GOD'S INHERITANCE IN THE SAINTS (3)
GOD’S INHERITANCE IN THE SAINTS (3)
1 Chronicles 21:18 - 30; 1 Chronicles 22:1 - 19
JT Brethren will recall that in our meeting yesterday afternoon we reached sonship. David is seen at the end of chapter 17 as moving in the light of the message from Jehovah through Nathan. He “sat before Jehovah”, we are told, and spoke to Him in marked liberty and intelligence, indicating that the light that reached him through the message had affected him.
The section we are now reading, running on to the end of chapter 22, is a section of the book into which much enters both in a historical and moral sense. All that transpired is to be viewed in the light of sonship. According to the Spirit’s account, we are advancing in the truth in this section. The house is in mind. Chapter 18 shows great victories by David — military victories; and provision being made in the sense of education for the house. David’s operations extend to the Euphrates, indicating enlargement of view; for that is the eastern limit of the territory assigned to Israel. Enlargement follows the light of sonship. All that is definitely allotted to us is to be taken hold of, and the wealth dedicated in view of the house.
The history however is not unmixed, for his service evidently elated David. So in chapter 21 we have him exposed to the enemy: it is said, “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel”. I think we are reminded in these facts that success in service, unless carried on assiduously in communion with God, may lead to pride: occupation with results, and the desire to enhance our own greatness by occupation with the number of converts, and of meetings, and their size; all this is not in keeping with spirituality. But the account is to bring out how failure is made to work out the divine thoughts in us. We have already noticed the thoroughness of David’s self-judgment, and [p. 236] how it eventuates in positive things. The house is reached: for failure in any of us is not really judged unless it eventuates in something positive for God in the house of God and the service of God.
EJMcB How do you look at these three offers made to him by the prophet Gad in regard to this failure?
JT It would indicate, among other things, that the Lord would assure David of His consideration of him. He is not acting in an arbitrary way. He would suggest to His servant that He regarded him as yet capable of deliberation; a very important matter when we have failed. When we are capable of reasonable deliberation, God would ever assure us that He also is ready for that. He is not arbitrary with us in these circumstances.
PL That spirit with David led God to choose the shortest of the three lines of discipline suggested; and even then Jehovah intervened before the three days were up.
JT It is very touching at this stage that God is ready, as it were, to have mutual interchange of thought with His people, in giving us credit for having, in spite of our failure, moral qualities which enable us to take account of conditions and deliberate; and in result David trusted God, for he said: “Let me fall now into the hand of the Lord” (chapter 21:13).
In saying all this one would like the brethren to consider a little what immediately preceded chapter 21; it shows how God deals with us sectionally. Our lives are made up, and the history of the assembly too, on this principle. Light is vouchsafed to us, and then God permits us to move in it; and what follows brings out how far it has been effective. Chapter 18 has to be considered by itself; it is a general account of David’s victories. What follows is the despising of grace by Hanun, son of the king of Ammon, and what eventuated from this; whether it warrants what actually happened [p. 237] in the sense of severity (chapter 20:3); whether this was according to the light that God had vouchsafed to David, we have to analyse and see, because we are in a mixed condition down here, and if God allows the light to work, the flesh is all too ready to show itself in spite of the light.
AJG How do you regard David’s showing kindness to the king of Ammon? In Deuteronomy 23 it is said that they were not to seek the peace nor the prosperity of the Ammonite for ever.
JT I am glad you mentioned that. Here David was actuated by the spirit of grace, and this fits into the instruction in the section before us; and Ammon is doing despite to the spirit of grace.
Ques Would this link on with what we had yesterday as to the magnanimous spirit of David?
JT I think so; if grace is undeserved in our histories, and of course it is, nevertheless it is shown, and if we do despite to it, we become increasingly guilty. The Spirit leaves out the case of Mephibosheth here, which was grace resultful; instead of that we have, in Hanun, one doing insult to the spirit of grace.
FCH How do you regard the putting of the crown of the king of Ammon on David’s head?
JT I think that was right; it was the imperial thought which belonged to David; he was operating to the full limit of the territory assigned, which included these countries.
MWB Is the enlargement of which you have spoken consequent on the light of sonship, all embraced in the victories in chapter 18 and in this remarkable one in chapter 19? There is the dedication of things to Jehovah, and then the interesting remark in chapter 18:17, “the sons of David were the first at the king’s hand”. Is that all on the lines of sonship, enlargement and education?
JT Yes. Chapter 18 is a general presentation of the result of David’s military operations; and of his [p. 238] regime — a fixed state of things — with that thought at the end, “the sons of David were the first at the king’s hand”. Sonship is evidently in mind; it enters into the position, but the section shows, it seems to me, that with the full military prowess of the king a certain hardness developed. Verse 3 of chapter 20 says: “And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with the saw, and with harrows of iron, and with saws. And so David did to all the cities of the children of Ammon”. A certain hardness had developed, and, of course, it is only mentioned now as applying to ourselves, warning us as to any light vouchsafed, that we should be in accord with it, and not allow ourselves, in our success, to move from the state acquired in nearness to God, in communion with Him; for He has great pleasure in seeing the development of the light in our souls and the formation suitable to it. The account in this section shows that David was very successful, even in regard to the giants in the end of chapter 20, but then, success did not carry with it what was due to God, who has His interests and delight in us as observing the result of the light we have received. It is not only a matter of the success of our service, but the spirit in which we carry it on, that God is pleased with us every moment.
Ques Does this elation at success allow Satan to strike at God really through the people, to destroy God’s thoughts in respect of the house?
JT That is just it: he “stood up against Israel”; it is the people Satan has in mind. If Satan attacks a man prominent in service, he has God’s people in mind; to rob God of His due. Light implies that we are to be formed for God. If sonship has come in, that is for God, for the Father; sons are for the Father; and if we are talking about sonship, as we ought to be, God is looking for the spirit of sonship in us. The Lord says, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46); and Stephen says, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). His spirit is what a man really is. God had already told David that he was a man of war, and so could not build the house, but he does not relax in his warlike severity. A great military man is inclined to push the military side to its limit; but here what David is most successful in, is depriving him of something (1 Chronicles 28:3). If that is so, then I ought to relax. This light of sonship is so precious we cannot be without it. Satan is aiming at the people; light vouchsafed is for all the saints, not simply for the brother who has light and gives it out. It is intended to affect the saints, and the saints are God’s inheritance — what is for God — and Satan would rob God of His inheritance.
Rem In prayer we are exhorted to be “without wrath or reasoning” (1 Timothy 2:8); and the Lord says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).
JT The Lord was on the cross in the presence of His enemies and that was His spirit; and then He says, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit”. What that was for God! What He received there! That should be ever in our minds. Had David carried on in his warlike operations in the light of sonship? Did he learn from the reference to his military operations? Did he learn that he ought to relax from his exceeding severities — cutting people with saws and so on? A man is what his spirit is, what he is for God in his work, his business, wherever he may be, every moment. I ought to be for God, pleasing to Him in my spirit.
Ques Would the development of the affections proper to sonship preserve us in tenderness?
JT Quite so.
Ques Was David failing then in the hard way he was treating the Ammonites?
JT Well, it is for us to judge. Did he need to do that? Could not the military work of God be carried on with less severity?
[p. 240] Rem Abigail comes to light with a modifying spirit. She had long been in company with a churlish man and now she stays David’s hand; and David says, “Blessed be thy discernment” (1 Samuel 25:33).
JT That ought to be the attitude of the assembly, and those leading in service should be ready to accept wise advice. Paul was ready at times to be advised by others, but in going up to Jerusalem he would not be advised. This is seen specially in the house of Philip and his four daughters who prophesied. The atmosphere of that house must have been most affecting; and Agabus even acts what awaited the apostle in Jerusalem with his own girdle, to impress him; but there is no change.
Ques Does “he that ruleth his spirit” is better than “he that taketh a city” apply (Proverbs 16:32)?
JT It does.
LES In Hebrews 12:9, it says: “Shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live?”
JT It is “the Father of spirits”. That is a very important word. We have come “to the spirits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:23); we have come to them. Well, if I have come to them, I ought to measure mine with them. It is “the spirits of just men made perfect”; they are that permanently, and I ought to learn from them. Hebrews 11 gives us a list of the men of faith, and I am surrounded by their testimony, “cloud of witnesses”; and I want to learn from them. Stephen carries on the thought: he maintained a spirit like his Master’s as experiencing extreme persecution and sufferings. We need to emulate that spirit in having to do with opposition.
Rem The Lord had to say to James and John, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of” (Luke 9:55). John in the bosom of Jesus is a contrast: he is learning [p. 241] sonship.
JT What a changed man he was!
Ques Does “the spirits of just men made perfect” suggest they have arrived at that?
JT It is, I suppose, anticipative. It implies that it is complete, a finished thought; all anticipative, I should say. It is not the present state of those who fall asleep that is in mind, but the state of perfection reached when they receive their bodies. We have to avoid any thought of coming to the spirits of those fallen asleep now; Hebrews does not contemplate that. It is what is finished anticipatively — what we have come to — as over against what Israel came to at Sinai. Faith lays hold of this great system of things. It is not visible in a material sense — “what might be touched” — but come to by faith and realised in a spiritual way. In principle, we have part in what is presented in the assembly, especially the spirits of just men. Christ is the great example of it all.
Ques Is the word as to the chastening of the Father in Hebrews 12 important in view of our coming to His holiness?
JT Quite so: “the Father of spirits”; and one has been thinking of oneself as to whether one is developing in one’s spirit. We may have been developing in service, but what kind of spirits have we? They are not to be complaining ones, nor dissatisfied ones. It reminds us of the danger of living in service. It is what we deliver to Christ, as seen in Stephen, that counts.
WC Would Luke 10 bear on this point, to preserve us from living in service?
JT Just so. The seventy had come back from a season of very successful service; the Lord does not enlarge on that. They say: “Even the demons are subject to us through thy name” (verse 17); but He says, ‘Do not rejoice in this’. I believe it enters into this section peculiarly, for David seems to have failed in his spirit to answer to the light he had received in chapter [p. 242] 17. He is to die, to go to his fathers; but how is he to hand over his spirit to God? If I am complaining now, I am not fit. What is my spirit? I must have some capital to live on when I am passing over Jordan: it is a question of the state of my spirit.
MWB In chapter 21:3 Joab says: “Why does my lord require this thing?” There was not only the wrong action, but the wrong spirit, as disregarding testimony against it.
JT You wonder at it; Joab the captain of the host and the other captains (2 Samuel 24:4), are all against this action of David; it is a challenge to him. He is evidently wrong in his spirit, and what we have in the chapters we have read, is to bring out the thoroughness of his recovery — how thoroughly he is restored.
Ques Does the turning point come in his discipline when he says: “Let thy hand, I pray thee, [p. 246] Jehovah my God, be on me and on my father’s house; but not on thy people, that they should be smitten” (chapter 21:17)?
JT Yes, the shepherd character comes out: “It is I that have sinned and done evil; but these sheep, what have they done?” It is very beautiful — what a man David was, now came to light.
ECB What is the difference between this and the record in 2 Samuel 24, where it is said that the Lord moved David to number the people?
JT You can see the suitability of its being just Satan who is in mind here, in Chronicles, as moving David. Samuel, I think, would bring out that God is dealing with the state of the people, and He is getting at that state through David. Here, it is not Jehovah but Satan; it is another view, for the people belong to God, and the enemy would attack them.
GCG Would the way Satan appears at this juncture indicate that in regard to the securing of the saints as God’s inheritance, we now see that the issue is between God and [p. 243] Satan?
JT It is to bring out, I think, that here God’s inheritance is in mind. Samuel and 1 Kings have more in mind the actual concrete condition of Israel; Chronicles contemplates besides that, the abstract state; and, in order to understand this, we must consider Luke 24 and John 20. No doubt the same event is recorded in both gospels, but John adheres to the abstract condition that was there. In this sense you can have nothing without God’s work, and to see it fully it must be regarded abstractly. So John leaves out the things that Luke enlarges on; God is entitled to do that, to take account of His people abstractly. They are not His people at all if there is not something of His work in them, and He is entitled to take account of this, and He does so, and that really is the basis of all formation. There is the abstract work of God in relation to which He moves; He clothes His people and assures them at times that He is thinking of them in that way.
HB The wise woman says: “Why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the Lord?” (2 Samuel 20:19).
JT Quite so: there was an inheritance for God in that town, and God takes account of the town in that way. So Satan is operating here against what there is really for God. There is no doubt about it that there was something in Israel for God, and Satan would spoil God’s inheritance; and the most effective way is to damage the leaders: here Satan affects the leader. It is the people that he has in mind: “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel”. Think of that with a servant of God! It is the outcome of not keeping assiduously in the light that God has given, and having our spirits maintained according to it.
JHT Would verse 6 suggest that there is something that Satan could not touch or number — Levi, in view of the service of God, and Benjamin linking up with the spirit of [p. 244] sonship?
JT Levi and Benjamin were not numbered, as if the service of God was immune. “But Levi and Benjamin he did not count among them; for the king’s word was abominable to Joab” (verse 6). There must be something in that. Was Joab governed for the moment by right thoughts in exempting those two tribes?
EJMcB You were speaking about the government of God — would not Joab represent that? This matter had followed the arbitrary way David had carried on, and the rebuke comes from a leading military man.
JT Joab’s history in no way indicated that he was less severe in military operations than the king; so it would come home to David, knowing what Joab was, a murderer, indeed: Where am I in my spirit, that even he has to rebuke me? David would have to think thus.
JB Do we get this principle in Luke 22:31? — “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to have you, to sift you as wheat; but I have besought for thee that thy faith fail not”.
JT Satan evidently had demanded to have all the apostles; what a bold thing that was! It was a challenge to the Lord as to whether these men were capable of standing the test he would put them through. The Lord says to Peter, “I have besought for thee”. Seemingly the others were covered, although they all fled; showing, I think, the discriminating care of the Lord. The others were preserved from the extraordinary lengths to which Peter went; but the Lord prayed for Peter that his faith should not fail.
PHH Would you say a word as to the difference between Gad, David’s seer and Nathan the prophet? Both appear at the end of the book.
JT They were a peculiar provision of God; Nathan appears first in chapter 17. He is not spoken of as David’s, but Gad is called David’s seer: I think, to bring out the thought that David retained him; he would never dismiss his seer. Ahab said of Micah; “I hate him” (1 Kings 22:8), he did not like him; he knew that he told the truth, and David knew that Gad told the truth, but he did not dismiss him. David retained Gad; he would not dismiss a man like Gad, although he spoke to David against his conduct.
JJ How do you regard the purchase of the threshing-floor of Ornan?
JT That is God coming in: “And the angel of Jehovah commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up and rear an altar to Jehovah in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite”. That is, God comes in at the right moment. God says, I am going on to My thought. This thought of God is in keeping with David’s abstract condition. God knew what David was capable of and God takes the initiative; and it is where the altar is to be. He is not leaving David to decide as to where it is to be — it is a question now of God’s purpose. This verse would not fit earlier; David has come to it, and God says, I can now go on with My thoughts. He knew what was in David’s heart at the bottom, as in chapter 17; and when we come to chapter 22 we shall see how he goes over the ground of Nathan’s message, how thoroughly he had come to it. He is thorough in the matter; and this, I think, suggests the importance of being thorough in all these matters.
JJ What is the concrete idea in the threshing-floor?
JT The principle of separation of the good from the bad; sifting. That is what God is doing; He had done it in David’s soul here. The good was there; it refers to the mixed condition God has to deal with in us.
Rem The disciples were to be sifted as wheat, as we have noted.
JT Exactly: wheat has to be sifted — freed from all else.
JC Is the exercise of the threshing-floor seen in David’s prayer? He says, “Let thy hand, I pray thee,
Jehovah my God, be on me and on my father’s house”. Is that really the wheat coming to light?
JT Yes. God knows where the grain is; if there is no grain, of what good is the discipline implied here?
MWB The failure only being mentioned in view of the great results in the recovery, the attempt of Satan against the people would be foiled by greater spoil than ever in the people.
JT Just so. There are much greater failures of David recorded in Samuel, than in this book. What is recorded here is to bring out what God is doing in view of the abstract condition of David — to bring out the reality that was there. God has pleasure in that and can use it. Here, David is thoroughly brought round to the house. He calls it the house of God when there is literally no house of God. He is so far thoroughly in the truth: “This is the house of Jehovah Elohim, and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel”. It is not what shall be, but what is.
SB Would you say a word as to the connection between the two threshing-floors — what David learnt at “the threshing-floor of Chidon” (chapter 13:9), and here where the altar is to be set up? I was connecting it too with the fact that the ark was brought back from the Philistines in the days when the men of Beth-shemesh were reaping their wheat-harvest; but they did not go on with this thought.
JT That is all suggestive of what is important. Abinadab evidently did not gain anything, as we have been saying; it is in the threshing that God brings out the full result of His work. It is not only that we gain, but God gets something — the fruit of His sowing.
Ques You alluded to the failure of David in Samuel; Nathan is used there and Gad here; why is it not the priest in these two cases?
JT It is a question of a prophetic ministry; what God is stressing amongst us now. It is the prophet in both cases, and it is to David’s credit that he retained [p. 247] them; God is recovering and preserving the saints now on this principle. The priest has not the same power as the prophet — the prophet brings God into your soul; so we see in 1 Corinthians 14, that one is convicted and falls down because of the prophetic word; the priestly feature would be there, but it is not mentioned.
AJG So that the prophetic word is the divine provision at any time to further what God is doing in His people.
JT The prophet brings God into your soul; God is present in a felt way and there is conviction. “By a prophet Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved” (Hosea 12:13).
PL “The acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer” (1 Chronicles 29:29). Would that indicate that those most severe upon the flesh in prophetic power in regard of the saints, will have the most to write about them, in relation to the work of God? Do 1 and 2 Corinthians come in in that way?
JT They do. The three accounts would give you what God saw. One would like to read those books; we have not got them, but the point is the prophetic character of the books of David’s life.
EuR Would the great yield from discipline be seen in the word: “Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28,29)? Would that involve no standing for flesh in the matter?
JT That is right. God is greatly stressing the prophetic ministry, and these two men, Gad and Nathan, are to be in our minds in the history we are reviewing. What they represent is essential to the service of God at the present time. It is not a mere ritual we are going on with; God is speaking to us every day about it.
EuR “See that ye refuse not him that speaks ... from heaven” (Hebrews 12:25).
[p. 248] Ques Is it important in prophetic ministry to take account of the abstract side of God’s work, not merely to speak to the conscience? In the actual ministry that would be in mind.
JT You get no result if there is no subjective work of God.
AHP In the address to Philadelphia we get: “Thou hast kept the word of my patience” (Revelation 3:10); the prophets would have part in that, would they not?
JT Quite so. Through them His word comes to us. The prophets of the Old Testament represent the patience of God. He speaks of “rising early” and sending them.
NKM With regard to the abstract thought being in mind in prophetic ministry, is that why Paul says, “Follow after love” (1 Corinthians 14:1)? It is a question of what there is in the souls of the saints.
JT Yes; and earlier, God pointedly said: “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened” (1 Corinthians 5:7). It is not ‘that ye should be’, but what they were.
Ques With regard to God’s looking into the soul in prophetic ministry, is there a suggestion of that in 1 Samuel 9:9? We read, “In former time in Israel, when a man went to ask counsel of God, he said, Come and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a Prophet was in former time called a Seer”.
JT Yes; what the prophet says enforces the mind of God. He sees things, but the gift implies power to enforce the word. The one who is now called a prophet used to be called a seer; the matter has become more effective. The thing is to enforce the truth in the minds of the saints; not only that I see things, but enforce them. The murderous attitude of Saul against David is overcome by the spirit of prophecy — the prophets were prophesying, and Samuel was presiding over them, and even Saul himself prophesied (1 Samuel 19:19 - 24).
[p. 249] Ques Is there a link between what is seen in Ornan and Epaphras “always combating earnestly for you in prayers” (Colossians 4:12)? He was threshing wheat.
JT He was doing that important work, that is the point. “And Ornan turned back and saw the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat”. Philip had four daughters who prophesied; Ornan has four sons engaged in this profitable work — threshing wheat; so conditions are favourable for what is to be developed. “And David came to Ornan, and Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the threshing-floor, and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground”. The position is right, the circumstances are right for the development of what God has in mind; and therefore we reach the house. God has His thoughts in all this; He has His thoughts and would make even evil conditions among His people work them out. The work of God is there and God has more than recovery in mind; He is going to reach His thoughts. Other things must enter into it, and Ornan represents that side. He is doing something good and profitable, and his four sons are with him.
WGT David offers burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; there is not the sin-offering; it is the positive side.
JT Quite so; David is moving on to the house, and the sin-offering is omitted; the inheritance of God is in mind.
Ques The full price of six hundred shekels of gold is paid; silver might remind us of the work of redemption, but would gold bring in sonship?
JT Yes; it is a great thought. You must make all the room possible for sonship, and sonship is in mind in the building of the house. So, virtually, David says, ‘I will give plenty of scope for Solomon’, and this leads us on to chapter 22. There are a great many young men coming on, and it is delightful to see them, but they are coming into things already existing — they are [p. 250] not inaugurating anything. Solomon is coming into great wealth, in the production of which he had no part: that should keep him balanced and lowly. If I am a young man in the fellowship today, all this provision is available to me and I have to comport myself in regard of that.
Rem “Other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours” (John 4:38).
JT Yes, exactly; chapter 22 enlarges on what existed: “And there are workmen with thee in abundance, hewers and workers of stone and timber, and all manner of skilful men for every kind of work. Of the gold, the silver, and the brass, and the iron, there is no number”. That is for every young man today, that is what you come into; but add to it; bring in something of your own.
JSE Do all these persons referred to in chapter 22 suggest those who have ideals and are working in relation to them? Would these workers in stone, and so on represent persons exercised as to divine thoughts?
JT Yes; John enlarges on what exists. He takes account of the work of God in whatever measure it may show itself.
PL “The acknowledgment of every good thing” (Philemon 6).
JJ “His foundation is in the mountains of holiness” (Psalm 87:1). Is that this threshing-floor?
JT That psalm would enter into what is before us. We have here in Chronicles the burnt-offering and the peace-offering; also the ground acquired, and there is plenty of it for the purpose in mind. The amount paid for the place and the large amount of material here are to bring out what the Spirit of God is aiming at — to bring out the greatness of sonship — the largeness of what the Spirit of God has in mind, a supreme thought was to be attained. The house to be built was to be “exceeding great in fame and in beauty in all lands”.
JSE [p. 251] What is the difference between the house of God (Elohim) and the house of Jehovah Elohim?
JT Well, Jehovah Elohim is, I think, the full thought; it involves that the whole power of God is linked up with His covenant. Jehovah is the covenant name, and that worked out today is the love name — the love behind it; Elohim implies supremacy and power. It is the full thought of God, His power being available; David using the name Jehovah Elohim here would indicate the fulness of his recovery.
ROS David paid the full price for the place — he is a true son of Abraham as referred to in Luke 19:9 and Genesis 23.
JT A true son of Abraham in liberality, you mean — you go the whole way. Here David paid the full money. There is nothing small about a man who is living in the light of sonship.
ECB David’s son is “young and tender”, but the house to be built is to be “exceeding magnifical”.
JT It is the measure of sonship in view spiritually. In chapter 17 there was no Solomon, but here we have Solomon, but a young thought, a tender thought; he is surrounded by everything he needs, and he is to “add to it”. David is introducing the progressive thought which enters into youth. We are to advance in the thought of sonship. That is added in our exercises of a levitical character. Solomon here represents sonship, but there is to be progress in it, chapter 29 bringing out the fulness of it in Solomon as reigning.
PHH Would you mind saying a word about Gibeon? — it is mentioned in chapter 16:39: “Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of Jehovah in the high place that was at Gibeon”; and now in chapter 21: “And the tabernacle of Jehovah, which Moses had made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt-offering, were at that time in the high place at Gibeon. But David could not go before it to inquire of God”.
JT We noted a little yesterday as to chapter 16 that David, although he had brought the ark into the city of David and prepared for it, still leaves the tabernacle at Gibeon and Zadok before it. Gibeon is the old position — the new and the old are running together as at the beginning of Acts. The new position could never take full form until Paul is brought in. In him (Acts 9:20), sonship is presented in testimony: “He preached Jesus that he is the Son of God”. The old position was observed until Acts 7. I think Gibeon here is to show that David provided the best man he had to look after the service, which, as in Acts, represents the patience of God. Zadok is carried through in Ezekiel to the millennium. So long as God is observing the old position it must be cherished. But in our chapter David is afraid to go to Gibeon: it is the legal system; whereas God’s sword is sheathed at the altar David built in Ornan’s threshing-floor. It is where the sword is sheathed that he can go. Gibeon cannot be the house of God. David says of the threshing-floor: “This is the house of the Lord God”.
EuR Would Solomon being “young and tender” indicate that the work of God in us is sensitive? We have to take care that it is not hindered; is it to be connected with the truth as established in David?
JT Yes. Solomon here would mean sonship in development; although it is Solomon, he is not yet the full development. This is a question of our apprehension of Him, not what Christ is in a personal sense. In chapter 23 Solomon is on the throne, with David; in chapter 29, on the throne alone; David is dead; and hence the next book is to bring out how the house is built.
FSM Is the recovery of David seen here in that he reaches the point where God answered him in divine communications; and then the place of sacrifice; and then sonship in its time; and then a place for the ark and the vessels of the sanctuary? He seems to get [p. 253] an enlarged apprehension of the house of God although there is nothing material here at all.
JT Just the bare land. Does it not show that David has reached the truth of the house in his soul? God had met him through sacrifice, and he is in intelligent liberty with God and full of the idea of His house.
FSM Those young in the faith may reach this in their souls through spiritual sacrifice.
JT Quite so: so this position links with Jacob as seen in Genesis 28. Jacob called the place where God appeared to him the house of God; it is a question of my soul being in relation to the Lord on terms of holy reciprocity, I am thus in perfect liberty with God. “This is the house of Jehovah Elohim, and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel”. The divine inheritance is in view; in verse 3 he provides iron for the nails, and the brass; it is a question of strength, the power in which Christ was raised from the dead; all is held in that power. This position must stand.
Ques Would it be right to say that in what follows on this David received the pattern of the house by the Spirit, but here it is more the general outline in mind?
JT Yes; what is in mind here is that God is effecting the thought in David’s soul. He is now ready for the pattern, so that we have in the next verses: “And David commanded to collect the strangers that were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to hew wrought stones to build the house of God. And David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the joists, and brass in abundance without weight”. The idea is that this great thought must stand, it must be fixed by power in a subjective way: iron made into nails — the whole position is in strength; it is the power of resurrection.
FCH Why is it iron here and gold in 2 Chronicles?
JT This is a question of strength: gold is not a suggestion of strength — it is quality. I believe it is [p. 254] resurrection here, the power of God, but in a subjective way. This thing must stand.
Ques Is not the general scope of the thing in mind, the thing arrived at as an entity?
JT God’s mind is reached through a moral process here; when David speaks about the pattern, that is a wholly spiritual matter. Chapters 28 and 29 are more spiritual matters — the refined side of the house of God, as I hope we shall see. Material for the house is prominent in this chapter. What David has come to as a matter of understanding through a moral process becomes a concrete reality.
MWB Do the iron and brass refer to the elements of the kingdom, secured in resurrection, but wrought out in the soul of the believer?
JT That is the thought. Romans is the great basic epistle, but Colossians and Ephesians build us up in the thing and we reach the gold.
PL “The words of the wise are as goads, and the collections of them as nails fastened in” (Ecclesiastes 12:11); and then we have Song of Songs immediately following — is that the realm of the gold after the moral side in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes?
JT Yes, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs are the moral side; they prepare us for the Song of Songs, which is the refined side of our position.
ABP Would the man in Acts 3:11 be like the nails — “he held Peter and John”?
JT That is it exactly — it is power. The man felt the power; Peter having taken him by the right hand and raised him up, and “his feet and ankle bones were made strong”. “He held Peter and John”. It is the system of God being developed in the early days.
ROS What is meant by the strangers being brought in (1 Chronicles 22:2)?
JT They would be men that could be used in an arbitrary manner (see 1 Kings 9:20,21). The Israelites were not employed with the same rigour (1 Kings 5:14).
[p. 255] It is a feature in the work of God that He can use us in an arbitrary manner.
WGT Is your thought that David represents what goes through, whereas Solomon more what is subordinate to that?
JT Yes; David is the great thought in all this. Solomon is a counterpart of it.
WAS Peter and John say, “Look on us” (Acts 3:4). Do we get the moral and spiritual in those two?
JT Peter and John there represent what God had effected for His testimony, and are over against the Beautiful gate of the temple; the man held to them.
LOL Would Peter give us the moral side in Matthew 16:17, and John bring in the spiritual side? The Lord says: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona”. Was that what he was morally?
JT Well, “Simon Bar-jona” was the man in responsibility, but the Lord says more than that to Peter. He says, “Thou art Peter”; that is, Peter is material for the structure. The man in responsibility is blessed, in the sense of having had the revelation. “Thou art Peter” is what the one who had the revelation was — as a result.