---

We consider it every way remarkable that David should be mentioned in connection with the woe about to be uttered. If it had been, "Woe unto Ariel, the city where flagrant sins are committed, the city which is overrun with idols, and filled with all kinds of abomination," we should have seen at once the force of the sentence, and must have felt the wrath warranted by the alleged crimes. But why bring it as a chief accusation against Jerusalem — indeed, as the only charge that was to justify God in pouring out His vengeance — that it was the city where David had dwelt? We can hardly think that the definition is meant as nothing more than a statement of fact. David had long been dead; strange changes had occurred, and it would be making the essential term too insignificant to suppose it to contain only a historical reference to an assertion that no one doubted, but which is quite unconnected with the present message from God. We must rather believe that the city is characterised, "where David dwelt," in order to show that it deserved the woe about to be denounced. This is evidently mentioned as aggravating the guiltiness of the city.

(H. Melvill, B. D.)

---

---

KJV: Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

WEB: Woe to Ariel! Ariel, the city where David encamped! Add year to year; let the feasts come around;