HOW UNITY IS REACHED
[p. 345] HOW UNITY IS REACHED
2 Samuel 1:1-4; 2 Samuel 1:11,12; 2 Samuel 2:1; 2 Samuel 5:1 - 10.
JT What is in mind is to see how unity according to God is reached when a difficulty arises among the people of God. These chapters relate to collective truth, truth relating to the assembly, and we are always, as before God, reminded of the foundation on which we are in these circumstances; so we are to have foundation truth before us. The soul is to be led on, and built up in what is collective so as to reach unity, to the end that Christ should have His place. Usually if a difficulty arises, affecting the saints collectively, the war is long as we see here between the house of Saul and the house of David; for those who lead are not youthful as a rule; they are persons who have reputation; and there has to be a digging deep, and getting down to the foundations, not only in those who may lead in error, but in all. The history in these chapters shows that much had to be judged and learnt, even in those who in the main were right, who were with David. David is seen at the beginning of the history, that is, in chapters 1, 5, and 6, as leading; but in the intervening chapters we have much sorrowful history in which those who followed him and those who followed Saul had part.
The first point to be noted, therefore, is that David abode at Ziklag two days. This book begins with that, so that we are directed back to Ziklag, teaching us how that where everything is lost, God restores all: “David recovered all”, we are told, at Ziklag. We begin there; and in the recovery, a spirit of generosity towards those who might be opposed to us is seen in this chapter in a most striking way. David, as hearing of the death of Saul and Jonathan, “took hold of his garments and rent them; and all the men that were with him did likewise. And they mourned and wept,
[p. 346] and fasted until even for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of Jehovah, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword”.
AMH You mean that that is right spiritual feeling towards persons who had part in the testimony, but who have fallen?
JT Yes. We cannot but deplore any loss in that way, even of a Saul, for he was anointed with oil; he had been in God’s service as anointed.
JAP Might that kind of spirit help in the way of recovery?
JT It does. The point here is a right lead given in these circumstances. David is seen as giving a right lead in view of what was to follow. In looking toward recovery, and bringing about the mind of God in His people, a good example is what is so essential.
PL “Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you”, (2 Corinthians 2:4). Paul wrote the two epistles to the Corinthians thus.
JT Very good; and he has to say, “the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved”, (2 Corinthians 12:15). The want of love was amongst them, but he clothed them with divine thoughts; and that is how David regards Saul and Jonathan here: he clothes them with the very best thoughts: “The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen!” (2 Samuel 1:19) That was what was in mind in the poem. He begins with it in verse 19, and ends with it in verse 25: “How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain upon thy high places” (2 Samuel 1:25). There was a real link with Jonathan, although not with Saul.
AMH David calls Jonathan “my brother”: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan” (2 Samuel 1:26).
JT We must always go back to whatever links we have had with brethren. David and Jonathan were bound together in affection. “Jonathan loved him as his own soul”, (1 Samuel 18:1).
AMH Does the anointing give one a somewhat wider range of recognition of persons, seeing that at least they have outwardly taken some part in the anointed vessel?
JT I think that is the thought that should be before us, because these scriptures are written for us. The anointing now extends not only to individuals, but to one great vessel; “so also is the Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12); meaning the saints as anointed.
HLT What does verse 2 mean: “a man came out of the camp from Saul with his garments rent”, and then in verse 11, “Then David took hold of his garments and rent them; and all the men that were with him did likewise”?
JT Is it not to confirm what we are remarking, that where you get a good lead given, others follow it? I believe that is a real difficulty in conflicts amongst us, the want, of a good lead. Its influence spreads; “all the men that were with him did likewise. And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of Jehovah, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword”.
SHB Does this indicate that a lesson is learnt through death, distance having come in? You have referred to the necessary lesson of death having to be learnt in view of our moving forward towards recovery.
JT Quite so; it says here, “because they were fallen by the sword”. The messenger had brought the word. “What has taken place?” David says. “And he said that the people had fled from the battle, and many of the people also had fallen and died, and that Saul and Jonathan his son were dead also” — a most sorrowful situation; but recovery begins with right feelings about it all, so that all should be affected according to God by what had happened. There might be [p. 348] excuse for a sense of revenge, but it is altogether absent. It is a question of feelings of sorrow that Israel and Saul and Jonathan were fallen by the sword.
COB What are the thoughts conveyed in the expressions, “the people of Jehovah” and “the house of Israel”?
JT In such circumstances, although they have been against us, they are our brethren; they are God’s people.
PL Would calling them “the people of Jehovah” clothe them Corinthian-wise in covenant setting, and “the house of Israel” bring in the feature of dignity?
JT The first epistle to the Corinthians begins with God’s assembly. What a thought that is! “The assembly of God which is in Corinth” (1 Corinthians 1:2). Then “the house of Israel” is added here — a spiritual designation. We enter the matter of reaching the mind of God in this sorrowful situation with these exalted terms and feelings such as God can identify Himself with. From chapter 2:8 to the end of chapter 4 we have a sorrowful history, that is, a long war between the house of David and the house of Saul; but we begin here with sentiments and expressions with which God can identify Himself. We have the thought in Hebrews 11:16: “God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God” — a word which applies in these circumstances. Is there that with which God can identify Himself? In the sorrowful history of chapters 2, 3, and 4 you feel God can hardly identify Himself with either side; but here we have a spirit with which God would identify Himself; so that at the beginning of chapter 2 David enquires of Jehovah, saying, “Shall I go up into one of the cities of Judah?” Well, am I worthy of going up? That is, I think, what is in mind. The first chapter gives the worthiness, or qualification, for going up; and God is ready to answer and to tell us where to go.
PL Do we get that in Exodus when Moses says, “And now, if thou wilt forgive their sin ... but if not.
[p. 349] blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book that thou hast written ... And Jehovah said to Moses, Depart, go up hence, thou and the people that thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, into the land that I swore unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob”, (Exodus 32:32; Exodus 33:1)?
JT You mean that they are qualified to do that?
PL Yes; Moses gets light as to all the people of God as taking on such a solicitous and forgiving spirit as before God.
JT Then Moses says to Jehovah, ‘You must come too’. It is very beautiful that He agrees to go up with them, showing how God is ready to respond to us. Moses says, “How shall it be known then that I have found grace in thine eyes — I and thy people? Is it not by thy going with us? so shall we be distinguished” (Exodus 33:16), for notwithstanding the good spirit which may mark us we need God every inch of the way.
JFL How do you understand 2 Samuel 1:25, 26: “How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain upon thy high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant wast thou unto me; thy love to me was wonderful”?
JT David’s feelings, as becoming the circumstances, are thus expressed, as we have seen. Jonathan is the saving element in the house of Saul. There was a real link between David and Jonathan from the very outset; as David slew Goliath, “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David” (1 Samuel 18:1).
PL Is this spirit vindicated in the grace shown to Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth?
JT Yes; he comes in here in chapter 4 in a most sorrowful setting. We have the two sons of Rimmon the Beerothite mentioned in the beginning of the chapter; then in verse 4 we have the account of Mephibosheth. He is brought into the history here peculiarly, where we are told how he became lame; and then the sons of Rimmon are mentioned again as the murderers [p. 350] of the king of Israel, Ishbosheth; but Mephibosheth is brought in in verse 4 in a singular way, no doubt with a view to what you are remarking. Chapter 9 shows how he comes in for blessing on the ground of David’s relations with Jonathan. There is nothing stated as to his earlier history to commend him specially; he comes in as a subject of mercy towards whom David acted most graciously because of his relations with Jonathan. The spirit of grace is brought into action in these cases through recalling the links of love. All must be on that line. Whatever there may be objectionable about a person, the links of love stand good. “Love never fails”. So that David’s relations with Jonathan are particularly to be noticed; he says, “Thy love to me was wonderful” (2 Samuel 1:26). We would say that David’s love to Jonathan was wonderful, because he wept with Jonathan as they parted, and he exceeded Jonathan in his feelings, but here he says, “Thy love to me was wonderful” (2 Samuel 1:26). So that we can always look back in these cases, and take account of the work of God; how wonderful it appears as seen in the saints in their affections toward one another! Surely no stone must remain unturned that love should exist among the saints.
PL Would “Remember therefore whence thou art fallen” (Revelation 2:5), allude to the relations that had marked the Ephesian saints in love towards God and towards one another?
JT Yes; “thou hast left thy first love” (Revelation 2:4); and we have to remember that their first decline according to 2 Timothy was in relation to Paul — not that he had done or said anything wrong, but they turned away from him, it was personal. The decline, surely, was in them, but the Lord would go back to that which had marked them, and recovery to it would be evidenced in their doing “the first works”. He does not say that they are to love as before, because no doubt they would say, as is said usually when decline comes in: ‘The [p. 351] Lord knows my heart, that it is not a bit changed’. He is the only One who does know what is in the heart, and if He were to answer that He might deny it. The test therefore is as to whether the first works are being done: what am I doing now?
AWGT Would you say that the tendency in conflict is for personalities to get an undue place, and for spiritual features to be lost sight of?
JT That is the connection in which we are referring to the Ephesian saints turning away from Paul. There was a personal reason for that, whatever it was. He had expended more care on them than on any company of saints; he had remained there three years; and on leaving them, as described in Acts 20, there was no lack of love; indeed, the chapter is full of love from beginning to end, on his part, and on theirs too. What caused the difference? It was personal, whatever the cause; and I believe it will be found that every decline and difficulty is rooted in some personal feeling.
TEW David had never taken any place of opposition to Saul.
JT No; he could have slain him more than once, but he did not do it. He had respect for Saul.
AWGT Is it not evident that David must have pondered the features of these men in their past history? He was occupied with that rather than with their failures.
JT He was occupied with what was commendable; he says: “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their lives, even in their death were not divided” (2 Samuel 1:23).
PL Would the Chronicles thus be attractive to a spiritual mind, as compiled by a spiritual writer, recording such instances as the dedications of Saul, Abner, and Joab?
JT Quite so; and the brother who looked after those dedicated things is worthy of note. His name is found in 1 Chronicles 26:24: “And Shebuel the son [p. 352] of Gershom, the son of Moses, was overseer of the treasures”. Then it says at the end of verse 25, “Shelomith his son” — that is, the son of this brother “This Shelomith and his brethren were over all the treasures of the dedicated things, which king David, and the chief fathers, the captains over thousands and hundreds, and the captains of the host, had dedicated (from the wars and out of the spoils had they dedicated them, to maintain the house of Jehovah), and all that Samuel the seer, and Saul the son of Kish, and Abner the son of Ner, and Joab the son of Zeruiah had dedicated: all that was dedicated was under the hand of Shelomith and of his brethren”, 1 Chronicles 26:25 - 28. I was thinking of the descent from Moses, and the faithfulness that would have such a charge, and the spirit that would bring in Saul in connection with the dedicated things, and Abner and Joab. All that is important in this enquiry, that we might have a right spirit, and remember whatever persons were — not what they are today, exactly, but whatever they had been; because it is all treasured up according to God, and we do not want to be out of accord with that.
WBH Jeremiah in his day refers to the departure of the people in the same spirit, does he not? He speaks of “the precious sons of Zion”, (Lamentations 4:2).
JT That is right; he likens them to fine gold. We are to be bathed in the right thought, the right spirit, as seen here, a magnanimous spirit, towards our brethren. Whatever they may be now, we must remember what they have been, and God has not forgotten that; it is all treasured. That is the basis of the early part of chapter 2. “And it came to pass after this that David enquired of Jehovah, saying. Shall I go up into one of the cities of Judah? And Jehovah said to him. Go up. And David said. Whither shall I go up?” We are moving up now to reach the mind of God. There may be hesitancy and doubt at this stage, but prayer always brings in the mind of God. When David is anointed by all [p. 353] Israel, that is, when we reach unity in regard to Christ in the matter, then it says, “the king and his men went to Jerusalem”. David does not ask God about that. The matter is clear now. We are more or less in a fog as a rule until we reach the point of general unity. “Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron, and spoke, saying. Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. Even aforetime, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel; and Jehovah said to thee. Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over Israel. And all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Jehovah; and they anointed David king over Israel”, 2 Samuel 5:1 - 3. We have unity now, unity as to Christ, and there is no asking now as to going to Jerusalem, because Jerusalem is the natural sequence of that. There was inquiry first in relation to Hebron, but not here. “The king and his men went to Jerusalem”.
AMH Is the going up to Hebron the introduction to a higher tone of things than that which existed in Saul’s day? This is the result of Saul’s overthrow, and of the bringing in of David?
JT I think that is the way to look at it; it is a higher level. David says, “Shall I go up into one of the cities of Judah?” No doubt the “up” has its meaning geographically, but there is a spiritual touch in it; as you get in Romans 7:4, for instance, “to be to another, who has been raised up from among the dead”, not simply raised from among the dead.
PL “Whither the tribes go up”, (Psalm 122:4).
JT Quite so; and Jehovah uses the word; he says, “Go up”. David says again, “Whither shall I go up?” The “up” is used three times. What comes to one’s mind is the need of elevation in these matters. We are so apt to drop to the level of men where there is antagonism, as with Saul; we need to be with God so that we are on a higher level than mere revenge or personal [p. 354] feeling; and I believe that is the ground of David’s going up, to “thy holy hill”, as in Psalm 15.
PL Do you connect David’s relation with Abner with this? In chapter 3:20 “David made Abner and the men that were with him a repast” (2 Samuel 3:20). That seems to affect Abner to gather to David all Israel. Joab has only a sword for Abner in contrast to this grace in David. It is the same spirit under every circumstance, whoever the person may be.
JT Wherever David comes in in this sorrowful history in chapters 3 and 4 you have a lead given. It speaks of Christ, and the way He works in our hearts in these circumstances to bring about a magnanimous and a right spirit. So in this sorrowful incident of the slaying of Abner, David is cleared. His attitude maintains the position before God. He judges Joab. It says “whatever the king did pleased all the people” (2 Samuel 3:36). He is carrying the people with him in what is right. That is one of the finest things you get in these sorrowful matters among us, the ability to carry the saints with a right example.
JHB You referred earlier to chapter 3:1: “And the war was long between the house of Saul and the house of David”. Would you say a little as to what the house of Saul and the house of David represent in a spiritual sense?
JT I think “the house of Saul” is the flesh in the things of God. It is the flesh owned, too; I mean, it relates to those who are proved to be in the flesh, having had a place in the service of God. It is an element which, I believe, has been in the public body, in the assembly, almost from the outset, but coming in, of course, like a flood later. It is the official side. So it is a long war. If you take it in the history of the assembly, it has continued long; but applying it to specific cases, it refers to that element, the character of the person being deep-rooted. Over against that is the spirit of Christ in those who are on the right side. There may [p. 355] be much about them that has to be dealt with, and hence the long war, because of the deep-rooted feelings: these being mainly in the house of Saul, but not altogether; for the chapters 2 to 4 show that a like state of things existed in Joab and his brothers, and hence the length of the war. There can be no doubt that the state of Joab had a great deal to do with the length of the war, but “David waxed stronger and stronger” (2 Samuel 3:1); that is what in the main prevailed.
WBH Is that the significance of the closing salutation of Paul’s epistles: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit” (Galatians 6:18) (Philippians 4:23) (Philemon 25)?
JT Quite so: “with your spirit”; and in 2 Corinthians the apostle indicates that the war will belong; he would wait till they were all brought to subjection, and then he would deal with the evil elements. He says, “having in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall have been fulfilled” (2 Corinthians 10:6). The war had to be lengthened out because of the state of the saints.
PL Is the dignity of the position marred in that way by Peter’s use of the sword in the garden? Yet he is of “the house of David”.
JT That is a very good illustration of it; and the Lord Jesus has to come in and take charge of the matter. If left to Peter, it would be confusion. The Lord has to heal the servant’s ear, and then He goes forward Himself and challenges the captains, as recorded in Luke’s gospel. If the Lord does not lead, there will be no satisfactory result reached. In this particular passage in Luke’s gospel the Lord goes forward and speaks to the captains, and the whole matter becomes quite clear.
JHB Is it a question of each one of us getting free from the features of the house of Saul, and taking on the features of David?
JT That is what it means. If Joab had not interfered in the case of Abner, what a solution there would [p. 356] have been! Because Abner was happily falling in with David’s regime, and had gone away in peace. David’s comment upon the incident is that Joab drew the sword of war in peace. It was a time of peace. They were reaching the consummation; because the consummation is in chapter 6, where David offers burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. The offering of the peace-offerings has reference to the felicitous conditions brought about after such difficulties; but Joab interfered, and upset the matter. In truth the war was never over in regard to him till Solomon’s day. These are solemn matters. How long a man may go on, even if on the right side, and yet be wrong himself!
WEB Why was Joab not dealt with till Solomon’s day?
JT He was too hard for David. Very often a man of that type goes on, and some change comes in in the administration of God’s ways, and he is dealt with after that, his contemporaries having been unable to deal with him.
HLT David showed long patience. Would the Lord have us to take on the same spirit?
JT Yes, but there was weakness with David. The last chapter of this book shows how low was the state of things; because David does not always represent Christ personally; he often represents the state of the saints; and he was unable to deal with Joab. God has to come in and change the administrative side to deal with cases of that kind.
HLT It is well to look in on ourselves as to this.
JT Quite so; the question is. Am I prolonging the war?
PL Without implying that there was any weakness in Paul, would you get that feature in his allusion to Alexander the smith, who, as he says, “did many evil things against me. The Lord will render to him according to his works”, (2 Timothy 4:14)?
[p. 357] JT It looks as though the apostle could not deal with the matter, I suppose, because of the general conditions. He says, “the Lord reward him” (2 Timothy 4:14). So he say elsewhere, “If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema Maranatha”, (1 Corinthians 16:22). That is, accursed when the Lord comes. If matters cannot always be dealt with now, evil will not be allowed to escape from the unerring judgment of God.
The passage in 2 Samuel 5 is well known to most of us, but the point is how the mind of God is reached; that is when the tribes of Israel come to David at Hebron, and they tell him what they have learnt. They go back on their history. Earlier chapters go back on Saul’s history, and Jonathan’s, and Mephibosheth’s, and Abner’s; but now we have the real man. It is a retrospective view. All the tribes say to him, “Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh”. What learning, what spiritual education underlies all this, to reach such a point, to apprehend Christ in this way! And then they say, “Even aforetime, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel; and Jehovah said to thee. Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over Israel”. Well, they are condemning themselves, but they are speaking truthfully now. All of us have to come to this way of reaching the mind of God, and tell the truth. Look back over the whole history, and tell the whole truth. Their mind was now directed to what was definitely of God in David in all this history, and he was anointed; they committed themselves to him. Then the place in the mind of God is reached definitely. But in verses 4 and 5 the Spirit of God stops to occupy us with David. We have been occupied with David before, but now it is David as reigning: “David was thirty years old when he began to reign; he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah”. He reigned forty years [p. 358] and a half, according to the details given, as if the Spirit of God would give us every moment of that man’s reign.
PL Do we have this thought in 2 Corinthians? Paul accredits the Corinthians in saying: “Behold, this same thing, your being grieved according to God, how much diligence it wrought in you, but what excusing of yourselves, but what indignation, but what fear, but what ardent desire, but what zeal, but what vengeance: in every way ye have proved yourselves to be pure in the matter”, 2 Corinthians 7:11. Is that what we see working out in 2 Samuel?
JT That is exactly what it is. The whole thing is regarded in verses 4 and 5; the positive side is seen there. The Spirit of God just rests on David, how many years he reigned at Hebron, and how many years he reigned at Jerusalem. What a history, what a reign! Compare 1 Chronicles 29:29, 30.
JHB What is represented respectively by Hebron and Jerusalem in this connection?
JT To be simple I would say Hebron is Colossians from the doctrinal point of view; that is, we are on the way to something; it is not final, but we are on the sure way. It is, in a way, a halting point, but it is the only way to go; we cannot get to Jerusalem according to God otherwise. Colossians is entering on heavenly territory; you are setting your mind on things above. It is from that point of view. It is an elevation. From thence you go on to Jerusalem; it is setting your mind on things above. Ephesians, which answers to Jerusalem, is that you are there, not only your mind, but you are there: “God ... has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4,6). So that going to Jerusalem here is a normal thing now.
JHB That helps very much. Is that what we should normally reach when unity has been arrived at [p. 359] through the judgment in ourselves of the features of Saul and of his house?
JT That is it; spiritually you are there. The Lord identifies Himself with us there.
GRB Would this suggest that everything was clear now?
JT Yes, there was no disturbing element left. All the tribes of Israel are here anointing David king over Israel, but it is not David and all the tribes of Israel who go to Jerusalem, but “the king and his men”. We are viewed in that light: we are now “his men”.
WEB Has this always been God’s way of bringing the saints into the truth of the Ephesian position?
JT There is only one way; it is via Hebron. Answering the inquiry of David, God tells him to go up to Hebron. If we know the history of Hebron spiritually we can understand it. It is what was “before the world”. We are beginning to see there is another world, another order of things that antedated this world. That is the idea of it, that all the elements of this world are out of place now. We learn that at Hebron.
AWGT Is that why prayer is made so much of in the epistle to the Colossians, the prayers of both Epaphras and Paul?
JT Quite so; I believe the epistle was the outcome of prayer; the information that Epaphras gave Paul, and his constant prayer for the Colossians, led the apostle to write that epistle.
WEB Is the great principle of suffering as seen in the epistle to the Colossians in view of our going on to Ephesians?
JT You mean the “combat” of the apostle, the agonies that he had about them?
WEB Yes, and his own filling up of the sufferings of Christ.
JT Yes, I believe all that enters into this position at Hebron. It is a passing over, really, from this world and its elements to that world — what the Lord calls “that world, and the resurrection”, (Luke 20:35). Whatever the word means, that is the position Hebron occupies, because the Spirit of God tells us that “Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt”, (Numbers 13:22).
JHB Is there any connection between David and his men going to Jerusalem and the fact that David took the head of Goliath to Jerusalem?
JT That brings out just what we were saying as to Colossians, what agonies of soul enter into the interval between David’s taking the head of Goliath to Jerusalem and the occasion of his going there as mentioned in this chapter, “the king and his men”. This is the consummation of the mind of God; the other is the indication of it. This is the point to be reached, the normal result. Then his taking off the head of the giant is dealing with intelligence on the side of evil, as indicated in hades’ gates. Taking the head to Jerusalem is typically Christ leading captivity captive, and giving gifts to men (Ephesians 4:8). It is the carrying out of the mind of God in overthrowing Satan’s power.
PL With reference to chapter 5:2: “Jehovah said to thee. Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over Israel”; does that connect with the beginning of Colossians, “the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Colossians 1:13)? Is the idea that he now gets his place distinctively among the people according to the delight of Jehovah, and according to His thoughts regarding him?
JT I think so. Then this leads on to the thought of the ark being put into its place. The type of Christ passes from David himself to the ark in chapter 6. It says “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. And David offered up burnt-offerings and peace-offerings before Jehovah” (2 Samuel 6:17).
WP Would you say a word about taking Zion in reference to this? What is the difference between Zion and [p. 361] Jerusalem?
JT That opens up a wide subject, but it is well to mention that here it is a question of bringing in the ark and making a place for it; “here will I dwell, for I have desired it”, the Lord says (Psalm 132:14). So that David takes the stronghold of Zion and calls it the city of David, and he built inward, meaning, as applying to ourselves, that we now need inward building. It is a question of the thoughts of God, thoughts reaching on to eternity.