2 SAMUEL 23 (CONTINUED)
2 SAMUEL 23 (CONTINUED)
JT It will be noted that the account of the mighty men in 2 Samuel 23 comes in at the end of David’s reign, whereas the account in Chronicles is at the beginning of his reign. It is said that they helped David in his kingdom at the beginning. They helped to make him king. So that Chronicles would typically refer to the early days of our dispensation, while Samuel would indicate that there may also be mighty or loyal men at the end similar to those at the beginning. Apparently they continued throughout David’s reign, only many more are mentioned in Chronicles than in Samuel. It would seem to represent an element of special loyalty which normally carries power with it.
APT Joab has no place among the mighties.
JT So that those who had a place would imply that they were especially devoted to David. Joab cared little for David, but he appears again in chapter 24 where he is right and David is wrong.
Rem “If I ... have not love, I am nothing”, 1 Corinthians 13:2. Joab had no love.
JT Joab came under the judgment of God at the end; it applied to him.
WR Would the devotedness of the mighties be masculine love?
JT Yes, it would be that. You do not get any mighty women mentioned. The names of the mighty men are put here. Chronicles says, “These are the chief of the mighty men whom David had”, 1 Chronicles 11:10. Here it is the renown they had acquired.
ANW Would you say something about the three unnamed mighties in verse 13?
JT “And three of the thirty chiefs went down, and came to David in the harvest time to the cave of Adullam, when the troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim. And David was then in the stronghold; and the Philistines’ garrison was then at Bethlehem. And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me to drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is in the gate! And the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, which is in the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; however he would not drink of it, but poured it out to Jehovah. And he said, Be it far from me, Jehovah, that I should do this thing! Is it not the blood of the men that went at the risk of their lives? Therefore he would not drink it. These things did the three mighty men”. The name would be the renown or distinction the person has.
TA Would the first three allude to the apostles?
JT I should think they correspond. These first three are outstanding. Others did not attain to them, however great they may have been. The names being stressed here instead of the actual power of the men would point to Christianity, because that begins with the crowd of names without there being [p. 264] distinguished brethren by name. We regard the persons of those that have served among us. The actual name borne by some of them may be very common, but it is the person designated that is in mind.
CAM These three men hazarded their lives for David.
JT They were marked by loyalty, that is the leading thought. They would give character to the whole list as devoted to David. We have the names of the first three: “Joseb-Bassebeth, Tachkemonite the chief of the captains: he was Adino the Eznite ... . And after him, Eleazar the son of Dodo, the son of an Ahohite ... and after him Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite”. These are named, and then comes the three unnamed ones, noted as “the three”. It seems as if those three peculiarly devoted ones are left open as to their names to direct us to the character of them all. They seem to give character to the whole list.
There are said to be “thirty-seven in all”. These three are peculiarly marked by devotedness; they afford David something to offer to God as a sacrifice; it is poured out as a libation.
CAM There is instruction in that these men are called “the three”; it is mentioned three times. They acted together.
JT Love prompted them to go down to the cave of Adullam to David and then to gratify his desire for a drink of the water of Bethlehem. Such collective action could only come about through love for Christ.
CAM It was so especially in connection with the setting out and maintenance of the testimony at the beginning of Christianity.
JT It was there in the twelve. Peter, James and John are frequently associated together.
ANW The three mighties must have been very unified to have carried the thing [p. 265] out.
JT It was a very dangerous undertaking and required that they should be together.
ABP There is a suggestion of this character of devotedness in Matthew 18:19, 20. The “two or three” gathered together to the Lord’s name would be together in heart.
JT That is good. “Two are better than one ... and a threefold cord is not quickly broken”, Ecclesiastes 4:9,12.
WR Why did David want a drink of this well of Bethlehem?
JT The account of it says that three of the thirty chiefs went down and came to David at the harvest time to the cave of Adullam. We are to bear in mind it is in the time of Christ’s rejection, “when the troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim ... . And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me to drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is in the gate! And the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, which is in the gate, and took it, and brought it to David”. It is not that he asked them to do it, it is their discernment of his wish. They heard what he longed for. There must have been something in David’s mind that they understood; for us it is a question of what would be in the Lord’s mind in such circumstances. ‘Bethlehem’ means what it is among the saints that He would have, and in what sacrifice was it secured! You feel that it must have been Paul that discerned what the Lord really longed for. Much had preceded this; it was in the midst of a great display of power on the part of the Philistines; they had a garrison there. The devil was preventing the Lord from getting something that He sought.
GM Is that why it is called the Lord’s supper? It is what He desires.
[p. 266] JT The Lord comes in in relation to it, but the Lord’s supper is for us. It is a dominical thing, it implies His rule. But through it He gets something, through it He reaches our hearts.
Rem The position at Jerusalem was not affording the Lord His true place.
JT It was not. The ministry enters into this; it is what the Lord would have and what the enemy would prevent Him from having. So that Paul speaks to the Colossians of combating earnestly, and in Ephesians too it is a combat. There is strong opposition.
CAM The epistles of Paul in that way can be put together. The conflicts of those epistles and the drink offering in Philippians perhaps confirm this thought that it is Paul really that enters into the desires of the Lord in this special way.
JT The whole tenor of the scriptures in the New Testament would point to Paul as one who went to the full length of conflict and suffering to obtain what the Lord wanted. Here it is refreshment, what He would drink. Drink points to satisfaction. It is something that would satisfy. “Christ also loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it”,
(Ephesians 5:25). It was Paul’s particular ministry; it was not simply a commission. There was in him a heart affording service like that, a heart that knew what the Lord would have.
WB-w Do you think that Shammah, in verse 11, would fit in with the early part of the Acts where the testimony was defended?
JT With the first of the mighty men, Joseb-Bassebeth, it is a question of the number of persons slain, eight hundred according to Samuel, but only three hundred according to Chronicles. The second mighty, Eleazar, is the man wielding his sword with such force and in such a protracted way that he arose and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary and [p. 267] his hand clave to the sword. There would be complete identification of the ministry with the sword; the sword of the Spirit is the word of God.
WB-w It would work out in Peter and Stephen and others in the Acts.
JT The word of God in various forms is greatly pronounced throughout the early part of the Acts; the apostles say they will give themselves “to the ministry of the word”.
Then the third of the mighties is Shammah. It says “the Philistines were gathered into a troop, and there was there a plot of ground full of lentils, and the people had fled before the Philistines; and he stood in the midst of the plot and delivered it, and smote the Philistines, and Jehovah wrought a great deliverance”. The ministry is thus presented typically in a threefold way: first, the number of persons slain; second, how the word became, as it were, part of the minister; and third, the plot of lentils, something that was growing. We are told that the word of the Lord grew and spread itself; Acts 12:24. It is an important thing to defend that. Then the three at Bethlehem represent a unified state in discernment of what the Lord longed for. We get this in Paul’s ministry; not that you do not get the same kind of devotedness in others, but it is the intelligence and unity of it that is emphasised here. They secured what David wanted and brought it to him and it became an offering.
Rem After David’s longing desire was met he did not drink the water.
JT It became something to offer; “he would not drink of it, but poured it out to Jehovah. And he said, Be it far from me, Jehovah, that I should do this thing! is it not the blood of the men that went at the risk of their lives? Therefore he would not drink it”. So that we are on a high level here;
[p. 268] typically it is a holy, co-ordinated, spiritual matter as marking the reign of David.
WB-w The point is to reach that high level in Paul’s ministry.
JT Yes. It is a question at Bethlehem of breaking through. It is not so much an ordered battle — it is not said that they killed anybody — it is just that they went and got what David wished to have.
AR Would the pouring out suggest the drink-offering?
JT It became a drink-offering for God.
AR The recovery of the truth of the assembly in our day is not only affording satisfaction to Christ but is providing something for God Himself.
JT Quite so.
APT Does Paul get the thought as to the longings of the heart of Christ from Christ Himself inasmuch as even the Lord’s supper is delivered to him?
JT You can see he was in very close touch with the Lord. The Lord says to him, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?” and Paul says, “Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest”, Acts 9:4,5. He tells us later that the Lord had said he should testify “both of what thou hast seen, and of what I shall appear to thee in”, Acts 26:16. So that he was very near to the Lord. He says in another place, “The Lord said to me”;(Acts 22:10) and again, we are told, “the Lord stood by him”, Acts 23:11. It would seem that he was in very close intimacy with the Lord.
FSC Would Paul’s sufferings amount to his laying down his life, or would they be governmental?
JT It was given to him to suffer for the Lord. The Lord had said He would show him how great things he must suffer for Him. One of the things which marked his ministry was suffering. Of course [p. 269] there must have been governmental sufferings in his going up to Jerusalem, but he makes it plain that he was filling out the sufferings of Christ for His body’s sake which is the assembly. Of no one else is this said. Paul was animated by the love of Christ.
CAM It is like the breaking through here.
JT Quite so. Paul did break through, overcoming immense odds against himself.
GM These mighty men must have had a great place with David.
JT It is comforting that Samuel gives the account almost at the close of David’s life, after his last words are spoken. That is the effect of the lesson, that we might have part in the kind of devotedness that was so marked at the beginning.
Ques Would John suggest this?
JT He runs on to the end; it is that sort of thing. You see how John in Revelation stands out singly. What a man he is! He is seen there as taken up by the Lord. The Lord says of him, “and he signified it, sending by his angel, to his bondman John, who testified the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, all things that he saw”, Revelation 1:1, 2. He was in Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. He must have been very near to the Lord as alone in Patmos. “I became in Spirit on the Lord’s day”, he says (Revelation 1:10). He makes more in his gospel of the first day of the week than any of the other evangelists do. The Lord says of him to Peter, “If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee?” (John 21:22). The spirit of John coming down to us is what would produce something of loyalty to Christ in us; he is the brother of the saints when the assembly has failed. The book of Revelation contemplates the failure of the assembly; the first company addressed had left her first love. John is in that setting [p. 270] of things.
GM It speaks in Revelation of the overcomer without mentioning any special names.
JT Quite so. John makes a great deal of the overcomer. The Lord speaking through him says, “I also overcame”. It really does work out in that way, overcomers breaking through great difficulties. The overcomer in Philadelphia is singled out for great honour.
ANW Brotherly love must have marked these three men.
JT That is good. John’s line would be to bring that about and would encourage us to move together in service. There is not a great deal of this amongst us.
WB-w What would the well of Bethlehem in the gate suggest?
JT It must be the idea of administration, and this comes to us in John’s ministry. In spite of the breakdown the administration goes on.
FSC Would the keeping of the Lord’s name be like this water?
JT Quite so. It is remarkable that John in Revelation brings in David. We have been speaking of it lately, the use of David’s name in remnant times. The prophets too speak much of him. It is a question of spiritual quality. The Lord says He has the key of David (Revelation 3:7), and that “I am the root and offspring of David”, Revelation 22:16. These three men are intended to convey to us the quality of the dispensation as seen in the mighties, especially the three who broke through to secure the water for David.
Ques Is there any significance in the fact that the Philistines are mentioned again and again as a people these men had to do with?
JT It is remarkable. They are the kind of people we have to do with now. They are on the same outward ground as ourselves. They are able to investigate the Scriptures in the original and look [p. 271] into the whole outward history of the testimony of God. You cannot tell them anything and yet they are the line of the flesh — uncircumcised. That is the sort of thing that has to be contended with. I suppose the Jews were the Philistines at the beginning. We have to do with the Jews but under the name of Christians: “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie; behold, I will cause that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee”, Revelation 3:9. It was religionists at the beginning as regards the Jews, and now it is religionists again.
WB-w There was a garrison blocking the way to this well; they were hindering the flow of the water in the well. The enemy attempts to do this in our localities.
JT The gate of Bethlehem would suggest the administration of the Spirit which is typified in the water. It is what marked the beginning of things and it has come out now at the end.
CAM The Philistines of our time claim priority rights over the Lord’s interests.
JT Yes. Take any of the great religious books of today, you hardly ever find an allusion to the great work of God through Mr. Darby. They would not give him any status at all. They assume to be in possession of the whole matter and those who rely on the Spirit are ignored.
CAM The announcement of the coming in of Christ was to the shepherds. They had no official status.
APT Is the Lord getting this drink now in localities where the truth of the assembly is understood?
JT That is what seems to be in His mind, the place He has given His supper these many years back and the order of the assembly service. And if [p. 272] He gets something He, as it were, pours it out; He has God in His mind, the Father. What He gets He secures in the midst of the assembly, but all that is through the saints. And Paul corresponds with David in that sense, as to quality and refinement spiritually, answering to what the Lord has in His mind. You understand what the will of the Lord is.
Rem Paul prescribed the way the saints ought to do things in the assembly.
JT The great point is the order and the directions. He had given them some; he had written some; and he said he would give them more. In writing to the Corinthians Paul says they were not behind in any gift, but they were in danger of being corrupted. Something had damaged the thing that the Lord was seeking.
Rem “For the arms of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful according to God to the overthrow of strongholds”, 2 Corinthians 10:4.
JT How thoroughly Paul broke through! What sufferings he endured! But the Lord delivered him out of them all. He went through.
AR How do you understand (Colossians 1:24): “Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that which is behind”?
JT I think the body should not be lacking. The measure should be filled up in correspondence with Christ. There were those in Colosse who were behind; they were not filling out their measure, and Paul was doing it.
CAM Paul was not going to be behind and he would be exemplary in that way.
JT Quite so. His coming in late might be regarded as if he had not suffered so much as the twelve. But this scripture says, “Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the assembly”, Colossians 1:24. Although he came in late,
[p. 273] he was not behind in sufferings. Indeed he had in mind the full complement of Christ’s sufferings.
Rem The Lord has left some behind for us to fill in.
JT It would be the sufferings of Christ as brought out in the assembly; it is His counterpart.
ABP Was Demas one who was not taking on the sufferings? Paul says, “for Demas has forsaken me, having loved the present age”, 2 Timothy 4:10.
JT Quite so. The constant tendency is to avoid sufferings. So he says to the Philippians, a very spiritual people, that it was given to them to suffer for Christ; and to Timothy, “Take thy share in suffering”, 2 Timothy 2:3. There is a share attaching to us.
Rem David had completed his part here in the matter of suffering, and these men were now doing something for him.
JT Yes. He did not ask them to do it; but he let them hear his desire and they took it on. I think it is on a high level. Paul is taking it on too. It is for His body’s sake, in order that the assembly should be entirely in accord with Christ. Think of the immensity of his share in suffering! He tells us about it in 2 Corinthians. He gives a list there, but that is only a part; that was comparatively early in his ministry.
Rem So that we are to lay down our lives.
CAM Would it be right to say that suffering will come to an end unless we come under the love of Christ for His assembly?
JT Quite so. You can see throughout Paul’s whole life that that is what was affecting him.
AR “The marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife has made herself ready”, Revelation 19:7.
JT She is the Lamb’s wife. The Lamb is the sufferer; she corresponds with Him.
FSC Would the Lord’s sufferings be physical or spiritual?
JT [p. 274] Both. Look at what He encountered from the Jews! Look at what the apostle encountered from them! They made the physical sufferings as severe as they could; but the mental or spiritual suffering was there all the time; the Lord had no respite from it, the whole air was charged with it.
ABP “O unbelieving and perverted generation ... how long shall I bear with you?”, Matthew 17:17. That indicates the sufferings He had.
Rem “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?” (Acts 9:4).
JT There it was. He endured the same suffering from Saul. It is that sort of thing today. It may not be so much physical, but it is there, the whole air is charged with it. You feel it tonight outside, the air is charged with opposition.
CAM Epaphras combated in prayer that the Colossians might stand complete in all the will of God; Colossians 4:12. The subtle character of Satan’s opposition comes out in this epistle.
JT So that you have Paul combating for them in the beginning of chapter 2: “I would have you know what combat I have for you, and those in Laodicea, and as many as have not seen my face in flesh” (that would be for us too); “to the end that their hearts may be encouraged, being united together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the full knowledge of the mystery of God; in which are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge”. (Colossians 2:1 - 3) He has the assembly in mind, and he goes on to show the kind of thing the devil would bring in to prevent what he was so set for according to this epistle: “but the body is of Christ. Let no one fraudulently deprive you of your prize, doing his own will in humility and worship of angels, entering into things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, and not holding fast the head, from whom all the body, ministered to and united together by the joints and bands,
increases with the increase of God”, Colossians 2:17 - 19. That is the sort of thing that the enemy is using — this ceremonialism as well as philosophy to rob Christ of the assembly in character. If we are to get to it, we have to break through all this. And if we have not done it, we had better do it.
JTJr The first mighty in verse 8 was of the children of Pharez, according to Chronicles. Pharez broke through, according to Genesis 38:29.
APT The desire to be with the brethren all the time would necessitate that we break through natural claims.
JT Yes. Every meeting in a spiritual sense is aiming at this thing. The Lord is attaining what He will have and each one of us should be there.
CAM We should be each in his place and alert in mind and heart.
JT Just so. You want to get this one thought, that the Lord is seeking something in the assembly, and that every Christian is essential to it.
WB-w Pharez had a twin brother.
JT Those twins were spiritual. I do not know that Thomas and his brother were typically spiritual twins. It must have been because he had a natural link that Thomas was absent when the Lord came amongst His own.
ABP He did not break through.
WB-w Referring to Benaiah, it says he smote two lions of Moab, and he smote a lion in a pit on a snowy day; he also smote an Egyptian. The Egyptians represent another element.
JT They do. They represent people who are nearer to us. The word ‘lions’ would be merely a symbol of men. The Egyptian would be a man who lived in the flesh; he would make too much of the creatures of God.
AR Benaiah would be a brother that would be [p. 276] at the meetings under adverse circumstances. He smote a lion in a pit on a snowy day.
JT He had a good excuse for not taking on the conflict. It was on a snowy day. What can he do now? He faced the snow and triumphed. Think of going over Jordan too, when it overflowed its banks! What great exploits these are! They come down the line in the history of the assembly to our dispensation. Then the account finishes with Uriah the Hittite.
CAM The Spirit of God seems to have great delight in bringing his name into the genealogy in Matthew 1: “And David begat Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias”, Matthew 1:6. That name adorns the genealogy. He seems to make an extra one. He is the thirty-seventh.
JT It is an indivisible number. Thirty-six could be divided, but not thirty seven.
Rem These men were by themselves, according to verse 23. It says of Benaiah, “He was honoured above the thirty, but he did not attain to the first three”. They stand by themselves.
TA Do you not think it is morally right that Uriah should be brought in?
JT Quite so. David may have made this list out; but he did not write this book. The Spirit of God used somebody else to write this book. According to Chronicles there were a good many more names. Uriah was under great pressure of temptation. He overcame temptation, holding to right principles.
WB-w Why is he mentioned last?
JT I think it is to fix our minds on him.