GOD'S INHERITANCE IN THE SAINTS (2)

GOD’S INHERITANCE IN THE SAINTS (2)

1 Chronicles 15:1-3; 1 Chronicles 15:25-29; 1 Chronicles 17:1 - 15

JT In our previous reading David was before us as a type of Christ; and we finished at the end of chapter 12 in which all Israel came together to make him king. The happy state marking the great occasion was pointed out: “there was joy in Israel”.

In the section before us now, David is more a type of a believer learning; ending in the acceptance of sonship in chapter 17. It is clear that, as Christ comes before us personally, learning on our side is necessary so that we should reach experimentally what we see in Him in an objective way. In John’s gospel, for instance, we begin with the Person of Christ peculiarly, coming in in the last days when saints are separated from each other through bad teaching, involving sectarianism; true believers are drawn together through increased attraction to Christ. And then, as disciples become attracted to Him, they have in mind immediately that He is a Teacher. So that John’s gospel may be regarded as marked by teaching and discipleship; we see in it those who learn. It seems as if this section of 1 Chronicles is similarly marked by divine instruction received on the part of a believer, sometimes through failure, but the failures recorded in this book are rather on account of the result of them in David. They have that in view more than mere history; hence chapter 15 records the acknowledgment by David of his failure, and that of the people, in undertaking to bring the ark of God on a cart; a sin that is common today; that is, worldly principles adopted in the service of God; and from which many, as judging it, are learning. No doubt we have all had our part in this. What is stressed here is the thoroughness with which the instruction is received, also the thoroughness of the correction involved. Chapter 15 stresses that; indeed, one lesson in ^[p. 216] this book is the thoroughness with which we are to imbibe divine instruction; half measures will not do, half-heartedness, or compromise will not do. In the light of this book God would have us to go the whole way indicated in the instruction.

Ques Is the work of God the great outstanding feature here? Would you say a word as to the feature of His glory in that?

JT Well, that is the next point. We have arrived at kingship; all the people make David king — he is thoroughly that; he is in their hearts as king, but now he drops to the level of a believer who would serve God. He looks back on history, and sends to his brethren everywhere, in all the lands of Israel, and with them to the priests and Levites, and says: “Let us bring again the ark of our God to us; for we inquired not of it in the days of Saul” (chapter 13:3). That is the position now; the believer looks back and takes account of the failure of earlier days. It was a sorrowful thing that in all the days of Saul the ark was not inquired of; and then the desire to rectify the position leads to the use of a cart, whereas it should have been carried on the shoulders of the Levites. No doubt most of the brethren recognise that for many years back the Lord has been helping as to order in the service of God; that there should be rigid exclusion of human innovations and a return to divine order.

EuR Is this thoroughness you speak of seen in that they definitely name the thing, “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites”? And then God’s hand in discipline is owned, “For because ye did it not at the first, Jehovah our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order” (verse 13). Should that characterise our assemblies today, a readiness to bow to the hand of God, while returning to the truth?

JT That is right. David is not seen here as concerned about the blessing he had missed in causing the ^[p. 217] ark to be carried into the house of Obed-Edom; he is on a higher plane than that, owning that the divine order had been transgressed. It shows how thoroughly he felt all this. 2 Samuel 6:12 would show that he was concerned about the blessing he had missed, but here he is on a higher plane, thinking for God and the true order of His service; he prepared a place for the ark.

Then another thing that comes out is the long period during which the ark was in the house of Abinadab on the hill, and yet in all that time, Abinadab and his house never seemed to be concerned as to the law governing the care of the ark. It indicates how we may be interested in Christ as seen in the ark, and yet never inquire in a priestly way as to Him; as to what is required of us, and what is due to Him. The two sons of Abinadab drove the cart, “And they carried the ark of God on a new cart out of the house of Abinadab; and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart” (chapter 13:7). David and Israel played before Jehovah with all their might. A great error passes unnoticed; what was being done was evidently regarded as right and for God; but God was not pleased with the thing, although there was much evidence of energy in David and all Israel; they “played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with lutes, and with tambours, and with cymbals, and with trumpets” (verse 8). How much of this there may be in the service, and yet God is displeased all the time!

AJG Does the way the Spirit of God records the incident suggest the feeling of displeasure in that He emphasises that it was “the ark of God, of Jehovah, who sitteth between the cherubim, whose name is placed there” (verse 6)? Has that reference to the misuse, the incongruity of the way things were being done?

JT Quite so. How long we may go on with the service, and seemingly heartily in it too, with all our might — Sunday schools, and all that sort of thing — ^[p. 218] doing things as they are done around us. We may be in it thoroughly, and yet insensible as to the divine displeasure. That, I think, is a most searching matter.

FCH What is involved in the sitting “between the cherubim”?

JT The cherubim suggest the government of God; He is there as between them; He is armed with power to enforce His rights: that is the idea. We may ignore His rights, and go on as if all were well; it never occurring to us, that the cart is a human innovation, a Philistine idea. Sunday schools, for instance, are a modern innovation; and there are many other such practices that have been happily discarded now, but we went on with them — we all, no doubt, have to admit that — with all our might.

COB Is there significance in the repetition of “us” and “our” seven times in the second and third verses of chapter 13?

JT I suppose David had in mind that it was a mutual matter.

COB I was wondering if he was looking at it from the people’s point of view rather than from God’s point of view; to have the ark brought up “to us”.

JT The mutual side is stressed, and in chapter 15:13 he says, “Jehovah our God made a breach upon us”. We should inquire in such circumstances as to how things have been. The ark had not been inquired of all in the days of Saul: well, where was it then? What had become of it? What were its surroundings? At the outset of this movement such exercises were shallow.

NKM How would the thought of inquiring of the ark work out practically?

JT Such a movement would test things, as you might say, religiously in Israel. Saul attempted to inquire, but this is ignored, as if his attempt was unholy (1 Samuel 14:18). The whole setting of the ark should be in mind in the inquiry. Asaph, for instance, the ^[p. 219] skilled singer in the service of God, said that when he went into the sanctuaries of God he understood things (see Psalm 73:17). The ark would be there; it is what Christ is as before God; but holiness was to surround all connected with the ark.

WSS The adjustment in David’s mind seems to be connected with, “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites”. Is there help in that — the service must be levitical, what is priestly supporting the service of God?

JT That is what he says in chapter 15; how thoroughly he has judged the thing! He has discarded the idea of the cart altogether, as judging it. It is a Philistine notion. One can understand how an unspiritual Israelite would say, Well, it came back on a cart to us; and it did, of course, and the milch kine also were influenced divinely as they moved back; but then, are we to ignore the word of God because of something that appears before our eyes? Though God does things sovereignly, His word is established in heaven; that must come first; and this is what David indicates he has come to in chapter 15.

Rem We see here the seriousness of going on with a thing because there has been something good in it, when God’s instructions have been disregarded.

JT Just so. David and the people here are ignoring the law governing the ark, and now God has made a breach. When God comes in and indicates His mind in any matter that hitherto has passed muster, and it is clear that such practices are not of Him, but are modern, then self-judgment is required; and it is the thoroughness of this, I think, that we should observe here.

JJ Would the addresses to the seven churches help us to understand the way the Lord regards with displeasure the human way things were done in Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira, and Sardis?

JT Yes. Each address has some correction in it; and disregard of the correction is sure to bring down ^[p. 220] judicial consequences. What is needed is going the whole way in condemning the evil — there is often much compromise and excuse. This is learning thoroughly, and chapter 15 shows how thoroughly David had learnt the lesson.

MWB Do we get the same principle in Ezekiel, where the prophet is shown the measurements of the house, and exhorts the people to measure their pattern by God’s pattern?

JT Exactly; Jehovah tells the prophet to show the pattern to the house of Israel (Ezekiel 43:10).

GCS When God directed the milch kine to Beth-shemesh it was to a city that was not only a Levites’ city, but a Kohathite city.

JT The Levites are there and did certain needed work (1 Samuel 6:15), but the general understanding was defective because a large number were slain there because they looked into the ark unholily. Then it is brought to the house of Abinadab on the hill, and his son is sanctified to look after it, and there it was for some years; but is Abinadab learning anything, and are his sons learning anything through having it there? Could they tell you what was seemly, what was required as to the ark of God? In housing and caring for the ark were they learning? Apparently they were not. According to 1 Chronicles 13, these two sons erred and no one seems to have noticed it.

PL Would you get this in Colosse — the outward order right, but the danger there — “Let no one fraudulently deprive you of your prize” (Colossians 2:18); then the thoroughness in circumcision and adjustment; and then, “Let the word of the Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another, in psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16). Would all that result now in the service of praise being in a right setting?

JT Quite so: Colossians stresses circumcision and the cross; it means thoroughness.

TH ^[p. 221] How would this matter of preparing a place for the ark of God and spreading a tent for it bear on us today?

JT That is what we are coming on to in chapter 15. If taken in, the negative instruction in chapter 13 should help us. Think of the extraordinariness of the ark being in this household for so many years and there being no understanding of the levitical law, the law governing the carrying of the ark! They make a new cart, which implies that they had in some sense thought of the exercise; evidently their mind was that there must be something beyond the ordinary; but it is only in the newness of the cart! It is a modern idea, a Philistine idea, and hence a wrong idea, and nobody was noticing it.

Ques Do you judge that primarily it refers to error as to the truth of Christ’s Person, and that coming in means that the carrying out of the service of God is impossible?

JT It is dishonouring Him; it is not that the truth of His Person, His Deity, is denied, nothing so gross as that, but the licence or looseness with which He is regarded and what is connected with Him; for it is not only Christ personally, but the testimony.

Rem I was just thinking of the way He is regarded in christendom, even seeking to fix the truth of His Person in creeds.

JT Just so; but the point here is how the ark is carried. Orthodoxy is implied, but the way things are done is not after the due order.

LES Would the side of human expediency make way for the dulling of spiritual sensibilities?

JT It does.

Rem In verse 6 it says: “And David went up, and all Israel, ... to bring up from thence the ark of God”; like king Uzziah at a later date, he takes a place that God had not ascribed to him; but in chapter 15 David gathers the sons of Aaron ^[p. 222] together.

JT I was going to remark on that; the military are hardly seen in chapter 15. “And David, and the elders of Israel, and the captains over thousands, went to bring up the ark of the covenant of Jehovah out of the house of Obed-Edom with joy”. Before we get this we have all this remarkable instruction as to the priesthood and the Levites, from verse 1 to verse 24. What a number of names we have! — priestly names, indicating the thoroughness with which David had learnt the instruction. It is to check in us the licence with which divine things are handled and the neglect of the instruction that comes to us constantly. God would impress upon us the importance of thoroughness.

FCH In chapter 14:12 David commands that the Philistines’ gods should be burned with fire.

JT In that David is showing that he is learning.

Ques Is there a connection between the two breaches — the “breach upon Uzza” and then in chapter 14 at Baal-perazim, the place of breaches? Does that indicate what David learnt in his discipline?

JT I think so; David is saying the breach must be against the Philistines; not against him and against Israel now, the breach is against the Philistines.

HMS There are two thoughts in chapter 13, “Let us bring again the ark of our God to us” (verse 3); and “How shall I bring the ark of God to me?” (verse 12). Is that a wrong thought, “to us” and “to me”, or is it a right thought?

JT It would seem that David was in a wrong state there; it says he was indignant in verse 11, “for Jehovah had made a breach upon Uzza; and he called that place Perez-Uzza to this day”. It means, Breach on Uzza, and then it is called that to this day; that is, the matter is learnt and recognised in this name. Then David was “afraid of God”; well, we shall never get on in the service of God if we are afraid of Him, in this sense. “How shall I bring the ark of God to me?” It is a state that had to be dealt with. People may argue ^[p. 223] about things, and defend them, and excuse them, but they are exposing themselves, and in truth it is the state we are in, in such cases, that God would bring to light.

MWB Really chapter 15 shows how David had made distinct progress in the judgment of the powers that led him astray.

JT Yes; the breach of Uzza, and then the place of breaches, referring to the Philistines’ overthrow. He thoroughly judged that element, not only literally, but spiritually, burning their gods.

WGT Would you say that if we introduce the Philistine idea we shall eventually have the Philistine amongst us?

JT Quite so. You may say, in regard of some human innovation, that God has used it; but what is the origin of it? Is it of God or of man? God’s word must be the first consideration.

JSE Is the setting of this chapter to show how wealth comes from God when we judge things morally rather than by certain results?

JT That is what comes to light; how thoroughly David had judged the Philistine innovation; and what follows, shows how subject David is in meeting this Philistine attack, as if he is wary of this element, not only because of its military power, but because of the religious influence. He is wary of it, and seeks God’s mind about going to battle with them; and God shows him what to do, and there is a complete overthrow of the Philistine power; so we have these chapters 15 to 17. Chapter 17 introduces a new matter, namely, sonship, but in order to have sonship we have to go through these chapters. We cannot enjoy sonship while we are using Philistine resources.

EuR Does it mean that in anything God has shown His mind about, the saints need to be brought into accord with it before there can be any further ^[p. 224] movement?

JT I think the instruction in chapter 14 is to bring out how David was on the line of learning. Though a great military man, yet he says, I must get the mind of God as to how to meet this attack; and God graciously answers in both cases. So not only do we have the overthrow of the Philistines, but the gods are burned with fire. It is the thoroughness of the overthrow; and then the wealth you get as disallowing all these innovations and going in thoroughly for what is of God.

WSS I was thinking of verse 8; the Philistines learned that David had been anointed king: that was the point of the attack.

JT Just so. Now before he undertakes to bring the ark up, he “made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and spread a tent for it”. He is now in accord with Psalm 132:4,5: “I will not give sleep to mine eyes, slumber to mine eyelids, until I find out a place for Jehovah, habitations for the Mighty One of Jacob”. Then he invites Jehovah to enter into what he had prepared; how beautiful that is! It is not a question of what God is doing through any service, but what suits God: “Until I find out a place for Jehovah, habitations for the Mighty One of Jacob”. Psalm 132 shows how exercised David was; and if he had met Abinadab then, what a conversation they would have had! David would have exposed him, suggesting, You have had the ark, all those years, and what has your exercise been about the ark of God? How did you get on daily about this matter? Did you read the book of Numbers, as having the ark in your house? Abinadab might say that David was too particular, that the use of a cart as to it was a minor matter, but the king would reply that it should be carried by the Levites only.

Rem Abinadab’s house would not be morally in accord with the ark.

JT No. What David now prepared would be suitable until the temple ^[p. 225] was built.

JHB Why is it the ark of God in these chapters?

JT I suppose the authority of God is in mind: He dwells between the cherubim. We may go back to Genesis 3 for help as to that; the cherubim were guarding the way to the tree of life. God would not allow man to have that in his sinful state. He guards the tree of life by the cherubim. Maybe in the house of Abinadab the ark was covered with an ordinary piece of cloth, or something like that. He must have had it a great many years — twenty years, 1 Samuel 7 says, but that period had ended then, and the reign of Saul and part of that of David must be added. What would you see there? Evidently not priestly care of the ark. According to the facts given, Abinadab’s children were brought up with rather loose thoughts as to the ark.

AC Martha, as seen in Luke 10, was not in a suited state for the ark, but in John 12 she was; she serves acceptably.

JT Quite so. Her house hardly afforded a place for Christ according to Luke’s description, but “they made him a supper” and all was in order according to John 12.

WSS How does the house of Obed-Edom fit in? God blessed all belonging to him.

JT That is all that is said. We have to judge of him by God’s attitude towards him; that he was acting rightly. If God is blessing a man, his ways are pleasing God — he is thinking rightly of the ark. It is not said that God blessed Abinadab.

CJT In this movement, although priests and Levites were to take it up they were to “hallow themselves” (verse 12).

JT You are referring to chapter 15 — well, see the ground we are on now! How delightful it is to stand alongside David now! “And he made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and spread a tent for it”. What had been prescribed as to the ark in Numbers 3 and 4 is now ^[p. 226] recognised. Then, according to Numbers 10 the order was changed. When they began to march, the order was changed: the Gershonites and the Merarites went ahead with the tabernacle and set it up before the ark came. The Kohathites came, bearing the sanctuary. As we love Christ we have things ready for Christ.

Ques Is that why David said, “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites, for them has Jehovah chosen”. He does not use the word commanded, but chosen; is that a spiritual uplift?

JT I think so. We get recompense when we make room for Christ, prepare for Him. Some of us were lately looking at Numbers 10; the tabernacle was set up first, so that when the sanctuary came, it was not exposed, it was set in its place: then, as if God would say, I will reward you for that, the ark went before to find out a resting-place for them. As we honour Christ, He honours us: the ark itself became leader of the saints — going before to find a resting-place for them.

JJ Do you think there is a suggestion, in the ark moving from the house of Abinadab to the house of Obed-Edom, of Christ amongst the gentiles?

JT You refer to the composition of his name — Obed-Edom. You cannot attach much importance to it, being called a Gittite, he may have been of Philistine origin. This would imply that he was the subject of sovereign mercy and valued this. It is vague, because we have an Obed-Edom amongst the Levites later here. But one point is, that if God is blessing a man, that man is pleasing to Him. It is not simply that I get converts and the like; that is not the point. Is God blessing me and my house? That is the clear indication that God is pleased with him. David does not refer to that point here, although it influenced him according to Samuel. Here he is not thinking of that side, of the blessing that comes to him, but what is due to God: that is to be noticed. David, in chapter 15, is imbued with the thought of God’^[p. 227] s rights.

PHH What is conveyed in the expression “tent”? It does not seem to be a final thought, as later on in connection with the temple; would it suggest at all the level of Ephesians — that is, at the present time?

JT It alludes to what is provisional as over against the sanctuary built like the heights, which God establishes for ever (Psalm 78:69). What David does here follows Exodus, but when you come to chapter 17 you get the change: he has in his mind a fixed habitation for God. In the meantime, he is doing what is right; for it was according to God to have a tent — the book of Exodus shows that — but as he proceeds, chapter 17 shows that he has in his mind to have permanent dwelling for God.

MWB In the beginning of chapter 16 there is a reference to this tent and in verse 39 there is mention of the tabernacle, both are provided for in service; would you say a word as to the distinction between the two as applicable to this day?

JT I am glad you bring that up because it will enable us to say a little about the position at Gibeon as related to the position at Jerusalem — how David is able to carry the two thoughts with him. He is typical of an instructed christian as to that which is to be discontinued, though still owned of God, and not yet discarded. It was about to merge in the temple, but in the meantime he is recognising what God had ordained. The time is coming for it to be discarded, but he is recognising it still. It is brought in, I think, to show how David is learning; how the disciple or christian learns from God, and observes what God is still owning.

What should be noticed, after the richness of chapter 15 down to verse 24, is that David’s personal service brings out reproach; that as learning and coming into accord with the mind of God, we are sure to come in for reproach. So “Michal the daughter of Saul looked ^[p. 228] through a window, and saw king David dancing and playing; and she despised him in her heart”.

AJG Does the reproach come from those who are just onlookers?

JT That is it. At certain times brethren become quite prominent, as we speak, noticed and even commended; but this despising in the heart always exists as God’s rights are practically owned; “she despised him in her heart”. That is bitter.

Ques Can we link that up with the thought that Michal was Saul’s suggestion, and it is never said that David loved Michal, although it is said she loved him?

JT She is very much like the christian in a human system, having a regard for Christ, but secretly despising those who honour Him. David was honouring Him here: “And David was clothed with a robe of byssus, and all the Levites that bore the ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah chief of the music of the singers; and David had upon him a linen ephod. And all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of Jehovah with shouting, and with sound of the trumpet, and with clarions, and with cymbals, playing aloud with lutes and harps. And it came to pass as the ark of the covenant of Jehovah came to the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looked through a window, and saw king David dancing and playing; and she despised him in her heart”. That corresponds to a certain attitude today.

HB Why is it the city of David and not Jerusalem? What is it in contrast to Hebron?

JT It is Jerusalem, only David, as acting for God, took it, according to the earlier note in chapter 11: “David took the stronghold of Zion, which is the city of David ... And David dwelt in the stronghold; therefore they called it the city of David. And he built the city round about, even from the Millo round about; and Joab renewed the rest of the city” (verses 5,7,8);

^[p. 229] and Samuel adds to that by saying that David built “inward”: this, I think, is to bring out the spiritual influence of David at that time. That seems to be the thought, that the Spirit of God is stressing David in all this, so that the surroundings are suitable. A man that is so concerned about the testimony is worthy to be mentioned in this way. He is not here a type of Christ, but of the believer, I think.

HMS Why do we have now a fresh title for the ark, “ark of the covenant of Jehovah”? Had the covenant been disregarded?

JT Yes. David is now coming nearer to God as in covenant relations with him. In spite of the judgment of Michal, how happy David is to be nearing the idea of covenant relations with God; and after this despisal, instead of David being disconcerted by it, he goes on. It is the progress of the moment, how God is leading His people on with increased light as to His service. David goes on in spite of her despisal, and he writes his psalm on that day: “Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to give thanks to Jehovah through Asaph and his brethren” (chapter 16:7). Let the despising go on, and it will go on; but let us go on with the truth, let us progress in the truth. There is much yet to be understood; and I think this psalm is very wonderful at this juncture. It shows that David is giving his mind to the service of God and not to what Michal is saying. Let us give our minds to this great matter of the service of God; there is much further instruction that is needed.

So David makes a selection, for the service of God, from other psalms, that is suitable to the moment; that is, we may say, a hymn book suitable to the moment. He is learning; light is streaming into his soul; he is in reproach, but he is now a worshipper; he has come to it, and he is going on in it. He delivered it, but it is a composition made up of psalms — about six other psalms are drawn from. That is, a man who understands ^[p. 230] how to draw on current provision or selections, makes the most use of what we have.

Ques To use the contribution of others?

JT Yes, the contributions of others; we are making the best use of what we have, but there is a good deal more needed. Some of us were remarking that in our hymn book there are about two hundred and fifty hymns addressed to the Lord Jesus, and about fifty to the Father. If the Lord Jesus is more in evidence in the service than the Father, there is need of balance. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal in Deity, but the Son and the Spirit have taken subject positions for the sake of the testimony and this should be always kept in mind. In public prayer many confine themselves to the Lord, not addressing the Father. That fails of needed balance.

PL Do you think that the sorrows of the reproach would develop the finer feelings for the service of song? The “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Philippians 3:18), caused Paul to weep, but he encouraged the saints to the service of song and says: “Rejoice in the Lord always: and again I will say, Rejoice”, Philippians 4: 4.

JT Quite so; and in his own case, one of most striking cases, the treatment he received in Philippi from the authorities was unreasonably severe, and the jailor was quite in keeping with the attitude of the authorities. Nevertheless, as some of us were saying, the apostle and Silas go on to maintain the service of God; they had in the prison the meeting for prayer, and the meeting for praise, and the gospel meeting; also the Bible reading — the latter in the jailor’s house. The sufferings were intense, the persecution was unspeakable, but the service of God went on: what it must have been to God as their prayer developed into praise!

ECB Would you help us as to addressing the Lord Jesus and the Father in ^[p. 231] prayer?

JT One thing I would advise is, that we look into Scripture and see the number of times the Lord Jesus is addressed in prayer and praise, and see how many times the Father is addressed. That inquiry would instruct us, as showing that while Christ, of course, is addressed, God, as God, or the Father, is much more frequently addressed. At the same time we must steadily observe that the divine Persons are equal. If one honours the Father he must honour the Son and the Spirit too; but the Son and the Spirit, in wonderful condescension, have taken a place of subjection, and the Father is God in the economy: “to us there is one God, the Father”, 1 Corinthians 8: 6. So that the whole tenor of the New Testament would indicate that the Father is the One to be spoken to generally, although, as plainly shown in Scripture, Christ as Lord should be addressed also. Thus in our meetings for prayer, God the Father should have His place.

Rem I think David employs seven titles, seven glories of God in speaking to Him, as in chapter 17:16 - 27.

JT We should now go on to that. In that chapter we have the finish of the instruction in this section: David accepts the message from Nathan. It is the first mention of Nathan in 1 Chronicles. His name means “a gift”; a man coming in on the line of gift — a most important man. Chapter 17 shows that David is concerned now about the position of the ark; he says, “Behold, I dwell in a house of cedars, and the ark of the covenant of Jehovah under curtains. And Nathan said to David, Do all that is in thy heart; for God is with thee” (verses 1, 2). We have now a man who is learning, as we were saying; he has brought in this wonderful psalm drawn from current resources in the service of God; and now he is concerned about the ark, that even what he had prepared for it was not enough. Typically, he is advancing in appreciation of Christ; and we have Nathan introduced: he implies ^[p. 232] gift, as we noted, a most useful man in the history of David. What would he have done without him! you might say. God knows what is needed and provides him; and although he convicted him of sin, David never resented anything Nathan said. So we find him here taking a message from Jehovah to David; it is on that principle, like John 20; Nathan is the messenger from Jehovah to David.

FCH God says, “Go and say to David my servant”; does David take on service now in a more exalted way than before?

JT I think this is the first mention of “servant” as applied to David in the book before us; it would mean that God is pleased with his service. He is progressing in the knowledge of God, and would like to build a house for Jehovah; and God says, He is My servant.

Rem If we really have right desires God will see to it that we are educated as to them.

JT That is a good word. Here He brings in Nathan: he is a prophet, but his name indicates that his service is a special provision for the king; God is providing for His servant to guide him aright as to sonship.

Ques In Hezekiah’s time Nathan the prophet is said to have given commandment with David as to the praise of God (see 2 Chronicles 29:25); is that all in view in this?

JT I think so. Nathan is greatly honoured in David’s history; even as rebuked by him, he accepts Nathan. It is a suggestion to us at the present time; there may be something the brethren need. We have arrived at this peculiar time. It looks as if we need to give keen attention to what God is doing; many are falling asleep, and a number of young brethren are coming forward with remarkable ability; this may correspond with this principle of gift that David recognises here in Nathan. It helps him. He is a greater man after Nathan has been to him; he is sitting in the ^[p. 233] liberty of sonship, in the light that Nathan has brought to him.

EG Nathan himself is adjusted by God and shows a beautiful spirit.

JT In this respect he has been like some young men of today, too quick in their answers: what is needed is quiet waiting on God. There are those who say yes, yes, to everything: that will not do. It is better to question an older brother respectfully. “Do all that is in thy heart; for God is with thee”: that seems a good word; but, “it came to pass that night”; he has to go through the night. God works in the night. “Go and say to David my servant, Thus saith Jehovah: Thou shalt not build me a house to dwell in”.

PL The knowledge that is born of reflection we want to cultivate.

JT Quite so; constant correction in the school of God — the most spiritual of us need it.

Ques Does that provide God with an opportunity to enrich the sphere of His own thoughts?

JT Exactly: the burden of the message is sonship. It ends in the fifteenth verse: “According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak to David”. He did not add anything or subtract anything — a very important matter. Jehovah says in the message: “And I will subdue all thine enemies; and I tell thee that Jehovah will build thee a house. And it shall come to pass, when thy days are fulfilled that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. It is he who shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son; and I will not take away my mercy from him, as I took it from him that was before thee; and I will settle him in my house and in my kingdom for ever; and his throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak to David”. That is the light that has come to the learner’s soul. Now he sits before Jehovah in the house, and in speaking to Him David uses a large number of titles of Jehovah, intelligently sitting before Him.

PHH Does this refer to sonship in Christ and sonship in us?

JT It is Christ first that is in mind, but David is learning it. If the sonship of Christ is understood; if it is presented to me objectively in Christ, the idea is, I am learning it. “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). We have contemplated it: it was there objectively; they saw how the Lord was with the Father. It is “an only-begotten with a father”; we contemplate that. As I am contemplating, I am taking on the thing, becoming it in a sense — I believe that is the idea. “And king David went in and sat before Jehovah” (verse 16). We do not read of this before: he has taken on something of what the message conveys.

WGT As the house comes into view we must have the Father and the Son; the kingdom does not go as far as this.

JT Quite so; sonship for us is by faith as presented objectively in Christ; we contemplate it in Him. That is my understanding of it. Divine things are so great they are presented in a Person great enough to express them: and as I contemplate, I become formed; for the Holy Spirit is operating in me as I contemplate; as to sonship, He is in us as the Spirit of it. David is coming into this now, he sat before Jehovah, and what follows is all the wonderful thoughts he has as there — having arrived at the thought of sonship.

EuR It does not say he sat before the ark but “before Jehovah”.

JT Quite so: the thought of the ark merges in sonship in Him.