THE WARS OF THE LORD (10)
[p. 408] THE WARS OF THE LORD (10)
2 Samuel 8:1 - 14; 2 Samuel 18:1 - 8; 2 Samuel 23:8 - 17
JT At out last reading we considered the conflicts in the early part of David’s history, leading up to the capture of mount Zion, the city of David. It was thought that we should reflect upon the further wars of David, but considering the extensive ground to be covered, we can only touch on a few scriptures. Chapter 8 gives a general account of the conquests of David; then in chapter 18 we have the war with Absalom, affording special instruction in our subject; and finally, we have the mighty men of David, who should come under our consideration because they are an outcome of his spirit and skill in these wars.
We noticed last time, that when the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over Israel, they went up to seek him, but we did not enlarge on that incident. Chapter 5:17 to the end, indicates the character of the Philistine opposition, that is, the anointing in those who serve draws out their opposition, and it says that they spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim. It says this twice, (verses 18 and 22). That is, in attacking, what is remarked by the Spirit of God here, this class of enemies spread themselves, they make as much show of strength as possible. Here it is in the valley of Rephaim, which would allude to human power. And another thing that comes out, which is especially to be noted, is that David inquired of Jehovah in regard of these two attacks. It is to bring out his dependence, as we saw earlier in 1 Samuel 23. During the attack at Keilah he prayed for guidance. It seems as if that is one of the most important lessons to be learnt in our consideration of David’s service — his dependence upon God in conflict. And another [p. 409] thing that we ought to keep in mind, is that his conflicts end in peace. Peace ought to be the result of all wars. And so the normal counterpart of David is Solomon, a man of peace.
FL Would you say that the mind cannot be guided merely by precedent? In chapter 5:23, 24 Jehovah gives directions to David that are totally different from the first. Would that indicate the need we have for dependence upon the Lord for the next move?
JT Yes; the second inquiry brings out the answer, “Thou shalt not go up; turn round behind them and come upon them opposite the mulberry-trees”. There is a certain humility required in that, in answering to that instruction. Instead of facing the enemy you have to turn round behind and come up opposite the mulberry-trees. It would rob the military man of all self-confidence. And Jehovah says further, You are not to attack until “thou hearest a sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry-trees, ... then thou shalt bestir thyself”. That is, one has to learn to be still until he hears the military sound, the sound of marching.
FL Would the marching in the tops of the mulberry-trees indicate means that were inconspicuous and lowly?
JT That is what I thought. Without this invisible army — invisible, but not unheard — what can you do? The sound of marching — it is an orderly military movement, showing that Jehovah is a Man of war. He is leading in this. The mulberry-trees here would probably imply inconspicuousness, a low sort of tree; they represent men who serve otherwise than by making a show like the Philistines.
AP Have you any thought as to David hearing, (verse 17)? Is there a point of importance in hearing properly in matters of war?
JT Quite so; and he went down to [p. 410] the stronghold.
In the stronghold a sense of assurance comes into your soul. It would be a matter of faith. “The name of the Lord is a strong tower” (Proverbs 18:10) into which the righteous enter and are safe.
AP Paul must have heard properly from the house of Chloe at Corinth.
JT Yes — not like Joshua, who thought the sound of mirth in the camp was the sound of war; (Exodus 32).
AR David had to wait for Jehovah’s guidance, but he “did so, as Jehovah had commanded him”, (2 Samuel 5:25). He waited for God to lead.
JT Quite so. These incidents coming in immediately after his anointing bring out David’s character; his dependence upon, and waiting for God. Chapter 8 records a series of conflicts, each for our special instruction. For the first time since Samuel we have the subjugation of the Philistines, not isolated battles, successful though they were, as in the book of Judges. It is the subduing power of God in conflict. “David smote the Philistines, and subdued them; and David took the power of the capital out of the hand of the Philistines”.
CAM This eighth chapter would indicate protracted conflicts.
JT It gives what is more extended, both as to territory and time, than might appear at first sight. It is an epitome of David’s reign, before Absalom’s revolt. You have his cabinet, as we may call it, stated at the end of the chapter, showing that it was an ordered kingdom or empire, as the outcome of his great skill in war.
FL We get here elements differing, and we have to discern; the Philistines, the Amalekites, and the Edomites, as far as I can remember, are not mentioned prophetically for blessing in another day, but the Moabites and Ammonites were so provided for. Would the Philistines, Amalekites, and Edomites [p. 411] in that way represent elements which are eternally irreconcilable to God?
JT Well, I think we have to distinguish between what may take place currently and what may be the final outcome. Now what takes place currently in this chapter under David is not altogether in keeping with the prophetic outlook; that is, his prowess brings all kinds of national elements into subjection; under David, extermination is not the order of the day. With Joshua it was extermination, but with David, subjugation; that is, the power of the kingdom in subduing all kinds of enemies. He subdued the worst kind, the Philistine, and took the power of control out of their hands, that is, “the power of the capital”. It is in David’s hands now. The enemies continue, but they are subject. Today it would be the power of the kingdom subduing in a moral sense. The worst kind of opposition is subjugated by the power that is expressed in David. To illustrate all this, we have first the Philistines, then the Moabites, then the Syrians, in verses 3 and 4; and then the Amalekites and the Edomites. As subdued, the nations bring gifts and they are dedicated. It is subjugation that brings results for God. This should be observed. It is a question, not of extermination, but of subjugation; so that the power of the kingdom for good is demonstrated.
JEH Would it correspond with “angels and authorities and powers being subjected to” Christ (1 Peter 3:22)?
JT It does; that is the ordering of God, but what we have here is actual subjugation. I think that the present thought of the kingdom is the subjugation of these elements in ourselves. That is, Romans and Corinthians answer largely to what we are dealing with now — the subjugation of elements that would interfere with the working out of divine thoughts; you have not only subjugation, but persons bringing gifts, as you will observe in verse 7: “And [p. 412] David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. And from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much bronze”. And then we have: “And he brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of bronze. Them also king David dedicated to Jehovah, with the silver and the gold that he had dedicated of all the nations that he had subdued: of the Syrians, and of the Moabites, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of the Amalekites, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah”. I think we should notice that our wars ought to have peace in mind, and also riches; all that is worked out as the saints become subjugated to the Lord.
AP We should have thought that the Lord would have exterminated Saul of Tarsus, but He subdued him and made him useful.
JT Quite so; He made him an occasion of great riches in the house of God.
FL It has often been remarked that the great crises in the assembly, which have led to much sorrow and division, have nearly always been followed by spiritual riches.
JT That is what I was thinking. The wars of David are resultful in that way and culminate in a long reign of peace.
ANW “The work of righteousness shall be peace”, (Isaiah 32:17). I suppose that is the establishment of the rights of God resulting in peace in our souls.
JT I think so; so that we apply the thing to ourselves not as a mere historic thing, but as it works out as under the rule of Christ in the kingdom or in the house.
JEH Is it not remarkable that David said, “I am for peace; but ... they are for war”, showing [p. 413] that the ultimate concern of his mind was to reach peace.
JT That is the thought. As to the elements subdued here, the Philistines had “the bridle of the people”; they kept the people in bondage, but David took that out of their hands. Then the Moabites refer to the pride of man, with which we are all more or less affected; and the Syrians have hereditary feelings of opposition to others — and so the Edomites and the Amalekites, all these are just features of the flesh, that find, alas, their place with us, and they are regulated by the subjugating power of the Lord. Thus David had accumulated a wonderful amount of material for the house when the time came to build it.
AMacN Is what is preserved for God suggested in “one full line to keep alive”?
JT I think it shows that this is a discriminating war, and care is necessary that what is of God is measured, that nothing of God is damaged. I believe the measure is more exercise, “one full line” for life. It is a remarkable incident, but has its own spiritual meaning, I am sure.
ANW Say a little more about the difference between subjugation kingdom-wise and subjugation house-wise.
JT I think subjugation by the king is necessarily more arbitrary, as we might say, but in the house the family feeling predominates and modifies. There is more entreaty and affection with the latter, but these battles are constantly going on, and the opposition is in every one of us more or less. I think that is what we should see, that it is a subjugating time marked by discrimination. So we have a great difference in this chapter from chapter 18, where the forest consumed more than the sword. That was a poor matter, the result of a badly-selected battle-field. Here everything is marked [p. 414] by discrimination.
TEH Abraham had three hundred and eighteen trained servants in his own house.
JT Military training helps on the battle-field peculiarly. It gives presence of mind, so that you are not flustered in what you are doing; nor wild in your shooting, nor in the use of your sword, but are calm and collected. That is, I think, the effect of good military training; and David could say that Jehovah was his military Instructor. You can understand what a balanced soldier he was and how calmly he would take account of a battle as it proceeded, and not lose his presence of mind. In war you might destroy your friend unless you are carefully balanced.
JS So the Lord in speaking to Saul of Tarsus evidenced discrimination when He said, “why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4). He brought him down; He subdued him, but with great discrimination, so that he becomes a contributor and enriches the assembly.
FL I think there is great meaning in what you say. These opposing elements are to be discerned and judged in ourselves; that is where the enemy is found. It is most important.
JT Yes. In the conflict, we must be careful that we are not damaging anything that is of God.
AP Is not discrimination and balance seen in Elisha, in contrast with what was manifest in the young man, his servant who was with him? The servant was fearful, but Elisha calculated the whole position; (2 Kings 6).
WGT Would this making of the Moabites lie on the ground be a humiliating thing?
JT That is where one belongs, and should be. The judgment of God brings us there; and it is now a question of mercy. We are entirely in the King’s hands, we have no power in ourselves. But there is a full line for life.
ABP Peter says, “Humble yourselves ... under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time”, (1 Peter 5:6). The thought of measure comes in there, too — “in due time”.
FL There are two lines for death, but for life, it is a full line.
JT I think the two lines would be adequate testimony as to what man is in his rebellion. It is an adequate testimony, I think, carried down from the Old Testament, such as the law by which is the knowledge of sin, and the prophets, the testimony to God’s patience, to bring out what man is in rebellion against God. I suppose we might take the two lines as a witness on God’s behalf of the righteousness of His judgment; whereas the gospel is the full line for life.
APf The wars in Joshua were exterminating, why not subjugating?
JT I think it is good to bring that out. The wars of Canaan, as we have had, were wars of extermination because God had waited for hundreds of years for the iniquity of the Amorite to become full. It is a question of spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies; but David represents a heavenly position — that of the rule of Christ in a moral sense. This is not the time for extermination, but of grace. Indeed, this whole section develops grace in a remarkable way on the part of David. It is a discriminative warfare; one that preserves whatever is of God among the nations. It is a question of the nations, and David is careful that nothing that is of God among them is destroyed. The next chapter brings out beautifully the character of David’s kingdom — “the kindness of God” is shown. He would show it to any of the house of Saul, his greatest enemy. Then chapter 10 presents the man that despises grace, that is, Hanun, the son of the king of Ammon, and he is dealt with ruthlessly. It is like “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish”. (Acts 13:41). But this chapter is a discriminative warfare to save [p. 416] all possible.
GMcP When David recovered all, in 1 Samuel 30, he slew the Amalekites, but saved the young Egyptian alive.
JT Quite so; he could use him. That young man is a type of one in whom the work of God is effective.
JHE Would this be like 1 Corinthians 15:28, “that God may be all in all”?
JT That is the great end in view. The complete subjugation of everyone by the Lord Jesus Himself. Subjugation could never apply to Him, for He never needed it. He took the place of subjection. He is the Leader in eternity, the Son Himself is subject; that will be the eternal state of things. I do not think that subjugation appears there at all, for there will be no evidence of anything that would need subjugation; the work of God, and that only, will be in evidence in eternity. Here we have elements that continually need to be kept subject; in 2 Samuel 8 you have the idea of garrisons. Garrisons are to maintain subjugation.
JTJr Is the idea of a garrison suggested in the local assembly?
JT I think so. It is the power of God in a locality. It is not a mobile idea, but a local one.
JTJr The exercise of power in the hands of the Philistines would mean that, in such a case, power is in the wrong hands.
JT Exactly; the principle of the chapter is that he took the capital out of their hands; and the garrisons, I suppose, would mean that in every locality the influence and authority of David are maintained. Methegammah would mean “the capital”. It was the Philistines’ capital, and they exercised their influence from that point. Jerusalem is the great thought of the capital in God’s mind.
FL Do I understand correctly that the two [p. 417] great phases of subjugation are grace and judgment, and that this introduces Solomon’s kingdom?
JT Yes. The kingdom is handed over, as it were, to the Prince of peace; it culminates in Solomon. During the millennial day He will not be subjugating. The millennium will be the result of Christ’s service typified in David; it will not be a time of war; the sinner of one hundred years will be dealt with, but that will be the exception. The general thought will be peace, and it is the outcome of what is going on now, and what will happen immediately before the introduction of the millennium.
APT What is the composition of a garrison?
JT I should think they would be men trained under David, who would represent his authority in each locality, maintaining his power according to the spirit and skill of David.
TEH Was Timothy, as seen in the epistles to the Corinthians, a good soldier, having the mind of Christ?
JT According to chapter 4 of the first epistle, he is sent by the apostle to Corinth. He says, “For this reason I have sent to you Timotheus, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in mind of my ways as they are in Christ”, (verse 17). That illustrates what has been remarked as to the composition of the garrisons, that it would be a question of David and his spirit in a locality, and I think that is the reason why Paul mentions Timothy in his second letter, because they had already proved him in their midst. He represented Paul’s spirit and way amongst them.
FL He had “no one like-minded”, (Philippians 2:20).
JT The kind of thing that is always needed in a locality is someone to represent the Lord, not only His authority, but His Spirit and ways: “my ways”, Paul says, “as they are in Christ”, (1 Corinthians 4:17).
JTJr You get great variety in this cabinet [p. 418] of David. Is that suggestive of the variety of God’s provision in the assembly?
JT Yes. “David reigned over all Israel; and David executed judgment and justice to all his people. And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was chronicler; and Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was scribe; and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David’s sons were chief rulers”, (chapter 8:15 - 18). I apprehend that a garrison spiritually would represent the intelligence and stability that is presented in these verses.
WGT “David reigned over all Israel”, (verse 15).
JT I think it is the Lord in His authority as recognised everywhere. “And thus I ordain in all the assemblies”, (1 Corinthians 7:17). “All that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”, (1 Corinthians 1:2). These scriptures would suggest the same idea.
ANW It seems that the Syrian and the Edomite features require the garrison. I wonder whether they might stand related to what you said before with regard to them.
JT Well, I think they adhere to their characteristics. The Syrian is a hereditary sort of enemy, arising from distant natural links. Jacob’s wives came from there, Laban being a Syrian. You can understand how the Syrians would vie with Israel in view of the great prosperity that God had granted him, and therefore that element requires especially to be held in check. That is what I think is in mind. Edom is like that, only nearer. He is the brother, but as on the ground of nature would have a claim and would make demands. Bitter opposition is sure to arise from them as the blessing of God marks [p. 419] those who walk by faith. Thus garrisons are needed there particularly.
AP Inveterate hatred marked Edom. It is spoken of in the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others.
ABP Would you say that the saints at Crete needed a garrison? They were always liars. There was a constant tendency with them that had to be rebuked sharply.
JT Quite so; a characteristic sort of thing.
FL With regard to the imperial idea of which you speak, the Euphrates is brought in here, the eastern boundary of the territory promised to Israel.
JT That is an important point. Not only Canaan, but from the great sea to the Euphrates was promised; Canaan is the heavenly territory, but the imperial territory includes much more. David’s kingdom would not omit anything that is within the range of promise. It may be thought of little account because so far away, but a spiritual man will not let any promised thing go. God has secured everything that He has promised. “Whatever promises of God there are, in him is the yea, and in him the amen, for glory to God by us”, (2 Corinthians 1:20).
FL That would embrace the territory from which Abraham was called.
JT Quite so. I think we are often apt to think little of what is at a distance, but the securing of the territory to the utmost limits of the promise by Jehovah means that there was the utmost care with David to let nothing go; everything is of value, and hence secured.
FL We get something very different in character in chapter 17 in the war against Absalom.
JT That brings us to a very humbling bit of discipline. First of all, it is the outcome of David’s own failure. It corresponds with divisions that have come in amongst the people of God. They are the [p. 420] outcome of not only one or two leaders, but of the general condition of the saints, and the whole history from chapter 12 onwards is pathetic; it is a sorrowful history, which every student of Scripture should weigh in his own soul before God. What it presents is a weak and crippled David suffering on account of his own conduct under the government of God. In this chapter we have him as about to be victorious, but still things are very weak; he marshalled, however, those that were with him, he is military enough for that, but full of natural feelings to the extent even of allowing in principle an antichrist, because he was his son. “O Absalom, my son, my son!” he says. If any looked into the occurrence he would be impressed with the prominence David still gives to Absalom and to the relation of son. The history of Absalom is abhorrent to the idea of such a relationship.
AMacN He made a most serious breach amongst the subjects of David.
JT He did, and that is why David ought not to have allowed his natural affections to sway him. That is the lesson to be learned; not to allow natural relations and affections to sway us in the things of God. The most spiritual believer is capable of being affected in this way.
FL David said, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom”.
ABP Principles come before persons.
JT That is right; that is what one was saying, but David puts his own son before principles.
ANW In connection with the family of Saul, David would show the kindness of God to Saul’s house, but he could not show such kindness to Absalom.
JT No indeed. That is where the error lay; there was a certain appearance of judgment, but still David allowed him to come back, and reinstated [p. 421] him to favour, in doing which he opened the door to antichrist, for that is what Absalom represents. That is, the spirit and character of antichrist which is finding a footing in Christendom today.
AP Would you say that as over against right principles, the thought of feelings comes in here? The people said, “Thou shalt not go forth” — we might think the statement represented right feelings, but they were evidently wrong feelings.
JT Yes, they had great regard for David. It is only here, I think, that you get him formally valued by the people: “thou art worth ten thousand of us”. It was a humble but right attitude, but although so highly regarded, he is not moving in spiritual energy at this time. This is a most humiliating scene. The battle-field was badly selected, being in the forest of Ephraim; this, I suppose, has some allusion to Absalom assuming he had the right of the first-born in Israel. Now the leading place belonged to Judah. The Spirit of God tells us that the forest devoured more people than the sword. The sword is the proper weapon for divine warfare.
FL David surrendered headship and leadership when he said, “I will do what is good in your sight”. He let the people lead, and then we have the poor battle-field.
ABP Is not this conflict executed on the principle of assumed leadership? David, the true leader, stays behind, and Absalom is definitely in the foreground as having usurped the place.
JT David makes room for that by opening the door for Absalom’s return, who was a murderer. So that where there is true leadership, the thing is to hold to it, even at the expense of being criticised. David’s position was that of marshal; he marshalled his forces, but he did not lead them. Of course Absalom was personally guilty, and is judged accordingly.
JTJr David’s first breakdown came about because he did not go with his army, “when kings go forth”, (chapter 11:1).
JT That is right. From that time he was leaving things too much to others. If God gives a man a place, he should not leave that place, but stand to it; so it says of Josiah, “the king stood in his place”, (2 Chronicles 34:31). That was the salvation of the position, holding the place assigned him by God.
TEH When David hearkened to the suggestions of the woman of Tekoah, was it because he had given way to Joab’s artifices as chief? Joab brought Absalom back with David’s consent.
JT Well, he had the place of chief, but was losing ground with the king, and hence acts in the role of politician, which brings out the kind of man Joab was. He would gain favour with David by urging Absalom’s return, as he knew the king desired this. All these incidents are to lay bare the weakness of the position from chapter 12 onwards; typically, the great weakness of Christendom today. The responsible element was weak, and that is what is now apparent; antichrist, political manoeuvres, and the like. Joab did not care for Absalom a bit, but he knew what David’s mind was towards him, and ingratiated himself with the king. What the Spirit of God portrays to us is, that the whole position was weak, and this battle was the outcome, with losses that were unnecessarily great. The battles in chapter 8 were very different; they were discriminating; everything that was of God was preserved and no life unnecessarily lost.
WGT Joab and Absalom were both bad elements; Joab was on the side of David, but nevertheless he was not a help to him.
JT Quite so. You may be on the right side outwardly, yet still be very wrong. That is what is exposed [p. 423] here.
FL Did not God use what was available when Joab slew Absalom with the three spears?
JT It was thoroughly done, but you see how ruthless he was. You often see that men who are spared in one conflict come into judgment in the next one. Joab was a hard man. He ought to have shown some sympathy with the king. He could easily have done less than he did, and yet Absalom would have been righteously dealt with, but he would not stop to speak to a reasoning man who had told him of Absalom’s plight. The soldier reminded Joab of what the king had said. He had respect for the king, but Joab had not. The facts are mentioned so as to expose the character of Joab. The subject spirit in the man who spoke to him should have rebuked him.
ANW Joab and his brothers were too hard for David. He said, when Abishai would have slain Shimei, “What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah?”
JT God does not like severity in this sense. It may be right abstractly, the object of it may deserve it; God does not act speedily in such cases, but will make His mind known in time.
AP How do you regard the ten young men who were Joab’s armour-bearers?
JT You never hear of David’s armour-bearers, but Joab was marked in this way. Ordinarily a Levite goes on his own initiative. Of course, two are better than one, and we have the instance of “Paul and his company”, which is very special. It was companionship, adding strength to the position, and was suitable in such a servant.
GMacP Is the point for us to learn to adhere to the king’s commandment?
JT Yes; I think Joab was exposed. While it was well that Absalom was killed, if a murderer is lynched he deserves it, but the lynchers are breaking
[p. 424] the law. That must be borne in mind. In exercising discipline in the assembly, we must keep to the law governing it. God is concerned about the law, and that is where Joab failed. The man who saw Absalom hanging in the terebinth said, the king said “Take care ... of the young man Absalom ... and thou wouldest have set thyself against me” had I gone contrary to it. He was a man with a conscience.
APT Paul says to the Corinthians, “What will ye? that I come to you with a rod; or in love, and in a spirit of meekness?” (1 Corinthians 4:21). In his instructions in chapter 5 he shows that he did not want to get rid of the wicked man. He wanted to apply the principles we have been speaking of, not only to subjugate him, but to hold him for God.
JT That his spirit might be saved, but Joab never had any thought like that. The saving of a man’s spirit did not mark his warfare.
AR In the reign of peace under Solomon, Joab could have no part.
JT That is what comes out. Everything is adjusted in the beginning of Kings; all these adverse elements meet their right judgment. They cannot enter into the reign of peace. So we must judge as before God as to principles, and thus qualify for the coming reign of peace.
APf Would you put the wars in chapter 18 in the same class as the war in chapter 8?
JT No, I would not. The wars of chapter 8 are for the subjugation of the nations; as the gospel today is for the obedience of faith among the nations, to take out of them a people for God; and so the great wars in the introduction of the millennium will be for the subjugation of the nations, so that all the saved nations shall enter into eternal life — “the righteous into life eternal”, (Matthew 25:46). The idea is that what is of God will be preserved and blessed. He is taking out a people from them now; by and [p. 425] by the nations will be saved. In 2 Samuel 18 it is war amongst ourselves. A rebellion amongst the people of God is in mind, a most humiliating thing and the state of Christendom in type. Antichristian principles have been allowed to enter.
AR Would you make a difference between David in chapter 8 and in chapter 18?
JT A great difference; in that his power according to the latter is greatly diminished, and natural feelings largely rule. Chapter 8 is more what marked the beginning of the history of the gospel. Chapter 18 portrays the present state of Christendom.
AP How do you apply the destroying of the people by the forest, to Christendom today?
JT It was the bad choice of the battle-ground; uncertain and conflicting motives and actions are illustrated in this. To make your way in such circumstances is extremely difficult. In Christendom today one is hedged in by motives, principles, and methods.
FL Would you get the idea in Christian men crusading, in the name of Christ, against crime, prohibition, and all that kind of thing? They are on the wrong battle-ground.
JT And many Christians are damaged.
GVD Would the conflict being spread over the face of the country suggest that it was outside of divine principles?
JT That is right. It was not regulated by right principles, by proper generalship. The Lord is a Man of war, and never lets things get out of hand. Ordinarily David would not have acted in this way.
FL What about David’s men?
JT Well, I thought they are the outcome of the skill and influence which David represents. They are distinctive in war and leadership. The principle is, I think, that we take on the character of David (i.e., Christ). David’s mighty men were a motley [p. 426] lot, as 1 Samuel 22 tells us, but he “became a captain over them”, and they learned under his influence. They saw objectively in him true military skill and instinct, and withal a gracious spirit. Chronicles gives a list of the mighties, at the outset of his reign; as much as to say, Before we tell you about this great man, we will show you the effect of his influence upon his mighty men. Here we have them at the end of his reign, but they are in general the same persons; that is to say, you see in a man in his local meeting, or wherever he ministers or serves, what are the results of his service.
FL Philippians 2 gives a suggestion for the training of these men. Paul speaks of Timotheus and Epaphroditus as having Christ’s impress upon them.
JT Philippians above all epistles is intended to bring out the features of those who come under Christ; what men they were. Of course Romans 16 gives us a striking list of persons, too, and so do Colossians and Ephesians; but Philippians is special. Take Epaphroditus: he is sick, and a sick man usually expects people to see him and be sympathetic with him. If he is not spiritual, he is likely to complain; whereas Epaphroditus says, I am not thinking of myself at all, but of the Philippians, for as hearing of my sickness, they will suffer on my account. And then Paul had no one like Timotheus, who cared with genuine feeling how the saints got on.
ANW Referring to Romans 16, from where did all those worthies get their features? Do you suppose they got them through Paul?
JT Well, he knew them all by name. Each had a distinguishing trait of Christ. It was a fine ability to be able to speak about so many and to say the right thing about each of them. What distinguished each was the Spirit of Christ, and they were all worthy of his [p. 427] salutations.
FL Priscilla and Aquila met Paul in Corinth. They would be typical of the others.
JT Exactly; they saw much of him there, and they staked their neck for him.
AP There is evidently order in the mention of these distinguished ones here.
JT I think so. The first is Joseb-Bassebeth, he was chief of the captains; he has great distinction. He fought against eight hundred slain by him. He did not beat the air. He knew how to use his weapon. He fought against eight hundred and did not miss a man — “slain by him at one time”. It is not that he slew eight hundred out of a larger number, but he slew all against whom he fought.
FHL It does not mention who the eight hundred were. Taking character from David, Joseb-Bassebeth could meet any enemy.
JT That is right. He slew them all; he did not let a man slip. The great prowess of these men is stressed, and also how thorough they were. We do not know what these enemies were, but we may be sure they were real ones.
FHL It speaks specifically of the Philistines afterwards.
APT Do you think there have been mighty men throughout the history of the assembly since the Lord ascended on high?
JT I think that is what is in mind. It may be assumed that they appeared at the outset only, but the Spirit of God balances things. He mentions these men at the beginning of David’s reign in Chronicles, and mentions them here at the end; making reference, I think, to what Christ has effected throughout the whole history of the dispensation.
AP The plot of lentiles is not a big thing; it would come down to our times, would it not?
JT Yes, it was something defined. The people had fled, but Shammah stood in the midst of the [p. 428] plot and delivered it. Lentiles would be food, and the plot was full of them. Next we have the beautiful tribute to the three chiefs at Bethlehem. The chapter says, “David longed, [p. 429] and said, Oh that one would give me to drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is in the gate!” In response to this, “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”. I believe this may apply to the end. It is a question of the longings of Christ when that which He values is in the enemy’s hands. He knows where it is: “The Lord knows those that are his”,(2 Timothy 2:19). He knows where they are. It is a question of breaking through to secure what He longs for.
FL This brings into evidence the power of responsive love; knowing what David wanted and going for it, regardless of consequences, because they loved him.
JT I think the revival of the truth of Christ as Head of the assembly, His body, opens the door for this sort of mightiness. It was collective; the three of the thirty chiefs act together. It was not with intent to destroy anybody; they simply broke through to get what David so earnestly desired.
ANW I was thinking that one of the salient features of their devotedness was their unity of action. It is a great test for us.
APT Some of us were speaking recently about getting people in to hear the gospel. One wonders if the lack with us is, that we do not “break through”. The Lord Jesus wants to get people out to hear; are we not cowardly in inviting people?
JT That is a challenge. The thing is to get what the Lord desires. We know what He wants. It is a matter of understanding here. It says, “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”. The position is clear and his longings are understood. “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”. No doubt there were other wells in the vicinity, but it was this one that David designated. These three drew the water, “took it, and brought it to David”. What a mighty exploit that was! They reached the well and got back again! They broke through going and coming, but nothing is said of anybody being slain. The point is, getting what the Lord wants and bringing it to Him.
AP Would not this define a principle in present-day movements? It is not the setting of the world right religiously, but meeting Christ’s desires. Is not that our position today?
JT Yes; we are not overthrowing human institutions; it is getting what Christ wants out of them. The seal is on the foundation, “The Lord knows those that are his”; and “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, (2 Timothy 2:19). If you get them to withdraw from iniquity, you have broken through. And then David, being priest, has now something to offer. The conflict affords him this, so that the passage says, “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”. We may transfer David’s act to the Lord as serving in the assembly; He has that whereof to offer. He takes up the fruits of our spiritual exploits and presents them to God.
AR It was [p. 430] a drink offering.
CAM David appreciated the willingness of those men to give up their lives.
JT Yes; Paul speaks of being “poured out as a libation on the sacrifice and ministration” of the faith of the Philippians. That was the attitude of these mighty men; there was thus something offered to God. You hardly get a passage in relation to David so beautiful as this; the longings of his heart and the wonderful answer to them in these three men, and then David as priest taking all that and presenting it to God. It is a fine tribute to come in at the end of the dispensation.
TEH Is a similar idea seen in Romans 15:16? Paul speaks there of “carrying on as a sacrificial service the message of glad tidings of God, in order that the offering up of the nations might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit”.
JT That enters into what is before us here. Many of us have never thought that the Lord is offering us up; that we are taken out of the nations to this end. I believe this feature is to mark the end of these our days — offering up, however little, in a priestly way, the product of the work of God as the people of God.