THE WARS OF THE LORD (9)
[p. 390] THE WARS OF THE LORD (9)
1 Samuel 17:31-54; 2 Samuel 5:1-10; 2 Samuel 5:17-25
JT We closed our last reading with the consideration of Samson, who slew a thousand men with the fresh jawbone of an ass. Another great incident in his warfare is the fact that he slew at his death more than those whom he had slain in his life. It is thought we should now go on to David, so as to pursue the subject as far as it appears in the Scriptures.
ANW Is there any link between Samson and David, in the fact that they both had much to do with the Philistine enemy?
JT There is. What is said of David is that he subdued the Philistines. This is not said of Samson; his conquests were not so regular and persistent as David’s. In 2 Samuel 8 it is said that David took Methegammah, or the power of the capital, out of their hand. It is a very great matter for the people of God, that such a position of advantage is taken out of the enemy’s hands. Isolated victories over the enemy, of course, helped to weaken their power, but their subjugation awaited David’s military service.
AP Are there any particular conditions that necessitated the bringing forth of David on God’s part?
JT Well, one thing to be noticed before we proceed is, that David is not to be regarded as consecutive to what preceded. In a certain sense he may be consecutive as applied to our experience, but he is, properly speaking, collateral with Moses and Aaron as a type. Moses and Aaron represent the ministry, that is, they represent Christ more in His official capacity as Apostle and High Priest;
[p. 391] whereas David is the king and in coming into kingship, what marks him is personal attractiveness. What is personal is stressed. He is Christ from that point of view. So that he represents the history of Christ from the outset of his ministry as Moses does, only that it is a collateral line leading to the same end and has to be thus understood; Solomon filling out the great thought of kingship has to be regarded as God’s Son.
AFM Even on the battlefield David’s qualities of beauty and goodliness are presented by the Spirit.
JT Well, it is important to have in our minds the distinction mentioned, because the time arrives in the history of the believer when the personal attractiveness of Christ affects him. Earlier, what he needs is authority. Of course, the king has authority, but what precedes this is authority in Moses.
CAM Would you say that on account of the official thing breaking down in the beginning of 1 Samuel this element in David was necessary?
JT Yes. It is through the failure of the priesthood, viewed officially, that the personal side becomes effective. In the twelve apostles we have that which is representative of Christ’s authority, so that the apostles’ doctrine is stressed in the early Acts, but afterwards it is Paul who brings in Christ from the standpoint of His personal attractiveness as the Son.
WB-w Moses was more for the wilderness war, whereas David would be for war in the land; would that be the distinction?
JT That is right, but not only for the land but for the city. The city is stressed in David’s history as we see in 2 Samuel, which you do not get in Joshua. In Joshua we get the land, but not the city properly; Joshua is thus the filling out of Moses.
AP Do I understand that you are speaking [p. 392] of David as beginning over again, but on another line from Moses?
JT Yes, that is the thought.
JHE Do you find that in Luke 2:52 — “Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men”.?.
JT Yes, that is the personal side.
JEH I wonder whether Psalm 45:2 would fit in with what you are saying — the attractiveness of the king: “Thou art fairer than the sons of men”.
JT There you get an example of it.
CAM The thought of connecting it with the apostle Paul seems to help greatly, and to account too, for the details that are given about Paul as to his personal features.
JT Personality in the Acts appears specially in Paul. He presents the Son as revealed in him. What he was personally is in evidence throughout, even with regard to his advanced years: “being such a one as Paul the aged”. And so David at the end is presented to us, as having died in a good old age, full of days; reference also is made to his reign and his might and the times that passed over him. David had the building much in mind. His wars were subservient to the building, but even in the war, as has been remarked, at the outset his beauty is noticed on the very battlefield and as coming out of the first great conflict, it says that Jonathan loved him as his own soul. He is spoken of as a valiant man, and a man of war (even before he encountered the giant), skilled in speech and of good presence. Another thing that distinguished him was prayer. In several instances, particularly at Keilah, he approaches the battle by prayer. And in his battles with the Philistines mentioned in 2 Samuel 5 he prayed before each battle.
AFM All his victories are attributed to Jehovah as answering his prayers, as in Psalm 18. Jehovah [p. 393] had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies.
JT Yes, and in that Psalm he tells us that Jehovah was his military instructor. Others might have learnt war by seeing God fight, but David says of God, “Who teacheth my hands to war” (verse 34) and in Psalm 144:1 he says, “my fingers to fight”; so that he is outstanding as a military man.
AP In regard to Paul’s attractiveness, do you think that his going up to Jerusalem to visit Peter was more personal than official?
JT Making the acquaintance of Peter was personal. You may be sure that Peter was attracted by that young brother! Undoubtedly they had a good time during those fifteen days on personal lines. It was not a question of going up to learn from the apostles generally, but from this particular one. “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother”, (Galatians 1:19).
ANW Does this personal attractiveness come out too in the apostle in such elements as women and children, that were drawn to him? In Acts 20 the affections of the elders of Ephesus are drawn out to Paul, and in chapter 21 all the disciples at Tyre with wives and children accompanied him to the ship. I wondered whether that illustrated what the man was, rather than what he stood for officially.
JT No doubt. Acts 20 brings it out strikingly; the personal links he established between himself and those he served. All this is of immense importance as bearing on ourselves in warfare; that we are personally attractive, although having to wage war.
AFM Would you say something about David being sent? That seems to be emphasised. He is under command to visit his brethren with provisions from his father.
JT That is another thing I thought we might note. He says to Eliab, “What have I now done? Was it not laid upon me?” He was not rushing [p. 394] into the conflict. It was a question of a duty laid upon him. He implies he would not be there, save for a good reason. His father had sent him into the army, but he had left the sheep with a keeper. He did not leave them without care. Then his story to Saul as to his experiences in combat with the lion and bear would show that he was a man who would lay down his life for the flock. He fought, not for the sake of fighting, but for a good reason — the lamb was taken. It is as if the saints were attacked and one fought for them. He knew that God fought with him: “Jehovah”, he says, “who delivered me out of the paw of the lion and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine”. It might seem a small matter to risk his life for the sake of a lamb, but he did, not only with the lion but with the bear, and the Lord delivered him.
JEH Would that be like the weak one, “him ... for whom Christ has died”? (Romans 14:15).
JT That is the idea. You do not give up small things; men of God look after small as well as the large things; the same enemy that attacks the lamb attacks the assembly.
FHL Do you understand that the lion and the bear attacked at the same time?
JT There is only one lamb mentioned, but I think it is implied that both animals took a lamb, not necessarily at the same time. The enemy was destroyed and the lamb saved in both instances. The value of a lamb was brought home to David later by Nathan; (2 Samuel 12). The lamb was taken from the poor man, the very thing that appealed to the heart of David — a small thing, but an object of affection.
ANW David could say to Saul: “Thy servant fed his father’s sheep”. He fed the sheep before he defended them.
WB-w David fed “Jacob his people, ...
[p. 395] according to the integrity of his heart”, (Psalm 78:71,72). His heart was in the feeding.
AR David does not go into the ranks as a military man, but as sent of his father. What is your thought about that?
JT He was simply carrying provisions; militarily he comes in irregularly. He is the kind of man God uses — the man who comes forward according to the ordinary way is generally useless. Saul’s armour represented that side — the ordinary way; the general principle of faith is “another way”, (James 2:25).
ARS Would you say he came with a provision of mercy and at the direction of his father, to see how his brothers fared?
JT Quite so. His military qualities were hidden. It is God’s way to hide what He intends to do by us: here the greatest military man is hidden beneath the shepherd’s attire. David kept the secret to himself until he could speak of it to the right man, that is, to Saul. For after all, Saul was the anointed and he has to go under his orders.
APT In a conflict, the unspiritual minimises what God is about to use, and makes much of what the enemy is using. Saul says, “Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth”. I was wondering if it would help us in conflict, to make much of what God is using rather than to make much of what the enemy is using.
JT The natural mind in us, not only in the unconverted, but in Christians, is always marked by that feature. The Philistine power is always marked by display — they “spread themselves” (2 Samuel 5:22), that is, they spread out to make a show of great power.
CAM That gives force to what you were saying about the other way: by using those unexpected methods, God puts the enemy at a great disadvantage.
JHE Paul says, “when I am weak, then I am powerful”, (2 Corinthians 12:10).
AFM Goliath “looked about” as if to find David.
JT It was the attitude of disdain. He was a big man that could be seen by all. Then you have the great skill wherewith David chooses his weapons. That is another matter. He allows Saul to put on him his dress and armour, but he put them off, explaining why he did it. “I have never tried them”, he says, (verse 39). And “he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag that he had, into the pocket; and his sling was in his hand. And he drew near to the Philistine”. This is how he approaches the enemy. There is scarcely an incident in Scripture that has so much instruction for us as this, as to meeting the enemy; the disregarding of the ordinary way, and yet having the things needed, namely, the five smooth stones out of the brook, the shepherd’s bag that he had, into the pocket of which he put the chosen stones; the stones were not of human manufacture; they were smooth, evidently made so by the action of the water. That they came from God’s arsenal, was manifest. There were five in number, too.
CAM It was an unexpected affair. David when sent by his father did not have any idea of accomplishing so great a result. It is certain he did not borrow ideas of warfare from anyone but God.
JT He did not, but when the work had to be done he was ready. There was nothing slipshod about it. The stones are in the pocket of his shepherd’s bag, carefully chosen, just so many, and the sling is in his hand, as it should be.
FHL He took the head from off the giant just as he had seized the lion by the beard. His experiences would stand him in good [p. 397] stead.
JT David had no sword, but it was available when needed. He did not borrow it; it was his as the spoil of victory. It is the symbol of his triumph. Goliath was not using it, for it was in its sheath. David cut off his head with it. Considering David’s skill with the sling, the Philistine, with all his armour and implements, was outmatched, for David was like a man with a rifle. At a distance he could aim exactly and strike the point he intended to strike.
APT In verse 46 David says, “I will smite thee, and take thy head from thee”. The victory was his before he went into the battle.
JT Yes. The question may come in here as to the difference between the overthrow of this giant and the rolling back of the Jordan. The Jordan is the overthrow of death. It is rolled back so that the people go over. Goliath is typical of Satan, who has the power of death. The first is that Christ has annulled death, and brought life and incorruptibility to light through the gospel. But then He has also through death annulled him who had the might of death, and that is what is in mind here.
AR So it says, “David ... killed him completely”. That is what you mean by saying that Satan’s power is completely overthrown?
JT Yes, it is really in view of the heavenlies, dealing with the head — the mental power — principalities and power in the heavenlies. It is Satan as the head of the system of evil in opposition to God.
CAM That is a striking reference in Hebrews 2:15 because it says, “who through fear of death through the whole of their life were subject to bondage”. This man had Israel in terror, did he not?
JT Quite so; presenting himself morning and evening for forty days.
AP Do you think that the victory of David links with the thought that Christ led captivity captive?
JT That is an allusion to the head of the giant;
[p. 398] it is brought to Jerusalem, and is a feature of David’s ministry.
APf What place has David’s staff?
JT I think it refers to experience. A staff is what you use in walking and in moving about. It suggests what David was in practical, everyday life.
JHE In that sense he corresponds with Moses. Moses learned through his staff.
JT Quite so. Moses’ staff came into use in God’s service after He had instructed him through it. David’s is in his hand in the conflict and the Philistine disdains it. It adds to David’s equipment here as a warrior of God.
GMacP Would this answer to Gethsemane — the suffering the Lord went through?
JT Quite so.
ANW In connection with Jordan, is it more perhaps the matter of inherent power that was there, whereas here it confirms your suggestion as to the personal matter — the personal features of David?
JT Yes, there is no thought of beauty in the ark, in that sense. It was outwardly a box, but it was symbolic of the power of God. Inherent power was expressed there for as the feet of the priests touched the water, the waters rolled back. But here you have a beautiful personality. It is even mentioned as the giant looked about and saw David.
AFM Would you distinguish between the stone sinking into his forehead and the sword putting him completely to death? There seems to be a period between the two acts.
JT I think the first is the power of the word of God in David and its effect. It brought Goliath down and made the cutting off of his head righteous. David had a moral right to do that — to cut off his head. The action of the word clarifies the whole position. The stone is the symbol of the power of the word [p. 399] of God.
AFM Would there be a parallel between that and the Lord’s answering all the questions that the Pharisees and the Sadducees raised in Matthew’s gospel?
JT That is just the idea. In principle they are brought down in that they could not answer Him. He had the last word. All these questions were the devil’s attacks on Christ through agencies. But the Lord brought them all down. It is the power of the word.
FHL In Matthew 27 even the chief priests and elders sought to destroy Jesus. It is a remarkable word, is it not?
JT Quite so; their point was to destroy Him. Their one thought, whether they did it foully or not, was to destroy Him. But their folly was discovered at the cross. The place of His crucifixion was called, Place of a skull. Nothing there. No intelligence. Hence the moral right to bring all that to an end judicially. That is what happened in the death of Christ. That order of man is brought to an end, and Satan is in that way annulled. In Hebrews 2 it is not as if he was entirely destroyed; he is “annulled”. That is, for faith his power is gone, as we maintain the judicial action of God in the death of Christ.
AR David took the head of the Philistine to Jerusalem. What about that?
JT It shows the trend of his ministry. In Luke 19:38 the disciples in praising God said, “peace in heaven”, whereas in Luke 2:14 the angels said, “on earth peace”. David represents the heavenly side. Later he takes Jerusalem, and the head taken there is the symbol of his triumph.
FNW It is like “Having ascended up on high, he has led captivity captive”, (Ephesians 4:8).
NP These five stones were chosen from the brook, but one was [p. 400] enough.
JT In the wilderness, the Lord used one scripture to meet each attack of Satan.
RDG As was said, Goliath did not even draw his sword. David took it out of its sheath.
JT It all shows, I think, the complete dominance of David in dealing with this man, who is a type of Satan. Just as you see the Lord completely dominant at Gethsemane and on the cross. He was dominant, whatever show the enemy made.
APT Colossians 2:15 says, “he made a show of them publicly”. Would that fit in here?
JT Well, it fits in at the cross. What was so foolish, so ridiculous in man’s eyes, is in God’s hand the great means of triumph over His enemies.
AC Is it not remarkable that this first account of war in David’s history is so full of instruction? Why is this?
JT I think it is because it is such a wonderful type of Christ’s death — how He met Satan in His conflict with him. He says, “for the ruler of the world comes, and in me he has nothing”, (John 14:30). It represents the dominance of Christ there: crucified in weakness, but still He was supreme.
CAM The reference to Colossians is helpful, for that epistle stresses the personal greatness of Christ.
JT That is what Colossians aims at; it is Christ personally and how God in His death, especially in the feature of it expressed in the cross, has dealt with all that was against us.
AFM When Goliath speaks to David, he says, “Come to me, and I will give thy flesh to the fowls of the heavens and to the beasts of the field” (1 Samuel 17:44); in David’s reply to the Philistine he says, “I will give the carcases of the camp of the Philistines this day to the fowl of the heavens and to the wild beasts of the earth”, (verse 46). His faith already sees the completeness of the victory.
JT In Revelation 19 you have the same thought,
[p. 401] the immense amount of food available for the fowls of the heavens, through the warfare, the great final battle of the Lord Jesus.
I think we ought to notice that when David is rejected here, he obtains Goliath’s sword. There is none like it, he says; (1 Samuel 21:9). And in further warfare (chapter 23), he prays, and he uses the ephod (verse 9); that is, the priestly side develops in his conflicts — one of the most important things for us, that as having to fight we may do it as priests, praying about the matter; and the same thing appears later on (chapter 30), when all was lost at Ziklag, he prays again (verse 8); he recovered all, it says, showing how victory is available for us as we pray.
WB-w What do you say about chapter 17 verse 53? — “And the children of Israel returned from chasing after the Philistines, and they pillaged their camps”. How does that fit in?
JT I suppose it would mean that as the result of Christ’s death and resurrection and the Spirit here, we may know how to invade their camp and deprive them of their resources. The book called the “Irrationalism of Infidelity” is a good example of this in our times. It is an important side of the position.
ANW Is that why he puts the armour in his tent?
JT I think so. David is enriched by it. As we understand the way Satan carries on his warfare, we see we have a great advantage over him.
AR Referring to the ephod and Goliath’s sword again, I suppose David never fought for personal gain.
JT That is right. The first great conflict after he is rejected by Saul is at Keilah, and it is entirely an unselfish matter. He fought to save its inhabitants.
GMacP David, in 1 Samuel 17:47, says, “for the battle is Jehovah’s, and he will give you into our hands”. He does not say “my” hands.
APT David cut off Saul’s skirt (chapter 24), and afterwards his heart smote him because of that. His men would have gone further, but he checked them. I wondered whether he forgot the sense of the ephod for the moment?
JT Yes. He should not have so dealt with Saul because he was Jehovah’s anointed. That is a beautiful touch, I think, that ought to help us in dealing with our elder brethren, such as have had a place in the testimony. The grace shown by David achieved a moral victory that touched even the heart of Saul. He was capable of being touched. “Is this thy voice, my son David?” he said, and he “lifted up his voice and wept”, (chapter 24:17). He acknowledges that David is more righteous than he. Another thing that comes out in chapter 25 is that he is now formally recognised as fighting “the battles of Jehovah”. It is a great matter when the brethren come to see that you are not fighting for personal ends.
FHL The armour in the tent is the first mention that he had a tent in the camp. Does that suggest that he was identified with them now as a warrior and is moving forward?
JT Yes; he has a status militarily. There is no record of his having brought a tent there. It is likely that Saul assigned him one.
WGT Abigail had a knowledge of the “sling”.
JT She had. How she represented the grace and intelligence of the assembly is very beautiful. We see how Christ is fighting the divine battles, and this should be reflected in every one of us if we are fighting, we must see that it is the battle of Jehovah; it is not a personal matter.
WB-w Do you regard chapter 25 as another battle?
JT Yes. It was a great conflict in a moral sense, for Nabal was in disdainful opposition to David. He was kept back by the influence and good [p. 403] advice of Abigail. It is the function of the assembly typically that is in mind, in its grace and intelligence. Abigail was a woman of great intelligence, and fits in there as restraining this warlike effort of David. He was about to go too far, and she modified it. It is not that the Lord Jesus would ever go too far; it is only the principle that we might go too far in waging war; our wisdom is to let the assembly always have its place; that is the great prime need now.
ANW She recognised the folly of Nabal.
JT Yes, and pointed it out, too, in alluding to the meaning of his name. It is not now Goliath, a great intellect, but a man of folly.
AR Is there something in the fact that in this chapter Samuel is said to have died?
JT Yes; it is the end of a chapter in Israel’s history. In a sense, Abigail takes his place, and David shines out all the more. Let us accede to the assembly its place in everything, and we shall have the mind of God.
WB-w You mean that in Matthew 18 we get the principles that govern the assembly?
JT Quite so; God has brought something into this world that is going through intact; it is invulnerable, like the ark of Noah, but how is it going through? — only as we recognise the principles governing it.
AP So Abigail represents the assembly from the military side?
JT Yes; she recognised David as fighting the battles of the Lord.
WGT Would Nabal represent a local disturbance?
JT Quite so; David approached him with the greatest respect for some victuals, but he disdained him. David’s men state to Nabal that they protected his shepherds, and Nabal’s young man confirms this, saying, David’s men “were a wall to us both by night and day”. That is the idea of a local assembly.
[p. 404] This same young man discerned that Nabal was acting in folly, and he put that information where it should be. He did not get together a coterie of them and tell them, but told Abigail; that is, in type, the assembly — “tell it to the assembly”. If we are to have the help of God, we must recognise the assembly.
WB-w Abigail was a woman of ample provision; she took loaves of bread, bottles of wine, five sheep ready dressed, and other things, too, as blessing for David, showing that she was in character like David.
APT Do you think they were going too far at Corinth in connection with the one that had erred?
JT They were too slow in the exercise of grace, as they had been in the exercise of judgment. They were at fault in both cases.
APT Do you consider that an assembly may fail in that sense?
JT I think so.
GMacP Abigail said, “And if a man is risen up to pursue thee and to seek thy life, the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living with Jehovah thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out from the hollow of the sling”, (verse 29). Showing that every enemy would be dealt with by Jehovah.
AR Do you mean that as we recognise the assembly, we shall have the mind for God for the present and for the future? Abigail could speak to David as to what he was doing and would yet do.
JT That is right.
Rem The issue here is left with Jehovah. Jehovah deals with Nabal. He does not suffer at the hand of David.
JT God came in, consequent upon the wise advice of Abigail. She already anticipated that God would deal with him. She says, “let thine enemies, and they that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal”, ([p. 405] verse 26).
WWM David says to Abigail, “blessed be thy discernment”. That is an important word.
JT It is a very important word, especially in these local difficulties.
APT “Tell it to the assembly”. Do you understand that to be the local assembly?
JT Yes; as far as I see, Scripture never warrants administration in the assembly viewed universally. Administration in the assembly while it is down here is always worked out locally. In chapter 30 the use of the ephod may be looked at as very important, and that “David recovered all”. He rises to the type of Christ as seen in Romans, recovering all; and then in 2 Samuel going on to Ephesians; that is to say, securing Zion and Jerusalem.
AP You would say that, although David recovered all, yet he secured even more, because in chapter 30:26 it says, “David came to Ziklag, and he sent of the spoil to the elders of Judah, to his friends, saying, Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of Jehovah”.
JT Yes. In the first chapter of the second book the spirit of David is stressed. What a man he was in regard to Saul, and how he is actuated by prayer! It is a question of ascent now. 1 Samuel 30 is Romans, I think — every outstanding question raised on account of sin is adjusted here; but in chapter 2 of the second book it is “Shall I go up?” and “Whither shall I go up?” A beautiful spirit is seen in chapter 1, and following this he goes up to Hebron under divine direction. Then as anointed at Hebron he is recognised as the one who led Israel out and brought them in; (chapter 5). That is a very important side of the military affairs, that you do not lead the people away, so that they never come back. You may do that, you know, in the war. If you have not the right spirit, you may lead people into the combat and they go wrong in it. But David [p. 406] led them out and brought them back, and all this in the time of Saul’s reign.
ANW I think that is very important. I think we know what it is to see souls lost in the conflict.
JT Sometimes it is the battle ground badly chosen, as the wood of Ephraim. The forest killed more than the sword; (2 Samuel 18).
CAM A conflict and victory without casualties is a remarkable thing.
JT Quite so. It is skill in leadership, as we saw in Numbers 31. There was not a man lost, we are told.
APT Is that not Corinthians pretty much as under Paul’s leadership?
JT I think so; he was very careful. He says, “having in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall have been fulfilled”. He did not want to lose one that loved Christ.
But to go on to Zion: David took the stronghold of Zion. I think what is in mind now is Ephesians, that this warfare leads us not only into heavenly ground but into Jerusalem.
AR It says in this chapter that David took Zion. He took it.
JT Joab’s part is omitted in Samuel, to bring this out; that it is David’s exploit. I think it is an allusion to Christ’s conquest of our hearts, the ejection of the enemy from our hearts; and He builds inward. Building is immediately in view. He has material now that has a place in our hearts. He says, so to say, the watercourse must be reached. I believe the allusion is to what is of God in our hearts.
AFM That would correspond with the second prayer of Ephesians 3:17, “that the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your heart”.
WB-w I was thinking, too, of Ephesians 4:8: “Having ascended up on high, he has led captivity [p. 407] captive, and has given gifts to men”. He is thus working in our hearts down here.
JT Yes; in Psalm 68, from which Ephesians 4 is quoted, the gifts are in view of building — “for the dwelling there of Jah Elohim”.
WGT Verse 17 speaks of David going down to the stronghold.
JT That is in view of the Philistine attack. Going down is noticeable. It is like Joshua going into the valley at Ai. Zion implies elevation, but David goes down, and victory is the result.