2 SAMUEL 16
JT 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 [p. 144] 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?
JT 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?
JT 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?
JT Yes, I think that is about right.
Rem So that he is reaching spiritually what he had gained positionally in the beginning.
JT 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?
JT 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.
[p. 145] Ques What phase of the death of Christ is the brook Kidron?
JT 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?
JT 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?
JT 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?
JT 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?
JT 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,
[p. 146] 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.
JT 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.
JT 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 [p. 147] 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.
JT 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?
JT 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?
JT 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?
JT Yes, it would — going out. But it does not [p. 148] 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?
JT 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.
JT 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.
JT The personal side is in those who go out [p. 149] 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?
JT 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 [p. 150] 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.
JT 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.
JT 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.
JT 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.
JT 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?
JT It is only in testimony. The recovery implies that the Lord has, as it were, been brought back in testimony to the thought He [p. 151] began with.
Rem This really fits in more with the present recovery.
JT 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?
JT 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.
JT 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 [p. 152] overthrown.
JT 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.
JT 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.
JT 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 [p. 153] 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.
JT 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.
JT 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.
JT 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.
JT He counsels generally, but then these other men are important to keep in mind, too, because [p. 154] 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.
JT 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.
JT 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”.
JT 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.
JT 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.
JT 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?
JT 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 [p. 156] 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?
JT 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.
JT 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.
JT “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?
JT 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!
JT 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?
JT 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 [p. 158] 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.
JT The Lord was called “the judge of Israel” when He was a prisoner at the bar. “Judge righteous judgment”, He says.