerusalem itself, though some towers, or even streets, of the cities appended to it in after ages might be spared, for the accommodation of the Roman garrison stationed in the place. Our fourth subject shows the present state of Jerusalem, the holy city, the holy temple, "trodden down by the Gentiles till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." It is necessary that we should fix this idea in our minds, "till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," and then, the probability is, that this same spot which during so many ages has been distinguished, and at some periods so highly and singularly distinguished, though now degraded, shall again enjoy favours which shall render it conspicuous. Different opinions may be entertained respecting the nation of the Jews, and consequently respecting the fate of their capital, Jerusalem; but, the result of the subject which has now engaged us, leads at least to the modest conjecture, that it is still to be the scene of events foretold in prophecy, which will be no less corroborative of faith, when they do happen, than those events have been, which are narrated in history; events which surely no one can properly consider, without feeling a persuasion rising to expectation, of a somewhat, though to describe or to determine that somewhat may be beyond the conjecture of the wisest of men. |