J.T. There is a spiritual movement in mind here, David giving the main lead in it. Other elements that may be operative are allowed to show themselves. These elements are led, on the one hand by Abner and on the other by Joab, each leader having himself in mind. It would seem as if from verse 8 of chapter 2 to the end of chapter 4 we have the working out of these adverse elements during a spiritual movement.

Ques. Why is a character like Abner short-lived in contrast to Joab who continued through such a long period with the king?

J.T. I suppose one of the reasons for his continuance is to bring out the weakness in David. David acknowledges his weakness here, "I am this day weak". It is a poor thing to have to acknowledge that the position is beyond him, and this is in a condition where David is nominally supreme. Things are allowed to develop, even in chapter 5. If you link on the narrative with 1 Chronicles 11:6, he opens a further door to Joab to become chief of captains, which was David's own office. A spiritual man in any given spiritual movement may yield to partisan influence and in that way open the door to a condition that is beyond him.

Ques. Did Joab's actions warrant his removal here?

J.T. He was a murderer. It was wrong that a murderer should be allowed to continue. The assembly should never be in such a plight as this; the Lord has furnished us with means of dealing with the most serious matters. This whole book is stamped with this; it runs right through, and is a warning to us not to allow partisan feeling even in a small way.

Ques. Was David's attitude towards Abner commendable?

J.T. It was so far. David had to clear himself of course. It would look as if there might have been collusion in this matter, but the Lord enabled him to clear himself, which is the main thing. "Neither be partaker of other men's sins", 1 Timothy 5:22. The Lord gave him special grace to clear himself; it was understood that David had nothing to do with it. "All Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to put Abner the son of Ner to death". Spiritual men are often obliged to clear themselves of partisan results; partisan results are attributed to spiritual men who have had nothing to do with them, because they are spiritually linked with those in the party.

Rem. David became continually stronger in the main.

J.T. He dealt with them in principle but was not able to do so in fact. Rem. There was in Acts what is similar to what we get here, the opposition of the Jews and the Gentiles to the ministry of the apostles.

J.T. Quite so. I suppose that is how we should look at the first verse: "the war was long between the house of Saul and the house of David; but David became continually stronger, and the house of Saul became continually weaker". The war was long because of these partisan conditions. David became continually stronger -- it does not say, 'the house of David'.

Ques. Why is 'the house' left out here?

J.T. Well, it says later, his house was not right with God.

Ques. How do you regard David's reception of Abner?

J.T. He seems to be right so far. It was according to the mind of God that the kingdom should come to David. It says in verse 7 of chapter 2, "And now let

your hands be strong, and be ye valiant; for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them", 2 Samuel 2:7. This is clearly a gesture to the house of Israel to accept David as king; so that if Abner came, as he did, as a leader of the house of Israel it seems to be in order for David to receive him.

Rem. What Abner did not accomplish, God was accomplishing behind the scenes.

J.T. Obstacles stood in the way. Really it was Abner who was in the way. He could sway the house of Israel either way because he could always make the position weak. Ishbosheth himself was removed so that the way was made clear for David, although it was not at all to the credit of these two. Abner had just a selfish party feeling; he knew all the time that David was to be king; he is condemning himself in what he says to Ishbosheth in verse 9 of chapter 3, "Jehovah has sworn to David"; and to the elders in verse 18, "and now do it, for Jehovah has spoken of David ...". So that he knew exactly the mind of God and he is fighting against it, he is condemning himself.

Ques. Do you think his slaying was governmental?

J.T. I do. It is a warning to us.

Ques. In each one of these men slain, the sword penetrates their lower affections. Was it the exposure of lack of love in the Spirit, a feature seen positively in the saints at Colosse (Colossians 1:8)?

J.T. Judas' death is similar, he fell headlong and all his bowels gushed out. He was wanting in affection. These are remarkable chapters, I think, for the work of God to be seen in spiritual leadership. They show how partisan activities may work within the realm of spiritual leadership. David has to acknowledge he was not strong enough.

Ques. Was the same thing going on at Corinth?

J.T. Exactly, there were several parties there.

Ques. There seems to be a turn in the testimony today and a remarkable spiritual movement: are we in danger of partisanship and rivalry as seen in Abner and Joab?

J.T. That is what the enemy would seek to bring about. The thing is that there should be no leadership that is not spiritual.

Ques. Do these wives of David and the mother of these sons indicate weakness?

J.T. The king would multiply wives. In chapter 5 he continues on that line after he reaches Jerusalem.

Rem. You see it in the stipulation he made with Abner about Saul's daughter, Michal.

J.T. It indicates where his mind was, I think; see verse 14. Of course you might work out a type in it, an allusion to the assembly, but it is difficult to make it out. He was making self-gratification more than the kingdom, whereas the kingdom was the great thing with God.

Rem. All the children born in Hebron were sons. Would this be for the testimony?

J.T. That would fit. I think you might say that. We get their mothers in verses 2 to 5. At Jerusalem you get further sons and daughters without their mothers' names (chapter 5:13 - 16). The continuance of the testimony is in mind, but on the other hand it is an allusion to a certain vein of weakness in David, because the king was enjoined not to multiply wives.

Ques. What about David taking Ahinoam and Abigail to Hebron?

J.T. This seemed to be legitimate and right. Certainly Abigail is a type of the assembly. You can understand that the maternal side must be in line in the kingdom, so that it seems to be in order. He had lost them at Ziklag and now he has them again.

Rem. Some sons did not turn out very well.

J.T. One is a type of the antichrist; chapter 3:3. But there is the continuance of the testimony, and

the Psalms show what the children are and how they speak with the enemy in the gate. Generally speaking they are a blessing from God, but it is "thy wife", and not 'thy wives' in Psalm 128. Deuteronomy expressly forbids the king to multiply wives.

Rem. At this time if Abner and Joab were giving a wrong lead David should have given a right one. They were adverse parties.

J.T. Saul was dead and David spoke well of him. He was anointed by the house of Judah, but then these two leaders are operating by themselves. In chapter 2 verse 14 they suggest that the young men should make sport before them. Where is David's power as king in all this?

Rem. There is an attempt by Ishbosheth to check what was evil; it is he who brings out what Abner is doing. Then Abner moves to transfer the kingdom to David.

J.T. It looks as if one element after another brought about this change in Abner's mind with no reference to David. Yet David is not in this evil.

He is outside it in spirit, but he has to acknowledge that he is weak in the thing. It is a remarkable warning to us that spiritual leadership is the only leadership. These two men were not thinking of the king, they were just two independent leaders. You can see how Joab would carry Israel with him on this line; this laid the basis for Absalom's revolt later.

The saving feature is that God gave David such attractiveness that all Israel loved him.

Ques. Did not David enunciate the principle of his kingdom in the first chapter in the song that he taught Judah? Does not the setting seem to be encouraging?

J.T. Yes, certainly the first chapter is magnificent as to the spirit of David, and right up to the end of verse 7 of the second chapter; and then we have these two men operating and making sport and

sacrificing their followers for sport. Where is David in this? It is significant that David is not mentioned in chapter 3 after verse 7.

Ques. What is your thought as to the length of time that is required for David to be brought into the kingdom? It is not till David has reigned seven and a half years in Hebron that all Israel is brought round to him.

J.T. I think the position at Hebron is intended for that, a stopping point, as much as to say the spiritual condition does not warrant any more. David is held up there, it is a testing time. I think there is some correspondence between that position and what we get in Exodus 24. Great thoughts of God are opening up there; God says, so to speak, I want you to come up here, Moses, and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel. And then, Moses, you come up into the mountain and I will give you the book of the law, "for their instruction". All that would be with Moses above, the others were to stay below without Moses, they were to have Aaron and Hur if any matter arose and they would have to wait for Moses to come down forty days later. Well now, here we have an example set out in David in verse 1, of the kind of man suitable for the kingdom, an example to all Israel. He became stronger and stronger personally, and then we have Hebron. In view of all this these two men are brought to the front instead of David. So with Aaron and Hur, they are to look after the people while Moses is away. But the instruction is with Moses; the divine mind is with Moses. Why should David be hindered? Well, there is a moral condition in question and that moral condition is to be worked out before we can have the mind of God.

Rem. Joab would not have waited in Jerusalem for power from on high.

J.T. Certain conditions have to come about. The

Lord could have gone to heaven at once after He arose just as well as forty days later. It implies that there is a condition that is questionable, that is to he searched out. So in Colosse they were in danger of philosophy and vain deceit; that is to he worked out and judged. All these things are on one line. You have the mind of God opened up, but there is a moral condition of things to he dealt with before we can go on. These elements are at work in Israel here. David is not clear in this matter and these two men are active. In the government of God they come to their end.

Rem. They are not subject men. It would be a warning for us as Christians not to take on things without consulting Christ.

J.T. The point is, What is leadership? Is it Joab or Abner, or is it David? David is weak and the book brings out that he never really recovered the loss sustained here.

Ques. Would you say something as to Abner's end?

J.T. You just feel that God's government took him out of the way. David's attitude seems right under the circumstances. Abner knew that David was the man all along and yet he was insubject, and so he was disqualified.

Rem. He worked for self-advantage, which God will not support.

J.T. Yes. The Amalekite who slew Saul thought he would get a reward. How does this bear on ourselves? What is the divine idea? It is that God will not have mere natural ability. Natural ability may disqualify me. Leadership, if it is not spiritual is worse than nothing. In general David is over against all this. He has the divine idea, but he is missing it because he is not facing this thing in these two men. Applying it to ourselves, it is not enough for us to say that the Holy Spirit is amongst us, because He might be grieved. The point is. What is

the effect of having Him? It is the power that worketh in us. But there might be the taking on of something else as at Colosse. Some there were in danger of taking on something else such as philosophy, appealing to the natural mind, and ceremonialism. The work of God exposes that sort of thing.

Rem. Might that sort of thing become constitutional?

J.T. That is just the word to use, 'constitutional'. Hence the use of the word 'if' in Colossians.

Rem. "See that ... no one ... shall lead you astray", Colossians 2:8. These two leaders were on that line.

J.T. That is just the point really. Hebron is Colossians and the saints are amenable to being led by that kind of man.

Ques. Is there sometimes a failure to recognise headship?

J.T. Yes, and a partial movement -- not going all the way in putting off the body of the flesh in circumcision. I believe that is the object in the letter to the Colossians, that they might face the evil and go on to the full thought. You do not need men like Joab and Abner, philosophers, they are men of natural ability but they are not spiritual leaders. The whole position is marred because of them, the whole of 2 Samuel is marked by David's weakness. Later Absalom is allowed to carry things. Why was that?

Rem. "There shall arise from among yourselves men", showing what has developed. Really it is the application of the truth of the Colossians, so that we might go the whole way.

J.T. That is the point. Colossians is therefore a critical epistle. It may mean that you have reached the divine end or missed the mark entirely.

Rem. One reason for being so slow to take on the ministry at the present time is that we are marked by philosophy and ceremonialism.

J.T. We get in Colossians 1:23, "If indeed ye abide in the faith". It is an "if" of uncertainty ; their condition is questionable. "If indeed ye abide", as much as to say, I am doubting you. There is much prayer in this epistle by the apostle himself and also by Epaphras, because the saints were hankering after philosophy; and Paul combated for them so that they might be saved from this danger. The "ifs" of Colossians 2:20 and chapter 3:1 are not the "ifs" of uncertainty but are hypothetical.

Ques. What is the difference between circumcision and baptism?

J.T. Circumcision deals with the flesh viewed in its power. Baptism refers to what is outside you ; you reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin. It is what is outside of you, but circumcision is what is inside you; the work of the flesh inside. The point is the totality of it. One of the most remarkable things in Scripture is that God sought to slay Moses. Why? Because he was not dealing with the flesh. He might have tried to lead the children of Israel out on fleshly lines -- clericalism -- what is developed in the flesh. Baptism, of course, is the public position, that I am dead to the world. Circumcision is to deal with the flesh, whatever power I may have in the flesh. David thinks he is clearing himself because he is pronouncing these judgments, but why could he not have dealt with Joab? If he had faced it, God would have helped him. Moses is a leader and God appoints him to lead His people and yet He is ready to slay him. God says in effect: I have not changed My mind in connection with the flesh; if it is coming up I will deal with it. Baptism would lose its power in a person who has not got the Spirit. It supposes the Spirit; it is a household matter, "thou and thy house" (Acts 16:31); a saved man and his house. It is very important to see this in the jailer's case, "thou shalt be saved, thou, and thy house" (Acts 16:31);

yourself first as a saved man, and then your house. Whether it is worked out in the Red Sea or the Jordan you get the same principle of baptism. The same thing applies to Jordan -- they went through householdly. Household baptism is proper Christian ground. No man is really qualified to be a father unless he brings his household on to that ground.

Ques. Is your thought that the whole book suffers from this weakness on David's part? This principle had been overlooked by David, "although my house be not so before God", 2 Samuel 23:5. There was not sufficient carrying out of the principle of baptism.

J.T. The weakness here runs right through the book. We shall see it in the last years of David. How can a man's house be right unless he brings in the truth of baptism?

Rem. Ittai and all his men and little ones passed over with David, the little ones could make the journey too.

J.T. That is a figure of baptism. The full thought of household baptism came in with Paul.

CHAPTER 4

J.T. This chapter follows on verse 8 of chapter 2. It contemplates, as we had last week, a transitional state of things. The crisis arising in the history of the testimony contemplated at the beginning of the book implies certain features which existed negatively and positively to be worked out. So that these two leaders, Abner and Joab figuring in this section are both party men. At the end of chapter 3 we have an exposure of Joab's murderous state and how Abner, in connection with that very state, came to his end; he was murdered. This brings out what partyism really is, and how far it will go.

Ques. Have you any thought about the lamentation

of David for Abner -- is there any suggestion in it of Christ?

J.T. It illustrates what a spiritual man will do. It was an awkward situation, he would make the best of it. David had to clear himself of the stain of guilt of something which took place in his kingdom, and he did what he could to clear himself; but then the book subsequently shows that the evil was there and caused weakness that was never overcome.

Adjustment had to be handed over to Solomon. The lesson would be for us in circumstances like these to face whatever there may be inimical to the testimony; party elements, opposing elements, are to be met and dealt with righteously, otherwise they become an incubus upon us to harass us later.

Ques. What is the meaning of verse 29 of chapter 3: "let there not fail from the house of Joab one that has an issue, or that is a leper, or that leans on a staff, or that falls by the sword, or that lacks bread", (2 Samuel 3:29)?

J.T. It was just a curse. We have corresponding passages in the New Testament -- a curse put off, as this was, and a curse inflicted immediately or in principle as in Galatians; Paul says: "If anyone announce to you as glad tidings anything besides what ye have received, let him be accursed", Galatians 1:9. The postponement of the curse in 1 Corinthians 16:22 was not because there was no power, but the dispensation, I suppose, required that it should be put off until the Lord should come. "Anathema Maranatha" is "until the Lord comes", which would be really Solomon taking the thing over.

Rem. It may drag on until Solomon comes to the throne; do you think that the more we realise sonship the more power there will be?

J.T. That is what would be learned, I suppose, in Solomon meeting the thing righteously in this case. He does not deal with the culprits all alike; he fixes retribution according to the crime. Sonship is brought

forward by the apostle in Galatians, and it is in Galatians that he pronounces the curse at once. It is not put off. Why should the saints be suffering to spare the man?

Ques. Is that why Paul withstood Peter to the face?

J.T. Quite so. He did not defer it or leave it because of Peter's distinction. There is a good deal in this of how things are to be met; God allows things in transitional periods to work out to their own exposure, good or evil. There must be authority. God has never left his people without the element of authority, and power to enforce it. David stands for that here but he is not equal to it, although he shows clearly that he has judged the murderer; but words are not enough, we want more than words.

Ques. Do you think it was because of natural relationship?

J.T. His explanation is that they were too strong for him. They are all his nephews, sons of Zeruiah; why should they be too strong for him? Possibly Joab's underhand influence entered into the matter; he had great power with the army and others.

Ques. How do you view the king doing what pleased the people, is that in his favour or otherwise?

J.T. I think it is to bring out his spiritual qualities. He was always loved by the people and it speaks well for the people that they regarded him. But the book does not let David off at all, it shows that the element of weakness is there, unjudged in the king. It worked out in Absalom and Adonijah later, a most distressing state of things. At times you marvel that it should be so. The teaching for us is antitypically the history of the assembly as a whole or at any given time, that is, what is right in the main being unable to face what is left over in the way of contrary or opposing elements. We cannot wait for unity in dealing with evil; we must do what is right.

Ques. The Lord said to Thyatira: "I have against thee that thou permittest that woman Jezebel", Revelation 2:20. The Lord would hold against the saints that they are responsible for allowing certain things. Why is it addressed to the angel of Thyatira?

J.T. It is for the general body in Thyatira. The angel would be the responsible element, and, of course, we are all responsible. Anyone who takes himself out of that responsibility is not in fellowship. "I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel, she who calls herself prophetess, and she teaches and leads astray", Revelation 2:20. That charge stands out against that church ever since.

Rem. The letter written is to bring about through some person an assembly conscience or a local conscience. The locality should have a conscience as to the state of the saints.

J.T. Each letter would be to arouse the conscience in the whole body. Take Thyatira, "I have against thee"; however few or many were right, all are responsible. That is the thing that has to be faced, whatever the Lord is against.

Rem. Ahab humbled himself and the judgment was postponed.

J.T. I suppose that particular phase of the kingdom is one of the most striking as illustrative of grace, the wonderful patience that God had with Ahab. In type that corresponds with Thyatira: "against thee" would be responsible Ahab, he was responsible for Jezebel. The long patience that God exerted toward Ahab is very striking and shows the patience He has now in the history of the assembly. Jezebel survived Ahab, but God acted wonderfully to Ahab, wicked man that he was! He defeated the Syrians, God put him at the head of the army and gave him victory. He spared the king of the Syrians and God still had patience. He slew Naboth and

God still had patience when he humbled himself, showing how patient God is with those of us who are responsible in any given phase. In the long run he will exact every cent, every penny. The prophetic word is to bring to bear on the conscience what may not have been dealt with.

Ques. How do you regard David's sentiments relative to Abner? Abner was supporting the king for personal reasons.

J.T. Abner was nothing more than a party man at best, but he had more to his credit than Joab had. David, in a magnanimous way, in keeping with his attitude in regard to the death of Saul, refers to Abner as a prince. It is a spiritual man making the most of a bad matter. Sorrowful matters arise and we all have part in them. The spiritual would make the most of a matter in adjustment. There is spiritual adjustment in David's speech so that he could go on with a good conscience in the rule of the kingdom; but then, is the evil really met? or does the sequel not show that it was never met in David's time and that he suffered accordingly?

Rem. There is something to Abner's credit in that he took sides with David in spite of his motives.

J.T. He knew the truth. He knew David was God's choice. A man who knows the truth and is opposing it is in a serious position. The fact that he is opposing it may mean that other considerations hold him back. He knew all the time that David was the divine choice. Possibly God might give a man credit for arriving at a true judgment, but where is he morally when he knows the truth and is not standing by it?

Rem. He might have said, I will take sides with David because I am against Ishbosheth.

J.T. We cannot always be sure as to the underlying history. Every man has some history with God, perhaps something we do not know about.

We cannot be sure of anything that is not on the surface. Why did David speak so of Abner? There may be something that is not recorded about the man -- I think we ought to take David's judgment about him here. He may have had secret relations with God that David knew of. David might have said, 'Well, he was a true man at bottom'. We sometimes say of one or another, 'His wife hinders him' or 'His natural links keep him back'; and we say it rightly, because the man left by himself would be right; and God is infinitely fair in these things.

Ques. How could Abner be put down in the record as a prince?

J.T. Well, there are two ways of looking at it. There is secret history, known to God and perhaps to himself, but particularly to God, and God is infinitely fair and gives him credit for everything. If influences have swayed him from the course, God takes account of that. Jeroboam's son died because he was good. He is the only one God said there was any good in (1 Kings 14:13), and he died. He was taken out of the evil. The public history may not vindicate a man, but the Judge of all the earth is right. For instance, Lot is called a righteous man, what are you going to make of that? You would hardly say that from Genesis. Peter says that and he has the government of God in his mind. If I am swayed from the right course which I would probably take, God gives me credit. How could He speak of these men save on that abstract line? God looks at the heart.

Rem. I was wondering if it corresponds with the public history at the present time of the assembly, how she is suffering, with believers in various organisations around.

J.T. And from divisions from the time of the revival of the truth of the assembly; the brethren are suffering.

Rem. In spite of what David says about Abner it says, "all Israel was troubled", chapter 4:1. Those that had been following this wrong leader are being affected by the death of Abner.

J.T. This chapter is to bring in the irretrievable weakness of Saul's house. It is a time of testing and these three chapters are to show how things are to be worked out as they happen of themselves. David is not doing anything except passing comments, passing judgments on guilty men. Ishbosheth is spoken of as "Saul's son", and then again Jonathan is "Saul's son"; they are all of Saul, all being weakened or destroyed, the whole house is dying out under the government of God. We must wait and see what God will do, it is the government of God. Things are happening of themselves in David's favour. Let time do its work, let elements that are existing do their work; this fourth chapter shows the complete destruction of Saul's house. Mephibosheth might have been a hope, but he is lame, so that even that little glimmer of hope fails; God made him lame when he was a child. I think what is in mind here is the extinction of the royal line of Saul. Ishbosheth is slain. Faith would say, There is no hope for the house of Saul, put your mind on David. God is doing that.

Ques. Do you think God is working behind the scenes in these matters?

J.T. Well, David is not doing it. It is the elements themselves destroying themselves, that is the idea; applying it to the world, it is gradually coming to that, the elements are destroying themselves.

Rem. All the public matters that are happening in rapid sequence bring that out.

J.T. The history of Europe including that of this country for 150 years past is all seen by the eye of faith to focus on the end, and what the end is going to be. Elements are nullifying each other to

make way for God. If God did not allow these things to operate against each other they would soon overwhelm us. They are operating against each other and the way is made for us to go through. Keep your mind on Christ if you love His appearing. God sees what is going on in your heart, and as you ask God about this and that you see that the one thing is nullifying the other and God is making the way through.

Rem. Baanah and Rechab were captains of bands, party men.

J.T. That is the rule of the day. That is exactly what this section is bringing out. Abner was a captain under Saul more distinguished and greater than they and so was Joab; but partyism is the principle. Ishbosheth's own men, captains, turn against him, David has nothing to do with it. David calls him a righteous man, it is the skill of a spiritual man in making the best of a matter.

Rem. Mephibosheth is nearest to the throne on Saul's line, after the death of Ishbosheth.

J.T. That is another thing, we meet him again but not to be heir to the throne. There is no evidence that he wanted the throne. The point in Mephibosheth would be that he has a spiritual element in him, he loves David; he is no rival of David.

Rem. He is a real Hebron man, judging the flesh in himself.

Rem. Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt, it has to do with a man that went out of the world. Mephibosheth did not seek the throne for himself.

J.T. He loved David. He is brought in here to show that the house of Saul is hopeless. We are often helped negatively as well as positively. We see every side of Saul cut off here, no available heir. The nearest was lame and unfit. God is showing that every support to this line of things seems to be

giving way. It shows too, that God has this man in His mind for grace. He has cut him off in spite of himself from aspiring to be successor; it is like the grace of God keeping us out of the world. This seems to be the lesson with Mephibosheth, he is cut off from the house of Saul by being disqualified. Many of us are saved from the world by being kept unfit for it. Lack of prosperity is sometimes an asset.

Rem. "He shall sit at my table continually";(2 Samuel 9:11) it is not a temporary idea.

J.T. The lameness would be his badge. He is an object for grace here on account of another, Jonathan; so that we have a beautiful picture of the gospel, that God has made him lame to make him a subject for grace. It is much better to be at David's table than on Saul's throne, successor to a wilful king. God in His government prevents our success sometimes to keep us for another world.

Rem. The pressure that God has allowed in recent years has really worked greatly in our favour in that our young people are deprived of prospering to any extent financially; God has come in on the other side and blessed them in view of His world.

J.T. Yes; "he that is wise" may observe how God is saving the young brothers and sisters. If they were more prosperous they might not be in these things. I do not think I ever before saw it so clearly in connection with Mephibosheth, but that is just what happened. He is the king's son but he is not fit to rule a kingdom; he is going to be in Christ's realm typically. How infinitely better!

Ques. David began to reign at thirty. This man was made lame at five years; is that to emphasise the position of weakness?

J.T. David is fully fit for the office and God is making way for the man that is fit. He is removing all others so that "all Israel" came to David in chapter 5. It is very striking and I am sure there is

a lesson in it: first we see the government of God clearing a way for David, one element working against another to make way for the fulfilment of the counsels of God; but then incidentally this man is made lame at five years, he is taken out of the way of David's universal supremacy; being direct heir to the throne, but kept for grace, for David to show, as a type of Christ, on what a wide scale God operates! Thus God can accomplish several things at the same time.

Rem. A covenant had been made between David and Jonathan; Jonathan had said, "Go in peace", 1 Samuel 20:42.

J.T. It all goes with what we are saying, what God does governmentally to work out His counsels and make subjects of grace.

Rem. David was never marked by a spirit of rivalry.

J.T. I think it shows how God honours a man who acts according to His mind. David is honoured here in that the way is made clear. God is doing it, even in making Mephibosheth lame.

Rem. David never had to push himself; I suppose Joab thought he would effect the thing.

Ques. Does not Peter's address support that? -- "Let the whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ", Acts 2:36.

J.T. "Whom ye have crucified"; so that as just remarked David leads in making the most of a person who might have been adverse to one. Go the limit in speaking well of him, that is the principle, God honours that. He said to Solomon You did not ask for the death of your enemies, you asked for wisdom; I will honour that.

Rem. Paul may have thought he had said too much adversely about the Corinthians, but the coming of Titus greatly encouraged him.

J.T. Of course in the first epistle he says what he can from the divine side -- it is what God has done for them. They could not say that God had not done His best, so that Paul says in effect, You have all the endowment you need. In the second letter he is speaking well of the brethren; how God honours that! Paul says, Whatever you say about me, I will speak well of you. I believe that is the secret of the wonderful light he had about the new covenant, one ray of glory after another, as if God would fill his soul, a man who could clothe the saints so beautifully. I think we ought to stop and think about the Corinthians. They were only about two and a half years old; think of a large number of brethren in a wicked city being converted so recently and yet forming the assembly of God! Is it not wonderful! The enemy was coming in and marring the work, but still it was there. And God was filling out Paul's soul with glory as he speaks well of the brethren.

Rem. The reference to Corinth is helpful. We know that it was to the Corinthians he spoke so definitely about the prophetic word, and that has certainly be emphasised of late, but lest there might be an over-bearing sense of fault finding left there, this spiritual man brings in this wonderful other side of his great appreciation of them. There might be a tendency perhaps in our prophetic ministry to undue fault finding; but that impression could not be left, if these feelings of the apostle were also emphasised.

Ques. Is ministry in the main God's way of helping us?

J.T. I think it is, especially the prophetic ministry. No scripture can establish that more clearly than chapter 19 of this book of Samuel. The prophetic ministry preserves David when all seemed hopeless.

Ques. Why is David partial? He slays these captains of Saul's son but he does not slay Joab.

J.T. I think it was weakness. He admits that

they are too hard for him. Sometimes when a case arises we are right inwardly and know the truth of who is wrong, but we have not the courage to face the thing. Joab was a very able man. You can see how God in a weak state of things will make a way for what is right. David represents what is right but there is weakness attached to him and God knows this and he is making a way for him. God did not deal with Joab yet and David has to say, "I am this day weak though anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me; Jehovah reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness", 2 Samuel 3:39. God did, of course, but then it was David's responsibility.

Rem. There was something unjudged in David that did not come to light until later when Nathan had to judge him.

J.T. Yes; it may have been that Joab connived in this wickedness, and he also operated to bring Absalom forward. He is just a politician.

Rem. "Jehovah reward him": he is invoking Jehovah to do it, he acknowledged his weakness.

J.T. Quite so -- I am not able to do it, let Jehovah do it. Of course, God would listen to it, but then David has to acknowledge his weakness in the matter.

Rem. Joab was captain of the hosts; he knew how to use a sword well. David should have used a prophetic word which is sharper.

J.T. That is the application of it today. The prophetic word is sharper than the sword.

Rem. The chapter tells us of a dead man in Hebron, of two men slain in Hebron and also of a burial there.

J.T. It seems to be the grave of the whole matter, the end; and in the next chapter everyone wants David, God has cleared the whole field for him. Then we have this touch of grace with Mephibosheth and David.

Ques. Does sonship referred to in Mephibosheth set forth sonship by adoption as a far greater thing than sonship on natural lines?

J.T. Quite so. It is a type of the Christian as a subject of grace, not only that his sins are dealt with, as it were, but he is set up in sonship in the divine realm.

Ques. Do we get some indication here as to the right to discriminate between different persons? It is necessary to slay some but there are some to whom David's feelings would be called out, such as Abner. There are differences in cases that come before us. Where there is some possibility of recovery and right feelings should not our attitude toward them be different?

J.T. David's attitude toward Abner and Ishbosheth bears on the whole ten tribes. It would effect fellowship and right feeling in them. It is the secret I think of the next chapter, that all the tribes came to him.

Rem. His tribute was after the men were dead; in other words, his tribute was wisely placed when they could do no more harm and it was a safe time to speak well.

J.T. I think what ought to be borne in mind is Ishbosheth and the ten tribes. They would say, What a fair-minded man David is! He calls our king a righteous man; he must have said the truth. I suppose Ishbosheth was a harmless man; David calls him a righteous man slain in his own house on his bed, and he calls Abner a prince and a great man; that would affect the tribes. You must get the people and bring them along with you. I think that is fair.

Ques. Do you view those out of fellowship in different lights?

J.T. One has often thought that many of them have just been misled, you feel differently about them.

Rem. In this last section David had a man slain when he appeared to have a good message.

J.T. Yes, and he points that out to these two murderers; he is a true man in this matter; he is fair.

CHAPTER 5:6 - 25

J.T. We finished last week with the stress laid on David's reigning (verses 4, 5), having in the past three or four weeks been occupied with chapters 2 to 4 where there is much party feeling. The Holy Spirit now leaves us restfully accepting the reign of David. Peace and freedom exist, so that it is stated four times in verses 4 and 5 that David reigned. "David was thirty years old when he began to reign; he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah". The word reign always peculiarly suggests Christ to us. Many were electing themselves outside the sphere of that reign in the earlier chapters, but now they are all in it. The Lord would have us there, subject to Him.

Rem. So all being subject, they can move now to a further position.

J.T. That is right. David's way has become universal, "all Israel and Judah", and we now have "the king and his men".

Ques. Why are you stressing the idea that he reigned ?

J.T. It is over against the squabbles in the earlier chapters. David speaks himself later of "the clear shining after rain";(2 Samuel 23:4) that is the sort of thing you get here, a clear sky. The Spirit of God seems to rest in that in these two verses, and then there is the thought of "the king and his men".

Ques. Would it be right to connect this passage with the Lord's going to Jerusalem in Matthew 21?

J.T. There certainly is a parallel; as He approached Jerusalem Matthew says "the whole city was moved", Matthew 21:10. But then the question arises as to the taking of Jerusalem, whether this particular entry corresponds to David's capture of Jerusalem. We know the Lord was put to death.

Rem. I was thinking that there were those in sympathy with this triumphal entry who might suggest these men associated with David.

J.T. In the gospel of Matthew the initial features of Christianity are represented in children. The Lord is seen as a little Child, and Satan would get rid of the children in Matthew. The little Child went to Egypt and came back a Son. Then the Lord calls a little child to him and sets it in the midst, as if He had a place in that child's heart. He had already said to the Father, "thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes", Luke 10:21. These remarks lead on to your suggestion, but in chapter 21 instead of the leaders in Jerusalem accepting the Lord, it is "the children crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David", Matthew 21:15. Then the Lord justifies their action as if they are the ones; it is the infantile or child condition leading up to, "out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise", Matthew 21:16. The blind and the lame came to Him in the temple and He healed them. The children seem to be the initial idea in Matthew as leading up to what we have in our chapter. If you want to get men you must have children. He finds an entry in Jerusalem, but in the children. Matthew would say, "Except ye ... become as little children";(Matthew 18:3) thus the Lord finds an entry into our hearts. The main point here in Samuel is Christ finding an entry into the hearts of His own.

Rem. Reigning is not considered finality. "He must reign until he put all enemies under his feet", 1 Corinthians 15:25. It is a means to an end.

J.T. Quite so.

Ques. Is there a difference between rule and reign?

J.T. A ruler might be a person who did not reign. Reigning involves royalty. Of course royalty is fast disappearing today but rule is not. I think the word reign here four times is to call attention to the kind of person that he was. He was a king, not simply a ruler; a deputy might rule.

Ques. Does the reigning of David suggest the supremacy of the person? He is supreme in every heart; you might say it is David's chapter.

J.T. Yes, as over against the others, Abner and Joab, who show a party spirit. It is now the clear shining after rain.

Ques. Is that why David does not ask if he should go to Jerusalem? Of Hebron he says, "Shall I go up?" (2 Samuel 2:1).

J.T. He had asked about Hebron and God directed him to go up. I suppose here the thought is that we have reached the realm of spirituality, it is what David is doing himself now. He is a subject man earlier; of course he is still a subject man, but now he is anointed the second time. He is in supremacy.

Rem. Will you say something as to how Jerusalem is viewed here?

J.T. It is finality, I think.

Ques. Is Jerusalem especially in the mind of God from this point of view? In Joshua it was a city like other cities.

J.T. It seems to come into prominence in Joshua and Judges. In Judges they brought Adoni-Bezek to Jerusalem and he died there. They did not put him to death; Judges 1:7. It represents a spiritual realm. Adoni-Bezek was a ruthless sort of man but he becomes amenable to the truth and is brought into that spiritual realm. It is good to get refractory brethren into the spiritual realm. Judges gives Jerusalem prominence in that way.

Rem. It was in the mind of God evidently in figure in Salem. According to Paul it is "Jerusalem above which is our mother", Galatians 4:26. This really represents that idea.

J.T. Quite so. It is involved, I think, in Melchisedek.

Rem. You referred to it last week -- the city of the great king.

J.T. It has a great place. God Himself calls it that and it helps us here; it is in the mind of God and never will be out of it, it goes right into eternity.

Ques. When David acts on his own initiative here, is he reaching a state that might be regarded as spiritual mindedness?

J.T. It is a question of the point reached, where David reigns; it is not simply that Abner or others have brought the kingdom back to him; it is given to him according to divine purpose. All the people are with him. It seems to be a point reached experimentally in a spiritual sense. We have come into the realm of finality and know what to do.

Ques. Is Jerusalem here typical of the assembly?

J.T. Ziklag, Hebron and Jerusalem are the three points. Ziklag is recovery, Hebron is Colossians, and Jerusalem is Ephesians. David as a heavenly man is reigning, he knows what to do now. From Hebron you know what to do, you set your mind on things above and you travel in that direction. For the Lord it was a terrible thing to contemplate when they talked about His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem. How different His peaceful entrance into Jerusalem later on!

Rem. There were opposing elements here.

J.T. The Jebusites being in evidence suggests to us that we have spiritual wickedness in high places. There is no opposition at Hebron, it had been taken by Caleb before. Jerusalem is still the heavenly side and the last to be taken. In Luke 10 the seventy

returned with joy saying that even the demons were subject to them, and the Lord immediately says, "I beheld Satan as lightning falling out of heaven", Luke 10:18. It is the final thought here, I think, spiritual wickedness in high places. It really refers to the saints viewed as the assembly, the heavenly Jerusalem, and the Lord finding an entrance into our hearts. The watercourse would mean, I think, that it is correspondence. He is aiming at, those who have the Spirit. Joab is not mentioned here, it is too elevated a thought, it is David only here, no deputy; it is the Lord seeking today to get into the hearts of His own in relation to heaven.

Rem. He is "carried up into heaven", (Luke 24:51) the way is open for Him to take His place.

J.T. There is no opposition.

Ques. Would you say something about the men?

J.T. It is the thought of the king and his men; these are the ones to occupy Jerusalem; there is no longer a babe condition. Matthew contemplates a babe condition, but he also contemplates the full assembly condition.

Ques. What is the link with David taking the head of Goliath to Jerusalem?

J.T. That is another point of help before we come to this to show how the man of God is gradually taking form as to Jerusalem; it runs right down from Melchisedec, from the one who was "without father, without mother", (Hebrews 7:3) "King of righteousness ... King of Salem, which is King of peace", Hebrews 7:2. Of course, that is part of the meaning of Jerusalem, and undoubtedly it is an allusion to Jerusalem. The head of Goliath is taken there, the final thought is being reached. Now David is going there literally and he has men, and so he is the great king.

Ques. Is the order: children in Matthew, young men in Mark and men in John?

J.T. Yes, that is well linked together. I believe

John is more in view here than any of the other evangelists because David is building inward. It is pointed out here that David dwelt in the stronghold. This word 'Millo' is a striking sort of word: it is written in the original with the article. We might say, "The assembly", something that cannot be overcome, and it is built inward from that. The gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I think it has John's ministry in mind.

Colossians is Hebron as to doctrine; it means there had been a considerable work of God in the saints at Colosse but they were stopped, so that they are very near and yet very far. Whether they go on or stop now hinges on whether the epistle will clear the ground.

Ques. Is manhood sufficient to meet the wicked spirits in heavenly places?

J.T. David's men are military men. I believe Colossians is intended to effect that kind of manhood in us. Epaphras is the typical man in Colossians, he combated earnestly in prayer. A critical point had been reached, they were in danger of being turned aside; now will the prayers of this praying brother and of Paul prevail that they might enter into the purpose of God and the mystery? Will the letter clear away the difficulty? I believe that is the question in the letter, and one would believe they did go forward. What we are saying now is how it affects oneself. And so with the question of distance between Hebron and Jerusalem; it is very near and yet very far. As a matter of fact geographically and topographically Hebron was somewhat higher than Jerusalem. It is a remarkable thing that this is so. But then in spite of that there is danger of hindrance, David was kept out of Jerusalem seven and a half years because of want of unity. It had to be, not simply Judah but all the tribes to bring him in.

Ques. Would it be right to say that you get the thought of the king and his men in those who were

in evidence during the forty days after the Lord's resurrection; going on to Pentecost and then on to Paul's ministry?

J.T. Yes, the Lord certainly had men at Pentecost; but Jerusalem was not reached until Paul came along.

Rem. There were many obstacles in the Acts to keep the men from entering into it.

Ques. How far does John 12 go in relation to John 20?

J.T. I think John 12 is perhaps the Hebron position; there is nothing in the way of opposition there save Judas' attack on Mary, otherwise the position is clear. There is nothing to hinder the saints from being in the heavenly point of view. It seems as if they are in the Lord's mind in this way, and from chapter 13 onward they are to be included in the assembly; it is the heavenly position. Bethany was the link, Bethany and the mount of Olives. Bethany would be the Jewish remnant and the mount of Olives was the link with heaven ; these two things have to coalesce in time with the Jew.

Ques. Why is there so much emphasis on the blind and lame?

J.T. To-day it would mean persons of that type who ought to have light and are refusing it, and they are lame consequently.

Rem. It is not only that the blind and lame need to come into blessing but they are prepared to keep David out.

J.T. It is a terrible reproach spiritually. "The inhabitants of the land ... spoke to David, saying, Thou shall not come in hither, but the blind and the lame will drive thee back". It seems to be a reproach to David by the inhabitants. It is modernism or some such thing that the enemy is using against Christ at the present time.

Rem. I suppose they thought the thing impregnable, really, a kind of falsity of self-assurance.

J.T. They did not consider themselves blind and lame. The Lord says in John 9, "now ye say, We see, your sin remains", John 9:41. The Pharisees did not think they were blind.

Rem. These people had not profited by the prophetic word.

J.T. You mean as applying the thought of lame and blind to present conditions today; I think it might be applied in that way. They are not assuming to be blind and lame themselves, they are Jebusites, occupying this great stronghold.

Rem. Blindness and lameness is generally of that nature, it speaks out and stands in opposition to what is of God, and is sure of its ground.

J.T. The Jebusites themselves talk about the blind and lame as if the poorest amongst them could be with David. It is a wretched thought hurled against the position today. What do such people think of our meetings, what do they think of us? It is a question of testimony all these years of rejection. David had Jerusalem in his mind and now he is realising the thing. We have the same kind of opposition today, they just ridicule the whole position that the Lord has brought to light.

Rem. The Lord has a right to say who is to come into the house, it is an exclusive principle.

J.T. I think it is the principle now that people should see clearly and not be lame.

Ques. In Nehemiah there is a reference to dwelling in Jerusalem: "and the rest of the people cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem", Nehemiah 11:1. Would that suggest how difficult it is to occupy Jerusalem territorially in these remnant days?

J.T. I think the allusion would be to the spiritual weakness of the moment, and of course it is educational for us. Why should not Jerusalem be occupied?

Why should I not love the house of Jehovah? "Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem", Psalm 122:2. Faith lays hold of that. In Nehemiah's time they would rather dwell in the country. I think the point for us here tonight is, Has David a place in our hearts? The idea is to get up to the watercourse, to get at the spiritual. To-day it is not so much evangelisation as in the beginning, it is to get at the people of God, to get them into the spiritual realm. A watercourse is a place of flowing water. David renders the same word 'cataract' in Psalm 42:7. The point he makes is to get to the watercourse, to that side of the brethren. It is no question of religious feeling and that sort of thing, but of the spiritual side of the brethren if you are to make anything out of them.

Rem. Please say a little more about Jerusalem. It says he went up to Jerusalem, but it does not say he took Jerusalem, he took the stronghold of Zion.

J.T. That is the thing to get at. What are these words used for? At the present time the Lord is consolidating the truth, not simply getting converts. He has laid hold of the saints through ministry in the power of the Spirit in relation to the heavenly side of the truth, and that is the stronghold. When an attack comes up in this chapter David goes down to the stronghold. The Lord is putting the truth into our souls in such a way that we stand! Jerusalem is the main thought, but of the stronghold of Zion it is said, "So David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from the Millo and inward", Verse 9.

Rem. You were speaking of Epaphras and of the apostle agonising in prayer, and that what was necessary was co-ordination among the saints; I wondered if there is just that need now, or rather that process going on.

J.T. Yes, it is consolidating the position, you are holding the position at all costs. I think that is

what is meant here by the word 'stronghold'. "David dwelt in the stronghold", as much as to say, This is my place. It was not Jerusalem, but the city of David; not so extensive as Jerusalem, but a stronghold where the Lord has something, and which He will hold at all costs.

Rem. Psalm 48 would correspond.

J.T. Yes, the psalm corresponds very well because it is a question of support inward. David built round about; now it is not the stronghold, it is inward from the Millo -- a definite thing -- "round about from the Millo and inward". That is, if you get the brethren holding together the general principles of the truth, the Lord says, Now I can move on and work inward in the service of God. Where we are holding together in unity any divine principle the Lord has a stronghold and He builds from that.

Ques. Does Matthew 16 show that the inward side is there? A revelation is something that cannot be overthrown, but the exterior in Peter shows weakness. Peter takes the Lord aside to advise Him.

J.T. That is the sort of thing that we are working against. This natural feeling, Be good to thyself, would deflect us from the full thought of self-judgment.

Ques. Is not the man in John 9 in an impregnable position? He says, No matter what they say, I must stand my ground. The parents say, He is of age, ask him; and all his replies to the questionings show that the position is held. Is he not a counterpart of Peter in that way as showing the work of God?

J.T. Quite so; he did not get help from anybody, he was a man that could stand. He is a good illustration of what we are speaking about.

Rem. The man in John 9 corresponds in being marked by smiting the Jebusites.

Rem. It says, "that the works of God might be manifested in him", John 9:3. We want to see the works

manifested, not only there in an abstract way or hidden way.

J.T. The blind man smote them; the Pharisees and Jews were the Jebusites. All they could do was what they did to Stephen; they cast him out. Stephen went up to heaven, but the Lord found the man in John 9. The Lord says, I can build now with a man like that. He is ready for the unfolding of who the Son of God is. I think that is the idea in the Lord revealing Himself as the Son of God; the word is that David built round about from the Millo and inward. It is the enemy's aim to get at the spiritual side of the brethren, the watercourse; and so we have the building inward.

Ques. Do we observe this consolidation at the present time or are you speaking abstractly?

J.T. I think God has been working on these lines for a long time. If the brethren can be encouraged to move together in a spiritual way in connection with the heavenly side of the truth -- the watercourse being the channel in which the Spirit works -- then the Lord can operate. He has something in His mind to do for God.

Rem. The man healed in John 5 did not answer to this.

J.T. The Lord did not have confidence in the man in John 5. He belonged to a state of things that was affected by angelic intervention; he did not seem to be ready for the Lord, he was not material for any spiritual structure. In fact he brought on persecution. The Lord found him as He did the man in chapter 9, but He could not do anything with him; the man went off immediately and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. The Lord has to work alone as it were in John 5; He says the most wonderful things in that chapter about Himself, whereas in chapter 9 He has material to work on and hence He goes on to speak in chapter 10 of the flock. There is

a definite result reached in chapter 9, but not in chapter 5. That is the point now, what has the Lord got to work on? First He gets the saints all together, holding right things, then He builds round about from the Millo and inward; He has got some means of doing that now. There is a point from which He can operate inwardly, and what that involves is the service of God. "Let my son go that he may serve me", Exodus 4:23. That is the main thing from Exodus onward. It says, "the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land". They are characteristically Canaanites, inhabitants of the land but they are dwelling in this place, meaning that strictly they belong to the nations that God had said should be exterminated. The heavenly side is the most difficult to get at. "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2) was asked of the Ephesians. To reach the heavenly side you must get at the saints through the Holy Spirit; the watercourse is the place where you feel secure.

Ques. Building inward is that in relation to ourselves?

J.T. Inward would be Godward; taken up in the light of the tabernacle it would mean the inner place. It is what is Godward, what God began with in Exodus, "Let my son go that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:23).

The tabernacle was set up, and anyone drawing near would have that in mind, what is Godward.

Ques. In the epistle to the Corinthians the apostle refers to what is inward. All the thoughts of divine Persons in connection with themselves and with the evil, etc., had been dealt with, and the apostle says, "I will come to ... revelations", 2 Corinthians 12:1. The inward is just touched on. Do you feel that the inside position is the eternal one, whereas the stronghold position is provisional?

J.T. Where the enemy can attack.

Rem. When you speak about what is inward, it

is really the sphere that was in the tabernacle system, though peculiarly restricted.

J.T. It was there. When anyone came with an offering that was in mind. The priest could go near. When you come to John 17 it is all inward, and later the Lord says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father", John 20:17. We are free of the enemy's attack and now the Lord, as Minister of the sanctuary, would take us in. It is all inward.

Ques. Would the Millo be somewhat like John 20 when the doors were shut, so that the inward thing could go on?

J.T. The doors being shut you have all the Jewish element shut out and you can go on.

Rem. In John 20 you get the ministry carried on relative to the Lord's ascension.

J.T. They were making progress in John 20. When the Lord came in where the meeting was convened there was nothing to complain of; the doors were shut, they had seen to that.

Rem. It is difficult to keep things maintained on that heavenly level.

J.T. I think the greatest test in speaking to God is whether you speak to Him historically or whether you speak to Him about what He is.

Rem. You reach sonship through priestly conditions and this inward matter is certainly a great thing if we are going to reach sonship.

J.T. It is the son really who serves.

CHAPTER 6

J.T. It is important that we should see the import of the Philistine attack at the end of chapter 5 before we proceed into chapter 6. There are two great military operations in chapter 5, first the attack on Zion and then this attack by the Philistines (verse 17 to end). It affords us important military

instruction, first as to conflict with spiritual wickedness in high places -- that is particularly Zion, where it is a question of the Jebusites and second as to how the anointing is attacked. Christ is apprehended as anointed, having secured His place above. Even if we regard Him as the anointed One here below, this kind of attack is to be noted in persons typified by the Philistines, persons having a place in the land but being there other than through Jordan. The earlier operation alludes to His obtaining a place in our hearts. Zion is typically the place He has from the heavenly point of view.

Ques. Is there a spiritual suggestion in the fact that the Philistines went up and David went down?

J.T. David went down to the stronghold, I suppose so.

Rem. It indicated the height at which he was, and they rose to the attack.

J.T. "And David heard of it and went down to the stronghold", 2 Samuel 5:17. It is to be noted because it would allude in the antitype to a certain trustworthy position. I suppose when the Lord went on high in the Acts He had the twelve, and indeed the assembly down here, for the Spirit to come to. It was a trustworthy position in which to carry on His operations. In chapter 5 we have the stronghold in two ways, the stronghold and the Millo, which would allude to a trustworthy position.

Rem. He has his people in mind. In verse 17 of chapter 5 the Philistines heard that the people had anointed David -- the Philistines move in relation to the place that David has among the people.

J.T. Their position was jeopardised. They were big men, such for instance, as the leaders of Israel in the early part of the Acts, or earlier, as seen in the gospels. The anointing of Christ jeopardised their position; whether it be His future anointing or with God above, the position is the same. He is in the

stronghold and the Philistines are concerned as to His being anointed king over Israel. "All the Philistines" came, as if it were a universal matter. They saw their position jeopardised.

Rem. "So also is the Christ", (1 Corinthians 12:12) as if that is the position the saints occupy.

J.T. It alludes to the assembly there, of course.

Rem. As Christ increases, this element is to be displaced but not without an immense struggle. The Philistines spread themselves.

J.T. They have to make a show. They are all involved in this. It is a critical matter in their minds, it means their whole position is jeopardised.

Rem. They would almost feel desperate.

J.T. They select their own battlefield, the valley of Rephaim.

Rem. I suppose the secret of David's success was that at the beginning he enquired of Jehovah.

J.T. The lesson for us is in all our conflicts to have recourse to the stronghold, whatever it be, as holding to divine principles; then God alone can give the victory. David says God taught him to fight: "Blessed be Jehovah my rock, who teacheth my hands to war, my fingers to fight", Psalm 144:1.

Ques. Last week we referred to Isaac who became very great so that the Philistines envied him; do we see that coming out here?

J.T. They are the kind of enemy that begins in Genesis and runs down through. That obviously would denote something of their character and prowess, the kind of thing they would rely on, they spread themselves, making a show outwardly.

Rem. This military strategy of David involves going down to the stronghold which is over against the spreading out of the Philistines.

J.T. It is keeping out of sight. He says, "Shall I go up?" And Jehovah answers, "Go up; for I will certainly give the Philistines into thy hand,

And David come to Baal-perazim, and David smote them there", 2 Samuel 5:19,20. This name, Place of breaches, was given afterwards but it has this meaning here; and David smote them there, as if it were a sudden thing, not a slow matter. The suddenness was God's way. David was moving under the direction of the Lord.

Rem. The keeping out of sight is like Paul at Corinth; he would make the position clear before he came there. Writing the epistle would be keeping out of sight.

J.T. And putting a man like Timothy there so that they might have his spirit before them. It was not the Philistine spirit. Timothy was a timid retiring sort of man.

Rem. Paul's whole approach to the Corinthians was the opposite of what was Philistine in character. "Timothy my child", he says, will show you my ways. I suppose this is the element that operates in our own hearts as the Lord has His place there. The danger is lest the Philistine element should come into activity among us.

J.T. Well, it is bigness, what is giant-like. It would afford an opportunity for such men as they were, whereas here David's victory is all on the principle of hiding. The valley of Rephaim is the Philistine idea, as if they thought that would get the best results. The stronghold being emphasised would allude to what is trustworthy, what God can rely on in conflict, the trustworthiness of His system of things.

Ques. Does it give the heavenly side in verse 9 and our side in verses 17 and 18, that is, would the second be a reference to possibly "two of you" spoken of in Matthew 18?

J.T. I was thinking of that. It is just the way the subject is treated in this chapter. Verse 9 would be divine operations inward, and from the Millo, the point of trustworthiness it seems. Now he goes down without specifying what stronghold it was, it is

one to go down to; and then divine guidance in that connection seems to set out typically the whole Christian position from the military point of view.

Rem. In verse 17 it says "they" had anointed David king. It was what the people had done that attracted the attention of the Philistines. I was wondering if the suggestion is that the Lord would identify Himself with His people in meeting the Philistine attack?

J.T. I think that is how it is to be worked out. After the Lord was anointed He came in contact at once with these big men. His position and character and the power of His anointing jeopardised their position. Then when He went up on high, which this chapter really contemplates, I think, and the Spirit came, the conflict began again. The attack was immediate. It seems as if this 17th verse would also apply, for the Lord operated in relation to what was trustworthy at Jerusalem. The apostles stand out remarkably in the early chapters of Acts and the conflict was carried on in that connection.

Ques. In recent years where the truth of the Person of Christ has come before the hearts of the brethren in a practical way, that moment has been chosen by the enemy to attack. Will it not always be so?

J.T. I think the battlefield was ordered of the Lord. The Lord directed the point of attack, notwithstanding their having chosen the battlefield.

We have an example of it in Acts 4. When Peter and John were released they prayed; they are very lowly in their attitude, they speak to Jehovah or God as a despot, in absolute subjection as bondmen, and they add, "thy holy servant Jesus". They are taking a lowly position and they talk about the persons who attack as the great ones, the leading men made the attack. "For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed, both

Herod and Pontius Pilate with the nations and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass", Acts 4:27,28.

And the answer comes in overwhelmingly, so that the battle goes on, not in destruction, but in healing. The point for us is always to maintain the characteristics of the dispensation in the conflict. The great ones of the earth are alluded to, kings and rulers, as against the anointed one, Christ.

Peter and John tell the whole matter -- what the elders had said to them -- there was no danger of disclosing secrets there. The title they employ in addressing God is in keeping with what we are saying about going down. The word means "despot" in the original. "And they having heard it lifted up their voice with one accord to God and said, Lord", Acts 4,24. There is a reference to it in the margin, "the master of a slave". That is how they spoke to God, so that they took a lowly place, but they are on sure ground.

Rem. The position of liberty that we are speaking of seems to be secured in John 17 -- the Lord laid aside his garments.

J.T. You mean He had confidence to do it. The lesson for us lies there in conflict: if you take a lowly place you are in trustworthy circumstances. So that Matthew gives us the great general principle in the conflict in the Lord's remarks about the assembly, that "the gates of hades shall not prevail against it". (Matthew 16:18) That is the place of confidence, the place of reliability the assembly. It is brought down to two or three, and "there am I".

Ques. Do you think that from Acts 4 and 5 on, this offensive on the part of the Philistines continues until Paul goes into Europe? They are attacking all the time.

J.T. This thought of Baal-perazim, "Jehovah has broken in upon mine enemies before me", (2 Samuel 5,20) is, I think,

to bring out the suddenness of divine warfare. It may be prolonged on account of the low state among us, but the state being ready there is a suddenness and unexpectedness in the way God acts in attacking the enemy.

Ques. Is it a place reached somewhat like the places reached in Mr. Darby's day and then in Mr. Raven's day?

J.T. The Philistines have their own men, leading men, here; and in those days, fifty years ago, an unknown man was used to break in, it was God's doing.

Rem. The matter of suddenness is perhaps confirmed in the way prayers are answered in the Acts. And our prayers will be answered.

Ques. Has there not been a movement somewhat like that, an impulse to break forth, recently?

J.T. It could not have been met were it not that there was confidence among the brethren.

Rem. And stronghold conditions too, in a general way.

J.T. The truth of the assembly has been developed more and more ever since. It all depends upon confidence among the brethren. We shall never have the truth of the stronghold worked out without confidence.

Rem. I was wondering whether the thought of the images (chapter 5:21) would indicate the presentation of other thoughts as detracting from the truth of Christ. There are interesting differences between these two attacks: images in the first, and evidently something more subtle in the second, in the thought of the mulberry trees. Then later we have another attack of the Philistines of more insidious character, with the new cart, quite a Philistine idea.

J.T. Yes, a cart would be a Philistine mode of doing things.

Rem. In the last conflict the breach was a little

closer than in Mr. Darby's or Mr. Raven's days, and it was really amongst so-called brethren.

J.T. I think the unity that God brought about among the brethren saved us. The trustworthiness is the centre and base of operations.

Rem. So that if there were two in a meeting of thirty that the Lord could rely upon, though there might be a great deal of feverish speaking the stronghold would be seen in those who are reliable, so that the position would be held and maintained.

Rem. The stronghold is not taken until you get unity.

Rem. Paul's conversion helped in the solidifying of the saints and the fulfilment of church ministry.

J.T. I think it was the great binding truth that was needed at the time. The twelve did not bring that out, but there was remarkable confidence among the twelve. The woman seen in Revelation 12 has a crown of twelve stars: that would be some trait of the saints; besides the sun and the moon there are twelve stars. "Hold fast ... that no one take thy crown", (Revelation 3:11) is said to Philadelphia. What is the crown at any given time? Let us assume that love is the great principle; what could we do without it? It never fails. It is a stronghold, and I believe that is the idea of the crown, it is what the saints cherish. I believe that is what comes out here, unity. The anointing was by all the tribes, suggestive of unity and affection, "they anointed David". So that I think in meeting the enemy, the crown of twelve stars is significant, the man-child would bring all these thoughts into concrete fulfilment; the enemy was there, but the crown was there. I think that is the secret that has met any threatened cleavage in a wide way. Thank God there was no cleavage.

Rem. Love was operative when Paul and Barnabas went forth.

J.T. The assembly had a great place in that proceeding. Paul and Barnabas were received by the assembly and later were sent out in relation to the assembly.

Ques. What is the difference in the character of these two conflicts? In the first place David is to go up and act, and in the second place he is to wait until he hears the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees: "when thou hearest a sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees ... then thou shall bestir thyself", 2 Samuel 5:24. In the first place he is taking the initiative, and in the second he is waiting.

J.T. The first lesson I think, is the going down to the stronghold and the breaking forth as waters; it is the suddenness of divine attack. Then the second lesson would be that the enemy is not very far-sighted, he does not understand the spiritual. They are assuming something, as if to say, we know the mode of attack, this is the best valley for us and David will do the same thing again. But he does not do the same thing again, that is the secret of success. The Philistines think that we shall think as they do; but we shall do something different because Jehovah is a man of war. The issue would be between Jehovah and the Philistines: "It shall be, when thou hearest a sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shall bestir thyself; for then will Jehovah have gone forth before thee", (2 Samuel 5:24). Who are the marchers? Whose army is that? Jehovah is doing the fighting. "Thou shall bestir thyself". That is not a very military term, but the idea is that you should not sit down, you must have a military ear for that sound. The Philistines say, He will do the same thing again; but that is where they are defeated. The enemy does not know the Spirit.

Ques. Would the thought of feeling come into this, in the mulberry trees? I was thinking of Psalm 84.

J.T. I do not know. It is not a solved question

as to what the mulberry trees really mean, but anyway God is using them.

Rem. The element of spiritual discernment comes into view.

J.T. If they are ordinary mulberry trees, they are of low stature, they are not pretentious trees such as the olive or the cedar; God can move on the top of them. It is in keeping with the general thought of lowliness.

Rem. The truth is attacked first of all in an open way, which may be more readily discerned and met than another more insidious movement in regard to the same truth.

J.T. Another lesson is that David is not too sure. He enquired of Jehovah again and the answer was, "Thou shalt not go up"; "turn round behind them", 2 Samuel 5:23. They would not expect that.

Rem. One victory might tend to give you self- confidence. This matter of marching tends to bring about another victory; it is a suggestion of a forward movement among the saints.

J.T. Especially a military move. Marching is in military precision. A military step seems to be understood now; we are dealing with military matters, then let us be military men. It is the sound of marching; what kind of step is it?

Rem. God is in the matter in a military way.

J.T. Maybe David had to learn something about marching. Perhaps we have got to learn here tonight how to march together, not one saying this and one saying that; marching is military precision.

Ques. Would marching suggest a movement among the brethren?

J.T. "When thou hearest a sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees", 2 Samuel 5:23. Let us assume that the brethren are the mulberry trees; there are no pretentious persons. God says, Now I am going to move among the brethren, on the top of them. They

are ready for Him and you hear the sound of that . I think perhaps that is where the lesson lies.

Rem. We bestir ourselves, when we hear the sound of God moving amongst His people.

J.T. We have experience as to God's way in conflict. The stronghold must be there and then order and alertness in military movement. It taxes our sensibilities as to whether we can hear the sound of what God is doing.

Ques. Does Paul use these tactics in bringing the saints into line in 2 Corinthians 8:1 - 4? He refers to other localities and districts where the saints were marching, acting together.

J.T. That is good. There is a great deal made of order in that letter. Whether you get the marching I do not know. In the house of Chloe or of Stephanas there would be persons who are true, on whom the apostle could rely.

Rem. It is a well known thing that the sound of marching, the playing of martial music, is one of the most stimulating sounds.

J.T. I do not know whether we can be too sure about the marching, but it looks to me as if it is the thought of the tops, God has them, He can use them, for that is what is said, "the tops of the mulberry trees".

Rem. The way is made for another victory in chapter 5.

J.T. Quite so. I believe the sound of marching is to be followed right through, it is the way God has of carrying on His conflict at all times. The Acts has been called a book of precedents; you get there a great variety in God's doings. He moves through others, and I think the mulberry trees must allude to persons available for His purposes.

Rem. There is another difference between these two attacks: the first is a frontal attack, whereas the second is from behind.

J.T. Yes, you come in behind people who are in that way attacking the truth. They may make a good show; these Philistines spread themselves, they are prominent men opposing in these matters, men who use their titles and their university degrees; well you see behind that, you know it is weakness when they are trusting in that. They may make a good show in titles and books and learning, but when you come behind you see the weakness.

Rem. The apostle says in 2 Corinthians 2:11, "I also ... if I have forgiven anything it is for your sakes ... that we might not have Satan get an advantage against us". I was wondering whether we get the thought there of alertness in regard to the attacks of the enemy?

J.T. That fits in; "for we are not ignorant of his thoughts", (2 Corinthians 2:11) is a great matter; it is a great matter to know the enemy's thoughts.

Rem. Paul approaches different cities as he preaches. He approaches Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth and finally Ephesus by the upper districts and finds certain disciples.

J.T. That might allude to marching, one continuous battle. We read of "the ears of the church", (Acts 11:22) suggesting that we have church ears and we know what is going on. Joshua did not recognise the sound in Exodus 32:17, he had not a good ear; but this is the ear for war, the sound of marching.

Ques. Would you say that in this first battle God was with David and in the second David was with God?

J.T. It says, "then thou shalt bestir thyself; for then will Jehovah have gone forth before thee", 2 Samuel 5:24. God is in the lead, what could withstand God? Very beautiful and very instructive as to warfare, getting to God about anything to see what He will do, whether He will put it on you or whether He will say, "as captain of the army of Jehovah am I now

come", Joshua 5:14. That is. He takes charge Himself; and if He does, well, there is only one end to that.

Rem. This might bring out criticism from certain ones that they are being attacked from behind.

J.T. That is where we ought to attack if it is a Philistine matter.

Rem. The whole organisation is smitten by God.

J.T. And then: "from Geba until thou comest to Gezer", (2 Samuel 5:25) which I suppose would allude to a thorough decision of the matter, it is not left open, it is a settled matter.

Ques. Was this defensive?

J.T. It is defensive because they are attacked. In the early part of the chapter it is spiritual wickedness in high places, but here David is attacked by another set of warriors.

Rem. It really takes manhood to enter into this kind of conflict.

J.T. Quite so. As coming out of Egypt the children of Israel were led round another way because they were not mature.

Ques. Does Acts 15 show men who are qualified to take up things and settle them for all?

J.T. The apostle and elders, is that what you mean?

Rem. During the Great War certain battlefields in France were known as the place where the thing was settled. The ground here is very suggestive.

J.T. Yes, Geba to Gezer, these are our military landmarks which we can refer back to in the history of the assembly as to how things were decided.

Rem. As we come there.

J.T. Quite so, "until thou comest". It would indicate that we ought to come there and see how God's battles are fought and finished.

Ques. When they went into the land in Joshua they had been through the Jordan and the Red Sea;

do we not have to see God's purposes of love in the death of Christ securing His counsels?

J.T. Quite so. The Philistines never went that way and they could not stand up against men that had come through Jordan.

Rem. Chapter 6 makes much of the military men and very little of the priesthood.

J.T. The next thing is that David approaches a great priestly matter on military lines. He is carrying the military too far, for chapter 6 concerns a great priesthood matter. He gathered "chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from thence the ark of God". He did not need so many as that to carry the ark.

Rem. David seems to have forgotten the breach made at Baal-perazim because God has to make a breach here, a breach upon Uzzah; the Philistine idea is working and God has to deal with it among His people.

Ques. Would it involve a change of clothing from the military to the priestly?

J.T. It is obviously a priestly matter. What does that cart refer to? It was a military matter before but why now? And why 30,000 men? It shows that David is not right in his soul in this matter.

Ques. Is there not always a danger of our moving on in the flush of victory on military lines, when we should be brought into priestly conditions?

J.T. We are so apt to go too far on any given line of things. In 1 Samuel 7:9 Samuel offered a sucking lamb and Jehovah discomfited the Philistines that day, and it says, "the men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines and smote them" (1 Samuel 7:11).

They finished the matter, they went the whole way, but then that is enough. Now God is going to do something else; it is not now a military matter, it is a priestly matter. It is a question of God finding a

place for Himself. We need to be priestly if we are to carry the ark; it is a poor thing if we have to be always fighting.

Rem. Even with these 30,000 men they still require a cart.

J.T. There never was a question of carrying it in a cart before in Numbers or Deuteronomy, it was purely a Philistine idea; because they used it David is borrowing it.

Ques. And two brothers driving the cart, one going before it; it was all wrong. How does that apply?

J.T. It is a solemn passage, especially when the breach is made upon Uzzah. We may go too far on one line; this is another matter altogether, the military side should not be so prominent for it is a matter of God's rest. Having to do with the Philistines you are apt to get their way of doing things. They had never seen this thought of the cart before; make it as new as you like, it is still a cart.

Rem. I suppose we are far more influenced by what is around us in the world religiously than we have any idea of.

Rem. Once in a while we may make something new and sometimes it is accredited very quickly.

J.T. If it is new it is apt to "take on"; people say: I never heard that before; but that does not prove anything. We are to "prove all things",

David should have said, I have been looking through Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers and there is no word about a cart on which to carry the Ark.

Rem. There may be care for the Lord's interests among the brethren and one is thankful for it, but that does not qualify a brother or brothers to take hold of the Ark.

J.T. There is no word here as to David turning to God about this matter first. That is the secret of failure.

Ques. Do we not see this very thing working out in the world? The military side will possibly overbalance the political, economical, agricultural and other departments of the nation, and thus the very thing used for protection will be used for destruction in the end.

J.T. It was remarkable in Solomon's day that he had superintendents for every department; all was looked after. It is important that we do not carry on on one line too much. Why did not David pray about this matter also? They were having a good meeting! This was a fine time as far as outward appearances went, "and David and all the house of Israel played before Jehovah on all manner of instruments"; but it is the underlying condition that God is dealing with.

CHAPTER 6:6 - 23

J.T. We just touched on this chapter last week. Attention was called to "David again" gathering all the chosen men of Israel, carrying on the military thought; whereas what governs this chapter is more levitical than military; hence the sorrow that arises from the human element entering into the movement, in that they set the ark of God upon a new cart. So in this verse with which we begin we are told that "Uzzah reached after the ark of God, and took hold of it, for the oxen had stumbled. And the anger of Jehovah was kindled". The incongruity of using a cart with no one apparently to object or to question it would show the underlying unspiritual, unlevitical condition.

Ques. Does the ark as recovered suggest typically that the Person of Christ would now be for the saints? There is a long history behind it when the ark was in Abinadab's house.

J.T. Although a long time in the house of Abinadab

on the hill, it would look as if the manner in which the ark had been regarded there was not priestly or levitical. The idea of elevation is there, but apparently a very poor sense of what was due to the Lord or to the ark, or they would not have used a cart. Had there been a good levitical atmosphere, as there would be in the house of Obed-Edom later, this error would not have taken place, showing that when a low state exists amongst us things might happen that are not according to right principles.

Ques. Was not the fact that Uzzah put forth his hand evidence of an unholy state?

J.T. He was driving the cart, which was no employment for a Levite. The Kohathites should have carried it; Numbers 4:15.

Rem. I was wondering why there is such a short account in Samuel as compared with that in Chronicles.

J.T. Chronicles is more spiritual, I think.

Rem. "And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, with every prince ... . And all the congregation said that they should do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people", 1 Chronicles 13:1 - 4. David was subject to the captains of thousands and hundreds; but in 1 Chronicles 15:2, he says: "None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites", and then in verse 11 he calls for Zadok and Abiathar the priests, etc. It was these passages that made me refer to it in connection with what you were saying. Here he comes to it that none but the Levites should carry the ark.

J.T. Chronicles accredits him with more. The word 'again' is left out in Chronicles. The word 'again' in the chapter read would allude to chapter 5, which is military. But in Chronicles "David consulted". It is the consultation which is different, and as you say we have much more made there of the second attempt. The Philistine attack in chapter 14, and the names of the Levites that were employed

in chapter 15 are both mentioned as intervening between the error of the first attempt and the rightness of the second.

Rem. So that David deals with it in Samuel as a military matter, but in Chronicles as a priestly matter.

J.T. Quite so. And David said, "None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites". (1 Chronicles 15:2) He had learned his lesson and he tells us so.

Ques. How do you view the house of Abinadab?

J.T. I do not think it is exactly a spiritual setting; I think it stands as a sort of mixed condition between the return of the ark from the Philistines and David taking it on. There is some care for it. An account is given in 1 Samuel, chapter 7"And the men of Kirjath-jearim came, and fetched up the ark of Jehovah, and brought it into the house of Abinadab on the hill, and hallowed Eleazar his son to keep the ark of Jehovah", 1 Samuel 7:1. There is nothing said about his being a priest or a Levite, he is made that apparently, it is a sort of improvised situation which may be found where unspiritual conditions exist.

Rem. I wonder whether the matter did not go better when the ark was drawn by the milch kine? That is to say, God providentially cared for the truth of the Person of the Lord then rather more than when the cart was driven.

J.T. Quite so. The milch kine represent the feminine thought, leaving their calves behind them. They represent spiritual instinct as over against Philistine intelligence, because the narrative shows that the Philistines did have some intelligence, like the clerics, but not instinct. The kine would connect with the levitical thought for as they reached Beth-shemesh the men. "clave the wood of the cart, and offered up the kine as a burnt offering to Jehovah", 1 Samuel 6:14. Both cart and kine were used for God. There was something there, but not in this instance. God would not accept this. It must allude

to the underlying spiritual condition. The milch kine left their young ones behind, nature did not control them, they went on the right way and as they reached the end they died. They are offered up as a sacrifice; it seems to answer to the death of Christ. Then also you have Levites in 1 Samuel 6, but not here.

Ques. God smote Uzzah. Would there be anything in that corresponding to Thyatira: "her children will I kill with death", Revelation 2:23?

J.T. It perhaps does not go so far as that. It seems to be more like strange fire with the sons of Abinadab, that is the purely natural side which you often find in a low state amongst us. We act as ordinary men with good intentions, but God is resenting that here; they should have known better. The oxen are simply beasts of burden, a natural idea; the cart, just a common way of carrying things, and it says that the oxen stumbled. That was to bring out the underlying condition with which God would deal. If anything like this happens we deflect from the right order. We may say that it is not much out of the way, but it is the underlying condition that God has in mind. David became indignant instead of humbling himself, showing he was not right with God.

Rem. Uzzah was prepared to rectify a mistake on human lines.

J.T. Yes, it is just that. It is what is underlying. God deals with the state of our souls.

Rem. At Beth-shemesh the men looked into the ark, indicating that the Levites were not in control of the matter.

J.T. That seems to be so. They are recognised in 1 Samuel 6:15, "And the Levites took down the ark of Jehovah", etc. So far so good, but then later on we are told that God smote the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into the ark. All that would show that there was a wrong underlying

state all round, what was due to God was not in evidence.

Rem. God valued David's desire of heart to bring up the ark. He appreciated this.

J.T. "As many as I love I rebuke and chasten" (Revelation 3:19).

David should have known better, he must learn this lesson, that is the point. There must be no diversion from what is right in our actions in the assembly.

Ques. Was this the household setting or the local assembly?

J.T. You might make it either one. You will notice great stress laid on Obed-Edom's house, so that I think it is the household thought primarily. "David carried it aside into the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite and Jehovah blessed Obed-Edom and all his household", v.10,11. It would look as if he were a real Levite from the way he is mentioned later and that his whole house comes into blessing, whereas the house of Abinadab does not. This must have been the second or third generation of Abinadab's household, but there is no education for them, no increase of holiness seen, no gain from having the ark.

Rem. I was thinking how interesting and helpful are various incidents concerning it: the men of Beth-shemesh looked into the ark; in the house of Abinadab there was evidently a little more consideration, but no spiritual thought, and that situation has to be exposed; and then David himself is characterised by unspirituality in thinking of its care as a military matter. Then the ark finds a resting place in the house of Obed-Edom and his house is blessed; and at last the Levites bring it up, as if there is an increase of spirituality in the whole proceeding.

J.T. We may have gone on a long time with Christ, but not in due order. How do they take care of the ark in Abinadab's house? There is no mention of any particular care. The fact that it is on a hill

is creditable, but if the Spirit of God could have shown that he was a man who loved Christ and would care with "due care" we should have heard about it. These two men are sons or grandsons and they do not seem to have gained anything by the stay of the ark all these years. What did their father tell them about this precious ark, how important it was and what the Scriptures said about it? Why did they not learn?

Rem. Abinadab might suggest conditions in a meeting where there appears to be great zeal without spirituality; and when a certain correction has to be made this feature might be found that existed with David. He was indignant because Jehovah made a breach upon Uzzah.

J.T. Apparently the only thing that recovered him was the fact that God was blessing the house of Obed-Edom, the man that had the ark. Why did he not know the value of the ark itself? Here is a manifest act of God and he is indignant. Then he sees that God is blessing the man who has the ark.

Rem. The thing may exist with us possibly in a more real way. There may be indignation in an unnoticed way, because of what God is doing.

J.T. That is what comes out here. The recovery of the ark is the salvation of David and of everybody, hence the importance of our houses being right. How important it is! It became a guide for David that "God blessed the house of Obed-Edom".

Ques. Was he an Israelite?

J.T. I think he was a Levite. Obed means 'worshipper'. The word 'Gittite' might mean from Gath, but not necessarily. There were cities in Israel of that name.

Rem. The thought of the household is very helpful. At a time of great exercise which might correspond with this present period, there is a household where

the truth concerning the Person of Christ can be held and cared for in the right way.

J.T. If it is not a baptised household it is a great disadvantage because that is the first great light that should come into the house. Christ had to die. Baptism is the testimony of the death of Jesus, there is no help for us apart from that. The Christian household is a great idea in the divine realm. The house of Stephanas was baptised; indeed they had addicted themselves to the ministry, and they got blessing as bringing in Christ in a baptismal way. The Lord went into death, otherwise there could be no blessing for any house.

Rem. If baptism does not characterise a Christian's household it is an Egyptian household. To leave Egypt and go through the Red Sea is a figure of baptism. We must identify the name of Christ with the house.

J.T. The ark is there in principle when baptism is owned.

Rem. Between these two households, those of Abinadab and Obed-Edom, there is a threshing floor, verse 6. I wondered if all the misapprehensions were ended there?

J.T. It would look as if there was not much wheat out of the house of Abinadab. These two men were representative of that house, and the threshing floor was a test that brought out where they were. The threshing floor of Atad is established near the Jordan that is where the wheat comes to light; Genesis 50:10. With Gideon it was not simply a threshing floor but a winepress that the man had utilised. He was producing something and he had to hide it from the Midianites; Judges 6:11.

Ques. What is the difference between the anger of God and the anger of Jehovah?

J.T. You are calling attention particularly to verse 7: "And the anger of Jehovah was kindled

against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God". God is judge of all the earth, that is what He is called in Egypt.

Ques. Is this service levitical? Only the priest could go inside.

J.T. The matter of going inside is not mentioned here. This is a question of putting out your hand to steady the ark. It is not a priestly hand. Why should it need such an effort? Why was the ark not carried on the shoulders of persons appointed to carry it? It suggests the use of human methods. Very often we take short cuts in a crisis, but God is more concerned about His own order than about the thing we have in mind. You can never reach the divine end by taking short cuts. They were misbehaving in 1 Corinthians and the apostle says, "On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep", 1 Corinthians 11:30. This was because they were misbehaving in their use of the things of God, not distinguishing the body. They were unholy in the way they were acting.

Rem. It would appear that David's intentions were right at the beginning, but this matter apparently made him indifferent or afraid, because in verse 12 it says: "And it was told king David, saying, Jehovah has blessed the house of Obed-Edom, and all that is his, because of the ark of God".

J.T. If the house of Obed-Edom had been the same as that of Abinadab, apparently David would never have come for the ark; so that the fact that we have right principles is not enough, there must be the evidence of blessing or divine approval.

Ques. Does it not emphasise the immense value of a godly household at a time of pressure?

J.T. It is very remarkable that we are not told just why the blessing came, but the blessing being there denotes that there was something pleasing to

God; not only that things were being done right, but there was the evidence of the blessing of God. I believe John's ministry has that in mind. You get there: "Come and see". It is not simply right order but the blessing of God is there; that answers every question and difficulty.

Ques. Does David's indignation suggest the feelings we have in actions that God has taken which we do not like because we are governed by persons?

J.T. It was very gracious of God to bless the house of Obed-Edom, He knew that David would take notice of that. That is the great point, is there evidence of God's blessing? In the house of Abinadab there was apparently no living state of things at all.

Rem. God blessed all that was his.

Ques. Does the time element entering into each household show how long it takes sometimes for us to make a move locally? The ark was twenty years in one house and three months in the other?

J.T. That twenty years has a special meaning. It does not mean that the ark was there only twenty years, it alludes to what happened in chapter 7 of 1 Samuel. The ark really remained there during the reign of Saul, that is, forty years, and during the greater part of the reign of David; so that it must have been there over sixty years. Where is the result of all this? What is this man gaining with such a treasure in his house? Apparently nothing! These two men Uzzah and Ahio do not know what to do. One of them tries to steady the ark as he would anything else. The underlying condition is being dealt with. In the previous chapter seventy persons had been slain. This is quite a serious matter. Apparently Abinadab did not take it too seriously, and nothing happened in his house so far as we know, but the judgment comes on Uzzah. Now we have a man that has the ark only three months and God is

blessing him already, showing that he is ready for the thing.

Rem. It was a serious exercise and David got adjusted in three months. It is a word to us in local exercises.

J.T. The first letter to the Corinthians shows that some were getting blessing. The house of Chloe is on the alert for God to have things right, and obviously the house of Stephanas too. There is a sort of link there corresponding with the house of Obed-Edom. "How shall the ark of Jehovah come to me?" David says. What a thing that is, to refuse to take Christ home, home to yourself! "David carried it aside".

Rem. The nearer the ark is getting to Jerusalem the more blessing there is; and in view of the rapture God is indeed helping the saints not only in regard to principles but in regard to what is of Himself.

J.T. Very good. There is more value the nearer you get to Jerusalem. So it is with Christ. The colt was tied in a beautiful environment, Bethany, Bethphage, and the mount of Olives; and as Jesus is put upon the ass by the disciples everybody is in movement, "the whole city was moved". You would think He was going to be set up in Jerusalem. But it shows that the suggestion of Jerusalem and its environs answers to God. The loosing of the colt is important, it is not any colt, it is a colt that the Lord Himself wanted. The oxen would be like those in the system around us. Who selects the clerics? The nearer you get to Jerusalem the more the divine selection must come into evidence. The Lord knows that colt; he is tied, but as soon as Jesus is put upon him everybody is moved, and so He comes to Jerusalem. "Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and mounted upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass", Matthew 21:5. It represents the kind of person the Lord would have. The oxen were just

two beasts of burden for any purpose, to bring a load of hay perhaps; they were not "two of you". David enquired of the Lord on the military side and in going up to Hebron, but not here. This was a priestly matter and the Lord would teach us lessons as to what is suitable in regard to Christ amongst us and how we are to do things.

Rem. David seems to be occupied with military matters and forgets.

J.T. I think the word 'again' helps, it links on with that with which he had been engaged. He is not asking Jehovah at all here. We forget to pray, forget to ask God what to do next, because after all, it is the next thing to be done. We may make a place for Christ, but omit to ask how it is to be done. The underlying condition was the cause of failure and we really should go back to 1 Samuel, chapter 4, to see the underlying condition in Israel in regard to the ark. They took the ark out into the camp thinking that it would give them victory over the Philistines and it was captured. Then God took care of it in the house of Abinadab. But were they learning from this? The milch kine went the right way and died in the end. Are Abinadab and his two sons on these lines? Are they so devoted to Christ that they can care for the ark in a right way? God had especially taken up David to use him. He stresses the fact that He found him, a man after His own heart that would do all His will, and he is called 'beloved'. But David is being deflected here, he is not in communication with God, he is doing things as man does them. 1 Chronicles gives us all the details as to how David went on from this point. He provided for the service of God as a result of all this. A brother's mistake may be the outcome of the general condition of the brethren, but he must learn from it. If the Lord is to use him, all this must be dealt with.

Rem. He hears what God is doing to the house of

Obed-Edom, and then he makes a right move and he has sacrifices made at six paces. Would you say that that agrees with the spiritual instincts that were seen in the milch kine?

J.T. The suggestion is, I suppose, that we must not fail again. He is now careful. Now he sacrifices the oxen after six paces; that shows he is careful about his steps.

Ques. I wanted to ask whether in a general way recovery might be a matter of months? If it were a matter of days it might not be genuine, but if it went into years it might become a fixed matter.

J.T. It might become a fixed matter. It seems as if Abinadab had not learned anything of that. David had learned. He observed what happened and was anxious that there should be no repetition of mistakes. God knew that, I am sure.

Rem. John is one who is recovered quickly. He says, "It is the Lord", whereas Peter apparently does not get on so well. I wondered if there is any suggestion in that?

J.T. Someone has said that it is not a question of how often a horse falls, but of how quickly he rises afterwards, how quickly he recovers himself. John immediately says, "It is the Lord".

Rem. There are evidences of David's recovery, his demeanour changes. May we have a practical word on that?

J.T. Let us compare. The first time David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand ... . "And David and all the house of Israel played before Jehovah on all manner of instruments made of cypress wood, with harps, and with lutes, and with tambours, and with sistra, and with cymbals", 2 Samuel 6:1 - 5. The second time "when they that bore the ark of Jehovah had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatted beast", verse 13. And David himself danced before Jehovah. That is, there is less made

of the musical instruments than there is of David himself, and it is, I think, because he recognised the blessing; but he also recognised the danger of the seventh step, that something might happen. He fears God, and he is girded with a linen ephod. Michal calls attention to this, showing what is in the unspiritual mind, which corresponds to the cart; if David had kept on in correspondence with the cart she would not have despised him. She does so because he is taken up with the seventh step, and dances girded with a linen ephod, he is in the thing himself now. Michal said it was shameful, but what he is doing is right and sober. Paul said, "I speak words of truth", (Acts 26:25) that is what I think the linen ephod means here.

Rem. First an indignant brother, now a humble brother.

J.T. I do not think Michal would have despised him as indignant, she would not have had any trouble about that, but she has about this action of David's that is spiritual, dancing with all his might. Linen is what keeps one sober and balanced. David is abasing himself according to her point of view, which is what the Lord Jesus did. He abased Himself and went down into the dust of death.

Ques. Is what is priestly greater than what is royal?

J.T. Here David is supremely priestly in the way he acts. He brings reproach upon himself and defends it.

Rem. Often we are afraid of the reproach of moving in a way that is not understood by the world. The window of the world is open and they look out and we fear the reproach.

J.T. Michal has no part in it at all. Why should she be inside? Like the bride in the Canticles in type the Lord is outside and she is inside, and all this is going on outside.

Ques. Is she a type of the professing church?

J.T. I think she is a type of the Church of England. She has no progeny, that is the termination of that order of things. It is not direct judgment, it is a sustained thing, to the day of her death she is not to be in the testimony. She is inside when David is under reproach and she is criticising.

Ques. Why do you think of her as a type of the Church of England?

J.T. I am referring to the first book more than to this. Merab was the first one, then Michal. They were both given to David to do him harm, although it is said that Michal loved David, which I venture to say the Church of England does in a certain way. Rome would be Merab. They are both given to David to do him harm. Saul intended to do David harm, but Merab was held back. These are human organisations taking on the name of Christ, assuming to be the bride of Christ. The true church is Abigail. Michal saved his life once, there is something for him, but this is the end of the whole matter. She represents something of Saul, of the flesh, and she comes under judgment. David says "thy father" here, he connects her with Saul. It is exactly the same thing in Simon's house; Judas complains and John pursues the thing to its full exposure; John 12.

Ques. Would she represent what is official, the high priests, etc.? Jesus was setting aside what was official. Michal did not like David's action for the same reason.

J.T. If he had kept on on Saul's line, the new cart and that sort of thing, that would have suited her.

Rem. The recovery of the truth in the last hundred years has been under reproach from just this kind of thing. What Michal represents gives us a type of this.

J.T. The way to recovery is in judging ourselves. David judged himself and he is now able to judge her.

Rem. If we take account of ourselves in relation to the public profession we have to be prepared to be

more vile in the eyes of those who occupy prominent positions.

Rem. Merab was definitely given to another, so was Michal, only she is taken back. You feel it is an unholy matter. Take any association today, you might get reform, the bettering of things, the Reformation was to make things better, but in truth this woman was no fit companion for David.

J.T. I believe from the time of the Reformation the church had been given to another, that is the Romish system. Ever since, you hear of recovery and reformers, John Wesley, Moody and Sankey, and others. There is revival but ultimately these and all who have branched off in independency from those known as brethren have lapsed back into this position. It is the judgment of God spiritually.

Rem. What is living comes out of it.

J.T. Wherever there has been division since 1836 it has been a return to the old thing, only, of course, disguised because the persons carried impressions with them, but it is a gradual drifting back. That is what is meant here. David pronounces no judgment upon her, but the fact is stated that she had no child. That is the end of that, God has judged it all.

Rem. The official element did not like the little children praising the Lord in Jerusalem. No wonder the house was left to them.

Rem. "David returned to bless his household". Michal is cut off but others there really do come into blessing, see verses 18 and 19.

Rem. "They brought in the ark of Jehovah, and set it in its place, in the midst of the tent that David had spread for it", verse 17. Certain things are attributed to the ark as having been done by itself and certain things are done to the ark by persons.

J.T. There is a lot of food for the soul in all that. We know how the ark acted for itself in the Philistines' land, Dagon went down before it. Now we have to

distinguish between what Christ does and what we do with Him. They brought in the ark of Jehovah and set it in its place, so that it has now reached its place.

Rem. In the synoptic gospels the Lord is taken up to Jerusalem; in John He goes up alone.

Rem. Every eye would be upon the ark as it came into the city, they would not be thinking of those who carried it.

J.T. It is to accredit the great priestly condition: "They brought in the ark of Jehovah, and set it in its place". So that the service of God is now set up. David offered peace offerings and burnt offerings before Jehovah. This is provisional but it has its place, the idea of Zion. Here they have reached the point that is proper to Zion. The general state is not equal to what was there later when the temple was built.

Rem. David could go back now and deal with what was in his house.

J.T. He puts the service of God first. It is a great thought and the brethren ought to take it to heart. If we have a good morning meeting we need to see that our houses gain by it. The meetings should be a reflection of what we are going on with in our houses.

Rem. It works both ways, what we bring out of our houses and what we bring in to them.

CHAPTER 8

J.T. We had David's military prowess before us earlier and this chapter affords us a general view of it. The details of some of these conquests are given later in the book, but the great features of his military exploits are seen here, and the object in view, namely, subjugation of territory and of persons. In Joshua's time the conflict and battles were rather for extermination,

so that we have to consider the difference. The word 'subdue' is one of the key words of David's reign. It has a force bearing on ourselves as under grace, not for extermination, but for subjugation. "And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them".

Rem. I think you were saying previously that verse 1 of chapter 7 chronologically anticipates this chapter.

J.T. Just so, "from all his enemies". So that the chapters are not exactly chronological, they are in moral sequence, I suppose.

Ques. Is David a type of Christ here? "He must reign until he put all enemies under his feet", 1 Corinthians 15:25.

J.T. Subjugation is the thought. Extermination is the leading thought of Joshua's conquests because there enemies are typical of wicked spirits or principles, whereas here actual persons are in question, and God is not exterminating persons until they are wholly committed to evil principles.

Rem. Yet he takes the territory when he goes out after it. He apparently secures the persons for himself. "And David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus", verse 6: "And he put garrisons in Edom", verse 14.

J.T. Quite so. Territory is involved. He went to recover his dominion by the Euphrates; he was pushing his conquests to the utmost limits of the territory promised to Israel, but he was not clearing the territory of its inhabitants as in Joshua's time, he subdued them.

Rem. In Joshua's time the enemy would occupy divine territory.

J.T. They are wicked spirits in heavenly places. Iniquity had come to the full. Israel had in fact to wait for the iniquity of the Amorites to be full. With David it is subjugation of the territory and of the persons in it.

Ques. Is this the effect of the gospel on ourselves?

J.T. It is more than that because you have results. They brought gifts in verse 2, and then we have gifts again in verse 6. And then "David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer", verse 7; and in verse 10, "he brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of bronze. Them also king David dedicated to Jehovah". So that it is one line of thought throughout the chapter, the result for God in the way of gifts or spoils.

Ques. Is it more in line with the epistle to the Romans?

J.T. I think it is subjugation and something accruing in subjugated persons; some give gifts and others have things taken from them, so that God has something "dedicated to Jehovah". Romans enters into it, but the first great thought is the power of the capital that David has taken out of the hand of the Philistines, the power to hold the saints in subjugation. "The power of the capital", verse I, is the great point to see in the chapter.

Ques. What is that?

J.T. The allusion is to organised power centred in the capital or metropolis.

Ques. Is it significant that David took the head of the giant there? He was of Gath!

J.T. It seems as if Gath was the leading town or city of the Philistine country. The king lived there in David's earlier time. It would therefore allude to an organisation of the enemy to hold the saints in captivity. The power of the capital would mean a combination, an organisation, as the most potent means of opposing God. But He has had recourse to organisation too. The world became organised, and that was when it became most powerful against God. Matthew has the idea of two, whether for good or for evil: it alludes to power or centralisation. I suppose the capital would mean centralisation. "... Let us

build ourselves a city and a tower", Genesis 11:4, Babel, that was, and the people had to be scattered abroad.

Ques. How does the thought of extermination work out?

J.T. It works out in Joshua, the inhabitants were all to be exterminated. There it is a question of Satan's representation. It was a developed thing, there was no salvation for that at all. But under David it was not that. There was no thought of the iniquity of any of these countries becoming full, but of taking the territory and the people, taking them as subdued, so that it applies to ourselves. The gospel is for the obedience of faith among the nations; Romans 1:5.

Ques. In regard to ourselves, does the thought of extermination also apply?

J.T. The application of extermination would be in putting to death the evil principles that are in us.

Ques. Is there different treatment of the Philistines? "He smote the Philistines, and subdued them"; and with Moab, "he smote the Moabites, and measured them".

J.T. It is a remarkable thing. He "measured them with a line, making them lie down on the ground; and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive". That seems to me to fit in with Romans 7, two lines for death and one full line for life. I believe Romans develops these thoughts.

Rem. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God", Romans 3:23. That would suggest measure.

J.T. I think so. Romans 3 brings in the law. Both Jew and Gentile are brought in under sin, a sort of line. Jew and Gentile had been tested and brought in guilty by measure. One of the two lines would be the law. There is a line which determines

their fate, whether for death or for life. The "much more", I think, in Romans 5 is the "one full line".

Ques. Do the Philistines represent an organised body against the truth?

J.T. I think that is what is meant. There are two words used: "Metheg-ha-ammah", or the power of the key of the capital. It is one word in the Authorised Version, but there are two ideas, not only the capital, but the key to it. If it be the rule of heaven or of principalities or powers in the heavenlies the key implies the way to get to it. The Lord Jesus says that He has the key of David, and the keys of Hades and of death. The word 'power' would be the way of getting at the thing, the great power of it, to be exerted either for good or for evil. If David got it he would use it for good. Christ has taken the power of influencing men from the devil and He is using it for good.

Ques. Do the Philistines represent some aspect of this world?

J.T. It could easily be shown what the Philistines are, and the Moabites, and the Syrians, and the Ammonites, and so forth; but this point of the capital or metropolis is of the greatest importance for young Christians especially. It is not simply Satan personally, but the organisation he has, his allies, a regular coterie of powerful intelligencies under his control. Satan is said to be "the prince of this world", (John 12:31) "the prince of the power of the air", (Ephesians 2:2) and so forth, so that the idea of organisation enters into his mode of opposition to God.

Ques. Is Paul attacking that element in Corinthians from the outset, gifted, powerful persons in cliques?

J.T. Just so. You mean, I apprehend, that it begins with parties. Some say, "I am of Paul", etc. Paul used only his own name and that of Apollos to illustrate what was there. He was alluding to

local leaders. Satan would bring the saints into bondage through them.

Rem. In the end of Matthew the Lord says: "All power has been given me";(Matthew 28:18) then He organises them and sends them out in relation to what is good, to make disciples.

J.T. Matthew deals with two, whether for good or evil; that is where the assembly comes in. What power there is!

Ques. Is the last paragraph of this chapter in moral sequence to the first?

J.T. You mean it is David's regime, David is governing. It is a complete system of government with departments, his cabinet, in modern language.

Rem. And supersedes what was holding control in the first paragraph: "... delivered us from the authority of darkness", Colossians 1:13.

J.T. That is very good. It is remarkable how the saints may be brought into it as influencing for good.

Rem. Your suggestion about Satan's organisation is helpful. If this world is organised, its politics, its citizenship, etc., God will not bring us out of that to be left idle or to have nothing to do; there is a great regime in which to have part.

Ques. Were the gifts in this chapter brought willingly?

J.T. The thought of gift in the anti-type would be: "present your bodies a living sacrifice", Romans 12:1. Those who were once enemies are now subdued. God has so become known to us in Christ that we yield ourselves to God. This matter of organisation is worth following up. God brings us into His system of things and puts us into office according to that for which we are fitted. "And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was chronicler; and Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was scribe; and Benaiah the son of

Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David's sons were chief rulers", verse 16 - 18. I think we have the suggestion of each believer being brought into the system that God has. According to Romans we yield ourselves to God as alive from among the dead, instruments to God. Each has his place so that God carries on with the same principle for deliverance as that with which Satan carries on for captivation.

Rem. In the beginning of the Acts you have the organisation working properly. The apostles respected Peter. If the apostles recognised Peter there was no difficulty about his preaching at Pentecost.

J.T. They recognised his place. These converts discerned that the apostles were something different. They said: "What shall we do, brethren?" (Acts 2:37).

Rem. The apostle Paul speaking to Timothy says that he was appointed a preacher and an apostle. Would that be his position in this cabinet?

J.T. Quite so. He uses the word 'minister' in speaking to Agrippa, who would understand him, not simply 'bondman'. He was appointed a minister, a dignified office. God appointed him to be that.

Rem. That scripture in which Paul says: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief", 1 Timothy 1:15, would be like a gift of a subdued Philistine; it enriches the assembly, does it not?

J.T. I think we ought to pursue that, that each of us might get into his mind the idea of being brought into a new system, and taken on according to what he is able to do. "Why stand ye here all the day idle?"(Matthew 20:6) Satan does not allow his votaries to be idle.

Ques. Is not this idea of subjugation a certain process with me, until I arrive at the perfect and acceptable will of God?

J.T. Romans is the doctrinal development of all this so that the believer is subdued as "garrisoned". "Garrisoned" is another good word of the chapter, meaning there is power to hold things, like the Spirit in us, shedding abroad the love of God. We are held and then we present our bodies to be used in the system. Romans 6 shows how the members are holy instruments of righteousness, and then in chapter 12 our bodies are presented, so that everyone is subdued, garrisoned, used, and gives gifts.

Ques. Is it not remarkable that Romans anticipates priesthood amongst us, whereas if we think about what is levitical we have to go to Corinthians? I was wondering whether the idea of priesthood understood by us would help us to be taken on for service, for work.

J.T. You will notice that there are two priests here. There is one military, man, one chronicler, one scribe, but there are two priests, showing that there are more priests needed than any other official.

That is one brother and one sister, so to speak. You could hardly get a sister to be military, but two priests would mean that more of these are needed. Sisters are brought into the priesthood. Generally speaking every bit of levitical service is clothed in priestly service. We have prayer at the beginning and ending of our meetings, two prayers for one sermon. And how many before the gospel! The two in the priestly office here is a suggestion. It is what is now needed, and these meetings for prayer in the houses before the gospel are used of God. I suppose those of us who preach know that. A brother is waiting on the Lord for a word and the brethren are praying downstairs; well he will get it more quickly. This is practised all over the world now, very largely, and God blesses it.

Rem. And it is generally more effective in the house, too, the volume is greater.

J.T. What you bring out of your house is a great thought in the Scriptures. It must be a baptised house, of course, that is, where the Lord's death is recognised; you cannot get anything save on that principle, the death of Christ.

Ques. I was wondering whether baptism must underlie all this.

J.T. Romans stresses that. The principle is in chapter 6. Corinthians is the collective thought.

Ques. What would you do in a mixed household where the head of the house is not with us?

J.T. That is an abnormal condition, but of course, if the head is ready to kneel down and pray you can do that. If he does not do that he is hardly a Christian at all.

Ques. Why are these two lines to be put to death?

J.T. It seems to be that God gives full testimony to His judgment, "... that thou shouldest be justified", Romans 3:4. And there is one full line for life. Romans 7 is a great line for inward state that has to be judged.

Rem. The thought of prayer in regard to Paul is significant, his whole service is built up on that preliminary priestly service.

J.T. Just so, following on the Lord in Luke. He was all night in prayer to God (Luke 6:12), and He went up into the mount of transfiguration to pray, not to be transfigured. Think of a man going up that high mountain to pray ! And as He prayed His countenance was changed, showing what heaven thought of His praying.

Rem. Toi, king of Hamath, respects David. He is already subjugated, he sent his son to congratulate David on having smitten Hadadezer. Hadadezer must have been a very quarrelsome man.

Ques. Is it like a soul delivered from the power of the world, and in the sense of his liberation from it he yields something to the Lord?

J.T. He is released, from Hadadezer's quarrelsome power over him; many Christians are like that. "And Toi sent Joram his son to king David, to inquire of his welfare, and to congratulate him", verse 10. David is in his mind. He evidently has a sense of gratitude to David.

Rem. This man had territory to which he had no right; verse 12 speaks of "the spoil of Hadadezer". How like the enemy! He has taken over territory that does not belong to him. Toi had been affected by that.

Ques. These vessels are of silver and gold and bronze. Is that the idea today, as vessels of mercy we fit into this organisation?

J.T. I think so. That is Romans, each believer is constituted useful for the tabernacle. "Them also king David dedicated to Jehovah", vessels for His use. Metals, too, were evidently needed.

Rem. If we read Chronicles we should be impressed with the amount David gave to the house.

J.T. These would be included in the great abundance of 1 Chronicles 22, but then David had his own private gold that he gave besides.

Ques. Concerning prayer, the Lord went up into a mountain at one time and at another into the desert to pray. Would the place have something to do with it?

J.T. Quite so. In the desert you are away from all that would minister to the flesh. The mountain is moral elevation. And then the duration of His prayer is mentioned too, "all night".

Ques. All these nations have been enemies to Israel. They are all now subjugated to David and garrisons are put into these places. Would the local assembly in each place be garrisoned?

J.T. Take us here in New York tonight, for example. We are composed of brethren from Germany, Ireland, England, Scotland, and many other

nations. We were all "enemies in mind by wicked works", (Colossians 1:21) every one of us, and the Lord has taken us on and He has put garrisons, the Holy Spirit, in us. We each bring and give material dedicated to God.

Ques. What does gold and silver metal as distinct from the vessels suggest?

J.T. I think that metals are generally material. Vessels, of course, are already made, ready for use, but metals would be potential material. God has to form us in view of use, it is material for something. Gold would be seen in any brother or sister whom God would use to set out Himself, what He is in holiness and righteousness in testimony. Silver, I

think, would mean that we are vessels of love, I believe silver carries with it the thought of love. Whatever the metal may be it is a potential thing.

Rem. The apostle seems to have been called a "vessel", Acts 9:15.

J.T. That is a remarkable thing. He is the only one, I think, alluded to in that way. In general the metal would be potential material in the assembly. The work of God in a number of persons in a town as at Corinth would be potential to the position, and then God works in detail and forms vessels out of them.

Rem. It is "much people" rather than many people; Acts 18:10.

Rem. The Lord said to Paul, "I have much people in this city", Acts 18:10. I suppose the Lord had a garrison in mind, the houses of Stephanas, Chloe and others.

J.T. I think the "much people" is a question of a holding in a town or territory. A man owning an oil field has a holding of value, but the thing has to be worked. In Corinth the Lord had potentially a great holding, and He wanted to get out of it all possible. Of the household of Stephanas, the apostle looking backward says, "I baptised also the house of Stephanas", 1 Corinthians 1:16, as much as to say, That

house is going to be used in that way, as a sphere of operations in Corinth. It is useable, not any longer a potentiality, but useable. The house of Chloe was useable too. She had something that was of great service to the testimony.

Rem. The oil field of itself is not much good unless you have the machinery to get out the oil.

Rem. Vessels would suggest what is at hand and ready to be used. Timothy was ready to be used.

J.T. Quite so. Paul took him up at once because he was well reported of by the brethren in the district.

Ques. In view of there being "much people", would not Paul stay there until the material was useable?

J.T. Quite so. He stayed eighteen months, the longest period spent anywhere except for Ephesus. It is a question of potentiality in a place, what God can get out of it. What has He in your town? There must be one vessel with which to start.

Ques. Would this have any connection with Jeremiah 18?

J.T. You might bring that in. The allusion there is to display. The potter was making a vessel and it was marred and he made another. That goes on, I suppose, in every meeting. A good many had to be made over again in Corinth. Romans 6 shows how you dedicate yourself and Romans 12 is a holy vessel dedicated on the principle of sacrifice.

Rem. I was thinking of that. The war was over with Hadadezer. I suppose when a war is over the spoils and the dedicated things begin to come forward.

J.T. You can see that with Toi, king of Hamath; he has the kind of spirit that suggests a volume of dedicated things: "Toi sent Joram his son to king David, to inquire of his welfare, and to congratulate him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and smitten him; for Hadadezer was continually at war with Toi. And he brought with him vessels of silver,

and vessels of gold, and vessels of bronze", verse 10. He has David in his mind in the sense of gratitude to him. He is already long subjugated and he brings with him the vessels. "Them also king David dedicated to Jehovah, with the silver and the gold that he had dedicated of all the nations that he had subdued: of the Syrians, and of the Moabites, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of the Amalekites", etc. That is a great paragraph for this question of dedicated things.

Ques. Would Luke parallel this with the woman who was made straight?

J.T. Luke is full of this, full of the idea of glorifying God. She glorified God. Take the case of Peter's wife's mother, "standing up she served them", Luke 4:39, the result was immediate.

Rem. Of the woman in Luke 13 it says that she was a daughter of Abraham, as if she were a vessel. Satan had subjugated her for eighteen years, and now she is released.

Rem. Luke perhaps rises to a higher level than we realise. The idea of glorifying God is seen throughout the book, especially with the leper; Luke 17:15.

J.T. There are immediate results for God in every case. It is very beautiful, the line of glory in Luke, "glorifying God".

CHAPTER 10

J.T. To see the bearing of this chapter we should hold in view what came out last week. The ninth chapter sets out grace. The eighth chapter is the epitome of David's military exploits, and the arrangement of the different departments in his kingdom.

In the ninth there is grace to show the character of the kingdom: "Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness?"(2 Samuel 9:1)

Then this chapter records wars that have already been alluded to in chapter 8 only that they are brought in here in detail, evidently to show how men do despite to the spirit of grace, as manifested in chapter 9.

It is what the kingdom is here. It is followed up by the further expression of grace towards the children of Ammon, and the king of Ammon despises it.

Rem. The expression of grace is always a test to a man. Mephibosheth responded to it wonderfully.

Rem. The Ammonites were related to Israel. That would make it more serious.

J.T. It is a serious thing to despise grace. Mephibosheth appreciated it and carried his appreciation right through.

Ques. Did David show kindness here on account of kindness that had been shown to him?

J.T. It is not recorded anywhere else. It would show that he himself had a great appreciation of grace. There is no record of what this grace was, the kindness that the king of Ammon had shown. It would bring out that David had the good sense to reciprocate, showing what he was in that way, how he would remember. It may have been a small matter, possibly, when he was rejected and fleeing from Saul, but anyway he was a man who would bear in mind what good was shown him, a very important trait in any one of us.

Ques. Do you think the wells of grace were springing up in David's heart? Grace was always there ready. Mephibosheth had no title to it and yet he pours it out on him, and now it flows out toward this person.

J.T. It seems as though that is the point, to bring out a beautiful trait in David, what he was as representative of God. Grace acts of itself as in chapter 9, but it also acts reciprocally, which is an important thing, because we are likely to forget kindness shown

to us. So that these chapters, 9 and 10, are to bring out in detail what the kingdom was. We have the establishment of it and then what it was as represented in the king's overtures to Mephibosheth, an undeserved expression of grace. Here it is deserved, at least if Nahash the king of Ammon is taken to represent the Jews. Perhaps it suggests what Israel had been on the historical line, what the fathers had been and so forth. But now this young man is reigning, he had come to the throne recently; he had no sense of grace at all, but is rather imputing evil motives, so that we are in the presence of a very serious state of things. No doubt the anti-type is in the Acts where the overtures of God to Israel are reciprocated by some.

Rem. These evil motives are imputed by the princes of the children of Ammon. Are they representative of Christendom?

J.T. I suppose so. It is his kingdom over against David's kingdom. "I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon. And the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun their lord, Is it, in thine eyes, to honour thy father that David has sent comforters to thee? Is it not to search the city and to spy it out, and to overthrow it, that David has sent his servants to thee?" He takes their advice without question. It is a state of things that makes the rendering of help impossible. There is no ground for this suspicion, so that it seems an impossible state of things; and what ensues is very solemn and searching because it seems to be the most severe of David's contests, a very severe part of his military operations. We have to meet this kind of thing in brethren and the conflict is bound to be severe, because we are dealing with suspicion.

Rem. Perhaps these servants of David would represent some of our brethren who are on the line of shepherding.

J.T. It made the attitude of the king of Ammon all the more serious because they were there. Did they look like spies? That is the point. These men were representatives of David, and the Ammonites were imputing motives to them.

Rem. It is like the early chapters of Acts where they mistrusted the approach of God in grace. The religious leaders and princes were along these lines, throwing back the grace of God.

J.T. If we were to look for the antitype it would be, I suppose, as a response in the remnant, represented in Mephibosheth, who responded; and on the other hand as rejection in the Jews, represented by these Ammonites. They were distant relatives to Israel as the Jews were to the Christians, but instead of response to grace and the appreciation of it, there was suspicion and persecution.

Ques. Paul refers to the princes of this world having crucified the Lord of glory; (1 Corinthians 2:8). Would it be something akin to this?

J.T. Quite so, they are princes of this world.

Ques. I wondered whether that would be the treatment John and Peter got from those men in the early part of Acts. It was very undignified treatment to give on the presentation of grace. They had cured the crippled man and done other acts that brought grace forward but they were imprisoned as a result.

J.T. And then there was Stephen, he went further. All that you speak of led up to him. Chapter 5 brings out perhaps the most ignominious attitude of the authorities, they "put them in the common prison", (Acts 5:18) they evidently gave them no respect at all. They were not common felons, there was no charge to be sustained. Gamaliel's warning, "take heed to yourselves as regards these men what ye are going

to do", etc. (Acts 5:35), was some evidence that they were representatives of God, yet they were put into the common prison.

Ques. Did David's move mean the overthrow of the cities? Does grace approach men like that to secure them for its kingdom?

J.T. By what they say about the city they apparently mean to convey that David's profession of favour is unreal. Their thought is merely political. Is it not unfair that people, when grace is proposed, should take up the attitude that you have some sinister motive in what you are doing? "These men utterly trouble our city", they say in Acts 16:20.

One might have thought they were going to overthrow it! But in what sense could it be overthrown? To convert people in a city would do no harm. What could there be but goodness behind all this?

Ques. Does not their treatment of the servants of David mean emphatically that they wish to give a one-sided impression?

J.T. You mean that the very appearance of the servants of David would indicate that they had been one-sided?

Rem. Well, it would give that impression.

J.T. I suppose it was a form of indignity, a well- known method of heaping scorn and reproach on people. They were certainly most unsightly. It was designed. They "insulted the Spirit of grace",

(Hebrews 10:29). It was really uncalled for, because the matter was not proved, it was all suspicion, anyway, a poignant thrust at David. They said in effect, That is what we think of your attitude. And of course it was readily understood by David, because they saw that they had become odious in his sight. "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish", Acts 13:41. That sort of thing came out particularly against Paul; "for I work a work in your days, a

work which ye will in no wise believe if one declare it to you" (Acts 13:41).

Ques. Do you think they were acting on what David had done to other kings, forgetting what Moses had written, that Israel should not take any of the land of the Ammonites?

J.T. Well, David was not taking it. He certainly was very gracious to them. There is not the slightest intention on his part of taking their land. He did ultimately, but this is the provocation. This chapter is to bring out how unfair they were and how they brought on their own judgment, and so it is a fine chapter for the gospel.

Rem. The servants of God have no thought of overthrowing the nations.

J.T. This was a very simple offer of grace, it just expressed kindness, or congratulations or sympathies.

Rem. They terribly misconstrued the feelings of David in his approach to them in the desire to show kindness, and the way in which they treat his servants shows that they wanted David to understand fully how they felt about it.

J.T. It is the reproach entering into it. If they had put them to death it would hardly have been so bad, as such an indignity!

Rem. The emissaries act like true servants of David, they did not contend. "He shall not strive", Matthew 12:19. They just gave David's message.

Ques. Is the extension of the administration of the kingdom by ambassadorship?

J.T. That is what Paul calls himself, "We are ambassadors therefore for Christ", 2 Corinthians 5:20. I think it must mean the unfair, inexcusable attitude of the Jews. There was testimony in some of a response to this grace, some valued it, like Mephibosheth, but others did not, and professed to think there were sinister motives behind it. It comes out in the way they acted toward Paul.

Rem. These people hired the Syrians.

J.T. Quite so. David does not attack them at once, hut he sent to meet the messengers, "for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, Abide at Jericho until your beards he grown, and then return". That is all it says. There is no evidence that David was preparing to attack the Ammonites, he was not revengeful. Grace is grace, and it reigns, it does not come down off the throne. David does not prepare to attack them until they prepare to attack him.

Ques. Is that conveyed in the idea of his telling the men to abide at Jericho. If reproach is put upon them they accept it.

J.T. Quite so, and they had the power of life to remedy the thing. They could grow their beards. As regards their clothes, that could easily he met, the clothes of gracious people can easily he replaced. "Let thy priests he clothed with righteousness", Psalm 132:9. So that the whole position is remedied in the way they return to Jerusalem, the whole position is unimpaired. The attack is from the Ammonites' side, they followed up the indignity by preparing for war. Paul and Silas were unaffected by the sufferings of Philippi; Acts 16.

Ques. Is there any suggestion of taking on Nazariteship?

J.T. It is not Nazariteship here, it is full-grown beards. I think the beards and proper dress represented David, ambassadors of David. Ammon did despite to David by disfiguring these men, but life would remedy all that. David would feel the shame of it and gain through it, so that what we ought to see here is that grace is on the throne unimpaired. David is not retaliating, he tells them to stay at Jericho until their beards are grown; the whole position is rectified. The insinuation of evil is in the Ammonites and it is their own judgment that

they were odious to him. Perhaps their judgment was right.

Rem. They had a guilty conscience.

J.T. Quite so.

Rem. After persecutions in the Acts the assembly became stronger. Is not that important today? We grow under pressure.

J.T. We are told the number added in Acts 4 and then in chapter 9 we are told that after the great pressure put upon them by Saul the assemblies were edified and increased; verse 31.

Rem. "In pressure thou hast enlarged me", Psalm 4:1.

J.T. David did not lose the sense of grace, that is the great thing in dealing with these hard-hearted conditions. He retains his balance and these men come back to Jerusalem to hold the position as it was. That the Ammonites were odious to David we learn from themselves.

Rem. Now they realise that they have made a mistake.

J.T. And then they go to hire people. That is not a principle with God, to hire people to fight for you. Under these circumstances they have allies and pay them.

Rem. So that Christendom has its hirelings today.

J.T. Yes, these people finding they were odious could have made amends, but instead of that they proceeded to war. Where we resent grace we have to cast about to keep ourselves secure.

Ques. Does not the attitude of grace and the refusal of it work amongst ourselves as well as in the gospel?

J.T. You may be sure that if I refuse the overtures of grace and my conscience smites me I shall make it appear that I have been offended! Our eyes are so dim that these things come up and we think we are the wronged ones. How did they know that they

were odious? They are impugning the great system of grace that is set up. Then the next thing is that we link on with others, so that they hire these people, whereas they might have settled it all if they had humbled themselves and confessed to David. The lesson to be learned is that David is David still, and his servants are the same. There is no resentment, David just instructed them to go to Jericho and they went.

Rem. They expect sudden judgment, but the thing is pending, grace is on the throne. "For where we sin wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there ... remains ... a certain fearful expectation of judgment", Hebrews 10:26, 27.

J.T. I think that is the passage that corresponds. David is maintaining his ground as on the throne of grace, and they are taking the initiative, they are hiring soldiers. David is not even marshalling his army until they do something against him.

Rem. That comes at the return of the year in the next chapter.

J.T. Yes, but here in verse 7, "David heard of it"; and then we are told in verse 15 that "when the Syrians saw that they were routed before Israel, they gathered themselves together. And Hadarezer sent, and drew forth the Syrians that were beyond the river; and they came to Helam; and Shobach the captain of the host of Hadarezer went before them. And it was told David". They take the initiative and he hears this. Then comes the supreme moment. It says, "it was told David; and he gathered all Israel", as if it were a supreme matter. In fact it is; I do not know that you get such an impression as this before -- "all Israel".

Rem. David did not slay anyone, they fled before him, but in the last section you get certain ones slain.

J.T. I think we learn about the tremendous slaughter from verse 18. "David slew of the

Syrians seven hundred in chariots, and forty thousand horsemen".

Ques. Is it the spirit of the organised religions around us at the present time?

J.T. It seems so. This hiring soldiers under these circumstances is a most distressing feature; to reach out for aids and allies to meet conditions, where grace is despised, though in truth there is nothing to meet, it is pure grace.

Rem. Saul of Tarsus really did despite to the spirit of grace and yet in the ninth chapter of Acts we see grace still reigning. The Lord did not change at all.

J.T. Quite so. Chapter 9 is a wonderful chapter of grace: "why persecutest thou me ?", Acts 9:4. And then there is this question of hiring; we are not sensible of the grace that would give us something for nothing. We think things have to be bought and paid for. It is the feeling that you serve me and I will serve you, I am indebted to you. These people go a long way with it, they get the Syrians from beyond the river.

Ques. Is this the situation when the ministry is refused?

Rem. We might get allies against the truth. It is a serious thing when we get allies against the servants of the Lord, combinations against certain ones.

Ques. Do we not come into the blessing of grace individually? Repentance is an individual affair.

Ques. Would you not say that where the government of God applies against an individual or a group, the tendency is to put the blame on someone else, as they did on David here?

J.T. They saw that they were odious in David's eyes, but he had not said so. That is a common sort of thing. One may say, See how that brother treats me now! Perhaps the trouble is with one's own judgment.

Rem. David does not recede from his original

attitude until they compel him to do so by their own action.

J.T. They make great preparations. It is really one of the most serious conflicts with which he had to do. Where grace is despised war of peculiar magnitude arises all the way through. "And the children of Ammon saw that they had made themselves odious to David; and the children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians of Beth-Rehob, and the Syrians of Zoba, twenty thousand footmen, and the king of Maacah with a thousand men, and the men of Tob twelve thousand men" -- a big array! David is doing nothing, but when he heard of all this array of power he sends Joab and the mighty men. "And Joab saw that the front of the battle was against him before and behind". This is a serious matter, the men mean war, and they are searching out all the allies they can get. It is a wide spiritual matter.

Ques. Do you look at Joab's strategy as commendable here? It is wonderful the way he manoeuvres his army in verse 11, so that it is working together. As far as we can see the Israelites' position is united, they can move this way or that way together. The others are separate, they are making a show of their allies. Joab says: "Be strong, and let us show ourselves valiant for our people and for the cities of our God".

J.T. Joab is thinking of the divine heritage that would be threatened by this attack.

Rem. The combination is broken.

Ques. Does the intervention of God on behalf of David cause the Syrians to realise their own mistake?

J.T. Quite so. The allies saw their mistake; but this is a remarkable conflict, I do not think there is a more severe one in the whole record.

Rem. The choice men are set against the Syrians. They apparently were stronger. The Ammonites

run off. They do not fight. They are just governed by others, and are not fighters at all.

Rem. The Syrians are dealt with in this chapter and the Ammonites in the next. The Syrians are dealt with summarily, whereas Ammon waits.

J.T. They seem to be very powerful. They represent the element among us which, if a deflection takes place, is always ready to be drawn into it. They are historical enemies of Israel.

Rem. In an earlier remark Joab said: "and Jehovah do what is good in his sight". It seems that the grace of David was really imparted to Joab.

J.T. One has often seen it where God is working in a meeting that brothers you might expect would be difficult are not so. They are brought under the power of grace.

Rem. Sometimes in a locality you find gracious feelings misconstrued. It might seem a very simple matter at the beginning, but Satan is there ready to augment the trouble, and a small matter develops into a warfare and a serious issue.

J.T. The way that David holds his ground in grace is a lesson for us, not to be drawn into the thing. Grace reigns in our dispensation and our attitude should not be warlike. David does nothing, they take the initiative in every case.

Rem. These ambassadors are like David. That spirit should be with us.

J.T. I suppose if you met them coming up from Jericho they would look better than when they left. They would have gained ground through that experience and would be ready for any enterprise like this and would do still better.

Rem. These men at Jericho would have grown morally. The Lord came into Jericho and passed through; what did He think? This is what they would learn, they would be greater men than before.

J.T. I am sure of it. They would augment David's position. Nothing brings out the moral power of the kingdom more than what is seen in Christ in Matthew 26 and 27, and the corresponding chapters in the other gospels. How utterly unaffected He was by what happened! He is Himself. Even on the cross He is Himself: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", Luke 23:34. We get irritated when grace is refused and are likely to discredit what we represent, but with Christ it was never so. Even Paul and Silas, wonderful as they were, said when the time came for their release, "let them come themselves and bring us out", Acts 16:37. It seems as if they dropped a little bit there, They said, as it were, We are Romans and they have imprisoned us unfairly. Well, Romans are not characteristically men of grace, heavenly men.

Rem. The Lord referred to the spirit, "Ye know not of what spirit ye are", Luke 9:55.

Rem. The Lord in reading the Scriptures closed the book at the proper moment.

J.T. That shows how the Lord officially fixed the position, what is called the "acceptable year": "to preach the acceptable year of the Lord", Luke 4:19. That year finished where He stopped.

Ques. How much judgment do you bring into gospel preaching?

J.T. Of course it has been revealed from heaven. Romans merely puts it that it is revealed, "in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God", Romans 2:5. He is not saying it is operative, that is the position. It is grace to remind men that this is so. That is how it stands in Romans.

Rem. They are treasuring up wrath.

Rem. There was no judgment executed on Ammon until the return of the year. We see the extension there.

CHAPTER 11:14 - 27; 12:1 - 23

J.T. In chapter 9 we have the kingdom, seen in David, expressing grace toward Mephibosheth. In chapter 10, we have grace extended to the Ammonites, and despised. Now we are to consider the teaching of chapters 11 and 12, as to whether they are simply instruction for each individual as such, or whether they also teach us something further of the kingdom. If so, they must be regarded collectively as well as individually, bringing out the history of the public testimony particularly in its bearing towards man. They teach us the public breakdown and how it is met.

Ques. Would that side of it lead on to David's leaving Jerusalem?

J.T. The beginning of the 11th chapter shows, I think, the failure in the kingly side, though not in Christ, of course, for David does not represent Christ personally here, he represents the authoritative side in the public body.

Ques. I would like some more help on the collective setting. Would you say a little as to the cause of the breakdown? What was the root of the trouble?

J.T. In the history of the public body it would seem that the kingly or responsible side gave way. We are told in the book of Proverbs what a king should do and what he should avoid. Lemuel's mother enjoins him as to what would save him, and David represents that side in chapters 9 and 10. Grace is exhibited. In chapter 9 it is appreciated by Mephibosheth and in chapter 10 it is not appreciated, yet still the position is unimpaired; David retains his attitude of grace in spite of the unfair and inexcusable attitude of the king of Ammon. Now in chapter 11 it is "the time when kings go forth", "at the return of the year", and David fails. It is a changeover in the course of things, but a change implying that kings go forth. When there is a change we need

those in authority to hold the ground, and not to let it slip.

Rem. Perhaps a reference to the letter to Ephesus would fit, "To the angel of the assembly" (Revelation 2:1).

J.T. It fits all the way through, there particularly. Here it would seem that the responsible element failed at a time when it was most needed. "When kings go forth", David was wanting. He committed things over into the hands of others. That is the secret of the whole position, he did not hold his ground.

Rem. The thought of slackness of outlook would mean that the authority of Christ has not the weight it should. It often happens with us that the first cause of deflection is slackness of spiritual outlook.

J.T. If we fail in that, the authority of Christ is no longer in evidence and we drop down to the level of men.

Ques. When that takes place does the prophetic word come in?

J.T. That is the next thing to see after the failure, how it is met. I think we shall see that it is a very extraordinary prophetic word.

Rem. According to Psalm 51 the effect of David's self-judgment seems to be much wider than merely on himself personally, does it not?

J.T. You feel that it must go beyond the individual; it must be an allusion to the public history of the testimony, as this whole book is, David at times representing Christ and at times the responsible element in humiliating failure. In this latter aspect the authority of Christ is out of view, and Joab, an untrustworthy man, is conniving at wickedness.

According to Deuteronomy 17 the king was not to multiply wives and horses.

Rem. Nor was he to go to the right hand or the left; verse 20.

Ques. Is there an allusion to the Nazarite in the

chapter referred to in Proverbs? The king was not to take wives or to drink wine; chapter 31:3, 4.

J.T. That is good. It is a question of what would excite.

Rem. The allusion in that chapter, "Give not thy strength unto women", (Proverbs 31:3) applies to what we have here. It appears to refer back to the injunction to a Nazarite, Numbers 6.

J.T. It seems to be a basis for authority in the assembly. All these allusions would seem to enter into this section for the instruction of the responsible or kingly element, represented in men, elder brothers.

"The shout of a king" ought to be amongst the brethren, but it is stifled here by the state of David; when he should have been standing out at the turn of the year, he failed.

Rem. Say more about the authority side. We are likely to look at the idea of a king as an abstract thought rather than as the authority in us by the Spirit.

J.T. "A king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment", Isaiah 32:1. That feature is not in evidence here because David is sitting at home when he should go forth, and is handing the thing over to an untrustworthy man who ultimately connived at the wickedness that developed. Over against that the characters that come into view are: Urijah, the overcomer, who represents loyalty to the truth in the whole position, and Nathan, who comes in from God's side on the prophetic line to convict.

Rem. The turn of the year would correspond to every new phase in the testimony, and there is a danger with us of giving up the idea of warfare and succumbing to ease and the indulgence of the flesh. We must always quit ourselves like men and engage in the conflict. One feels how easy it is to get slack in one's spiritual outlook and really to forget that

the testimony is in conflict, and will be so long as we are here. It is not time to ease off because the Lord has given us a victory, but to be ready for the next phase, for there will always be a next phase.

J.T. So that in a crisis a brother may stay at home from a care meeting, but he is needed there. Kings are needed there. We are not to let the matter go and allow someone else to take the responsibility.

Rem. The leaders at Corinth were reigning as kings. I suppose those of the house of Chloe were more royal than the leaders at Corinth.

J.T. Quite so. The leaders were not princes, the princely element was missing.

Ques. In chapter 3, when Abner wanted to turn the kingdom over to David, David said, "Thou shall not see my face except thou first bring Michal, Saul's daughter", 2 Samuel 3:13. Does that also enter into this section?

J.T. You mean that a woman like Michal could not help the situation?

Rem. You said, when we were dwelling on that passage, that David's mind was running on those things.

J.T. Yes. Why did he want Michal there, a person who had so manifestly failed? The history here shows that she was a source of weakness throughout.

Rem. I suppose at Corinth Paul was a king going forth.

J.T. And some in the house of Chloe and the house of Stephanas were princely men, ready for things, not reigning but going forth.

Rem. Anything less than manhood is surrendering ground and would be disastrous.

J.T. In a crisis you will observe that a point is reached, a real victory is reached, but what then? As someone said of a great military leader, "What did he do the day after?" The enemy gets in

immediately because he is skilful in military affairs, so that the need is to keep on the line in which God has given us victory. There is always sure to be a reactionary spirit.

Rem. If, after a victory, we become slack, we often succumb to something much less.

Ques. Do you mean to convey that if we have had a victory today we need to put on our military uniform to-morrow?

J.T. 'Consolidate' is a good word, because there is sure to be a counter-attack. There is a reaction, and the position is weakened. Much had happened during the year, victories had been won and grace shown; now there is another year coming in and "David sent Joab, and his servants with him! And all Israel". You might say, "What more could he do?" But the king was not there! It is said of Josiah that "the king stood in his place", (2 Chronicles 34:31) that is one of the great features of Josiah's revival. Everybody was in his place. Here the king is not in his place, strikingly so, because the year required that he should go forth.

Rem. A reference to the Song of Solomon would fit in: "Behold his couch, Solomon's own: three-score mighty men are about it, of the mighty of Israel. They all hold the sword, experts in war",

(Song of Songs 3:7, 8). Does this not show that the position, even while we are enjoying what is greatest, is to be held abstractly? We are not on the battlefield but still the military idea is there.

J.T. These expert men are there on the alert, "because of alarm in the nights". (Song of Songs 3:8) As surely as possible there will be a counter-attack and the king is needed then more than ever. "Three-score mighty men are about it"; but then, there is a palanquin there, and that is most precious. The reference is to a portable chair as used in the east: "King Solomon made himself a palanquin of the wood of Lebanon.

Its pillars he made of silver, its support of gold, its seat of purple; the midst thereof was paved with love", Song of Songs 3:9,10. That is a beautiful touch coming in after the military watchfulness. And the threescore mighty men are there, each having his sword upon his thigh, where it should be for alertness.

Ques. Whom did you say Urijah represents?

J.T. I think he is an overcomer. His speech is very beautiful. In the first paragraph David failed to carry out his kingship. The time had come for it, the turn of the year, but be fell into indolence. Then there is the effort to conceal his guilt by sending for Urijah, an effort that would have succeeded ordinarily, but God is meeting the thing in ambush unexpectedly. Urijah stands out as a man who has concern for the testimony, he speaks about the ark and Joab and Israel. Why should I be enjoying every comfort of life when all this is going on? he says in effect. That is what David was doing, and worse. Urijah's word was really a sword-thrust from God to the king, and therefore the king does his utmost to conceal his guilt; but this man is an overcomer, he stands out and dies. He is a martyr, like Antipas, he is against what David is doing and is slain for his faithfulness.

Ques. Why is David so slow in getting back to self-judgment about this matter?

J.T. That would show that it is a wider thought in the type than the mere person. And now we see the skilfully arranged prophetic approach to it. There is no escape for this man, he is too valuable a man, he must be compelled to judge himself; and through the skill of God, the prophetic skill of God, he is made to judge himself before he knows it. "Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man".

God had stirred up his anger against himself. He does not deny it. It is wonderful skill and it is really grace on God's part not to let the man escape but to help him to judge himself.

Ques. Do you think that where the kingly thought has been given up disaster always follows its trail? Where there is a lack of transparency the kingly thought has been given up, it is the natural sequence.

Rem. In Ecclesiastes the king and the preacher seem to go together, there is moral authority to go with the official side.

J.T. I think what has been said about Proverbs is good -- the last two chapters -- the words of Agur and King Lemuel. Universal conditions are brought to the surface in chapter 30, and then we have the kingly responsibility in chapter 31 which is so needed. The words of Lemuel which his mother taught him would suggest, I think, the general thought of the assembly being brought to bear by the Spirit's power on those who are in responsibility. We are on the alert at the turn of the year and we are not turned aside by the influence of self-indulgence. But then if failure does come in we see the wonderful plan of God, a designed matter. We do not get details as to how Nathan came to use this parable, but we may be sure he was with God about it. How are we going to secure this man? God would say, because he is a clever man and he may escape us. God is determined that he shall not escape. He loves him too well. The thing must be exposed. He is doing his utmost to conceal his guilt, but God makes him judge himself before he knows it. Many a time one may bring a man's guilt home to him in this way: if he does not think he is the one referred to he will condemn the wrong-doer, but if he knows he is being aimed at he will cover the matter up.

Rem. That is innate in us, that principle of covering up. The other side comes out when God takes the matter in hand. He makes His own work shine in us in self-judgment.

J.T. It is a wonderful victory for grace. David is the sinner and God has set Himself to get him. He

does not escape, he is not allowed to carry on his concealment, he is forced to expose himself. "Thou art the man".

Rem. Paul really uses strategy in writing to the Corinthians to get the saints judicially-minded. It was not just the man who had sinned so flagrantly that he had in mind, but to get the saints judicially- minded so that they could deal with more serious things.

Ques. Do you think that when we are not able to define and discern matters clearly and we find ourselves moving on wrong lines, it is due possibly to the fact that there is a background of immorality with us?

J.T. Well, some darkening influence. So that when the moral state of the brethren is right it brings about recovery. The general state of the saints clears the matter so that evil is exposed. The New Testament shows that the system set up in Christ in heaven involves intercession on behalf of the sinner and also of the whole assembly. The Lord institutes a means to bring about recovery. All the addresses to the assemblies have that in view, so that they might be overcomers. It is a wonderful system that God has established in Christ. As soon as sin occurs, whether it be the sin of a prince or of a common person or of the whole assembly in type, the High Priest is ready as Advocate. He is looking after our affairs, and He brings conviction into the heart of the sinner. The Advocate is here tonight, in this meeting, to bring about conviction if it is needed, so that there might be self-judgment.

Rem. Nathan must have been a well-qualified, well-furnished man, because it simply says, "Jehovah sent Nathan to David". What did Jehovah tell him to say? It does not mention that here. He just sent him.

J.T. We may be sure that Nathan took counsel

with God. What a sorrow the matter would be to Nathan! Samuel cried all night about Saul. This parable was a skilful matter. Where did Nathan get it? He got it from God.

Ques. With reference to the parable, is it an indication as to how matters should be handled among us? Grace is carried on by God through prophetic ministry. Is grace reigning in that sense?

J.T. It was reigning in David in chapters 9 and 10 and well maintained, but now God has to come in. When the leading brothers give way God has to come in and take the thing in hand Himself, and of course it is grace. The Lord's very last word to the churches is that He is still on His Father's throne. It is grace. It is in relation to the testimony that characterises our dispensation, the grace period. And here all is grace; what a beautiful word this is from Nathan! David listens to the prophet telling about the poor man with one little ewe lamb which he was nourishing, and about the man on the journey. How that would touch David! What one feels is the skill of Nathan, the prophetic skill that often comes in in the gospel to get at consciences. David must have had great confidence in Nathan.

Ques. Would there not be a wonderment in David's mind as to how Nathan knew about all this? When we come to our prophetic ministry meetings someone may come in from another locality, and the brethren say, "Why should he speak like this? How does he know about conditions in this locality?"

J.T. As a prophet God may have given him a message.

Ques. Would you say that one of the marks of the true prophetic word is that it leaves nothing to be said on the other side? True repentance never comes without true conviction. Is that not a reason why true repentance is not reached sometimes, because there has not been conviction?

J.T. Does it not strike you that this scheme designed in heaven and carried out through Nathan was masterful? -- as much as to say to David, You cannot go one way or the other. He might shuffle, as we often do, but he has already condemned this thing himself, the judgment is passed. David has pronounced the verdict himself.

Rem. He was caught off guard. When we are attacked personally we immediately defend ourselves.

Rem. "Considering thyself lest thou also be tempted", Galatians 6:1. If that were followed out would not every case be a means of helping us to judge ourselves? I was thinking of matters that come up in a meeting about which we arrive at a judgment; we are apt to forget the side of "consider thyself", that the thing we have judged resides in ourselves. Each difficulty should be a means of house-cleaning.

J.T. Many in Corinth, guilty themselves, acquiesced in the judgment of the man, forgetting that there were many others that should be dealt with. David here has given a verdict against the culprit. The culprit is not named, he is called "a rich man". Nathan is pleading his cause and the judge passes sentence. To me it seems a wonderful scheme.

Rem. The result of the conviction was: "I have sinned against Jehovah", not against Urijah, but "against Jehovah". Is that going the whole way?

J.T. Nathan had said to him: "Wherefore hast thou despised the word of Jehovah?"

Rem. How wonderfully too God brings home to him afterwards that he was a rich man. It is very touching! I was thinking that the first thing we would have said would have been about Urijah or Urijah's wife or the person who suffered most. But true repentance is always linked with God. And so the whole attitude of David in connection with his repentance and the death of the child, his mourning

and subsequent rising up from the ground, is not what would be expected in the ordinary way; but it is true repentance.

J.T. He is worth getting -- this man -- because he is so skilful in concealing his guilt, but God is not baffled.

Rem. There is the assurance that God will take care of everything else. Urijah the Hittite was really an honoured man. God is really the only One with whom we have to do.

J.T. Urijah is honoured now, he is a martyr for what is right. His speech in answer to David's overtures is beautiful! "The ark, and Israel, and Judah abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields: shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing", chapter 11:11. I do not want to be in any way different from that, I want to be in thorough accord with that position. It does not mean that the ark was on the battlefield, but it was under curtains; David himself had said that it was not suitable. But Urijah holds to the circumstances under which the ark and the army were. He was an overcomer, a martyr, so that his glory is assured, he has got his crown.

Rem. Verse 13 is very conclusive: "I have sinned against Jehovah. And Nathan said to David; Jehovah has also put away thy sin: thou shall not die". It is unconditional grace in so far as it went. Then afterward we come to discipline. God's way is perfect.

J.T. You see that Nathan was ready. He was fully furnished as if he were told. Now when confession is made, do not be behind in speaking about forgiveness, "thou shalt not die". The whole scene is grace, God doing the very best in the circumstances.

Rem. Urijah dies and the child dies, but David goes on living.

J.T. The responsible element goes on; we shall take it up again to see what the result is of all the pains God has taken to secure response.

Ques. Is that the idea of the last letter to the responsible church?

J.T. We have to see the result, how the Lord never leaves the throne of grace. He has not left that throne yet. He is acting in a disciplinary way but His attitude is grace. We have a worshipper in the chief sinner himself, and then we shall see how Solomon comes in at the end.

Rem. The governmental side goes through.

J.T. It is the position of Christendom, the actual history. Solomon coming in at the end here is very suggestive. The government of God goes on, it is one sorrowful history right through this book. It is the testimony, I think, in the hands of David and a type of the whole Christian history, but still the kingdom goes through. So that in the last chapter but one he tells what a king should be in spite of all the failure and Absalom's rebellion; thus the kingdom goes through. We have all this that would rob us of the idea of it but God is asserting the thought of the kingdom and of rule more and more, and He will bring us into accord with it.

CHAPTER 12:15 - 25; 13:23 - 39

J.T. From what came before us last week it seems that we should regard this history as wider than the actual persons involved, viewing it as having a bearing on the public history of the assembly. On the side of good, the results point in David to a worshipper, through contrition of heart; and in Solomon to Christ known typically as Son. On the side of evil we have in Absalom a type of the antichrist.

The birth of Solomon is over against the death of the previous child, the one representing the result of lawlessness and the other a divine result; so that it says, "Jehovah loved him", verse 24, and because of that he is called Jedidiah -- object of the Father's love even from infancy.

The general position is that it was the time when kings go forth, and David failed in kingship. This would synchronise with a certain period in the history of the assembly when the kingly thought failed, with consequent sin, and the government of God came in through the prophetic word as in Nathan. He represents the medium of recovery, showing to what great pains God goes to secure the conviction of David.

Ques. I would like to see a little more clearly where this failure of the king, and the prophetic word, and recovery fit into the history of the assembly.

J.T. The failure of the kingly side would be the failure of the authority of Christ in the assembly through the unfaithfulness of those He was using. That is what chapter 11 brings out. Sin having occurred, Nathan, representing the prophetic word, was used to bring conviction to David and in the conviction the thorough acceptance of the government of God, so that the child's death is discerned to be governmental. God goes a long way with David in this instance, sparing his life though He did not spare the child's life. That is, the idea of government is carried through, being effective in the death of the child. David formally states that "While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I thought. Who knows? perhaps Jehovah will be gracious to me, that the child may live. But now he is dead, why should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me", chapter 12:22, 23. There seems to be the entire acceptance of the government of God. Grace was there, sparing

David's life, as the prophet said, "Jehovah has also put away thy sin: thou shall not die", 2 Samuel 12:13, but the child died, showing that the idea of government must go through, and the sword should not depart from his house. This child has to die on David's account and David accepts that. Then we have Solomon, who is a type of Christ coming in in the last days.

Rem. With regard to God's government in chapter 12, one feature of it seems to be immediate and the other future.

J.T. You mean, "I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house" (2 Samuel 12:11); that would be future. The remainder of the book shows how that was carried out. The death of the child was immediate, and David accepted it I think as the basis for another son, another product.

Ques. Do we see David gaining spiritually from the government of God in the intense exercise through which he goes?

J.T. In the acceptance of guilt he reaches worship. Then we have Solomon, one whom God loves as a child, which would point to the truth of the Person of Christ coming in in a small way -- only a Babe -- but God loved Him. It is not yet Christ as seen at the Jordan at thirty years of age, but the idea of sonship suggestively as drawing out the love of God.

Rem. Would you say that the seven days must be gone through? I was thinking of Leviticus 14, the seven sprinklings of the leper.

J.T. I thought that. Seven days would be a complete period of exercise, the perfect exercise as reaching a point. Here it would be the experience that one has of the severe government of God in discipline, so that the full result is reached.

Rem. The eighth day follows.

J.T. I think that is one of the most interesting parts of our subject, Christ coming in even in a small

way, through exercise of this kind amongst us, and how it draws out divine affection.

Rem. The government of God on the whole ecclesiastical system was bowed to, and now it has resulted in sonship. Would you say it is the introduction of the greatest possible thing for God at the close?

J.T. I think it is. It is a sort of centre or basis for the development of all that is in the mind of God, drawing out His affections, so that we find Nathan brought into action with the prophetic word to tell us that God loves this child: "And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, for Jehovah's sake", verse 25. The prophetic word brings out what he is, it clarifies the position and brings out what is existent as a result of all this exercise; something is secured which Jehovah loves.

Ques. Would this indicate depth of feeling in God over David's breakdown? The only answer seems to be that God reverts in His thoughts to Christ.

J.T. God's affection passes on, as it were, to the child, although He did love David; his very name means 'beloved', but of Solomon it says, "Jehovah loved him".

Rem. I suppose Satan would hinder our getting the good of this whole matter by casting our thoughts back to the indefinite past, whereas it is really a matter of looking forward.

J.T. The indefinite past is the fourth century, the period of the creeds. If anybody reads the Creed he will be amazed to find how language is employed to say 'yes' and 'no' at the same time. There is a sense that the Holy Spirit is not developing the truth; the human mind is endeavouring with good intent to put the truth rightly, but it has not the power to conceal the error. The Creed states that the Lord Jesus was begotten of His Father before all

worlds. That is not true. The creed-makers tried to cover that over by other statements to show what they really did believe in their hearts, whereas we come now to clear sunlight, that the Lord Jesus has become Man, a distinct Person eternally, yet ever God.

Ques. Do you think there is an inkling of this in John 9:41, "but now ye say, We see, your sin remains"? Is that similar to what occurred in the early centuries in regard to the Person of Christ?

J.T. Yes. So that they are responsible as to what is put down on paper in the so-called creeds. Some of us have perhaps looked into this matter more than others. There is not only the Creed, but an exposition of the Creed, a very large volume in which every line of the Creed is taken out and developed. The "General Church Council", especially the Nicene, which was the leading one at which this Creed was inaugurated, assumed to "see", and, of course, in a certain way this protected the truth. But it was not maintained by the Spirit of God. The truth is to be maintained by the Spirit of God and not by creeds. The creed-makers were not satisfied with the language of Scripture. They were very clever in the use of words so as to encase the truth and protect it, whereas if we have the Spirit of God, He is the truth. The Creed has been the basic teaching of Christendom for sixteen centuries, but now the truth is all made plain. I believe the point here is Solomon. Jehovah "sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet: and he called his name Jedidiah, for Jehovah's sake", verse 25. That is, the prophetic word gives the name.

Rem. There is great need for such a son owing to what transpires in the next chapter.

J.T. The state of David's house is distressing, as chapter 13 brings out, but here is the bright luminary that is going to effect things for God. Solomon is mentioned only twice in this book; we must wait for Kings to see him in action.

Rem. Nathan served to open David's eyes that he might see himself.

J.T. I think these two parts of Nathan's ministry, his conviction of David and his naming of his son, are the foundation for all that follows. We have a true foundation and other things do not shake us. The first book of Kings will bring out how Solomon can deal with evil men, with Joab, for instance. But he is not doing anything in this book, he is just a babe; but Jehovah loves him, and that is for my soul.

Rem. "The beloved of Jehovah -- he shall dwell in safety by him", Deuteronomy 33:12. I was wondering if Solomon corresponds in some way with Benjamin?

J.T. You mean that Solomon is the one that affords the dwelling between His shoulders, alluding to the position of the temple in Jerusalem, It was primarily the territory of Benjamin on the principle of love and preference, and there was brotherly recognition in Judah. It would mean that the temple was in his territory -- mount Zion. Kingship gave way in David, but David went down to the bottom in his repentance. We read of his lying on the earth and refusing all comfort. It is beautiful to see his contrition; he prays in effect to God: Come in and cleanse me; my confession is not enough, I want to be set up again. In Psalm 51 it is a question of Zion, and of being able to teach sinners and transgressors. The great answer is Solomon. Things are carried on, but generally in a poor way throughout this book, and it finishes with David's account of what a king ought to be without saying he was such; chapter 23:3 - 5. I think this is true of our activities in the assembly, we finally have to come to it that only a Solomon succeeds. I realise in my spirit that only that man can succeed, especially in the government of the house; He abides a Son for ever. We must come to that in our souls, especially in our care meetings.

Ques. You mean we shall have no results except on the lines of Solomon?

J.T. We usually begin on what I can do. I am an old brother, I have had much experience, I have been breaking bread for so many years, etc., but the building of the house and the ruling of the house is in sonship, and I have to come to that in my own soul however old or experienced I may be.

Ques. Are you suggesting that Solomon is the public name and Jedidiah the secret name?

J.T. We do not get the name Jedidiah afterwards; it is given only here, and to bring out what he was to Jehovah. You hardly get a babe like this elsewhere, not even in John Baptist. It must be Jesus typically.

Ques. Is Psalm 51 an indication of David's deep feeling in regard to the blight he had brought on the testimony? "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight; that thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, be clear when thou judgest", Psalm 51:4. Do you think he would have an impression of having marred the testimony, and he would seek by the public record of Psalm 51 to make the whole matter plain?

J.T. There is no reference to Urijah in Psalm 51. "Against thee, thee only have I sinned"; that was a deeper thing in his soul than the sin against Urijah.

Ques. You referred to the care meeting. Do you think if we really moved this way to reach Solomon all the defects would disappear? Otherwise I suppose we get into the tangles of this political business with Absalom.

J.T. I think we see here that Solomon stands over against all the other sons. The next sorrow is in connection with Amnon, the outstanding one of the family, the firstborn. But a Solomon comes in before that, which is our salvation as we go through the matter. There must be removal of Amnon and

of Absalom, though in the most sorrowful ways. These two men must go.

Rem. With regard to the other child, they tell David, "He is dead", verse 19. Does that mean God's government has prevailed and we come to that conclusion ourselves, so that there is the rising up?

J.T. David says, I cannot bring him back, I have to go to him. That is a solemn statement of the action of the government of God, but now he is ready morally for a Solomon and he calls his name Solomon, son of peace; but Jedidiah is God's thought, and that comes in prophetically. It throws light on the prophetic ministry with which God is helping us now, the first word to convict of sin and the other to bring in the Son in Jesus as the Son of God.

Ques. Would Romans 7 and 8 correspond to that: death in the 7th and God's pleasure in sons in the 8th? "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God", Romans 8:14.

J.T. So that it says: "Sin revived and I died" (Romans 7:9).

Rem. When you speak of sonship you are applying it not only to my knowledge of my relationship with God as a son, but also in relation to the saints working out sonship relatively, because it is the removal of the corrupt relationship and the establishment of the right one.

J.T. That is what it is, seen first in Christ, the prophetic word telling you that Jehovah loves him. There had been many babes before but this one is designated by the prophet, "Jedidiah", because of Jehovah. This child affects Jehovah; that is, of course, Jesus typically: "that holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God", Luke 2:36. Jehovah calls Him "Son of God", "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee", Hebrews 1:5. It is 'Thou' and 'this', there is no doubt about it, it is what God is thinking as to that Person.

Rem. So that it is death governmentally to all my scheming and planning.

J.T. How the love of God comes into the development of the truth of the Son of God! The Father loves the Son and we come into that. David had accepted the death of the child; his own death is just deferred; I shall go that way too, he says. He clothes himself properly; it is cutting across the religious feelings of his servants; they did not understand, nor do the professing persons around us. But when you accept death you change your clothes and go into the house of God. God will respect that. The first 13 verses of John's gospel are a preface; it is a question of the truth of the deity of Christ, what He was in past eternity and how He has come into this world, and it results in bringing in the sons of God. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only begotten with a father) full of grace and truth", John 1:14. That is the position, the only One of a Father, full of grace and truth under the eyes of men here below. It is Christ in the fulness of His manhood; babyhood is not mentioned at all. They were able to contemplate His glory because they belonged to the family: "as many as received him, to them gave He the right to be children of God", John 1:12. They are the ones who can contemplate the sonship of Christ.

Rem. There is no middle ground between the Son of God and Barabbas. The name means, 'son of a father', indicating the other line.

J.T. Yes; it is in that gospel that the Lord says: "Ye are of your father the devil", John 8:44. They were sons of a father, the devil.

Ques. Does it suggest that the responsible element as recovered goes right through?

J.T. And morally displaces what was there. In 1 Kings David is a weak old man, hardly any life

left, but in 1 Chronicles he is in vigour. Chronicles is from the divine side, but Samuel and Kings are from the responsible side down here and so everything hinges on Solomon; otherwise there will be a usurper on the throne, Adonijah. It seems to me that the truth of the Person of Christ is the great thought now carrying us through to the end. Solomon is a son of peace, his name means that, and if we come into the care meeting with thoughts of war we are continuing on David's line. The other side is that God loves this kind of man, Solomon. This struggle for the throne goes on under David; he makes no effort to stop it and there is confusion. If Nathan had not come forward in the matter of Adonijah it would have meant disaster again; 1 Kings 1. It is Nathan who rescues the position from man's will through the prophetic ministry, and I believe that is what is to preserve us in the last days, the prophetic ministry and sonship. In all that passed with Amnon and Absalom and now with Adonijah, David had no power to meet the situation; it is the prophetic word that meets it. In 1 Chronicles David stands up and makes a wonderful speech, but that is from the divine side.

Rem. In the remainder of chapter 12 Joab is in the forefront and in chapter 13 Absalom. I suppose that is the responsible element manifesting itself in weakness.

J.T. David was very angry at what Amnon did. But it is not enough to say to a brother, You are worldly, or your conduct is reprehensible. We must go further than that and use discipline. It says in verse 21 that David was very angry, and that is all you get. Again with Absalom, he is a murderer, a fugitive from justice, and the sorrowful side in this particular chapter is David's inability to deal with the matter; a most terrible condition exists and he is unable to deal with it.

Rem. So that in all these church matters around us the assumption that everything is all right while evil exists unjudged will head up in this awful man that is coming, the antichrist.

J.T. It must be either withdrawing from iniquity or dealing with iniquity.

Ques. What would have been the right step for David to take in all this?

J.T. This great man, the man that overcame the world militarily, ought to have proceeded to deal with evil. Why could he not deal with wicked men like Amnon and Absalom? He is powerless.

Rem. Joab was a politician, a schemer. That influence corresponds with what is public today. We must await Solomon.

J.T. Here is the greatest man in the world and he could not rule his own house, he could not discipline his sons. Is it a mere account of David or does it apply to our own times, our inability to deal with the persons nearest to us?

Ques. Does it mean that nothing at all should pass in a man's house that is not right?

J.T. That is the lesson to be learned. It is David's house right through here, and his kingly authority is impaired; he is unable to deal with evil in the kingdom. From the first century they were unable to deal with evil, so that the Lord had to charge them about it as we see in His addresses to the seven assemblies in Revelation 2 and 3.

Rem. The Lord may be instructing us in sonship and giving us power to work on other lines today in view of the closing of the church's history. The condition here is indicative of weakness, in which Solomon is not coming into prominence and activity; but since the Lord has helped us on the lines of His sonship there seems to be parallel with that power to deal with evil.

J.T. In 1908 the matter of discipline came out at Alnwick and from that day to this the Lord has been helping the saints on assembly lines, inclusive of dealing with evil amongst us. Of course, the matter goes back to Bethesda, but some of us here have had to do with it directly; it has happened in our own times. Local assembly matters must be left in the Lord's hands in the locality, that is the principle; a neighbouring assembly cannot rule another assembly, nor commend another assembly; each local assembly is on its own footing before God, having provision within itself for rule and discipline. That is what came out in 1908. It has been developed ever since, and collaterally with that the truths of the Lord's Supper, local assembly prerogatives, sonship, prophetic ministry and the service of God. It was the great issue, what the local assembly was and the Lord's authority there, the Lord's rights there. It is a primary thought that Paul and Barnabas went out and formed assemblies, "and having chosen them elders", Acts 14:23. They did it. They were commissioned to go out in that service and appointed elders in each assembly and later in each city (Titus 1:5). The idea was to set up local assemblies on their own feet. They had the means to govern and discipline there.

Ques. How would it work out when there is more than one meeting in a city?

J.T. The local assembly would cover all the meetings, as for instance here in New York, one assembly and sub-divisions. In these small meetings in Asia Minor it says they chose elders "in each assembly"; so that when Paul writes to the saints in Galatia he says, "to the assemblies of Galatia", Galatians 1:2, not, 'to aggregate of the saints'.

Ques. Would "ye are Christ's body" in 1 Corinthians 12 show that the assembly was functioning in that city?

J.T. It was not an independent body, of course, so that the article "the" is not before the word "body". To "ordain elders" would mean to furnish all that is necessary in the way of government.

Rem. In this last short period just on the eve of our departure, church history is being lived over again.

J.T. I think these chapters forecast the failure of the assembly; it is wider than the sin of one man, it is the public position. David's failure in not going forth resulted on the good side in a worshipper in David and a son in Solomon; and on the side of evil in Amnon and Absalom. That is exactly the position now.

Ques. Should we be slow to oppose the judgment of the local assembly?

J.T. We should not do it. The Lord is there. It is not that we assume to be infallible, but still if the action has been taken in assembly it is a serious matter to interfere with it.

Rem. According to Revelation 2 and 3 the Lord holds the responsible element answerable for every matter there.

J.T. Quite so. So that it is "the angel" he addresses, the responsible element.

Rem. Then there would be some element in all local companies that is holding on to these wonderful things that the Holy Spirit is reviving: the prophetic word, the service of God and sonship.

Rem. I suppose it is the whole assembly, the tabernacle, the great general thought of general fellowship worked out locally.

J.T. As 1 Corinthians shows, universal fellowship is recognised; indeed there is only one fellowship, but it works out locally.

CHAPTER 14

J.T. We seem to have had the mind of the Spirit in considering chapters 9 and 10 as the kingdom of God marked by grace; grace toward Mephibosheth in chapter 9, and toward the king of Ammon, although he despised it, in chapter 10. Chapter 11 brings out the decline, for "at the time when kings go forth ... David abode at Jerusalem", 2 Samuel 11:1. Then comes the great sin of David and the conviction of it, pointing to the history of Christendom since the breakdown. On the side of good we have in David a worshipper of God, and in Solomon a type of Christ viewed as Son coming into prominence, beloved of God; and on the side of evil we have Amnon and Absalom, the two evil features arising governmentally because of the failure of David. Chapter 14 begins with this state of affairs, the good and the bad moving together, as in Matthew 13 the wheat and the tares grow together.

Chapter 14 brings out, in Joab, an element that has its correspondence today, a combination of evil seeking to conceal itself in an outline of right procedure and words but still culminating in Absalom being re-established in favour, although he was a murderer; so that the combination of evil is very strong as this chapter shows. David represents the responsible element in the system, the professing body; this chapter brings out the elements combined in Joab which have place today.

Ques. Is the enemy taking account of the disposition of the king's heart, a wrong disposition?

J.T. That seems to be the fact. It says: "And Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king's heart was toward Absalom". The king's heart was in the wrong direction.

Ques. Is this the same kind of sin as Adam's? He acted with his eyes open, not sinning in ignorance

but being influenced to do what he knew was not right.

J.T. That is right. You mean David knew Absalom was unrepentant.

Ques. Will you say something more about the responsible element being sympathetic towards this kind of man publicly today?

J.T. I think these are the facts that govern the history of the assembly from the time of the breakdown. There has been a right element; the responsible element called the orthodox party has been with us from the earliest days, from the third century. In the main they were holding the truth but they inclined to the wrong man, he that is shown to be wrong, a murderer, although he ingratiated himself with the public leaders; he was historically a murderer and here is shown to be just a diplomat, a politician, currying favour with those in charge. Those in responsibility publicly are in the main right as to their principles, but secretly they have the wrong man. Joab had no love at all for Absalom, but David had, and Joab worked on David's misplaced affection because David's heart was toward Absalom. It was toward him, not toward judging him, for justice was not in exercise as seeking to get him back to deal with judicially; that was not his thought at all. David longed to go forth to Absalom, Joab worked on that; Joab is a combination of evil, well covered, but still there.

Ques. Do you think that his heart being toward Absalom would indicate certain unjudged reservations such as we might have in regard to anything and which the enemy might kindle into flame at any time?

J.T. His reservations were evidently the outcome of his misplaced love for this murderer; it would have a correspondence in that way. Absalom was next in line to Amnon, and heir; but the sequel shows that he had a very undue place with David, for when

he was slain David was more moved on account of him than he had been on account of Amnon who was murdered.

Ques. Do you see this in the church's history publicly, that as time goes on what is political will be combined with what is responsible?

J.T. I think the past history of the assembly affords us the anti-type of all this. The leaders who ruled in the Councils and did their best to encase the truth in the creeds were not governed by the Spirit of God in what they were doing, but still they were seeking to maintain the truth of Christianity in their way. But they afforded an opportunity for these elements to work. These elements are combined, for Joab is a combination: a murderer, a clever man, a military man, orthodox generally, but a known murderer. Now he is glossing that over and ingratiating himself with the king at the expense of the rights of Christ, the rights of the whole position; a murderer is to be brought back and reinstated in affection as heir, because the wise woman's speech would imply that everything would hinge on this man, Absalom; everything hinged in her own mind on this son who murdered the other son; "they will quench my coal that is left", she says. It is an allusion to Absalom as if everything is to depend on him. It was a clever move but all tending to one thing, that is antichrist; not to the antichrist personally, but to the characteristics of antichrist.

Rem. That element is not dealt with finally until Christ Himself deals with it. If David had retained all his affections and right point of view in connection with the sonship of Solomon all would have been well.

J.T. Solomon was just a babe and Jehovah had signified that He loved him, and yet David seems to be moving toward Absalom. What a state of soul must have been there! It is seen in the history of the assembly, though in David personally here.

Rem. In church history the letting go of sonship in its right form really makes room for antichrist.

J.T. This brings us back to what we were saying of chapter 12, bringing out from the failure a worshipper, and Solomon. These are the two outstanding good things. In the history of the assembly there was a remnant preserved but the general position was that the Creeds dealt with the sonship of Christ unspiritually. With the best of intentions they brought in falsifying principles to establish the truth of sonship and resorted to language that is utterly foreign to the divine vocabulary. They endeavoured to maintain orthodoxy but did not bring down Solomon to us. They had clever men in their ranks; take this woman, she is a wise woman, but what she has to say is put into her mouth by a schemer. David is the responsible man, and owned of God so far, but sorrowfully mixed in his mind and affections so that you marvel at him. Here is Solomon born, and David himself had been into the house of God and worshipped, accepting the death of the other child. Solomon is called Jedidiah because Jehovah loved him; this child is Christ in type, but evidently David is deflected. There is not another word about Solomon in this book, yet after Absalom's death David mourns, "My son, my son!" overwhelmed with grief. So that you have in this woman a person available and amenable in the hands of a man like Joab.

Rem. Abraham's mind was on the wrong son but the woman in that case seemed to have the mind of God.

Rem. In chapter 3 David admits that the sons of Zeruiah are too much for him; subsequently the sons of David are too much for him.

J.T. He is just throwing up his hands; it is a sorrowful situation. It would look as if the antitype is in mind in the history of Christendom, men seeking

to maintain the truth and yet their mind is in this direction and they are capable of being influenced.

Rem. And the illustration employed to influence David is in many respects similar to the one used by Nathan.

J.T. It was probably copied, the idea was borrowed. As usual what is of God is imitated. No doubt Joab knew all about Nathan's parable and how successful he was; David never discerned what was in the parable until it was shown him. I have no doubt Joab saw that, and saw how David could be deceived and at the right time the truth brought home to him, for this woman breaks it to David as she proceeds. In verse 13 "the king is ... as one guilty", she says and then she goes back to her own story about her own son; so that it looks as if it were the kind of thing that has come down in history, the copying by unspiritual men of what God is doing.

Ques. When was David recovered from this state?

J.T. The book goes on to bring that out. You see him exiled from his capital, going up by the ascent of the Olives, weeping, barefoot, and worshipping on top of the mount; you can see how he must have recovered himself. But then, did he ever recover himself? He has to admit in chapter 23, "Although my house be not so before God", 2 Samuel 23:5. He tells what a king should be but he does not say, I am that king. God puts it into his heart, but as ever, we have to turn to Christ; He is the only One who answers to what a king should be.

Ques. Does the expression, "Book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (Matthew 1:1) in Matthew indicate that although He is not (typically) brought forward here, behind this the true person was held by Bathsheba, that is Jedidiah?

J.T. You mean Solomon was held? That is true. But I think another thing that would help us greatly in this history is the place Nathan has; he

is the man who meets the whole issue, first in regard to building the house, that it must be built by a son; and then in regard to the kingship of Solomon when Adonijah was setting himself up. It was Nathan who met the issue. Bathsheba did not do it, she came in after Nathan. It is to bring out the importance of prophetic ministry; that is what God uses to meet all these issues.

Ques. Was not Bathsheba sympathetic? Her love is referred to by Solomon.

J.T. She was sympathetic and Nathan immediately brings her in, or rather, he goes to the king and reminds him of his oath to Bathsheba; but she did not take the initiative, and she failed again in connection with Adonijah. She interceded for him, she was a poor affair herself, so that the whole issue hinged on Nathan's ministry and that throws into prominence the importance of prophetic ministry today.

Rem. The first mention we get of Nathan is in chapter 7 where he failed a little himself; he said, "Go, do all that is in thy heart" (2 Samuel 7:3).

Ques. Why is he not mentioned through this whole section and in the succeeding chapters?

J.T. Well, he has done his work. I think it stands in relation to the sonship of Solomon, the Christ; that was his main work. How it fits in now, the place the prophetic word has! Solomon is undoubtedly the true son, alongside of whom we have the other sons, Amnon and Absalom, reputable heirs to the throne. I believe these are typically the men who have been pushed forward in Christendom; but they are not the full thought, it is Solomon whom God loves.

Rem. The so-called orthodox church did not grasp the thought of sonship.

J.T. They really brought in the Word, the Logos, but parallel with that they brought in a son who was

"begotten of the Father before all worlds". It was a human idea introduced into the Creed and that is what we have had all these centuries. In chapter 11 Solomon is brought in as a babe, and God says, 'I love him, I will give him a name'. That is what they had at the beginning with the apostles, for really the thought of sonship was in Paul; but it was lost in the creeds, and the creeds are 1,700 years old. Let anyone read them and he will see it.

Ques. Matthew's gospel refers much to the prophets; for instance, "Out of Egypt have I called my son". (Matthew 2:15) Would that be in line with the fact that the prophetic word is used to point the way to the sonship of Christ?

J.T. It would. You have it typically in Genesis, in Isaiah and in Psalm 2. "Out of Egypt I called my son" was said by Hosea,(Hosea 11:1) and how much is made of that in Matthew! Joseph is taken up to protect Him; "take to thee the little child and his mother", (Matthew 2:13) the angel says. What an object of supreme interest He is to heaven! Solomon is presented first of all through Nathan's message and now he is an infant, called Jedidiah because Jehovah loved him. Matthew corresponds because the prophetic word is so stressed in Matthew.

Ques. Is that why the Lord stresses the idea, "Then are the sons free" (Matthew 17:26)?

J.T. He is seen as the Son in chapter 16, and on the mount He is owned from heaven, and now He brings the sons into it at the end of chapter 17.

Ques. Did David know that the Lord had called Solomon "Jedidiah"?

J.T. I should think so; if it were your son you would know it. Heaven thinks a lot about our sons.

Ques. Why is the sonship of Christ stressed in Hebrews 1?

J.T. I suppose to deliver the Jewish Christians.

It is the great delivering thought; and so in Galatians, Judaism is legality but sonship is liberty.

Having spoken about the general thought of the chapter the next thing to look at is the character of this man Joab, because we shall find him in our own hearts, ingratiating himself with those in responsibility: "And Joab sent to Tekoah, and fetched thence a wise woman, and said to her, I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on mourning garments, I pray, and anoint not thyself with oil, but be as a woman that hath a long time mourned for the dead; and come to the king, and speak after this manner to him. And Joab put the words into her mouth". We have not far to go to see this kind of thing; "a long time mourned for the dead", an appeal to natural sentiment, a carefully designed appeal in the person herself to natural sentiment to arouse sympathy in David; and getting his sympathy aroused, gradually bringing in the thought behind it. The idea is to show that they are working with David according to what is in his heart; it is all to arouse natural feeling. That has been the public history of the assembly, natural feelings are appealed to in the kind of things brought forward; the very best of us is likely to be affected by this sort of thing, a carefully designed matter to affect the most spiritual. Look at the Romish system, how they dress themselves, these Joabs; they put on the kind of attire that appeals to natural sentiment. We have a picture here in which the leading elements are really murderers, a terrible situation. Think of the wonderful habiliments of the leaders of the great Romish system, and of the Greek church, and of the whole public body; they are all designed. Look at a nun, see her on the streets like a person mourning for the dead and there is not a ray of light in her countenance; it is all to appeal to natural sympathy and sentiment. We shall see how this woman flatters David. It is

well worth looking into. Joab has carefully designed this, the kind of person he is using is not an ordinary person, not a disreputable person at all, she is wise; and the organisations of which we have spoken certainly go in for wisdom and learning, not a stone left unturned to make their appeal.

Rem. This woman makes the matter commendable.

J.T. But she is serving a murderer and he is waiting to bring back a murderer; you see what David is contending with. The lesson is not to allow ourselves to be deceived by anything presented to our sentiments, philosophy and vain deceits, that sort of thing. It is "the mystery of iniquity", and it has been going on all these centuries and we can see in the present state of things in Christendom that it is all ready to be unfolded; as soon as God lifts His hand it will be there.

Ques. What about the beauty of Absalom?

J.T. That comes in too; it enabled him to steal the hearts of the men of Israel. But here it is a son ; David said, "my son", his heart is toward him. This woman's subject is well chosen. So far as I can see David's name is not mentioned in this chapter, it is "the king" right through, the person in authority So that she comes in in verse 4 and "fell on her face to the ground and did obeisance, and said, Save, O king!" and then she goes on and tells Joab's story. Undoubtedly Joab had studied Nathan's effort in his parable to reach David's conscience, but he is not reaching David's conscience, he is reaching only his natural sympathy and sentiment. This woman has no prophet's garb. Joab knew well how to appeal, just like Satan; he knows so well how to attack on the line of what is natural.

Rem. Jude speaks of those who creep in unawares, and I was thinking of the words about the plague of

our own hearts; these things are not only in Christendom, they exist with us.

J.T. Satan studies us; he considered Job. Joab had well considered David, but I think on the line of nature, his natural propensities.

Ques. Was Paul under these things a little in Acts 21? They appealed to his natural sentiments.

J.T. I daresay. We have several allusions to his adopting legal things, vows and all that, so that the most spiritual of us is exposed, and that is the lesson for us. Satan studies each of us, especially those who are more prominent, and his design is to use what will affect you.

Rem. The second cry from the cross was the termination of the first man; entering into that would preserve us.

J.T. You feel that every morning, at least I do, particularly the daily taking up your cross. It is a solemn matter, the cross would save you from anything of this kind.

Ques. What is your cross?

J.T. I think it refers to the particular kind of thing that affects you, do not evade it, take it up, it is protection.

Ques. Of the two cries I suppose the first would be the judgment of sin and the second the judgment of self?

J.T. I think so; the first is sin in a general way, the full bearing of it, but the second is man dealt with judicially, set aside.

Ques. Is it right for the king to acquit a murderer?

J.T. That is the whole point, David's heart was toward a murderer. In the New Testament they chose a murderer instead of Christ. Here David is doing that. Why is he not content with the man God loves, Solomon the babe? He had named him Solomon, a man of peace, but it does not say that he loved him although undoubtedly he did. The type is

what we are dealing with here, his mind is toward Absalom, that type of man.

Ques. Would the constant reference to "the king" in this chapter in contrast to the earlier chapters suggest that God loves to see grace being dispensed righteously but that love is withheld when we dispense grace unrighteously?

J.T. You would rather be called by your name than by your official title. Personally I would rather be called by name.

Rem. The Lord Jesus was as much beloved by the Father when He was on the cross as when He came out of Jordan. There was no change.

J.T. "Therefore doth my Father love me because", John 10:17. He was giving Him a fresh motive for love.

Rem. John's epistles help us in this direction. John has much to do with antichrist but he says, "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding that we should know him that is true", 1 John 5:20.

J.T. That is the whole point in John's ministry, the Son of God, and that is what saves you from antichrist. John says: "these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God", John 20:31. That is over against antichrist, that would save us.

Rem. The testimony of the centurion to the Son of God was as if another world had come into that man's thoughts.

J.T. This woman goes on to the idea of water poured on the ground; she rises in her remarks. In verse 12 she says: "Let thy bondmaid, I pray thee, speak a word to my lord the king". She is bringing the matter home to him now like Nathan, and she continues until the king says in verse 11, "As Jehovah liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth". She takes away the veil there,

she is really speaking to the king himself in verse 12, and then she comes back to her own affair. She can reach David, but not his conscience. Absalom was banished, rightly banished; he was a murderer. She is succeeding, and the lesson is that I should not be caught in that kind of snare, not to allow my natural feelings and sympathies to interfere with divine justice. She is insinuating to David, You are an old man, you are going to die, we are all like water spilt on the ground; you will need a man to rule this kingdom. That is what she inferred, and that David was not doing right to the people of God: "Why then hast thou thought such a thing against God's people?" verse 13. It is an attack against the son, against Solomon, as it was later with Adonijah. In saying that we must needs die and are as water spilt on the ground which cannot be gathered up, she is saying what the orthodox Christians would say, but she has not got the thing right; the truth of resurrection is that water can be gathered up again. The water poured out and the sucking lamb pleased Jehovah, so that we have the thought of what pleases God. We are all to be raised up. This woman has in mind that we are all dying, but God "devises means", she says, "that the banished one be not expelled from him". Who is this banished one? I know this passage is often used in the gospel and you can use it in that way, for God does devise means, but if He brings a man back it is not without repentance. She had in her mind that a man should be brought back unrepentant, she does not hint at all that her own son should repent of his murder, she is blaming David.

Rem. And David allows it, too. It is said that Absalom had been three years in Geshur, as if time would clear up matters.

J.T. There is not a word about Absalom making any expression of contrition at all. You get servants

in the great denominations like this, truth mixed with error.

Rem. The woman taken in sin accepted the second writing on the ground.

J.T. You might say that because the Lord said: "Neither do I condemn thee", it was all right, but He adds, "Go, and sin no more", John 8:11. He does not seem to have much confidence in her.

Rem. David does not interfere with this woman's subject, he gives her a lot of scope to go on with it.

J.T. Yes; what the ministers of the gospel are to preach is put into their mouths, that is the general idea.

Rem. Sometimes assembly matters might be handled this way by the unspiritual, glossed over, half-finished, but there is bound to be trouble sooner or later.

Ques. Would you say something about Absalom here?

J.T. That is the next thing. David discerned what was in mind, as it was designed that he should. Joab wanted to ingratiate himself with the man in authority, and that is the element that has come down to us.

Rem. When Absalom returns Joab is slow to bring him to the king, and Absalom says in self-defence, "if there be iniquity in me, let him slay me".

J.T. He knew well enough there was iniquity in him. He would probably say with the rest of them, "God have mercy on us, miserable sinners", but he would never confess his own matter. Joab intended that David should discern what the woman meant, he knew David wanted Absalom back and he wanted David to know that he wanted Absalom back, but he would resort to this artifice to tell him, and it worked perfectly. David sends for Joab at once (verse 21) and says, "Behold now, I have done this thing; so go, bring back the young man Absalom". That is a

knavish thing. He knew well enough the man was guilty, but there he is, caught by the flattery of Joab. And then we get the beauty of Absalom, as if it might be said, Why should he not be desired? Why should we be deprived of such a fine man? There was no one like him in the whole kingdom. See, too, what it says as to his hair. He was not a Nazarite; he shaved his hair each year, and it weighed two hundred shekels after the king's weight; it was an immense amount of hair, it would be about six pounds if you went by the ordinary weight of a shekel. I suppose he shaved it off because it was inconvenient. It is a young man in his beauty, with the attributes of the antichrist. These men that have risen suddenly into power are wonderful men: Napoleon, for example, was a superman; and so with all these men that are before us today; people marvel at them. That is the kind of thing noted here, his beauty and the weight of his hair; "But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him", verse 25. Why should such a man be kept away? it might be asked. Why should we be deprived of a man like that? Then we are told that he had "three sons and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a woman of a beautiful countenance". The whole position is very attractive. Where could there be a better man for the kingdom than this? that is the idea.

Rem. This position can work in Absalom's favour now he is in Jerusalem; he was relatively harmless in exile, but now he can work against David.

J.T. David is bringing Absalom back, but Solomon is to be used to displace him altogether. I believe the whole hierarchy of Christendom has worked on this line; they do not want to displace Christ exactly, nor do they want antichrist, but they have allowed the man that Absalom represents to have sway and

now they have no power to deal with things. The Church of England cannot control even its own bishops; they can say anything they like and they cannot be disciplined.

Rem. Absalom's next act is to burn up Joab's field of barley.

J.T. The allusion would be to the truth of Christ's Person as first-fruits. It is Joab's barley field, it is the way he would look at Christ; that is an allusion I think to the Church of England. I believe the framers of the Creed and the liturgy earnestly wanted to preserve the truth as they saw it. Joab was an orthodox man and he had a field of barley, but it was near Absalom's field, an orthodox man alongside of one who is a type of antichrist; there was no separation, so that the Romish Church and the Church of England and all the other churches are near each other. This man who represents antichrist burns up this field and they are not able to protect it. It is very solemn to see how this man when once brought back, though not yet recognised by the ruling authorities (David had not kissed him yet), is able to accomplish so much in lawlessness.

CHAPTER 15

J.T. It has come before us that these last few chapters of 2 Samuel foreshadow in a typical way the public history of the assembly. We have seen the evil that came in through David's sin and the sins of his two sons, particularly that of Absalom, pointing to history in the assembly which has culminated in room being made for antichristian principles, Absalom representing this. Chapter 14 brings out these features. There were orthodox ones, such as Joab, who paved the way for the return of Absalom, a banished murderer; now as returned he

has ingratiated himself with the king and is recognised by David. David is the man in authority so that this chapter would bring before us that feature, the antichristian element in control in a rebellious way. Absalom is not exactly the antichrist, typically, but an antichrist, representing the principles beforehand. He was not allowed to continue in his rebellion but he particularly paved the way for the apostasy of Christendom, the incoming of antichrist, for antichrist is perhaps more religiously than politically against Christ.

Ques. Is this more political here?

J.T. It would be. It is a question of the kingdom, of course. We shall notice as we go on how Absalom had recourse to everything that would make him great, make him attractive to the people. He prepared chariots and horses and fifty men to run before him, and rose early and stood before the gate; "and it was so, that when any man who had a controversy had to come to the king for judgment, then Absalom called him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said. Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel. And Absalom said to him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man to hear thee appointed by the king. And Absalom said. Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man who has any controversy and cause might come to me, and I would do him justice! And it was so, that when any man came near to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand and took him and kissed him. And in this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment; and Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel!"

I think that paragraph is very striking. It would apply to the present time, great care to make those who represent antichrist very attractive to the natural mind; and then putting himself forward unfairly, saying that no one was appointed by the

king, as if government was ignored and he must take it on.

Ques. Would Adonijah be on the same footing?

J.T. Yes. Of course David had a double office, he had a ministerial office Godward in a spiritual way as well as a political office. Applying it as we are looking at it now it is more the religious side that is in mind, because in the history of the assembly it is the kingdom in a spiritual sense; that is the sense in which the kingdom is in us now, and following on that the service of God.

Ques. Is it a feature of antichrist that he had a previous link with what was right?

J.T. I think that is right. It is not a man coming in openly from heathendom, but one who has had a place amongst us.

Ques. Do you place this chapter in the early dispensations or in times of recovery?

J.T. It covers a long period. The first thing to observe is that David is still there, the right man. I think we have to take him as typical of what is of God, only exercised in a very weak way, wholly out of keeping with what he had been. One wonders at what happened within a generation, why he should have become so negligent, undiscerning and weak; but the picture is drawn of the typical man rather than as the mere history of David. You marvel how all this could happen before his eyes and he not discern it, a man with such a history as his was; so that it would be more the antitype we have to look at. The real David is still here so it might extend back to the early history of the assembly.

Ques. What about Absalom putting himself forward?

J.T. The way is made for him through Joab's shrewdness; not that he wished Absalom to be in power, because he did not join him in his rebellion; but he thought that David wished him back, and he

would ingratiate himself with David. Although Absalom remained two years without recognition he finally obtained it, and now he is free. So that this spirit of antichrist is allowed to be there as indicated in his making himself attractive to the religious mind; for he is David's son, he has that status. What would there be in this if it were a mere history of a monarch? It must point a lesson to us, for "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our instruction" (Romans 15:4).

Rem. It would stress the fact that there is nothing greater really in the whole range of time than the assembly. These various happenings all throw light on the glorious history of the church.

J.T. "Upon whom the ends of the ages are come", 1 Corinthians 10:11; that is, all the dispensations before throw light on us, the assembly. The apostles represented the authority of Christ, so that it would be the apostolic times and testimony carried down, only now things are weak, unaccountably so in the main, like David.

Rem. In Acts 20 Paul speaks about what will transpire "after my departure". Did his presence hold evil forces back?

J.T. I should say apostolic power held them back. Paul speaks of certain ones creeping in and John sees them going out; John's ministry deals with them abstractly. "They went out from among us, but they were not of us", 1 John 2:19.

Rem. The word 'creeping' is significant, a word attached to that part of the creature kingdom that creeps, unnoticed possibly. I was wondering whether unjudged evil that may come in to a certain extent unnoticed does not eventually recoil on those who are set to go on with God? The allowance of Absalom's return, the demeanour of Joab in ingratiating himself with David, all that will eventually recoil on the real, on David, and overthrow him.

J.T. Each man has to see to his own heart. Absalom "stole the hearts of the men of Israel". "Keep thy heart with all diligence", (Proverbs 4:23) we are told. If these people coming up to the gate had been true to the principles set out in David and to the spirit of David they would have discerned that this man did not represent that at all. We are carried away by not keeping our hearts with all diligence. Absalom is evidently making a way for himself. He says, Here is a man coming up with a good case, he is of one of the tribes of Israel and should be properly cared for; it is a discredit to David, why does David allow it? Could David not see what was happening? Of course, if you look back on the history of Christendom, the Council men were there with the best intentions, but then reading the history you can see that they were allowing this sort of thing in -- philosophy and vain deceit. The Creeds began to be formed under those circumstances. There were some who were right, like Athanasius, one could mention several, and yet this was allowed; it is the weakness of the responsible element in men.

Rem. When one important mistake has been made Satan knows judgment will be undermined. Really the judgment of the princes of the ecclesiastical system has been no good all down.

J.T. The so-called 'fathers' were godly men, but some of them missed their way; some were contemporary with John, perhaps a little later, but you marvel at the great deterioration in their writings, how quickly they changed after the apostles died! I think that is what is meant here in David's unaccountable weakness. Why did he allow this man liberty? It was easy to see that Absalom was aiming at the throne; why did David not see it? It is only accountable by applying it to antichrist. These men allowed philosophy and vain deceit, what the apostles decried. Certain of themselves

would arise and on the other hand there were those who would creep in unnoticed. We have to understand the features of the agencies the enemy uses; the serpent was the first creature of God that was used by the devil; at least, he appeared as a serpent himself. That sort of thing has to be watched.

Rem. To-day we are in the presence of the defeat of all Ahithophel's counsel; now things are transparent and the Spirit of God is helping us in the truth.

J.T. That is what marks the closing days, in which we clearly are. It is wonderful to he in the clear light. But you marvel at the murkiness that marked everything here, that this man should go forward and invite two hundred men only to pay a vow; how could that not be observed?

Ques. Do you think the 'Image of Jealousy' might be like Absalom here? Sitting in the gate it was as if he would dispute the rights of David; he would make gain of the interests of God in Jerusalem.

J.T. Quite so, it would arouse jealousy in any spiritual man. He was a murderer yesterday, and still a murderer, yet he is sitting in the gate, and not a word said about it. Why should it be written, if it be not the history of the assembly as we are speaking of it?

Rem. I suppose we are exposed more or less to the same thing. In Acts 20 the Holy Spirit made them overseers; these godly ones watched.

J.T. We need the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ, the very opposite of Absalom's spirit, which is that of antichrist. John makes much of discerning spirits.

Rem. John discerns Diotrephes as loving to have the first place. He says, "If I come I will bring to remembrance his works", 3 John 10.

J.T. Quite so, John discerns. The apostles had keen discernment. Paul sees certain ones coming in and certain ones rising up, and John sees them going

out because "they were not of us", 1 John 2:19. He sees the power that deals with all this sort of thing at the root.

Rem. Watching seems to he essential. Paul speaks of watching day and night for the space of three years. There is the wall position and the gate position and we are to be the watchmen. This man is sitting quite openly in the gate.

J.T. Quite so. The prophet says "I have set watchmen upon thy walls, Jerusalem; all the day and all the night they shall never hold their peace; ye that put Jehovah in remembrance, keep not silence", Isaiah 62:6. And the Lord said: "What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch", Mark 13:37. There was a great absence of watchfulness here.

Ques. Do you think David was carried away by Absalom's desire to go to Hebron to fulfil a vow, probably one of his insidious ways?

J.T. There is a remarkable combination of elements. A handsome man to begin with, a wonderful head of hair, a head matter, a man of that kind. The head has a great place with these men. Then he would get down alongside people and kiss them, he would stoop to do that, and then he would say to them, There is nobody appointed by the king to attend to your matters. That is injecting poison into the men's minds. Then he would add, "Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man who has any controversy and cause might come to me, and I would do him justice!" meaning, I would do what people need. All that is very insidious; he "stole" the hearts of men; that is a trait of the devil. Then he pretends that he had made a vow, that he was a religious man in Geshur, instead of coming back and confessing his sins. How could God accept a vow from a murderer? What kind of vow was that!

Rem. Verse 8 is really the bargain of a murderer.

I will come back into fellowship, I will skip over everything to get back.

J.T. There is not a word about contrition or self-judgment at all, it is foreign to this man.

Rem. David seems to have accepted the news without any investigation as to why it should come so suddenly upon him, and today people are accepting modernism, without any investigation.

J.T. And then too, where is Nathan in all this? Where are the priests, why are they not active? The whole position seems to point to something other than this actual situation, because ordinarily Nathan was a true and faithful man; he never missed his way so far as we know. It seems as if the prophetic ministry was not allowed a place under these circumstances, for Nathan and Gad were both available.

Rem. We should accept the challenge; it is one thing to have the heart stolen and another to have it won.

J.T. Solomon coming in after this should be a help to all of us, especially the young people, because he is son of David. He says, "Son, give me thine heart";(Proverbs 23:26) and "Keep thine heart"; and, "Write it upon the tables of thine heart".

Rem. I suppose Deuteronomy 24:7 is the same idea, "If a man be found who has stolen one of his brethren". Not that we can steal one another literally, applying it to ourselves, but on party lines we can.

J.T. In the chapters in Exodus that follow the account of the Hebrew bondman, who is unselfish and loves to the uttermost, the spirit of stealing is met. Exodus 21, 22 and 23, the three chapters that follow, allude to what we are dealing with here, the history of the saints immediately following the full testimony of love in Christ. The spirit of stealing

comes in and it is remarkable how stealing is dealt with.

Rem. There was some lack in those that had their hearts stolen, because when Absalom approached them they did not investigate to see if what he said about their cases was really true. And yet Absalom was outside the gate as they came up to the city. Had they investigated further they would have found possibly that there was judgment.

J.T. Quite so. Why should I not go to the king? Why should I be stopped by a man like this? He has no appointment, he is self-constituted. Is not that the history of the clergy? They have no divine appointment at all.

Rem. So many things have had to be looked into because it has suited a great many very well to disregard the matter of judgment; they get along better without looking things in the face.

J.T. As they came up to the gate of Jerusalem here is a fine looking man; but he has no appointment from the king. Why did he not say, The king has appointed me ? He could not, he was self-constituted.

The whole clerical hierarchical system is self-constituted; it has taken on everything and has gradually shut out the true David and Absalom is allowed in. As a matter of fact, the emperor who presided over the Council of Nicaea was not even baptised! If I had been there with the present light I would have said, What about Paul's epistles? What about 1 and 2 Timothy? Is there no man such as Paul today, are there no deacons, no elders? No, the real David is left out and these men are self-constituted.

Rem. There is a man who reports to David in verse 13.

J.T. Yes, but where are true men? Is there no godly man in Hebron? Not a sound, not a voice is lifted up to challenge this conduct of Absalom! It is true the man brought word to David, but why did

the thing go on so long? That is why it seems to me that the whole setting must apply to something else.

Rem. And the boldness of it too, he really puts his hand on the throne, he is reaching right up to the throne.

J.T. It is my responsibility to check this evil at the roots. Where are these men who ought to be doing it? Even David does not lift a voice when Absalom speaks of going to Hebron, he says, "Go in peace". There seems no one to lift up a voice in warning, no one like the house of Chloe.

Rem. There were those who went in their simplicity, who "knew nothing", verse 11. They are not much good.

J.T. They had not their ears to the ground.

Ques. What do you think about pleading ignorance in the midst of difficult issues; what is the reason for it?

J.T. They are not pleading it here. The Spirit of God tells us what spiritual condition was there. Did none of the men notice the peculiar way Absalom was carrying on?

Rem. This is so different from David's activities in the previous book; it is a direct contrast to his activities in connection with Nabal; his servant then was moving on the lines of "tell it to the assembly", Matthew 18:17. Abigail was brought in and the matter was adjusted.

J.T. The man who brought the news to Abigail was not behind the time; he prevented a catastrophe But this man was too late with his news. Why did he not bring it earlier?

Rem. Commit these things "to faithful men", the apostle says. He did not contemplate committing things to any official class.

J.T. This man undoubtedly would be one of the faithful ones, but what strikes you is that there was no voice lifted earlier. These two hundred that Absalom took must have been distinguished men or

he would not have invited them; they would be leading brothers, and they did not know anything. Why do we not know? If we have assembly ears we shall know what is going on.

Rem. Absalom lowered the standard. He would not ask, 'Is thy heart right with my heart?' He would merely kiss the man, there was no challenge for his heart.

J.T. Absalom is only concerned to ingratiate himself with these men. A good or bad conscience does not mean anything to him.

Rem. I think this should help in the matter of saluting people; it has caused a lot of concern. The motive behind must unquestionably be the thing to test us; if you are going to greet these people in a 'hail fellow, well met' manner, that is not Christian saluting at all.

J.T. And we must remember that whilst Absalom comes down to them and kisses them he is still a man who has fifty men to run before him; he is like a church dignitary, he may come down but he is still a great man.

Rem. After a capture like this you can understand why the reformers went to the other extreme and called the pope the antichrist.

J.T. That is a point, too, in the history of the church; John says there are many antichrists, but we know that the antichrist is yet to come. Whatever people may say about men living today, no one of them is the antichrist. But there are men with the spirit of antichrist. Rome has carried on that spirit for centuries. There is a revival now and some testimony to Christ. It says in verse 13: "And there came one to David who reported saying, The hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom". It is not a casual remark, it is a report; it must be some voice lifted up by God, like Antipas, for instance, that is against the general state of things.

We now come to the real David so that in verse 14 "David said to all his servants that were with him at Jerusalem, Rise up and let us flee; for we shall not else escape from Absalom. Be quick to depart, lest he overtake us quickly, and bring evil upon us, and smite the city with the edge of the sword". This is a wise move because there was no time to spare. His true military instincts are aroused at once. If he had remained in Jerusalem and mustered his, forces (because he had them) there would have been civil war, whereas time brought about the overthrow of Absalom. The more time you give, the more the real thing is brought to light. "It is universally reported", etc., 1 Corinthians 5:1. The report is instituted by God to bring the real state of things to light.

Absalom is at the bar of every conscience in Jerusalem now. That is what the report says, "The hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom". He had appointed that there should be a trumpet sound: "When ye hear the sound of the trumpet, ye shall say, Absalom reigns in Hebron. And with Absalom went two hundred men out of Jerusalem that were invited; and they went in their simplicity, and they knew nothing". But here is a faithful man reporting the thing, reporting the actual state of things. This is the real issue, we are on safe ground now, it is a known issue now. The person who returned to David placed the information where it ought to be, just as in the case of Nabal's servant; he told Abigail about Nabal's actions and in doing so he told her what kind of man Nabal was. That is, the whole matter was now in the hands of the assembly. But it is not the assembly here, it is the king ; he is the only one to save the position because he is the real David yet. The real Christ yet has some place, and this report is brought about for good so that there is ground for the battle.

Rem. "In that day will Jehovah of hosts be ...

for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate", Isaiah 28:5. Absalom and his gate have now been displaced.

J.T. Turning the battle to the gate is where the solution lies. David is equal to this report, he is no longer apathetic, the whole position is to be changed through him. I think David's move was wise; Jerusalem saved is the whole position in David's mind. This is a rebellion, but the position is not to be changed; it is Christ and the assembly still; the report brings that into evidence. These hearts must be recovered, so that David is ready for all this and I think his procedure is wise.

Rem. What appeared to be defeat is victory.

J.T. He would not allow the ark to be carried with him; the position is Jerusalem or nothing. It cannot be a party matter. It is Christ and the assembly in this dispensation, or nothing; let us never be diverted from that. That is what David has in mind. If I have to go let the ark be there; God will bring me back if He is pleased with me. The ark represents the whole mind of God, there is never any change in that; it was never larger or smaller or of any different shape. It is "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and to the ages to come",

(Hebrews 13:8). We may have to view it in an abstract way but we must hold on to that and God will give us victory on these lines. Some might say, Why should we recognise Jerusalem? Let them come out here to Antioch and fight it out here. But it must be Jerusalem. Paul says, "I went up by revelation", Galatians 2:2. God told him to go up. So that the battle ground is there, the ark is there. Stand by it!

Ques. Does that fit in today with the thought of moral rather than positional victory as attaching to Jerusalem? In holding to the idea of Jerusalem morally we accept the humiliation, and are regarded

as not holding to anything much; but in our hearts and minds and spirits we are holding to everything.

J.T. "David said to all his servants that were with him at Jerusalem, Rise up and let us flee; for we shall not else escape from Absalom. Be quick to depart, lest he overtake us quickly, and bring evil upon us, and smite the city with the edge of the sword", verse 14. Yet Jerusalem is the right position. Well, you say, you are leaving the position; but it is not so. This is the first move, it is a military move, and so it says, "We shall not else escape"; that is the first thing. God had given him that advantage. Take every advantage away from the enemy that is possible. What a change in David here! It is the real David now with his servants and they are ready to do what he bids them. "And the king went forth and all his household after him", verse 16. Then, "The king went forth, and all the people after him, and stayed at the remote house. And all his servants passed on beside him; and all the Cherethites, and all the Pelethites, and all the Gittites, six hundred men that came after him from Gath, passed over before the king", verse 17, 18. See what a David we have now! And there is not a dissenting voice. We have the real issue now with the real David, and the sequel shows that God was in all this.

Rem. Why does David say, "If I shall find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, he will bring me again?"

J.T. I think in reading through this chapter it would show that it is the real David now and we have to wait for the sequel to see whether what has been done is right. Very often we have to do that in our troubles; the issue shows whether the course has been right. Here is one man who has just come yesterday, and he is willing to go up. We have now come to the pass of the brook Kidron as a symbol of death. It is a real test now as to where we are in this issue.

Rem. David crossed in verse 23, and he said, "But if he thus say, I have no delight in thee; behold here am I, let him do to me as seemeth good to him", verse 6.

J.T. I think that is very beautiful.

Rem. It is not a personal matter with David. No matter how great the issue he does not regard it as personal, it is a question of God's interests.

J.T. Yes, it was a question of God. He said to Zadok the priest in verse 27, "Thou art the, seer". That is an important remark, he gives him his place. David never put anybody like this away from him. Gad was David's seer; it was his salvation that he would allow a man like that near him, a man who would rebuke him. And then he says, "return into the city in peace, and your two sons with you, Ahimaaz thy son, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar. See, I will stop in the plains of the desert until there come word from you to inform me. And Zadok and Abiathar carried the ark of God again to Jerusalem; and they abode there", verse 27 - 29. David had said in verse 25, "If I shall find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, he will bring me again, and show me it, and its habitation". I think that is very remarkable too, in these circumstances. David sees the whole position; God's choice, Jerusalem and God's ark, are everything. And if God shall delight in David He will bring him back and show him it and its habitation. The ark is more than David. It is like the apostles taking the official side, Christ working in His people. "The same yesterday, and today, and to the ages to come", Hebrews 13:8; no change in that. That is what I think he has in mind when he says that if God delights in him He will show him it and its habitation. That is salvation in every crisis. I do not take up a party attitude, it is not worth it. There is only one issue, Christ; the official Christ in rejection, but working through His people -- that is Jerusalem; and the

testimonial Christ -- that is the Ark, the unchallengeable thing that cannot be altered.

Rem. David, is a man of real feeling, he would not cause unnecessary slaughter. If we were really men of God we would not want to see the saints divided.

Rem. In verse 30 he seems to be more with God than hitherto. He wept as he went up the mount of Olives, barefoot. Is not that an important point at this time, bringing in a spiritual element that provides David with necessary light for the moment?

J.T. I am sure there is light in that. It is one of the best sections of the chapter.

Rem. Could you say a little more about the testimony, what is here in testimony? Is that what is held in the hearts of the saints?

J.T. It is the ark and nothing else. It never changed. Things were put into it I know, but the size never changed. There can be no change in what is testified to, no addition and no subtraction in Christ.

CHAPTER 16

J.T. I think we considered chapter 15 as far as the end of verse 30. The brook Kidron alludes to the death of Christ, and Olivet to His ascension, involving the Supper. There is evidently a sense of how far David and his people are from the truth represented in the mount of Olives, but they are not disregarding it. It is important in failure not to recede from the point already reached, and so we find in verse 32: "And it came to pass, when David had come to the summit, where he worshipped God";(2 Samuel 15:32) it is morally suitable. In verse 30: "But David went up by the ascent of the Olives, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot; and all the people that was with him covered every

man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up", 2 Samuel 15:30. But he worshipped at the top.

Ques. You say the summit suggests the thought of ascension?

J.T. I think Olivet would be that in view of the light we have as to it later. It seems as if the Spirit calls attention to it. These details could easily be passed over if the Spirit was telling us only of David's flight, but the details of the flight involve spiritual features, that if one falls he comes back to the highest point, he recognises it. Their attitude here would seem to indicate that they recognised there had been failure in relation to it.

Ques. Is that why David wept?

J.T. I think so. He wept and had his head covered -- it would be a token of humility.

Ques. Do you think that the height spiritually in verses 30 - 32 is equal to the height of the position in chapter 5?

J.T. Yes, I think that is about right.

Rem. So that he is reaching spiritually what he had gained positionally in the beginning.

J.T. He is coming back to it now. I think the external garb and the weeping and bare feet would indicate a sense of failure as to that, and God takes account of our acknowledgment of failure as to any point reached, either positionally or in our souls, if we have been untrue to it.

Ques. Would the position be held more definitely as reached through weeping?

J.T. It seems so. It was a suitable way to go up. Stress is laid on passing over the brook Kidron, which is the death of Christ; the passing over is fundamental. In addition to the death of Christ being accepted, there must be stress on the passing over. Ittai and his household passed over, and the king's household, and all the people. Now Olivet is spiritual elevation.

Ques. What phase of the death of Christ is the brook Kidron?

J.T. It stands in relation to the holy things of God, the death of Christ seen in proximity to the greatest thoughts of God.

Ques. Do you mean as represented in Jerusalem?

J.T. And in Olivet too. When the Lord came this way, the reverse way, into the city, the colt was held there; he was held in relation to the most precious thoughts of God, like a young man held in a Christian household. Now David is going in reverse order, but Kidron is stressed; it is called a torrent. It alludes to the death of Christ in this setting. Jordan does also, but not in the same relation to the precious thoughts of God. These are the most precious surroundings, a variety of precious thoughts of God standing in relation to it as to the Lord's supper.

Ques. Do you connect it with John 18 coming after chapter 17, describing these wonderful things, the suffering side related to the greatest thoughts?

J.T. They did not go as far as Olivet there, the time had not come for it. It is His death in relation to the most precious things.

Ques. Do they come to Olivet in the beginning of Acts?

J.T. It would seem so in connection with Christ's death, resurrection and ascension.

Rem. In a previous reading you said something about the official Christ being outside, and the testimonial Christ inside the city; is that right?

J.T. I think that was said. The ark remains in the city although Christ is rejected; that is Christ going to heaven but leaving the testimony here.

Christ's interests have to be looked after, God sees to that. The testimonial side was left in Jerusalem where it belongs; it never leaves, we hold it by faith. So now the assembly is obscured, submerged outwardly,

but it exists abstractly, and in a concrete sense too; and faith holds the testimony in relation to it. Ittai in verse 22 passed over the brook with his household. David says: "Go and pass over. And Ittai the Gittite passed over, and all his men, and all the little ones that were with him". (2 Samuel 15:22) He passed over householdly to be with the king. That is personal, the position we occupy personally ; but Jerusalem is the centre of everything. Although abandoned for the moment, it stands. And Kidron stands, a testimony to the death of Christ nearby.

So that the ark must go back there; that is Christ in another way. The ark remains separate from David in the city, in Jerusalem, but David is outside personally and affection leads us to go with Him, ourselves and our houses; we take sides with Christ.

Rem. The ark had gone across the torrent and then was taken back.

J.T. It was someone else's thought, not David's, to take the ark: "And behold, Zadok also, and all the Levites with him, bearing the ark of the covenant of God; and they set down the ark of God; and Abiathar went up, until all the people had passed completely out of the city", 2 Samuel 15:24. They thought that it should be taken with the king, but the king had other thoughts; he would leave the position as it was. The mind of God as represented in the ark is unaltered.

Rem. There may be those who are spiritually right who may for a short time participate in moving on party lines. This may be a beginning to move on party lines.

J.T. And assuming that you are taking everything with you. But the Lord in going up to heaven did not take everything with Him; He left Jerusalem as it was, and the Spirit comes back to the divine thought; not to us, but to the divine thought. We have to take up the truth abstractly first and the

truth abstractly implies Jerusalem and all that enters into it; even if Christ was put to death there, it is still Jerusalem. You begin with the mind of God, not with history.

Rem. In John 18 we find that this place was known by the enemy; Judas knew that Jesus often resorted thither.

J.T. When they came to take Him they went backwards and fell to the ground; John 18:6. David would understand that the ark would take care of itself, as it did in the land of the Philistines. And it is in this world yet, the antichrist will not force it out, God sees to that. It is the abstract idea that helps. Persons are the concrete thought, but the abstract idea stands.

Ques. "Why persecutest thou me?", Acts 9:4. Is that the ark?

J.T. That would be the persons viewed as Christ; it would be the saints, involving the body, but the ark has to be taken account of abstractly. It is properly never anything but Christ. It is the divine thought and it holds its position; it cannot be overthrown. "The firm foundation of God stands", 2 Timothy 2:19. It is an abstract thought, it cannot be overthrown.

Ques. Is Jerusalem held still in the mind of God and in the minds of the saints?

J.T. It says it is above now, "Jerusalem above which is our mother", Galatians 4:26; but the idea is there, and it comes out presently in Jerusalem on earth. I do not know if what is being said as to the abstract side is clear, but we shall never be settled in our souls until we see the fixity that is unalterable. No one can overthrow it.

Ques. "Wherefore also Jesus ... suffered without the gate", Hebrews 13:12. Would that be like Ittai's position here?

J.T. Yes, it would -- going out. But it does not

alter the position of the testimony. The mind of God stands as it was. Going out to Christ is a personal matter. Our position outwardly in relation to Christ has to be taken up distinctly by itself; the foundation does not go with us, it stands. It is the abstract thought, it is what God has here by the Spirit as indicated in these scriptures. Of course, it is in persons, but the stability lies in holding the thing abstractly; that is, it stands.

Rem. So it is not a question as to whether the testimony is with us, it is whether we are with the testimony.

Ques. What did you mean when you said the ark could take care of itself?

J.T. I was alluding to it in the Philistine land; no Levite, no priest, and yet Dagon fell before it. It had to be sent back to its place. That is God's doing; God is God. "Be still and know that I am God", Psalm 46:10. The ark is the great general thought and it has its own proper setting and place.

Rem. These five men who remain in Jerusalem are used in relation to the ark.

J.T. The ark is the great fundamental thought; these men are used in relation to it. They are mentioned in chapter 15: Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, and with them their two sons, Ahimaaz and Jonathan; that is four, and then Hushai; two priests, Hushai, and two young men. They are holding the ground, but the great central thought is the ark, as David says in verse 25, "Carry back the ark of God into the city. If I shall find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, he will bring me again and show me it, and its habitation" (2 Samuel 15:25).

Rem. Where it says in Ephesians 1, "Blessed with all spiritual blessings", I suppose that is the abstract thought that we always keep in our minds.

J.T. The personal side is in those who go out

after David. These five men are sent back into the city. Although Jerusalem in our dispensation may have been destroyed, the thought is not destroyed, and the ark is in relation to that; "it and its habitation", whatever that might be. The idea of Jerusalem is maintained in the assembly. Christ left all these things behind and the Spirit has come down to maintain them. These five are sent back to hold the ground.

Ques. Does Corinthians give the abstract idea as well as what was actually going on in connection with the whole position? The apostle clothed the saints there with the full light of what they were abstractly in Christ, and in chapter 5 he says, "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened. For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed; so that let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth", 1 Corinthians 5:7,8. Is that the abstract thought?

J.T. That is it exactly. Parallel with the existing conditions, you carry on with these great abstract thoughts of God. They have come down from the Old Testament, as all testimonial ministry has for us. Even the prophets, we are told, did not know for whom they were speaking; all was coming down to us, and all was testified to and exemplified in Christ. But He left these things here. He taught His disciples about many things, about the kingdom, and many other things all exemplified by Him and left here; and they stay here and go right through to the millennium. David had the right thought: "If I shall find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, he will bring me again, and show me it and its habitation", 2 Samuel 15:25. I think that is a very intelligent and beautiful attitude in David. All the great thoughts of God are preserved. Christ is rejected and goes to heaven but

that does not leave a vacant place here. David did not take the ark away, it is still here.

Rem. What is recovered to us is exactly what they had at the beginning.

J.T. We were brought back a hundred years ago to something already existing.

Rem. David said in the Psalms that he would not give sleep to his eyes until he had found a habitation for the ark. He had that in his mind.

J.T. He had that in mind and he effected it. We have already seen that he brought the ark from the houses of Abinadab and Obed-Edom and put it in Jerusalem under a curtain; he carried out his thought, meaning that he carried out the divine thought, the divine thought underlying his thought. The idea of the tent originated with him. That had been reached by David here.

Rem. Assembly action would be on this basis in the abstract. What we do today is all in view of this same principle.

J.T. Certainly. The recovery of one hundred years ago was an abstract thought at first. God revealed it to a man, he got it in his mind; it was an abstract thought but it soon began to take form. It is what they had at Pentecost.

Rem. We favour the idea that we have reached the thing as it is in perfection whereas we may be a long way from that, but we are moving up to it, as David did.

J.T. We are gradually being brought to it. That is what David had in his mind here. It makes him a very great man. The ark went back in weakness, but there were five men in the city; it overthrew Absalom, and David came back.

Ques. Where does that apply historically?

J.T. It is only in testimony. The recovery implies that the Lord has, as it were, been brought back in testimony to the thought He began with.

Rem. This really fits in more with the present recovery.

J.T. Rome took everything, they laid claim to all features of the testimony and carried them off into Babylon; but the primary thought of God is not carried off, it stands, it cannot be overthrown; the sure foundation of God stands.

Ques. Where has David spiritual power in this connection?

J.T. I think you see it here when he says, "Carry back the ark of God into the city", 2 Samuel 15:25. That is the thing to get hold of, that the ark and its habitation stand; they are not captivated. The matter lies in divine thoughts and that is what we are brought back to.

Rem. It is this abstract thought that helps in working things out locally, for tangibly we do not have these things. We can only hold the city, the administrative side, or the temple as they are represented in Scripture, and seeing that as the pattern, we are working the thing out in persons.

J.T. Exactly. What was left at Jerusalem was not only the abstract thought -- these five men would maintain the concrete thought; and wherever you have any leader, any brother who has the thing in his soul, you can follow him. You have first two priests, and they have with them their two sons; they are subordinate, I may say; David is differentiating between priestly intelligence and youthful energy, both needed. Then you have another man, Hushai, the king's friend. He is loyal, you can trust that man, he will die for the king. You want your friend to be where you need him most. If the testimony of God is being attacked, the friends of Christ are to be where the attack it. "Ye are my friends if ye practise whatever I command you", John 15:14. Friendship is loyalty.

Rem. David was exercised that the counsel of Ahithophel should be overthrown.

J.T. He prayed for that. He had in his mind that God would use Hushai. "There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother", Proverbs 18:24. Christ's brethren are not so reliable as Christ's friends. It is a reproach on David that Ahithophel had such a place in the kingdom, "so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom",

verse 23. That seems to me a reproach on David, that the man he regarded so highly is regarded highly in the antichristian realm. He is not a true man, his history shows that, and he becomes a suicide. They have such men as this in the world, they cannot be trusted.

Ques. Why is there such interest in the mind of David as to what goes on in the city? "And it shall be, that whatsoever thing thou shall hear out of the king's house thou shall tell it to Zadok and Abiathar the priests. Behold they have there with them their two sons, Ahimaaz Zadok's son and Jonathan Abiathar's son; and by them ye shall send to me everything that ye shall hear", 2 Samuel 15:37.

J.T. That would mean that the Lord is interested in everything that goes on, in the concrete working out of things. Alongside that there is this fundamental thought that is impregnable; the Holy Spirit being here it must stand. And now we see that Hushai, David's friend, came into the city just as Absalom came into Jerusalem; verse 37.

Ques. Does the priest look after the ark, whereas Hushai looks after what is personal in relation to David? I was thinking of verse 36.

J.T. That is the part of Jonathan and Ahimaaz, the priests' two sons, or whatever agency they had. Hushai seems to have had to face everything; he has to face Absalom, he has to take up the role of being Absalom's friend. That may raise a moral question as to why he should deceive, but we have to make allowance for the time; the antitype is

what we have to do with. The friend of Christ has to face the enemy in full strength.

Rem. "The mystery of the kingdom" is the solution for the difficulty in the New Testament, standing for the Lord and His rights against the whole political system; and in preaching the gospel we are preaching the overthrow of the world.

J.T. Whilst the profession of Christianity is recognised, the powers that be will make allowance for "religious beliefs". They may call them what they like so long as they allow us to go on with them.

Rem. Eventually it spells the overthrow of the world's system politically and otherwise.

J.T. Speaking as we are now, we are not against the powers that be ; it is well to keep that clear. "The powers that be" are in the abstract representatives of what is of God. These men are to overthrow what is not of God, seen in Absalom's kingdom. We are not against the powers that be and they should not so regard us. We are exhorted to pray for all in authority. What is seen will ultimately appear in the man of sin. We are not ashamed to say that we are against that, but we must be fair; as soon as a man gets into power he is not a politician, he is a ruler, representing law and order.

Rem. It is what can ally itself with this ecclesiastical system, that kind of thing, that we are against.

J.T. What represents this Absalom character; we are not ashamed to say that we are against that from the Pope down. The testimony is against all that, but the testimony is not against rule, it is for rule and authority.

Rem. When the beast comes up in Revelation the religious matter is inseparable from it.

Rem. We see in Hushai what brought Absalom down.

J.T. He counsels generally, but then these other men are important to keep in mind, too, because

they represent the concrete conditions that the Lord has ordained here in this world. Now we have Hushai coming into the city at the end of chapter 15, at the same time as Absalom, a remarkable co-incidence. Hushai had David in mind, and he would go the utmost limits in loyalty to David. Chapter 15 shows us the hidden system set up by God in great obscurity and reproach; it concealed itself, but it was there, and the ark was there. All these allusions hold thoughts: Jerusalem, the mount of Olives, Kidron, heaven is watching over all. Absalom came into all that and the issue is plain enough: Hushai stands for what is of David and Absalom is anti-David. Here is the enemy attacking David, but David is worshipping; that is the best position he has reached yet. Barefoot and humble, as he gets to the summit he worships.

In chapter 16 he is past the summit and Satan gets the advantage of him. Even a man like David Satan attacks. Acting professedly as a friend, Ziba slanders another brother, a good brother, too, as one could call Mephibosheth. He tells David lies about him and David listens.

Rem. The wise woman has one way of attack, Absalom another and Ziba another.

J.T. That is well to notice, the kind of tests that come up, subtle things said by persons who ought to be your friends. They are intended by the devil to discredit the brethren. Here Satan allied himself with persons and David fell under his power.

Rem. This man Ziba had a link with Saul.

J.T. Yes, David addresses him as Saul's servant, he is recognising him in that position; but he is professedly friendly to David, Shimei comes after, but Ziba is more dangerous because he is attacking him secretly. He is telling lies about a brother.

Rem. This happened when David was "a little past the summit".

J.T. Your highest point is the summit, your next step is the one to watch.

Rem. It is remarkable that these five men all work in unity in defending David.

J.T. These five men are directly appointed by David to be there; they represent the concrete working out of that of which the ark is the foundation. Everything hinges on what the ark is. David knew that; he looks on it as the centre of the testimony, and these men are the instruments to work this out and to bring down what is opposed to it. Ahithophel came into the city at the same time as Hushai. If Absalom is to dominate in Jerusalem the testimony would be affected, because Jerusalem is essential to the testimony, it is the abstract thought. Hushai being there means that Absalom is going to be overthrown. These other four persons are important also.

Rem. "Hades' gates shall not prevail against it", Matthew 16:18. Hades' counsels are really overthrown by this man.

J.T. And then there are these other two groups, the priestly element and the two younger men entirely subservient to them to carry the tidings.

Ques. I want to ask if the spiritual discerns that this is slander, or whether in this case David might never get over the feelings he had towards Mephibosheth?

J.T. Suppose this should happen with us, especially with one who is prominent. Someone comes to him with a story about a brother. Let us examine it. Well now, David should say, it is Mephibosheth, he has been sitting at my table all these years and he has been faithful; how could he expect to be made king, or who would make him king? David should look at it in that way. If he thought over it he would say, That does not look right, that poor man could never be king, it is Absalom we have to fear. But instead he listens to the story and it would seem that he never got over it. It seems to me here that

the leading brothers, as we speak, brothers of prominence ought to be warned. A man comes with a story about another brother. If it is a Ziba, well, he is a servant of Saul. That is his history. Is there any possibility that he is a little jealous of Mephibosheth, that he wants to supplant him? Why could not David, discerning man that he was, see that? "And Ziba said. The asses are for the king's household to ride on; and the bread and summer fruits for the young men to eat; and the wine, that such as are faint in the wilderness may drink", verse 2. What a fine story this is! He has thought it all out; he has just what the king needs, and the story is intended to catch him. It is so formed as to appeal to him and make him think, This man can help me. But it is a dangerous thing. David should have thought, I ought to sift the thing out that Mephibosheth has so changed his attitude toward me. David does not seem to have stopped to think of it in this way; he seems to feel, This is just what I need; I had better take it.

Ques. Does not every crisis supply opportunity for one with a partisan spirit to come forward?

J.T. Quite so, to make the best of the position. This was a great opportunity for Ziba to ingratiate himself with David.

Rem. There is need for spiritual discernment.

J.T. Yes. How Ziba slanders his brother! He has thought this story out well, even to caring for those who might be faint in the wilderness, and David would think him a very sympathetic man. Think of the poor faint brothers he is providing for! The king said, "Where is thy master's son? And Ziba said to the king, Behold he abides at Jerusalem; for he said, To-day shall the house of Israel restore me the kingdom of my father". The king did not ask a word more but said to Ziba, "Behold, thine are all that pertained to Mephibosheth" Just think of

taking one man's testimony in such a serious thing as this! David hands over all this property to this man. That is a solemn consideration to all those who minister, as to how easily we might be deceived by a story like this.

Rem. A real friend does not need to resort to any of this sort of approach; you cannot imagine Hushai giving David any such line as this.

J.T. "Thine are all that pertained to Mephibosheth". That is just what I

want, says Ziba. He has deceived the king, and later the king tells him to divide this same property. That shows the king was not right about this matter even then.

Ques. Is David here a type of ourselves in our local relations?

J.T. He is particularly a type of any distinguished brother who listens to a story about somebody else. Why not get some other witness, sift the matter? Why not say, This seems peculiar: Mephibosheth has been loyal to me; and furthermore he is a lame man; he could never be king. David should have thought thus.

Rem. Psalm 101 says, "Whoso secretly slandereth his neighbour, him will I destroy", Psalm 101:5. How utterly that gift blinds David's eyes!

J.T. It is well thought out. "Asses for the king's household ... and the bread and summer fruits for the young men" -- that is a very thoughtful brother. But it was designed to deceive David.

Ques. Are these weaknesses constitutional with David?

J.T. Somewhat, I believe. I suppose they are recorded for those who are more prominent in service, lest we should be too confident in ourselves. We are amenable to influence, the most spiritual of us, and I believe that is the lesson to learn. Suppose we were in need and the thing is brought and laid out before

us, we might think. This man is for the saints, he is thinking of the faint ones.

Rem. These two priests in Jerusalem were persons who would be able to hear; something was to be conveyed to them and sent out to David. David was not hearing properly, he was not priestly. All of us, sisters and brothers, are likely to fail where news is concerned; news travels fast and becomes distorted. The question is whether we are able to hear rightly and to get the facts of the matter.

J.T. The Lord was called "the judge of Israel" when He was a prisoner at the bar. "Judge righteous judgment", He says.

CHAPTER 17

J.T. It would be helpful to keep in mind the secret system established by David in the city, of which we spoke; that is, two priests and their sons, and Hushai. This chapter reveals the wisdom of it and the success of it. The apparent deception that marked Hushai is to be allowed for because of the lack of intelligence in those days, corresponding with Rahab's case and others.

Ques. What have you to say about Ahithophel in the end of chapter 16? "And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired of the word of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom" (2 Samuel 16:23).

J.T. It was regarded, I suppose, as an oracle, the word 'oracle' alluding to a medium between God and man.

Ques. Is there not certainty, however, where the word of God is given to any of the prophets or men of God in the Old Testament? It was never accompanied by an 'if' or condition; it was "Jehovah

said", or a certain man enquired and "This is what Jehovah said".

J.T. I suppose "as if" here would mean that he was not really an oracle, but was regarded in that way.

Rem. Emphasis is laid upon the fact that David and Absalom so regarded his counsel.

J.T. I think to show that it was not rightly appraised; it was too highly appraised because it did not go beyond the wisdom of this world; it was foolishness. The wisdom of this world is said to be foolishness. It may have served well earlier when he was right with David, but now it is exposed.

Ques. Did it portend failure at the start for Absalom and his army?

J.T. I suppose from an ordinary military standpoint it was good advice, but God frustrated it; it became foolishness.

Rem. It is called "good" counsel in verse 14.

J.T. That is, 'good' in that sense, quite so.

Ques. Would you liken it to the wisdom of the unjust steward?

J.T. The man's lord commended him and then the Lord Himself says, "For the sons of this world are, for their own generation, more prudent than the sons of light", Luke 16:8. That is, they do excel at times; but David had asked of Jehovah: "I pray thee turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness", 2 Samuel 15:31. That is, I think, how the wisdom of this world is capable of being turned into foolishness, by the wisdom that excelleth, the wisdom of God, which Hushai represented. The best that the world can afford, as you might say, in the way of wisdom, is capable of being thus defeated. The Greeks sought after it, but at best it is foolishness. God was not in it. There is no reference to God in what Ahithophel says.

Ques. Would you say there should have been, seeing the ark was there?

J.T. Quite so. There should have been; but so far as I can see there is not. David had said of the ark, "If I shall find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, he will bring me again, and show me it, and its habitation", 2 Samuel 15:25. Then he appealed to God to defeat the wisdom or counsel of Ahithophel. It was good from the human standpoint, but the best of that sort of wisdom is foolishness with God.

Rem. The princes of this world made a great display of wisdom when they crucified the Lord of glory, but the resurrection brought it all to naught.

J.T. It says so expressly. They did not understand the hidden wisdom that comes out with Hushai. Zoan represents the wisdom of the world. Isaiah speaks of it, "They are but fools, the princes of Zoan", Isaiah 19:11, and they were foolish although they were skilled in this world's wisdom. We are told that Hebron was built seven years before that town. That is what is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 2, the "hidden wisdom" (verse 7), that was before the wisdom of Zoan and superior to it. So I think Ahithophel here is representative of the best that there is in human wisdom -- so near, that it was like an oracle. But then it failed, it is simply rejected, it does not accomplish the end in view.

Rem. According to the end of verse 14, God has His end in view.

J.T. That is the thing, there is no possibility of defeat of the hidden wisdom. Of course, God ordered this advice here, and it was good counsel from an ordinary point of view, but it is defeatable. Not so the hidden wisdom -- that goes through.

Ques. Is that the bearing you are giving this secret combination?

J.T. I think that is what comes out. Christ is the wisdom of God according to 1 Corinthians 1:24. The wisdom of God extends back before the creation, it was there as the creation began. Wisdom says

she was by Jehovah in what He was doing. The kind of wisdom that Ahithophel had was not there; it was excellent so far as it went, but it arose from human skill, man's wisdom. I think in 1 Corinthians we get the contrast to that, that is, what was before the world and what the princes of this world had. Zoan represents their headquarters.

Rem. As over against the secret side which succeeds there is this public side, which may have gone even further than Ahithophel intended. "They spread a tent for Absalom upon the roof", 2 Samuel 16:22. It was a public matter, as over against what was working in the city in a secret way.

J.T. Ahithophel's counsel was good, it is called good here, but only in a relative sense. It could not be said to be good over against the wisdom of God. The wisdom of God had designed this whole matter and Hushai was there, belonging to the secret service. There is a secret service and a public service. The public service in a country would be such things as the Cabinet and the President, but there is also a secret service in every country. So it is that the epistle to the Corinthians contemplates the secret service, the "hidden wisdom", as it says. The secret service is hidden in the mystery, that is, it is a mysterious thing; "in which are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge", Colossians 2:3.

Rem. I suppose it must have looked at Colosse as if philosophy and vain deceit were really wonderful. There must have been danger of the saints being taken in by it.

J.T. That was the danger at Colosse. I suppose if we had been at this meeting with Ahithophel we would have said, It would be hard to overcome that counsel. But it is overcome and that is the point; the secret service of God will overcome the public service of man, however well ramified it is and however much education, experience and ability it may

display, for it is short of the real thing. This counsel was not an oracle of God.

Rem. If Ahithophel had been spiritually minded he would have detected that Hushai was giving counsel for his undoing.

J.T. That is really the case, the mystery of God is for the undoing of the world's system. There is nothing disloyal to the powers that be in saying that, because they are included in the Gentile monarchies and are part of the divine scheme. The thing came out in a secret way, Daniel read the secrets. It required him to make the thing clear that the Gentile monarchies belonged to the secret service of God -- the Babylonish, Persian, Grecian and Roman. Therefore any remarks we are making now are not in the least disloyal to the powers that be because they are just provisional; they abstractly do not belong to the world system, it is a great mistake to assume that they do. They are forced by God to exercise their power for the benefit of the testimony, so that this secret service is no disloyalty to them , it is aiming at the overthrow of the world in a moral sense, what is antichristian. The secret service of God and the mystery are opposed to all that.

Rem. It is a power that extends beyond the government of this world. This philosophy and vain deceit belonged to Satan's world, it came from there.

J.T. It did; that great system was really designed I am sure, to compete with the secret service of God that He intended to inaugurate.

Rem. I suppose if the government interfered with the religious affairs it would be a different matter.

J.T. God is directly against antichrist. The mystery is the mystery of the grace of God, and it is a secret state of things. If the government elects to attack what is of God, as Nebuchadnezzar and others that followed him did, then of course it comes

to issue with God. But the abstract government that they are exercising is of God.

Rem. Those of the captivity were enjoined to submit because these powers were just an instrumentality in the hands of God to effect discipline.

J.T. There is a remarkable illustration in Jeremiah 24 showing that the first captivity under Nebuchadnezzar secured a constructive element: the king of Judah, the princes, the craftsmen and the smiths.

They were constructive. God says they are like good figs and His hand will be over them for good. They are subject to the government of God. As submitting we are regarded as good figs. Those who remained, refusing this discipline, were called bad figs.

Rem. When Daniel was giving the secret of the image with the head of gold he did not carry the history up to antichrist's time, only to the stone destroying the last kingdom.

J.T. That is not strictly antichristian, it is only a condition that government has come to; the kingdom is still there, the iron and clay.

Ques. Will the final action be the destruction of this monarchy?

J.T. They are all of one piece. "These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth", Zechariah 6:5. The head of gold, breast and arms of silver, the brass, iron, and iron and clay, all these represent the mind of God until Christ comes.

Rem. Antichrist becomes political as well as military.

J.T. And God is openly against him. Absalom was antichristian in principle, but these four monarchies are not, they really belong to the secret service; God has them for His own purposes. Not everybody sees that, but when we are told to pray for them that is what is meant.

Rem. The stone cut out without hands will break

in pieces every other government; we carry that in our minds.

J.T. It is well for the brethren to ponder this line of things because it will help us in these critical times. Pilate is a good example, he said what was right in his official capacity, he found no fault in the Lord and he said, "Dost thou not know that I have authority to release thee and have authority to crucify thee?" (John 19:10). He got his power from God.

Ques. Between the captivity and the return again to the official kingdom in the millennium, is the secret service operating in these four great monarchies?

J.T. Quite so, and the salvation of the original nation that had the kingdom and forfeited it by its wickedness, lay in submitting to the new provisional order made by God in Nebuchadnezzar which was seen secretly and interpreted by Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar was converted so as to enhance the whole position; he is the head of gold.

Rem. The antichrist becomes a usurper. Absalom takes the place belonging to another.

J.T. These Gentile monarchies began with Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar was converted and enjoined everybody to worship God. He knew that all power belonged to God, he was forced to learn that.

Ques. By extension, does that apply even today in conditions we see in certain countries?

J.T. The first thing to see is the abstract idea of government in every one of them. It is of God. In Acts 5 there were three agencies employed. The first was the angel who opened the door of the prison and said, "Go ye and stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life", Acts 5:20. "All the words", of that life must be protected and made known in this world. The second time they were arrested the people were used to protect them and the officers could not do anything; and then thirdly

Gamaliel was used. So that the testimony is set free through these agencies. All these are of God.

Rem. Had the princes of this world known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

J.T. "Had they known", but they would not be like you and me, for only true Christians know the wisdom of God.

Rem. From the standpoint of wisdom they would not have done it either, apart from conversion, for had they known it, they were thwarting their own ends.

J.T. It is a remarkable way of putting it. They are the princes of this world and are said to be fools. "The place of a skull" -- Golgotha was that. All the wisdom of this world was there and it was nothing but a skull. All the wisdom of God was in the One crucified, but they had nothing in their skulls.

Rem. Had Absalom known he would not have allowed the wisdom of Ahithophel to be defeated.

Ques. How do you view some of our brethren suffering at the hands of the government in other countries today?

J.T. It is hard to say. Of course, the Lord suffered at their hands. Take Pilate, viewing him abstractly he was right. He said, "I find no fault in him". How did he say that? He was under the right influence of what he represented. But presently other things came up and we see that he was a corrupt man personally; when these things were thrown into the scale against Christ he gave way; but abstractly as a governor he was right. His wife said, "I have suffered today many things in a dream because of him". (Matthew 27:19) She must have been in some way affected by Christ Himself.

Ques. In this same connection is there a similarity in what the thief says: "Dost thou too not fear God?" and, "we indeed justly, for we receive the

just recompense of what we have done", Luke 23:40,41. I was wondering if that enters into the abstract idea?

J.T. The kingdom is in his mind, "Thy kingdom". He belonged to the under-world and he suffered rightly; he did not justify himself.

Rem. He was accepting the rule of the powers that be, admitting he was suffering justly.

J.T. Yes, and he told the other man. He virtually said to the Lord, You have a kingdom: "Remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom", Luke 23:42. "In it", that is, When You come and rule the world, remember me.

Rem. These two men on either side of Jesus were really there rightly in regard of God's government.

J.T. The government of God put them there. One man accepted it; he belonged to the under-world, and the under-world will not accept government if they can avoid it. He was accepting it, the rule of God's kingdom in the sense of the four monarchies; but he saw another kingdom and he says to the Lord, When You come in Your kingdom, remember me. He came round to the right thought. The real thing is the accepting of the government that is, and this man recognised that whatever government put him on that cross was right.

Rem. With regard to the discipline of the people of God, we were noticing recently how this worked out in connection with Hazael. Elisha tells him the king is going to die and that he is going to reign in his stead and do evil to the children of Israel (2 Kings 8:12). He is going to do all this damage but there was a reason for it, it was God. Hazael was only the instrumentality.

J.T. Yes, because Hazael was anointed of God according to the instruction to Elisha.

Rem. So that in these matters it is not a dictator or a ruler, it is God, and the sooner the people of

God recognise that the more quickly the door will be opened.

J.T. We cannot be sure whether they have rejected the government of God. Do they see the abstract idea of government that the thief saw?

"We receive the just recompense of what we have done". (Luke 23:41) He recognises the Roman government. But here is another king, who put Him there? The same power. He, was not suffering justly. Pilate failed, because he justified Jesus at the beginning, showing what this government is in the four monarchies. Even the watchmen at the grave are made to do what is right.

Rem. And then there was the inscription over the cross in three languages; it was Pilate who gave orders for this to be done.

J.T. God undoubtedly made him do it. These men in power are governed by bit and bridle. Pilate writes that Jesus is King of the Jews, there it is and he will not change it. God did that. The thief went further: he said, "When thou comest in thy kingdom", Luke 23:42. He had light that that Man was a King and had a kingdom.

Ques. Was the Lord subject to Pilate as representative of the powers that be?

J.T. He suffered first of all vicariously. We must see clearly that there is no suffering attaching to Him save what is vicarious. He suffered for righteousness personally, but not from God; He suffered from God in a vicarious sense only.

Rem. So that suffering there is suffering for righteousness.

J.T. It is only when He is taking man's place on the cross, we cannot say anything else.

Rem. At the same time He was personally never more pleasurable to God.

Ques. As to the tendency of some of us to be National -- how would you balance the thought of the

powers that be in the abstract sense with the tendency towards nationalism?

J.T. That has, of course, to be watched, because the national feeling is just natural and objectionable; hence we are told to pray for all those that are in authority. The whole government of the world is our interest.

Rem. Then we are to respect the British power and the French and Italian and German too, as all one sort of thing, details of which are employed in the secret service system in order to work out God's plan.

J.T. And you pray for them all. I was thinking just this week what a place of dignity the saints have. Here are these powers appearing one after another, but here are the saints, and heaven is looking down on the saints; God is looking at the saints and paying attention to them. So that "the Lord Jehovah will do nothing, but he revealeth his secrets unto his servants the prophets", Amos 3:7. That gives you the idea that He has His people here and He is looking toward us and listening to us. That is what turns the scales.

Ques. Would it be right to say that what God does in regard to the governments is not dependent upon the prayers of the saints, but rather that He is seeking that the prayers of the saints may be in accordance with His mind?

J.T. God intends that; but then, God can carry on His government by Himself. The living creatures and the elders in the midst of the throne are with God; but He looks towards us, and I think He has great pleasure in the meetings for prayer in all these matters.

Rem. God said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing?" (Genesis 18:17). This would seem to indicate that it was to be done whether Abraham knew or not, but that God would give the saints an

indication of what He is doing so that there might be sympathy.

J.T. Abraham really is a foreshadowing of this particular period in which we are, the period of the world's reconciliation. It is held on the principle of reconciliation, and Abraham prays for the king; that gives you the clue. God is on His way, as it were. He and the two men, three men it says, and they come by Abraham's tent. He is not the objective, because it is the time of government and God is appealed to as the Judge of all the earth. He is on His way somewhere and He comes by Abraham: that is the position, and then it is a question of what He finds. He will go on by Himself, because three would mean completeness. But what did He find? If He were to come by this city what would He find. He might not find anything He could use. We may be able to preach the gospel, but we may not be able to enter into these thoughts about the government of this world. If we are not equal to that He will have to go on. If He finds only intelligence enough for preachings and readings, etc., He will make the most of that. He did not say anything to Abraham about Sodom at first, it is a question of what He finds. Will He find Abraham at his tent door ready to do everything that was right? He asks for Sarah, as if to say, I will say something about her, and that is often what God does; He will tell us something about the church and pass on. He asks about Sarah and tells something about Sarah, that is, the church; and then about Isaac, that is, Christ, He says something about Him; but then He goes on. Abraham says, I will go with you. To go with Him, that is the secret of the disclosure as to what God is going to do. And Jehovah says, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing?", Genesis 18:17. Why did He not say that before? I think it is because Abraham went with Him and interceded for the world.

Rem. There was prayer for Peter but there is no reference to any for James.

J.T. That is a good illustration, but with Peter the assembly was not equal to the thing. It was a poor situation. You recall that when Peter came there was nobody to open the door; and the one that understands and would open comes in for persecution. But here is a striking case because Genesis 18 is a record of the earth. "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing? Since Abraham shall indeed become a great and mighty nation; and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of Jehovah, to do righteousness and justice, in order that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham what he hath spoken of him", Genesis 18:17 - 19. So that God does not hide from Abraham what He is going to do; this man must be brought into the matter; he is worthy of it and he is equal to it.

Rem. Abraham is able to intercede for Sodom and Gomorrah but he does not succeed.

J.T. But destruction would have been deferred a long time if there had been only ten righteous men. There is hope that God will continue to intervene in matters today.

Rem. The prayer meeting really becomes a test. Certain brethren do not come. You wonder what the gospel really means to them.

J.T. They do not come to meetings like these either, where God gives light. They are not going with Him at all.

Rem. So it says here: "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come to me; and if not, I will know it", Genesis 18:20,21. And then there is a long conversation there, as if

Jehovah does not move from the place until that prayer meeting is over. He is not going to move in regard to these national events until the prayer meeting is over. We are praying for fourteen hours, almost continuously, I suppose.

J.T. Yes, seventeen hours, the world round.

Ques. Would you say a little more about sonship? In this case that seems to be the test that Jehovah applied.

J.T. Yes, He enquires about Sarah and gives a promise about Isaac. Sarah is hardly equal to things, but she is there ready, within hearing. She does not bring the cakes and she laughs about Isaac, but Abraham still stood before Jehovah and Jehovah went on. Abraham has the place of intercessor for the whole world. And why not? He is heir of the world! Why should not we have that place? It is a question of the brethren seeing the position. The time of these four monarchies is under God. Daniel gets the mind of God and the first ruler becomes a converted man so as to enhance the position.

Rem. As over against the kind of rulers to whom the apostles had to say: "If it be righteous before God to listen to you rather than to God, judge ye", Acts 4:19.

J.T. Yes; they are really dealing with the high priest and his family according to verses 6 and 7. The position of Annas and those with him was the authorised position, but they were really against the Roman Government, while the Roman representative was for Christ. Their position was untenable. They were under judgment and wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

Ques. "Be in subjection therefore to every human institution for the Lord's sake", 1 Peter 2:13. How far does that go?

J.T. That would have to be read in the light of

the passage. The same passage tells us to honour the king as supreme.

Ques. I would like to ask about the prayers of three different classes: of the wicked, of nominal believers, and then of those whom these five men would represent, as to God hearing them. One noticed in the recent crisis how everybody seemed to be praying, and there were those who seemed to be intelligent about it. What do you think would be the effect of the prayers of these various persons?

J.T. I am not inclined to attach much importance to the prayers of persons who, in a crisis, turn to God and forget Him otherwise.

Rem. It says in Ezekiel that He does not hear them, these wicked people.

J.T. The prayer of the wicked is an abomination. It is almost entirely a matter of religious feeling, as the heathen would pray to their deity in a crisis. Abraham "is a prophet, and he will pray for thee", we get in Genesis 20:7.

Rem. The saints pray in view of God's interests.

J.T. That is it. Abraham represents the thing: "He is a prophet and he will pray for thee". Psalm 105 opens up what such men were in those days: "Touch not mine anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm", Psalm 105:15. They represented God, and that is the position now. It is the anointed priests and prophets, the saints viewed in that way, who have access to God. Abraham was the friend of God.

Rem. Perhaps more royalty enters into our prayer meetings than we are aware of. We are before God in kingly dignity and royalty.

J.T. We are said to be a royal priesthood.

Rem. The prayer of the righteous man has much power. It is in operation already.

Rem. In Revelation 5 it says, "Thou ... hast ... made them to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over the earth", Revelation 5:10.

J.T. Who are the speakers there? The living creatures and the elders. "And they sing a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open its seals; because thou hast been slain, and hast redeemed to God", Revelation 5:9. That includes all of us here; the elders and the living creatures refer to the saints.

Ques. What about the expression, "a kingdom, priests to his God and Father", Revelation 1:6?

J.T. That is another thought. The one we have just read is "kings and priests", but the other is "a kingdom", which, I suppose, would mean that the saints exercise rule in the kingdom. The kingdom is in the hands of the assembly now, our care meetings and all that are on kingdom lines; it is the government of God worked out among us.

Ques. Does 1 Timothy 2 include all that we have been saying about prayer, assembly prayer and household prayer?

J.T. I think so. "I exhort therefore, first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men", 1 Timothy 2:1. That is the assembly. But it is the men that do it audibly. "I will therefore that the men pray in every place" (1 Timothy 2:8).

Rem. Intercession on high is for the saints, and we in turn pray and intercede for the powers that be.

J.T. Quite so. This passage is very important. You might say that the intercessory position of the assembly is seen in Timothy.

Ques. In the households where there are husband and wife, do both pray?

J.T. Not audibly. "I will therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up pious hands", 1 Timothy 2:8. I take that to be in the house and out of it, wherever men are. Of course, women can pray secretly, and with the husband to a certain extent. But that passage in Timothy means that wherever prayer is openly made and brothers and sisters are there, the men do it.

Ques. That does not set aside the scripture, "that your prayers be not hindered", 1 Peter 3:7?

J.T. The wife is with the husband, of course. The idea is that men are to pray publicly.

Ques. What is the function of the kingly priesthood?

J.T. The holy priesthood is to offer up sacrifices, but the kingly is to "set forth the excellencies of him who has called you", 1 Peter 2:9. It is more our attitude towards men in blessing; we bless and curse not.

The priest blessed Israel.

Rem. Jacob blessed Pharaoh, the greater blesses the lesser.

J.T. That is what we are as representative of God.

Ques. Where does the wife pray?

J.T. She prays with her husband in spirit, and the whole family, but not audibly. That is the way I read that passage.

Rem. In these things there is always confirmation in Scripture; Hannah prayed, but there was no sound.

Ques. Do you think that the wisdom from above and the hidden wisdom are equivalent thoughts?

J.T. Quite so. James stresses the side that, "If any one of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God", James 1:5. The hidden wisdom is a very exalted thought, "that hidden wisdom which God had predetermined before the ages for our glory", 1 Corinthians 2:7. We are to be enveloped in that, marked by that. I have been impressed with that this week. There are the powers that be, God has appointed them too, but we are the ones that He is attending to; He will listen to us.

Rem. "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed", Genesis 12:3; that is a remarkable setting. Would that apply to ourselves?

J.T. We will suppose that you know that you are going to rule a country; well, everything in that country is of interest to you from that point onward.

And Abraham had the mind of God, he was heir to the world, he would think of the world from that standpoint; and that is what is meant by the world being in reconciliation.

Rem. Reconciliation in that sense can really only be understood by sons.

Ques. Is the kingdom of the heavens hidden?

J.T. You see how the Lord looks at the field as having purchased it in that way. That is how He is operating today in the world because the treasure is there.

Rem. The world held in reconciliation would mean that God is favourable to it.

Ques. Does James indicate that the title "friend of God" was earned, so to speak, through the exercise of faith in offering up Isaac?

J.T. I suppose that would come into it, but I think Genesis 18 brings out the concrete position more than any other: "Shall I hide from Abraham", verse 17. You get the idea that he is equal to this as God's friend. I am sure that what we have had before us as to the secret service and the public service of God needs to be impressed upon our minds.

CHAPTER 17 (CONTINUED)

J.T. We closed last time with an allusion to the secret service of David seen in chapter 17. We scarcely got beyond verse 14, the counsels respectively of Ahithophel and Hushai. The counsel of Hushai is given from verse 7 to the end of verse 14 and the object is clearly to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel. Both counsels being given, verse 15 shows that the secret service began to operate in a more definite way. It had been operating in Hushai but now there is another added to the five we have mentioned in that service, that is, the maid in verse 17. They take on an unnamed person. Jonathan and Ahimaaz

were in En-rogel, the maid went and told them and they went and told king David. Then it says that a lad saw them and told Absalom. "Then they went both of them away quickly, and came to the house of a man at Bahurim, who had a well in his court; and they went down there. And the woman took and spread the covering over the well's mouth, and spread ground corn on it; and the thing was not known". As an outcome of all this, "By the morning light there was not one of them missing that had not gone over the Jordan". The secret service is operating and overcoming. Although it is discerned in its way by the agents of the world, the advice given is to pass over, that is, safety is in passing over Jordan, which I suppose applied spiritually would be a second experience of death. Kidron is the first and then Jordan.

Ques. Does the counsel rise to a high level in Hushai telling the priests what was taking place in order that the priests might pass on the information, the matter being handled in a priestly way?

J.T. That was what came before us a little. The names of all are mentioned, two priests, two sons and Hushai; and now we have a sixth, a nameless person, but doing good service, so that the service is on a high level. Spiritually it is the idea of the acceptance of death, passing over. How much is made of the words "pass over" in chapter 15! But now it is passing over the Jordan.

Ques. What is the difference between death at Kidron and death at Jordan?

J.T. I think as we were saying that Kidron is in the midst of great suggestions. Around it and in the vicinity are great thoughts; Jerusalem, the mount of Olives, the temple and the ark. There is one who crosses it in a special way; they all cross it to get out of Jerusalem, but the one whose crossing is strikingly emphasised is Ittai, a spiritual man;

he represents the idea. David was hindering him so as to bring out what was there. We have in him, I think, what gives understanding about Kidron. Ittai said, in answer to David's challenge: "As Jehovah liveth, and as my lord the king liveth, surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in death or life even there also will thy servant be ... . And Ittai the Gittite passed over, and all his men, and all the little ones that were with him", 2 Samuel 15:21, 22.

Rem. In the little ones passing over I suppose the idea of household baptism would be in view in this secret service. Perhaps that would account for the fact too that this maid is used.

J.T. You mean that she would be a household servant probably?

Rem. It might give an inspiring stimulus to household baptism. We need recruits for this secret service.

Ques. And is not the house brought in later at Bahurim?

J.T. Yes, and the woman and the well. The spiritual environment of Kidron is understood especially because of the spiritual depth of Ittai.

He makes a beautiful speech, and the acceptance of it unqualifiedly by the king is as much as to say, That is the thing; you qualify, Ittai. That must lend lustre to the whole position. The Jordan, however, is by itself. There is no temple nearby or anything of that kind suggestive of spirituality; but it is history. Jordan is history from the outset. It is the great division or barrier between Canaan and the wilderness. The ark is illustrated in its overthrow of the power of the Jordan, but there is no question of power in Kidron. It is a torrent, but the Jordan is satanic power concentrated, death in the hands of Satan; it seems to be the second great thought here, deliverance necessitates the passing over.

Ques. The Lord passed over Kidron with His disciples into the garden; is there any significance in that?

J.T. We were speaking about that, the correspondence between the two positions. It is this same brook, the same torrent; the true David is there and the traitor Judas, the son of perdition, answering to Absalom here. The Lord passed over into the garden to meet the enemy who was ahead of Him. Absalom was behind here. David was outside the city, but Satan and the great conflict with death was in the garden of Gethsemane. Jordan is the next thing, of course, "that through death he might annul him who has the might of death, that is, the devil",

(Hebrews 2:14). It seems as if the passing over now by the tidings through the secret service is the only way of safety, and they were all over "by the morning light". If it applies to us spiritually, deliverance can only be on those lines. "Then David arose, and all the people that were with him, and they passed over the Jordan; by the morning light there was not one of them missing that had not gone over the Jordan", chapter 17:22. That is the idea, they are on new ground; it would be like the resurrection, the power of God operative. David would not be behind in understanding this.

Rem. You are not looking on this historically but rather as soul experience in view of recovery.

J.T. Yes, and in view of escaping the influence of Absalom. It really is antichristian influence rather than the antichrist himself; I think we saw that before. It is rather like what is current today generally, and the secret service, which is a spiritual thought, enables us at meetings like these and other meetings of a spiritual character to get light from one and another. We would point out in using this expression 'secret service' that there is no question of disloyalty to the powers that be. A secret agent

of any given government might think in hearing such an expression that we are disloyal to it; but as we have been noticing in Zechariah, these powers are the four spirits of the heavens, they belong to the secret service themselves. The men in government may not themselves understand this, but God is working for us through them.

Rem. "We are not ignorant of his devices", 2 Corinthians 2:11. Saints are fully acquainted with the enemy.

J.T. Our relations with one another and the fellowship are a mystery really and enable us to understand what is operating against us and what is for us. Even the powers that be are for us.

Rem. The example of this maid is good; youth should not work for the antichristian system.

J.T. That is the effort of the devil today, to get the youth on the antichristian side by teaching and influence.

Ques. Does Colossians suggest "the morning light"?

J.T. The power of God in resurrection you mean; we are "risen with Christ". It was really the escape out of the antichristian world, there was not one left.

Ques. Is it a priestly matter to go over Jordan? I notice the priest gives the word of command to go over.

J.T. By the two messengers, yes.

Ques. Would you say more about Zadok? Does not his priesthood extend over a long period?

J.T. You mean we find it in Ezekiel. I think he represents the priesthood 'par excellence', you might say, because of his place in the future house. He comes before Abiathar here although it would seem that Abiathar was before him spiritually. We know that Abiathar failed later, so that Zadok must be the great thought of the priesthood here.

Rem. In Ezekiel we find: "of the sons of Zadok who kept my charge and went not astray when the

children, of Israel went astray", Ezekiel 48:11. Thus it would appear as if the link was maintained by them on priestly lines while everything publicly seemed to be gone, and that fits in with this section too, and helps on the line of priestly service from the secret point of view.

J.T. There are these five men to begin with and then two women added later without their names being given, as if to augment the position by the subjective conditions. This idea enters into all our relations with one another now, brothers and sisters alike, as apprehending the ministry. The powers that be belong to the system, they keep the peace of the world so that the saints may move about. There is no disloyalty with us at all to any person in authority, mayor, governor, president, king; it is the moral thing that we are dealing with.

Ques. How do you reconcile the actual recognition of the powers that be with what develops at the end -- the man of sin who "exalts himself on high against all called God ... showing himself that he is God",

(2 Thessalonians 2:4)?

J.T. That is antichrist. We have not come to antichrist yet but we have come to antichristian influence. Revelation has to do with antichrist personally, he comes out with his armies to combat the Lord. In the meantime the four spirits of the heavens stand, they are part of the system, they stand before the God of all the earth, whatever they may be personally and their influence is for our benefit.

Rem. So that we support the powers that be until they declare themselves against Christ.

J.T. They are God's ministers for good.

Rem. So that we should not view certain acts of certain officials as really representative of the abstract view. There may be an official guilty of unrighteous acts or a judge doing violence to the actual laws of

the country, but what we are speaking of is the abstract view, not isolated circumstances.

J.T. Yes, in the abstract these powers are viewed as horses guided by external pressure, so that in spite of themselves they do things which are in our favour.

Ques. What is the thought in David marshalling all his hosts?

J.T. We are coming to what is open now. But this is very practical, the little ones going over and then these young men and women working successfully; the thing goes through successfully, a most important matter. There are five men and two women, so far as I see here; the first women is called "the maid" . Why the article is before the word I do not know, it must point to some known person; she represents something.

Rem. The functioning of the whole system depends for the moment upon her; Hushai is in the king's house and the priests are in the city; the message is conveyed to the priests' sons by her.

J.T. And the fact that the article is there would seem to indicate that she is an important element, that she is part of the thing; without her it would not have worked. Everyone should take it home to himself, that without him there is a missing link.

Rem. The link was not missing in Acts when the forty banded themselves together to kill Paul. A lad was there who came into the breach, and the whole thing changed.

J.T. And then there was Rhoda, a young girl, whatever her capacity was; she may have been a maid in the house but she was ready.

Rem. Such a slender sort of link would warrant any one of us putting ourselves into this position. The marvel is that God allowed things to be so sustained; at times they were held only by the merest link. Even with the preservation of the Scriptures

there were times when it looked as if they could not be preserved.

J.T. The burial of the Lord seemed to be a precarious matter. There was a grave dug for him "with the wicked"; but a rich man was used at that point. He steps in there and is the necessary link from the divine point of view. The Lord was "with the rich in his death" (Isaiah 53:9).

Rem. The woman's activities in Bahurim are more pronounced than the man's, more developed, and were intelligent.

J.T. Quite so. The maid is an official allusion. It says that of the young men "they went both of them away quickly, and came to the house of a man at Bahurim, who had a well in his court; and they went down there. And the woman took and spread the covering over the well's mouth, and spread ground corn on it; and the thing was not known", 2 Samuel 17:19. Without anything more being said the woman is ready. The feminine side is secretive and she responds here.

Rem. The man does nothing; it almost looks questionable as to whether he was at home. When the husband is away the wife has ability to act in emergency.

J.T. That fits in here; she knew what to do; she had orders from nobody. The well is an important provision or accessory to the house and it would be in her department.

Rem. It is something like Rahab in the beginning of Joshua, the top of her house is used. The more you look at it the more it seems to be the Colossian position.

J.T. I think it is, and the woman is secretive in principle as a figure in the Scriptures. The thing is well done both in Rahab's case and here.

Ques. Would not the fact that the well is there

and the woman in the good of it accentuate the subjective side?

J.T. It would all be in her department. The woman is to "guide the house", showing that she has an official place which the husband has to observe to be right. So the woman "took and spread the covering over the well's mouth"; she knew where it was kept. Then she "spread ground corn on it", and the thing was successful.

Rem. If the husband is away someone must be at home.

J.T. That the house may function. The household is part of the thing. With Ittai, they all went over. If the household is functioning there ought to be all these things there, a furnished house that can be used. The wife is over it, she guides it.

Ques. The men go down into the well; what does that signify?

J.T. The thing was there and they knew of it. It is what this house provides. It is a part of the system of the believer's house.

Rem. If the husband is away it seems to be an important thing that she is at home. What good is a house if there is nobody there? These men might have been slain if she had not been there to receive them.

J.T. The house is functioning even if the husband is not there.

Ques. Is there also the suggestion that any one of us may be called into an important issue at any moment without warning? This woman is presumably engaged in her daily tasks and does not know of the crisis. Suddenly she is brought face to face with it and has to make a decision. None of us can be neutral.

J.T. I never saw this so plainly before, the matter of the house functioning in the testimony. The well is there and the woman does the rest, having the

needed things. Ground corn -- what a fine thought! It was all there. How does this come into her mind? It would indicate food, but it is the wisdom in concealing that strikes me. How well it succeeded! She had all this, but the well was not known to be there, it was covered over.

Ques. In a general way does this decision correspond with what John writes of in his epistle, the last times and the many antichrists? "Ye have the unction from the holy one and ye know all things", 1 John 2:20. Would that suggest the ability to understand what to do?

J.T. I think that is very good because in the official ministry in Christendom certain university training is necessary, whereas in meeting antichrist in that passage you allude to, "ye have the unction from the holy one and ye know all things", 1 John 2:20. It is proceeding from the Holy One (not 'of' ). It comes out, and "ye know all things". I was noticing an account of the so-called "Bampton lecturers" in a university, men who give a public lecture for Lent or Easter. The occasion was well furnished with money, but one provision was that the man who gives this lecture must be at least an M. A. That is not necessary with an unction from the Holy One. I mention it to show you what professing Christendom is; it is ignoring the unction from the Holy One. This woman knew what to do and she did it. You do not get an M. A. from the Holy One, not that one would say anything against education, but the Holy Spirit is ignored, especially in regard to antichristian activities.

Rem. The official side having broken down, the secret operations of God come to light connected with His own work.

J.T. The public would call John the baptist anything: a prophet, the Messiah, etc.; and when the Lord Himself went to Jerusalem many believed

on Him because of the signs, but the Spirit of God says that Jesus did not trust them. That is where new birth comes in, just there; you cannot tell what it is, it is the wind blowing where it lists; that is the Spirit. The point I think that enters into all this is that you know what to do in a crisis.

Rem. "They ... came to the house of a man at Bahurim, who had a well in his court; and they went down there". Think of them trusting themselves to this house! They might have been putting themselves into the hands of a traitor, the same as Sisera.

Ques. Does letting them down into the well correspond at all with the disciples when they let Paul down in a basket?

J.T. It does not say they let these men down: "they came", and "they went down", and "they came up out of the well"; it is all their own action, and the woman's action is to complete the position. In the concealment of these two men the thing is working perfectly and the Spirit of God shows it is successful.

Rem. The enemy cannot discern the working of the Spirit.

Ques. Does this develop into the overthrow of the whole system? We spoke last week about the counsel of the princes of Zoan, whose wisdom is foolishness.

J.T. We were speaking of the hidden wisdom; the world does not know that, it is at a disadvantage.

Rem. What seems to be developing is the extraordinary co-operation of these links. The men went down and the woman does just the thing to confirm what they have done.

Ques. Is all this teaching to indicate to David that things had not been right in his kingdom?

J.T. That is the sorrowful side; it would all come home to him, where did all this sorrow begin? That is the other side. The king himself is the

occasion of it, staying at home when kings go forth to battle, and sinning; but whatever the cause, the testimony is in jeopardy and the thing now is to protect it.

Rem. None of us need aspire to do something that we are not intended to do. We might have in our minds that we would like to be some prominent person who would be known everywhere. But this whole secret service at this point is dependent upon an unknown person doing this one thing and perhaps only taking a very short time to do it.

J.T. It is the Colossian position right through; the message they carry is so urgent: "pass quickly over the water", (verse 21), that they did not even mention Jordan at first. But then, David understood that this was meant.

Ques. Would going down into the well and coming up again indicate their faith?

J.T. There is some idea in their going down, they knew what to do. David left the ark in the city but the link must be kept with the ark. He is not a party man, he is moving in the light of the whole position. He is crossing over and the position is changing now. You can see how the position is endangered by those who have led or are supposed to lead not being in their places and functioning. "Love never fails". It is a question of what our hands find to do, but we are often not up to the mark and the enemy gets the advantage.

Rem. We need to go through the process of disappearance; none of us can give proper counsel otherwise.

J.T. I have no doubt this woman of Bahurim would cover her head in praying; that is the lesson in Christianity as to the woman's place. If she had not been ready here there would have been no success. I am not speaking of the literal thing, but subjection

in the woman enables her to function when her husband is not there.

Ques. Would it fit in with what we are saying about household baptism, the idea of covering or protecting that which is of the secret service?

J.T. The whole position is covered by baptism publicly, showing that we are on the Lord's side.

Ques. Do you think weakness is seen in the woman's reply to Absalom's servants?

J.T. I do not think so. Of course, when it comes to truthfulness you have to make allowance for the day in which they lived. But the idea here is that the world will not pass that way; there is a barrier and they go over the brook of water.

Rem. The well has a covering, verse 19.

J.T. It must have been there all the time, the well would not have been kept open. I suppose it was for protection; the woman uses it now and covers it with the corn.

Rem. Whatever you do in this secret service it is all a case of taking your life in your hands; she was really speaking to Absalom's servants in defence of the whole position.

J.T. These untruths have to be left. The Holy Spirit mentions them, and they are not to be justified, of course, but the time had not come for a right understanding of truth. It is what is done and the success of it that is emphasised here. This idea of covering is very important, because it refers to the feminine side of the position; she uses the cover. And then there is the fact that the husband is not mentioned: it is his house but she has the food. If we can follow spiritually we shall see what everything means.

Ques. Do you think that the corn would refer to some feature of Christ?

J.T. Yes. There is something which is hidden in the Colossian sense, that the world knows not.

Rem. This line of action means the death of Ahithophel.

J.T. In verse 21 we read of the message being sent to David and he goes beyond the Jordan; then in verse 23: "And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose and went to his house, to his city, and gave charge to his household, and hanged himself, and he died; and he was buried in the sepulchre of his father". Why is that put in here? It is the wisdom of this world coming to nought. Everything is in order according to the man, his house is set in order, but he hangs himself, that is the end of him.

Ques. Is passing over Jordan by the morning light a suggestion of resurrection?

J.T. Yes, the new day begins. David over Jordan is really the beginning of the end for Absalom; he went over but that was for destruction.

Rem. Wisdom hidden in the assembly would bring to nought such wisdom as Ahithophel's.

J.T. David acting in the light of the secret service brings this out. He is not assuming to know better than the messengers, he is subject; so we do well to pay attention to all that is going on in our meetings. It is a question of the Comforter: "He shall guide", it says; John 16:13. I take this to mean that any number of brothers may speak, but the Spirit fills the matter out and we reach the desired end under His direction. The message of Ahimaaz and Jonathan is very direct: "they came up out of the well, and went and told king David; and they said to David, Arise and pass quickly over the water", verse 21. They did not bow down to him as the king at all, it is the secret service in mind; it is a question of the Spirit of God and everyone has to be subject to Him.

Rem. The close of the chapter indicates that God has blessed the whole position in that there is

an abundance of everything for the weary people. Instead of defeat there is this evidence of plenty.

J.T. "And David came to Mahanaim", verse 24. This is where the angels met Jacob, David would not forget that, either; and it was where grace had been resisted in the children of Ammon, a very striking matter. We have Absalom as the first one mentioned after this: "And Absalom passed over the Jordan", verse 24. It is very remarkable how the matter goes forward. It is where grace had been resisted and despised, but now it is operative in these men, Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir and Barzillai.

Rem. This is like the commissariat, a very important department of the army. There is the secret service and the civil service and this would be like the commissariat.

Rem. Grace is very important too, because it shows that what appears to be impossible is now effected, by the fact that there is a secret work of God in the soul of Shobi.

J.T. That is the thought. This man who had been a despiser is subject; that is what is taking place today.

CHAPTER 18

J.T. David is in his own place here. He is functioning as a king and is head of his army throughout this chapter. Verse 1 says, "David marshalled the people that were with him, and set captains of thousands and captains of hundreds over them".

Rem. He is like a field marshal, head of a large army.

J.T. They are not conscripts or mercenary soldiers. They are with David. The position is very good so far. It is necessary, as conflict is before us, to recognise military principles. In the great military book,

that is the book of Joshua, the captain of Jehovah's host appears and Joshua says: "Art thou for us, or for our enemies?" (Joshua 5:13). This is a false attitude to take up. The question is, Are we with Him? "And he said, No; for as captain of the army of Jehovah am I now come", Joshua 5:14. Jehovah's hosts are with Jehovah's captain. The people were with David here.