2 SAMUEL SIX (CONTINUED)
2 SAMUEL SIX (CONTINUED)
JT We just touched on this chapter last week. Attention was called to “David again” gathering all the chosen men of Israel, carrying on the military thought; whereas what governs this chapter is more levitical than military; hence the sorrow that arises from the human element entering into the movement, in that they set the ark of God upon a new cart. So in this verse with which we begin we are told that “Uzzah reached after the ark of God, and took hold of it, for the oxen had stumbled. And the anger of Jehovah was kindled”. The incongruity of using a cart with no one apparently to object or to question it would show the underlying unspiritual, unlevitical condition.
Ques Does the ark as recovered suggest typically that the Person of Christ would now be for the saints? There is a long history behind it when the ark was in Abinadab’s house.
JT Although a long time in the house of Abinadab [p. 51] on the hill, it would look as if the manner in which the ark had been regarded there was not priestly or levitical. The idea of elevation is there, but apparently a very poor sense of what was due to the Lord or to the ark, or they would not have used a cart. Had there been a good levitical atmosphere, as there would be in the house of Obed-Edom later, this error would not have taken place, showing that when a low state exists amongst us things might happen that are not according to right principles.
Ques Was not the fact that Uzzah put forth his hand evidence of an unholy state?
JT He was driving the cart, which was no employment for a Levite. The Kohathites should have carried it; Numbers 4:15.
Rem I was wondering why there is such a short account in Samuel as compared with that in Chronicles.
JT Chronicles is more spiritual, I think.
Rem “And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, with every prince ... . And all the congregation said that they should do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people”, 1 Chronicles 13:1 - 4. David was subject to the captains of thousands and hundreds; but in 1 Chronicles 15:2, he says: “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites”, and then in verse 11 he calls for Zadok and Abiathar the priests, etc. It was these passages that made me refer to it in connection with what you were saying. Here he comes to it that none but the Levites should carry the ark.
JT Chronicles accredits him with more. The word ‘again’ is left out in Chronicles. The word ‘again’ in the chapter read would allude to chapter 5, which is military. But in Chronicles “David consulted”. It is the consultation which is different, and as you say we have much more made there of the second attempt. The Philistine attack in chapter 14, and the names of the Levites that were employed [p. 52] in chapter 15 are both mentioned as intervening between the error of the first attempt and the rightness of the second.
Rem So that David deals with it in Samuel as a military matter, but in Chronicles as a priestly matter.
JT Quite so. And David said, “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites”. (1 Chronicles 15:2) He had learned his lesson and he tells us so.
Ques How do you view the house of Abinadab?
JT I do not think it is exactly a spiritual setting; I think it stands as a sort of mixed condition between the return of the ark from the Philistines and David taking it on. There is some care for it. An account is given in 1 Samuel 7: “And the men of Kirjath-jearim came, and fetched up the ark of Jehovah, and brought it into the house of Abinadab on the hill, and hallowed Eleazar his son to keep the ark of Jehovah”, 1 Samuel 7:1. There is nothing said about his being a priest or a Levite, he is made that apparently, it is a sort of improvised situation which may be found where unspiritual conditions exist.
Rem I wonder whether the matter did not go better when the ark was drawn by the milch kine? That is to say, God providentially cared for the truth of the Person of the Lord then rather more than when the cart was driven.
JT Quite so. The milch kine represent the feminine thought, leaving their calves behind them. They represent spiritual instinct as over against Philistine intelligence, because the narrative shows that the Philistines did have some intelligence, like the clerics, but not instinct. The kine would connect with the levitical thought for as they reached Beth-shemesh the men. “clave the wood of the cart, and offered up the kine as a burnt offering to Jehovah”, 1 Samuel 6:14. Both cart and kine were used for God. There was something there, but not in this instance. God would not accept this. It must allude [p. 53] to the underlying spiritual condition. The milch kine left their young ones behind, nature did not control them, they went on the right way and as they reached the end they died. They are offered up as a sacrifice; it seems to answer to the death of Christ. Then also you have Levites in 1 Samuel 6, but not here.
Ques God smote Uzzah. Would there be anything in that corresponding to Thyatira: “her children will I kill with death”, Revelation 2:23?
JT It perhaps does not go so far as that. It seems to be more like strange fire with the sons of Abinadab, that is the purely natural side which you often find in a low state amongst us. We act as ordinary men with good intentions, but God is resenting that here; they should have known better. The oxen are simply beasts of burden, a natural idea; the cart, just a common way of carrying things, and it says that the oxen stumbled. That was to bring out the underlying condition with which God would deal. If anything like this happens we deflect from the right order. We may say that it is not much out of the way, but it is the underlying condition that God has in mind. David became indignant instead of humbling himself, showing he was not right with God.
Rem Uzzah was prepared to rectify a mistake on human lines.
JT Yes, it is just that. It is what is underlying. God deals with the state of our souls.
Rem At Beth-shemesh the men looked into the ark, indicating that the Levites were not in control of the matter.
JT That seems to be so. They are recognised in 1 Samuel 6:15, “And the Levites took down the ark of Jehovah”, etc. So far so good, but then later on we are told that God smote the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into the ark. All that would show that there was a wrong underlying [p. 54] state all round, what was due to God was not in evidence.
Rem God valued David’s desire of heart to bring up the ark. He appreciated this.
JT “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten” (Revelation 3:19).
David should have known better, he must learn this lesson, that is the point. There must be no diversion from what is right in our actions in the assembly.
Ques Was this the household setting or the local assembly?
JT You might make it either one. You will notice great stress laid on Obed-Edom’s house, so that I think it is the household thought primarily. “David carried it aside into the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite and Jehovah blessed Obed-Edom and all his household”, v.10,11. It would look as if he were a real Levite from the way he is mentioned later and that his whole house comes into blessing, whereas the house of Abinadab does not. This must have been the second or third generation of Abinadab’s household, but there is no education for them, no increase of holiness seen, no gain from having the ark.
Rem I was thinking how interesting and helpful are various incidents concerning it: the men of Beth-shemesh looked into the ark; in the house of Abinadab there was evidently a little more consideration, but no spiritual thought, and that situation has to be exposed; and then David himself is characterised by unspirituality in thinking of its care as a military matter. Then the ark finds a resting place in the house of Obed-Edom and his house is blessed; and at last the Levites bring it up, as if there is an increase of spirituality in the whole proceeding.
JT We may have gone on a long time with Christ, but not in due order. How do they take care of the ark in Abinadab’s house? There is no mention of any particular care. The fact that it is on a hill [p. 55] is creditable, but if the Spirit of God could have shown that he was a man who loved Christ and would care with “due care” we should have heard about it. These two men are sons or grandsons and they do not seem to have gained anything by the stay of the ark all these years. What did their father tell them about this precious ark, how important it was and what the Scriptures said about it? Why did they not learn?
Rem Abinadab might suggest conditions in a meeting where there appears to be great zeal without spirituality; and when a certain correction has to be made this feature might be found that existed with David. He was indignant because Jehovah made a breach upon Uzzah.
JT Apparently the only thing that recovered him was the fact that God was blessing the house of Obed-Edom, the man that had the ark. Why did he not know the value of the ark itself? Here is a manifest act of God and he is indignant. Then he sees that God is blessing the man who has the ark.
Rem The thing may exist with us possibly in a more real way. There may be indignation in an unnoticed way, because of what God is doing.
JT That is what comes out here. The recovery of the ark is the salvation of David and of everybody, hence the importance of our houses being right. How important it is! It became a guide for David that “God blessed the house of Obed-Edom”.
Ques Was he an Israelite?
JT I think he was a Levite. Obed means ‘worshipper’. The word ‘Gittite’ might mean from Gath, but not necessarily. There were cities in Israel of that name.
Rem The thought of the household is very helpful. At a time of great exercise which might correspond with this present period, there is a household where [p. 56] the truth concerning the Person of Christ can be held and cared for in the right way.
JT If it is not a baptised household it is a great disadvantage because that is the first great light that should come into the house. Christ had to die. Baptism is the testimony of the death of Jesus, there is no help for us apart from that. The Christian household is a great idea in the divine realm. The house of Stephanas was baptised; indeed they had addicted themselves to the ministry, and they got blessing as bringing in Christ in a baptismal way. The Lord went into death, otherwise there could be no blessing for any house.
Rem If baptism does not characterise a Christian’s household it is an Egyptian household. To leave Egypt and go through the Red Sea is a figure of baptism. We must identify the name of Christ with the house.
JT The ark is there in principle when baptism is owned.
Rem Between these two households, those of Abinadab and Obed-Edom, there is a threshing floor, verse 6. I wondered if all the misapprehensions were ended there?
JT It would look as if there was not much wheat out of the house of Abinadab. These two men were representative of that house, and the threshing floor was a test that brought out where they were. The threshing floor of Atad is established near the Jordan that is where the wheat comes to light; Genesis 50:10. With Gideon it was not simply a threshing floor but a winepress that the man had utilised. He was producing something and he had to hide it from the Midianites; Judges 6:11.
Ques What is the difference between the anger of God and the anger of Jehovah?
JT You are calling attention particularly to verse 7: “And the anger of Jehovah was kindled [p. 57] against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God”. God is judge of all the earth, that is what He is called in Egypt.
Ques Is this service levitical? Only the priest could go inside.
JT The matter of going inside is not mentioned here. This is a question of putting out your hand to steady the ark. It is not a priestly hand. Why should it need such an effort? Why was the ark not carried on the shoulders of persons appointed to carry it? It suggests the use of human methods. Very often we take short cuts in a crisis, but God is more concerned about His own order than about the thing we have in mind. You can never reach the divine end by taking short cuts. They were misbehaving in 1 Corinthians and the apostle says, “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”, 1 Corinthians 11:30. This was because they were misbehaving in their use of the things of God, not distinguishing the body. They were unholy in the way they were acting.
Rem It would appear that David’s intentions were right at the beginning, but this matter apparently made him indifferent or afraid, because in verse 12 it says: “And it was told king David, saying, Jehovah has blessed the house of Obed-Edom, and all that is his, because of the ark of God”.
JT If the house of Obed-Edom had been the same as that of Abinadab, apparently David would never have come for the ark; so that the fact that we have right principles is not enough, there must be the evidence of blessing or divine approval.
Ques Does it not emphasise the immense value of a godly household at a time of pressure?
JT It is very remarkable that we are not told just why the blessing came, but the blessing being there denotes that there was something pleasing to [p. 58] God; not only that things were being done right, but there was the evidence of the blessing of God. I believe John’s ministry has that in mind. You get there: “Come and see”. It is not simply right order but the blessing of God is there; that answers every question and difficulty.
Ques Does David’s indignation suggest the feelings we have in actions that God has taken which we do not like because we are governed by persons?
JT It was very gracious of God to bless the house of Obed-Edom, He knew that David would take notice of that. That is the great point, is there evidence of God’s blessing? In the house of Abinadab there was apparently no living state of things at all.
Rem God blessed all that was his.
Ques Does the time element entering into each household show how long it takes sometimes for us to make a move locally? The ark was twenty years in one house and three months in the other?
JT That twenty years has a special meaning. It does not mean that the ark was there only twenty years, it alludes to what happened in chapter 7 of 1 Samuel. The ark really remained there during the reign of Saul, that is, forty years, and during the greater part of the reign of David; so that it must have been there over sixty years. Where is the result of all this? What is this man gaining with such a treasure in his house? Apparently nothing! These two men Uzzah and Ahio do not know what to do. One of them tries to steady the ark as he would anything else. The underlying condition is being dealt with. In the previous chapter seventy persons had been slain. This is quite a serious matter. Apparently Abinadab did not take it too seriously, and nothing happened in his house so far as we know, but the judgment comes on Uzzah. Now we have a man that has the ark only three months and God is [p. 59] blessing him already, showing that he is ready for the thing.
Rem It was a serious exercise and David got adjusted in three months. It is a word to us in local exercises.
JT The first letter to the Corinthians shows that some were getting blessing. The house of Chloe is on the alert for God to have things right, and obviously the house of Stephanas too. There is a sort of link there corresponding with the house of Obed-Edom. “How shall the ark of Jehovah come to me?” David says. What a thing that is, to refuse to take Christ home, home to yourself! “David carried it aside”.
Rem The nearer the ark is getting to Jerusalem the more blessing there is; and in view of the rapture God is indeed helping the saints not only in regard to principles but in regard to what is of Himself.
JT Very good. There is more value the nearer you get to Jerusalem. So it is with Christ. The colt was tied in a beautiful environment, Bethany, Bethphage, and the mount of Olives; and as Jesus is put upon the ass by the disciples everybody is in movement, “the whole city was moved”. You would think He was going to be set up in Jerusalem. But it shows that the suggestion of Jerusalem and its environs answers to God. The loosing of the colt is important, it is not any colt, it is a colt that the Lord Himself wanted. The oxen would be like those in the system around us. Who selects the clerics? The nearer you get to Jerusalem the more the divine selection must come into evidence. The Lord knows that colt; he is tied, but as soon as Jesus is put upon him everybody is moved, and so He comes to Jerusalem. “Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and mounted upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass”, Matthew 21:5. It represents the kind of person the Lord would have. The oxen were just [p. 60] two beasts of burden for any purpose, to bring a load of hay perhaps; they were not “two of you”. David enquired of the Lord on the military side and in going up to Hebron, but not here. This was a priestly matter and the Lord would teach us lessons as to what is suitable in regard to Christ amongst us and how we are to do things.
Rem David seems to be occupied with military matters and forgets.
JT I think the word ‘again’ helps, it links on with that with which he had been engaged. He is not asking Jehovah at all here. We forget to pray, forget to ask God what to do next, because after all, it is the next thing to be done. We may make a place for Christ, but omit to ask how it is to be done. The underlying condition was the cause of failure and we really should go back to 1 Samuel 4, to see the underlying condition in Israel in regard to the ark. They took the ark out into the camp thinking that it would give them victory over the Philistines and it was captured. Then God took care of it in the house of Abinadab. But were they learning from this? The milch kine went the right way and died in the end. Are Abinadab and his two sons on these lines? Are they so devoted to Christ that they can care for the ark in a right way? God had especially taken up David to use him. He stresses the fact that He found him, a man after His own heart that would do all His will, and he is called ‘beloved’. But David is being deflected here, he is not in communication with God, he is doing things as man does them. 1 Chronicles gives us all the details as to how David went on from this point. He provided for the service of God as a result of all this. A brother’s mistake may be the outcome of the general condition of the brethren, but he must learn from it. If the Lord is to use him, all this must be dealt with.
Rem He hears what God is doing to the house of [p. 61] Obed-Edom, and then he makes a right move and he has sacrifices made at six paces. Would you say that that agrees with the spiritual instincts that were seen in the milch kine?
JT The suggestion is, I suppose, that we must not fail again. He is now careful. Now he sacrifices the oxen after six paces; that shows he is careful about his steps.
Ques I wanted to ask whether in a general way recovery might be a matter of months? If it were a matter of days it might not be genuine, but if it went into years it might become a fixed matter.
JT It might become a fixed matter. It seems as if Abinadab had not learned anything of that. David had learned. He observed what happened and was anxious that there should be no repetition of mistakes. God knew that, I am sure.
Rem John is one who is recovered quickly. He says, “It is the Lord”, whereas Peter apparently does not get on so well. I wondered if there is any suggestion in that?
JT Someone has said that it is not a question of how often a horse falls, but of how quickly he rises afterwards, how quickly he recovers himself. John immediately says, “It is the Lord”.
Rem There are evidences of David’s recovery, his demeanour changes. May we have a practical word on that?
JT Let us compare. The first time David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand ... . “And David and all the house of Israel played before Jehovah on all manner of instruments made of cypress wood, with harps, and with lutes, and with tambours, and with sistra, and with cymbals”, 2 Samuel 6:1 - 5. The second time “when they that bore the ark of Jehovah had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatted beast”, verse 13. And David himself danced before Jehovah. That is, there is less made [p. 62] of the musical instruments than there is of David himself, and it is, I think, because he recognised the blessing; but he also recognised the danger of the seventh step, that something might happen. He fears God, and he is girded with a linen ephod. Michal calls attention to this, showing what is in the unspiritual mind, which corresponds to the cart; if David had kept on in correspondence with the cart she would not have despised him. She does so because he is taken up with the seventh step, and dances girded with a linen ephod, he is in the thing himself now. Michal said it was shameful, but what he is doing is right and sober. Paul said, “I speak words of truth”, (Acts 26:25) that is what I think the linen ephod means here.
Rem First an indignant brother, now a humble brother.
JT I do not think Michal would have despised him as indignant, she would not have had any trouble about that, but she has about this action of David’s that is spiritual, dancing with all his might. Linen is what keeps one sober and balanced. David is abasing himself according to her point of view, which is what the Lord Jesus did. He abased Himself and went down into the dust of death.
Ques Is what is priestly greater than what is royal?
JT Here David is supremely priestly in the way he acts. He brings reproach upon himself and defends it.
Rem Often we are afraid of the reproach of moving in a way that is not understood by the world. The window of the world is open and they look out and we fear the reproach.
JT Michal has no part in it at all. Why should she be inside? Like the bride in the Canticles in type the Lord is outside and she is inside, and all this is going on outside.
Ques Is she a type of the professing [p. 63] church?
JT I think she is a type of the Church of England. She has no progeny, that is the termination of that order of things. It is not direct judgment, it is a sustained thing, to the day of her death she is not to be in the testimony. She is inside when David is under reproach and she is criticising.
Ques Why do you think of her as a type of the Church of England?
JT I am referring to the first book more than to this. Merab was the first one, then Michal. They were both given to David to do him harm, although it is said that Michal loved David, which I venture to say the Church of England does in a certain way. Rome would be Merab. They are both given to David to do him harm. Saul intended to do David harm, but Merab was held back. These are human organisations taking on the name of Christ, assuming to be the bride of Christ. The true church is Abigail. Michal saved his life once, there is something for him, but this is the end of the whole matter. She represents something of Saul, of the flesh, and she comes under judgment. David says “thy father” here, he connects her with Saul. It is exactly the same thing in Simon’s house; Judas complains and John pursues the thing to its full exposure; John 12.
Ques Would she represent what is official, the high priests, etc.? Jesus was setting aside what was official. Michal did not like David’s action for the same reason.
JT If he had kept on on Saul’s line, the new cart and that sort of thing, that would have suited her.
Rem The recovery of the truth in the last hundred years has been under reproach from just this kind of thing. What Michal represents gives us a type of this.
JT The way to recovery is in judging ourselves. David judged himself and he is now able to judge her.
Rem If we take account of ourselves in relation to the public profession we have to be prepared to be [p. 64] more vile in the eyes of those who occupy prominent positions.
Rem Merab was definitely given to another, so was Michal, only she is taken back. You feel it is an unholy matter. Take any association today, you might get reform, the bettering of things, the Reformation was to make things better, but in truth this woman was no fit companion for David.
JT I believe from the time of the Reformation the church had been given to another, that is the Romish system. Ever since, you hear of recovery and reformers, John Wesley, Moody and Sankey, and others. There is revival but ultimately these and all who have branched off in independency from those known as brethren have lapsed back into this position. It is the judgment of God spiritually.
Rem What is living comes out of it.
JT Wherever there has been division since 1836 it has been a return to the old thing, only, of course, disguised because the persons carried impressions with them, but it is a gradual drifting back. That is what is meant here. David pronounces no judgment upon her, but the fact is stated that she had no child. That is the end of that, God has judged it all.
Rem The official element did not like the little children praising the Lord in Jerusalem. No wonder the house was left to them.
Rem “David returned to bless his household”. Michal is cut off but others there really do come into blessing, see verses 18 and 19.
Rem “They brought in the ark of Jehovah, and set it in its place, in the midst of the tent that David had spread for it”, verse 17. Certain things are attributed to the ark as having been done by itself and certain things are done to the ark by persons.
JT There is a lot of food for the soul in all that. We know how the ark acted for itself in the Philistines’ land, Dagon went down before it. Now we have to [p. 65] distinguish between what Christ does and what we do with Him. They brought in the ark of Jehovah and set it in its place, so that it has now reached its place.
Rem In the synoptic gospels the Lord is taken up to Jerusalem; in John He goes up alone.
Rem Every eye would be upon the ark as it came into the city, they would not be thinking of those who carried it.
JT It is to accredit the great priestly condition: “They brought in the ark of Jehovah, and set it in its place”. So that the service of God is now set up. David offered peace offerings and burnt offerings before Jehovah. This is provisional but it has its place, the idea of Zion. Here they have reached the point that is proper to Zion. The general state is not equal to what was there later when the temple was built.
Rem David could go back now and deal with what was in his house.
JT He puts the service of God first. It is a great thought and the brethren ought to take it to heart. If we have a good morning meeting we need to see that our houses gain by it. The meetings should be a reflection of what we are going on with in our houses.
Rem It works both ways, what we bring out of our houses and what we bring in to them.