SPOIL (1)
SPOIL (1)
JT The brethren will be aware that the subject of spoil has been proposed for the readings this season. It was thought that 1 Samuel 30 would be the most appropriate section of Scripture with which to begin — the term, “David’s spoil”, being found there. It seems right that we should begin with that as typical of Christ’s spoil. There are many other features of spiritual spoil that will doubtless come into view in the Lord’s ordering, as found in the Scriptures, but this seems to be the most appropriate one with which to begin, as bringing the Lord before us as acquiring spoil, and that in relation to the great subject of general recovery. The chapter, which as a matter of history records a painful disaster for David, obviously has a wider significance, and points to the recovery in Christ of all that was lost through man’s unfaithfulness. (David is to be viewed as an unfaithful man in the immediately preceding history, for he was actually with the enemies of God’s people and ready to fight against Israel.) But as found on the spot where the disaster occurred, that is, Ziklag, he rises to a type of Christ as feeling things, weeping until he had no more power to weep, and also experiencing the immediate danger of being stoned. He went through the agony attached to the disaster, but found strength in God, so that the power of God enters into the position, and recovery is on that line. We have this remarkable statement in verse 20: “And David took all the flocks and the herds, which they drove before the other cattle, and said, This is David’s spoil”. He singled out what he regarded as [p. 213] distinctly his spoil. There were other cattle there, but he singled out what was to be regarded as his spoil; so that it is very distinctive in this way and stands out for our faith to learn what is peculiarly Christ’s spoil.
CAM Would we be warranted in speaking of David as a type of Christ on account of the agony through which he passed?
JT Yes. It was on the spot where the disaster occurred, that David was changed. One can understand what heart-searching would be gone through by David, on account of his unfaithfulness being the occasion of it. During his absence Ziklag, which was his own territory, was destroyed, but he had been on his way to fight against the people of God, a most sorrowful thing, and only through the overruling of God was he dissuaded from that course. Now he is back where he should be, and we can understand how the position changes; the real David comes to light.
AFM Do you think that with other things the strengthening of himself in Jehovah his God was mainly the element of recovery to God?
JT Yes; and he has recourse to the ephod; he goes back to the divinely appointed way of having to say to God. God has to be approached in His own way. David has recourse to that, so we have David the man of faith here.
CAM This is something like what Jonah went through, being a disobedient man going through the depths in his soul, but the Lord could speak of him as a type of Himself.
JT Quite so; that is another good example of a man changing over from the position of an unfaithful man, or sinner, to a type of the Lord Jesus; that there is that power of changing over, is the great triumph of God. It is a question of what God effects in a man; so that he [p. 214] can change over.
ABP Would the expression, “strengthened himself”, suggest something inherent?
JT That is right; it is not simply an external support that God afforded him, but he strengthened himself; the principle of it was there.
SP Was Jehovah preparing him, by weeping, to appreciate the spoil?
JT Spoil is the outcome of things being rightly felt. It says, “Then David and the people that were with him lifted up their voice and wept, until they had no more power to weep” (verse 4). That is remarkable — the depth of feeling.
JHE It is striking that David, being such a mighty man, could be a weeper, too.
JT That is the secret of acquiring divine help; it is experienced as we feel things. “When I am weak”, one of the greatest servants said, “then I am powerful”.
ANW Does not the calling for the ephod, too, indicate a very quick recovery of spiritual instinct?
JT I thought that; all these items enter into the Lord’s position on the cross (we may view David as a type); how divine order comes into evidence there; how thoroughly the Lord was with God in every requirement in view of His vicarious service upon which He was entering. The thought had been expressed at the commencement of His service — “thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matthew 3: 15); and at no point is the priest more apparent than in Gethsemane and on the cross.
JS Would this be David as seen in feeling things Godward? He lifted up his voice and wept.
JT It would be that the depth of his feelings was heard. “God hath heard the voice of the lad”, (Genesis 21: 17). God hears those cries, and of the Lord it is said, “having been heard because of his piety”.
Ques Would you say more in detail as to what surrounds the Ziklag position and [p. 215] what the Lord faced in the anti-typical position; what does it represent?
JT I think humanity is typified in the captives. You will observe it says, “and had taken the women captives that were in it; both great and small: they had put none to death, but had carried them off, and went on their way” (verse 2). And then it says, “And David and his men came to the city, and behold, it was burnt with fire; and their wives, and their sons, and their daughters were taken captives” (verse 3); the men representing intelligence and power are not there. I think, therefore, it is a question of humanity; that is, from the standpoint of corruptibility. Humanity is exposed to being corrupted by the enemy, and so I think Romans 1 enters into this; in fact, Romans is the amplification of this chapter. Romans does not contemplate us as dead in trespasses and sins, but as alive and corrupted.
Ques Does the early part of Genesis enter into this, too; the woman is in the transgression? Is that what comes out of it?
JT Yes; that is the side that has to be kept in mind. It is the subjective side of humanity. The responsible, intelligent side is represented in the man. Paul says expressly, Adam was not in the transgression. The way the captives are mentioned is to bring out the subjective side; what is corruptible, and that which Satan has corrupted. Romans 1 brings out the terribleness of corruption that Satan effected in humanity.
CAM Romans contemplates that all is secured on the basis of sacrifice and offering; even the nations are offered up.
JT Quite so; that is spoil — the offering up of the nations ... sanctified by the Holy Spirit. And then you see how, in Romans 1, humanity as a whole is in mind, the terrible corruption that men fell into; then in chapter 2 you have the man’s side,
so to speak; it is, “O man” (verse 1), as if the Spirit of God takes on the thought of man from the Greek point of view. Why did he boast? Why did he formulate codes of ethics when he was practising the things he condemned? And then the Jew — “But if thou art named a Jew”. These are the two sides of the human race. They represent the authoritative, intelligent side, but both have come under the power of evil; whereas humanity, viewed here in the women and children, gives us the subjective side. They are not slain; but taken just as they were; and, as is obvious, exposed to corruption.
Ques Is the Jew, as refusing Christ, typified in verse 6, where it is said the people spoke of stoning David?
JT I think so.
JHE David’s followers were embittered for the sons and daughters; whereas David thought of the wives, involving the assembly typically: “the Christ also loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it”. Ephesians 5: 25.
WFK The Amalekite attacked while David was away. Is there not something in that?
JT It was when he was unfaithful. No doubt the pending battle between the Philistines and Israel would be known to the Amalekites and they took advantage of it, but then, too, it was during David’s absence. Why should he leave unprotected what was of such value and for which he was responsible? Why was he away? He represented an element that was of God, but evidently wanting; and this appears from the outset until Christ came. He took on the whole great matter and recovered all that had been lost through human unfaithfulness. Only one Man stands out as entirely in the mind of God, and who through redemption secured all [p. 217] for Him.
AFM Do you think with regard to Ziklag that the reason it was taken and destroyed was because it was not fought for and conquered, but was rather received as a gift from Achish to David? It was fortified and made proof against attack.
JT Quite; David had not taken care of it, although later it is said that it belonged to the kings of Judah from the time he received it. It was his property, but not properly cared for. Think of the holdings he had there! Typically what was there is what God has in humanity, but held loosely through the unfaithfulness of those responsible, and so was lost.
AR Do you mean that the whole race up to the death of Christ was held under the power of Satan in captivity?
JT Yes. The general thought, I think, is Romans 1. Then there was the Greek in chapter 2, and the Jew also. These had certain light. Chapter 3 shows what the Jew possessed. He had the oracles of God and should know, but then who was there to look after things? What was of God was allowed to go on loosely; the enemy was allowed to take it; that was the position until Christ came.
RWS It says Ziklag was burnt with fire, but neighbouring cities were just raided; why is that?
JT I suppose Ziklag represents the particular point of attack, as belonging to David. It would refer to the particular territory that Satan was after and the treasure that was in it; the Amalekites being a type of Satan took what really belonged to God. Think of the value of these women, the wives of David’s men, with no one to protect them! Ziklag, I believe, represents humanity involving divine rights, but without protection.
JTJr Adam was away when Eve was tempted.
JT Exactly; why was he not looking after his [p. 218] wife?
AR Do you mean that Christ having come. He was the only Man thinking for God?
JT That is right; the facts bring that out.
Ques The Lord said to His mother, “Did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father’s business?”, Luke 2: 49. Would that not indicate His readiness to stand for God entirely?
JT It came out in Him there. He was taking up things for God even at the age of twelve.
ANW He gave Himself a ransom for all; for every man, as well as for the glory of God; He can recover on that ground.
JT That is it; it is humanity viewed from the standpoint of Luke’s gospel. Paul’s ministry comes in there, too, especially Romans, which takes up humanity; but then it takes up all that belonged to God too. So you get terms that are remarkable: “God’s glad tidings (which he had before promised by his prophets in holy writings), concerning his Son (come of David’s seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead)”. Romans 1: 3, 4. He brings out the Lord’s relations to what preceded. Then the chapter goes on to show that humanity possessed the knowledge of God, but had given it up, and hence corruption followed. Man was left unprotected; that is the real truth. Chapter 2 of Romans shows that the Greeks and the Jews did no better than any other. The Jews had the oracles of God, but what use did they make of them?
AFM Did not folly mark the human race early? It says, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man ...”, Romans 1: 22, 23. That would be after the flood, would it not?
JT [p. 219] Well, it was the character of the thing right along. There was no idolatry before the flood, as far as the Scripture shows. Idolatry came in after; so that the post-diluvian world is in mind there.
ANW The characteristic term in chapter 1 of Romans is, “gave them up”. He gave them up and they became captives to these corrupting elements.
JT Quite so. But there was no man. The prophets bewailed that there was no man; no one to take care of things. God gave them up, but it was because they gave Him up. This passage as a type shows that the men that ought to have been there to protect Ziklag and what was in it were not there. They were elsewhere. They were not serving God then; they were with the Philistines.
Ques Satan assumed to have possession of all the kingdoms of the earth when he offered to give them to the Lord in the temptation, which would show how dreadful the state of things must have been, would you not say?
JT Quite so, showing how the matter then stood.
ABP Would you say that the destruction of Ziklag would suggest the breakdown of man’s administration? Scripture says the kings of the earth were assembled against Christ (Psalm 2).
JT Quite so; those that should have been protecting the interests of God were not here on God’s behalf; were indeed against Him, so that justice miscarried. Pilate was not biased, but he delivered Christ to be put to death, although he knew He was innocent; that is, what was of God was unprotected.
AFM Would Psalm 40 offset all this of which we are speaking? The Lord in coming into manhood says, “Behold, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me — to do thy good pleasure, my God, is my delight, and thy law is within my heart” (verses 7, [p. 220] 8).
JT I think David answers somewhat to that here. First it says he strengthened himself in Jehovah his God. He evidently took full account of the disaster and felt it, and now having risen to the type, he says to Abiathar, the priest, “Bring near to me, I pray thee, the ephod. And Abiathar brought the ephod near to David. And David inquired of Jehovah, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he said to him, Pursue; for thou shalt assuredly overtake them and shalt certainly recover. So David went, he and the six hundred men that were with him”. I think he is now definitely seen as a type of Christ moving in the power of God and according to the order of God; he is getting the mind of God in the appointed way; not as Saul sought it earlier from the witch of Endor or from such an oracle as men have had recourse to. David seeks the mind of God in the appointed way and gets it.
JS It would show his complete recovery in that way. You see here the direct communications he had with God; not only does he enquire, but he is answered.
JT That is what is so very fine; there are direct relations re-established between God and a man here, and now the recovery is on that line.
Ques Is the ephod here on moral lines, hence the recovery is in connection with the priesthood?
JT Yes, that is the idea. The priesthood really means sympathy, but sympathy in intelligence, that while feeling things you are enabled to get the mind of God. It is not mere sentimentality, but sympathy with God and with men, as was perfectly seen in Christ. To know what to do in the crisis you must learn from God, and God has appointed a way, so that Abiathar may be taken here to represent the high priesthood of Christ; the Lord Himself calls Abiathar “the high priest”. He comes to light as [p. 221] having fled from Nob to David with the ephod; he is called a high priest by the Lord Himself; so that we may consider him as representing the whole priestly system as set up in Christ. There is feeling, but there is also intelligence; a knowing how to get the mind of God, so that we are assured of what we are doing.
GMacP Does this correspond to the Lord’s word, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”?
JT That enters into it, for He felt for humanity.
CAM I suppose in that way humanity and the cross are especially seen in the gospel of Luke. The priestly bearing of the death of Christ is prominent, and humanity is represented in the malefactor. He says, “But this man has done nothing amiss”, Luke 23: 41.
JT I think that is right. Luke brings out the righteousness of Christ upon which priesthood is based. The malefactor and the centurion say, He is righteous; the facts also come out that He is a priest, too, because He speaks to His Father, according to Luke, and asks Him to forgive them, and then gives His reason: Because they know not what they do. That is priestly sympathy; it is compassion upon the ignorant and the erring. So that Abiathar here, I think, is illustrative of that element of the high priesthood of Christ; His feelings as a priest never shone more than when on the cross.
JTJr Would you say the Lord did not need to say of the ephod, “Bring it near”, because it was always there?
JT Quite so. The Lord Himself calls Abiathar the high priest, in Mark 2, but the truth was verified in Himself on the cross: as all was being recovered, the priesthood came to light.
AFM What about the two hundred men who were too exhausted to go over the torrent Besor?
[p. 222] Was priestly consideration shown by David in their being allowed to stay by the baggage?
JT It shows that David himself was a priest. All that follows brings out David’s sympathies, and how he established a statute and an ordinance, that those who abide with the stuff were to share alike with those who go to the battle.
RWS Whom do these six hundred men represent?
JT Well they represent what was there pre-eminently of God as attached to Christ. He would dispose of His forces in Gethsemane, you remember; they failed Him, but still they were there. He says of the disciples, “The spirit indeed is ready, but the flesh weak”. As to the two hundred men of David, it was only exhaustion that kept them back. David’s statute is to bring out that side, in type, the priestly consideration that there is in the heart of Christ for those in conflict with Him. How every right thought is present and operative! What recourse there had been in the history of humanity to familiar spirits, learning, science and so on; whereas the point here is the divinely appointed way of getting light and understanding, by means of the ephod, which was the way the Lord Jesus took.
TWH I would like to ask in connection with Christ’s conflict in the garden: it says an angel appeared to Him from heaven strengthening Him. How does the agony passed through accord with the weeping of David?
JT It is all there, but, of course, this is only the shadow of that. That was the real thing. The fact that the angel strengthened Him and that He received such service was to bring out the reality of His humanity; in such circumstances He accepted what was provided by God and overcame in all those [p. 223] circumstances.
AR In conflict, one of the most difficult things is to know what to do. Do you think we lack in having the ephod and inquiring of God?
JT I think that is the lesson to be learned here. It is the divinely appointed way of getting the mind of God, so it is part of the priesthood; without the ephod, the priest cannot function.
GMacP So that all the mind of God was present in the Person of Christ on the cross.
JT That is right; the mind of God was there, and man was exposed. The “place of a skull” means that all man’s way of finding out things has come to nothing. God’s way through the priest is the appointed way.
Rem The Jew took horizontal counsel; whereas priestly counsel is vertical. We get into trouble if God is left out of our reckonings.
AR In a crisis we should consider for God and the saints, and have in view the undoing of the work of the enemy.
JHE Speaking of horizontal counsel. Joseph’s brethren were looking one upon another.
JT Quite so. We do not take on divine traits if we are looking on one another in that way. We are to look on Christ, not to “lift up mine eyes unto the mountains” for “my help cometh from Jehovah”.
SP Jehovah’s word to David’s enquiry concerning the troop was, “Thou shalt assuredly overtake them and shalt certainly recover” (verse 8). Then they come to the torrent, which would be something in the way, would it not?
JT The torrent would allude to some barrier, something impassable to persons wanting in strength, but nevertheless right with God at heart. Going on to a later part of this chapter, we find Egyptian, a man that actually belonged to the camp of the enemy, becomes a means of the enemy’s undoing. That is a remarkable thing, which Romans [p. 224] brings out; how that man is taken up. Man had been under the power of the enemy and in his service; but man — as in Christ — becomes the means of the overthrow of the enemy.
JS You see that in Saul of Tarsus, do you not. He was distinctly in the enemy’s hand, yet through grace becomes a wonderful vessel.
ANW What are you referring to in Romans?
JT The second half of chapter 5: sin having come in through one man, was set aside in Another, in and through whom grace abounded. And elsewhere we have, “For since by man came death, by man also resurrection of those that are dead”, 1 Corinthians 15: 21. It is a principle entering into the overthrow of the enemy as seen in many instances. Here it is seen in this Egyptian, one who had been a servant of the Amalekites is used to overthrow them.
FNW So that bondmen of sin become bondmen to God.
JT That is right. That is just how it works out. We had been bondmen of sin but are now bondmen of God, and our members instruments of righteousness. The man, you will notice, was not dead, although he was very near death. It is the Roman point of view. It is not dead in trespasses and sins; it is like the man that fell among thieves; half dead. He is still capable of resuscitation on the line of responsibility.
JTJr “For we being still without strength, in the due time Christ has died for the ungodly”.
JT Quite so; there is life as in responsibility, but without strength.
Rem David’s men gave the Egyptian the means of recovery and sustenance; they seem to take on David’s sympathies in this chapter.
JT Quite so. It says, “they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David”. That is the point. He is the point of recovery in every instance.
“And gave him bread”. They knew what to do. It does not say David did it. They brought him to David and they gave him bread. “And he ate”. He was ready for the resuscitating means. “And they gave him water to drink, and gave him a piece of fig-cake and two raisin-cakes, and he ate, and his spirit came again to him; for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, for three days and three nights” (verses 11, 12). It would look as if that experience had to be gone through, but now they had means of resuscitation. He is alive enough to take in what is there.
JHE Would they become intelligent as to this in crossing the torrent Besor? It states in John that the Lord crossed the torrent Kidron. Would crossing the torrent here be an appreciation of the death of Christ?
JT I think so. You are struck with the intelligence that enters into all this and what David’s men could do for this man. They were not acting independently, not one saying, I know what to do for such a case; and another saying, I have had a little experience in medicine and can help him, as in the case of the woman who had “suffered much under many physicians” (Mark 5: 26). Here they brought him to David, and, as David’s men, they know what to do, and the Egyptian is amenable to their treatment.
Rem This bringing to David fits in with Chronicles where Saul’s brethren went to David at Ziklag.
JT That is a point of importance. Ziklag was a place of recovery spiritually; it is our starting point spiritually. Then we come to Hebron and Jerusalem. Ziklag was a place of great importance in view of spoil, the subject which is before us now. David’s men knew what to do for this man, and when he was resuscitated, he showed remarkable intelligence. He [p. 226] was no ordinary man, although a slave. He could give all the information needed. First of all he gives an account of himself. He was servant of an Amalekite. “I fell sick”, he said; and further, “We made a raid against the south”. The word “south” in the text has a technical meaning, and he used that word. “The south of the Cherethites, and against what belongs to Judah, and against the south of Caleb”. You see what an intelligent man he was. This characteristic always marks the work of God in men, as in John 9, for example.
AC Is it not remarkable that all this light is brought out through an Egyptian?
JT It is remarkable as from an Egyptian of this kind, but he is not an ordinary Egyptian.
AC I was wondering whether it did not correspond with what Moses wrote earlier in Deuteronomy 23. “Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a sojourner in his land” (verse 7).
JT Yes; quite so; he says, “I am a young man of Egypt”.
JS “We burned Ziklag with fire” (verse 14); as if he was fully in that thing, too.
JT Quite so; he was fully conversant with the object of the raid and the accomplishment of it. Then David says, “Canst thou bring me down to this troop? And he said, Swear to me by God, that thou wilt neither put me to death nor deliver me up into the hand of my master, and I will bring thee down to this troop” (verse 15). Think of the intelligence he had! He knew the Amalekites’ haunts, no doubt, and their ways.
AMacd Would he suggest one whom God had in ambush, such as you have suggested in the cases of Rahab and others?
JT That is what I was thinking. One could cite several instances to illustrate this principle on which God acts, using agents in the enemy’s camp; they [p. 227] become the means of its moral overthrow. For example: Pilate’s wife; the centurion; the thief on the cross; and Rahab, to whom you referred, and the man that told the dream in the Midianitish camp. All of these are illustrative of what we see here, that if we let God have His way, He will overthrow the enemy.
SP Does the food the Egyptian received contribute to his intelligence? It apparently was the food that David’s men ate.
JT No doubt. If we analyse the food: typically, the bread they gave him is Christ the Bread of life; and water, the type of the Spirit. And then they gave him a piece of a fig-cake, which alludes to the figs as they are together. Figs have the power of stimulation, and raisins have that, too. It is the stimulating power that comes in in spiritual unity.
WFK These foods would be found in the assembly.
JT Quite so; David’s men had them.
AFM These servants of David were intelligent; they knew how far to go with the man: they brought him to David, and then resuscitated him, as you stated; henceforth it is what he is to David, and what use David makes of him. Is that not an important point for us who seek to serve?
JT Quite so. He says to David, “I will bring thee down to this troop” (verse 15); and verse 16 says, “he brought him down, and behold, they were spread over the whole land”. He knew where they were.
GMW What is the divinely appointed way that we may proceed with intelligence?
JT Just as here; it is the recognition of the priest, he who has the ephod. You have recourse to the priest in self-judgment to bring you into accord with what is seen here in David; thus you will really get the mind of God; no one need be in [p. 228] the dark.
GMacP The Egyptian besought that he should not be delivered to his master. Typically he had judged evil in his own heart and would not come under its power again.
JT You know where the evil is. The enemy, too, is dealt with where he is. It says “he brought him down, and behold, they were spread over the whole land, eating and drinking, and dancing” (verse 16). That is the situation now. It is a worldly position, and this young man knows it and brings David there.
AR In the conflict, there is nothing said about the four hundred men. David is doing everything. Do you think that in matters of difficulty, while certain brethren may do things, it is really a matter of what Christ is doing?
JT Yes; and hence the spoil, as we have said, is David’s.
FHL Is it not worthy of notice that the whole position is recovered before the thought of spoil comes in? In verse 19 we have, “David brought all back”; we get then the reference to “David’s spoil”.
JT Exactly. “And David recovered all that the Amalekites had taken: and David recovered his two wives. And there was nothing missed by them neither small nor great, neither sons nor daughters, neither spoil nor anything that they had taken: David brought all back” (verses 18, 19). That is the great general position. And then we have this remarkable statement: “And David took all the flocks and the herds, which they drove before the other cattle, and said, This is David’s spoil” (verse 20). — He is singling out what he wants to be understood as his spoil.
JHE Would that be something similar to: “And I have other sheep which are not of this fold”, John 10: 16.
JT Somewhat. The Lord would have us to understand what is His spoil; what He has achieved through [p. 229] the great conflict.
GMacP Meaning the saints?
JT It is just a question of our understanding what David’s spoil is. Here it is, “And David took all the flocks and the herds, which they drove before the other cattle”. The other cattle are distinguished; they have their place, too, but it is these particular ones. They are under control; they drove them before the other cattle. They are outstanding, and David says, “This is David’s spoil”.
JS Do you think David had in mind what there might be as sacrifice for God?
JT Quite so; there is variety here: “all the flocks the herds”, which could be used for that. They were movable, a portable sort of spoil. They are on their own hoofs, so to say; and so we have in verse 26, “And 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: to those in Bethel, and to those in south Ramoth ...”. He is dealing now with persons who were his friends. The cattle would be ready to send on to the elders of Judah, but they are sent from Ziklag, not from the battlefield. They are sent from where the disaster took place. David is setting things up again. It is a recovered position, and henceforth would be peculiarly David’s. Later we see that from this point he rose and rose in eminence until he got to Jerusalem.
SP Is Ziklag the administration scene now?
JT Yes. It is David now on the ground of victorious recovery, which is the place of the distribution of the spoil of the enemies of Jehovah, to his friends. The places mentioned show where he had been: “all the places where David himself and his men went about”. A peculiar kind of affection is expressed in this “present” or “blessing”. It points what came out in Christ, after He is risen and [p. 230] glorified in heaven, thinking of those who had shown Him affection while He was down here.
Rem So that John the evangelist is given a very special portion, as we see in John 21. The book of Revelation was also given to him (Revelation 1: 1, 2).
JT I think it is to bring out that where there is affection and loyalty to Christ, you come in for your reward in this way. We come in for our share of the spoil.
AFM These elders of Judah would specially appreciate the recovery that David had brought about. They were his confidants, and knew his mind regarding the kingdom in view of which he had suffered.
EEH Do you regard Paul as presented to the assembly through Ananias as an answer to this as a type? The Lord had said, “this man is an elect vessel to me”. Acts 9: 15.
JT Quite so. What a present he was!
ABP On the same line would you say that Levi was peculiarly Jehovah’s spoil as having come out into the lead from the conflict because of the golden calf? These cattle were the ones that were in the lead in this situation. Levi came out definitely on Jehovah’s side as peculiarly the Lord’s spoil.
JT That is right; they are driven before the others.
Rem When the Lord ascended up on high He gave gifts unto men, and these were a present to the saints.
JT Quite so. The twelve represented this immediately, and others followed. There were prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4); and other gifts, as we see in 1 Corinthians 12.
Rem The tenor of 2 Corinthians would seem to include the thought of spoil. It was written under different conditions to those of the first epistle. Paul [p. 231] had something definite to present to them in the way of ministry that would build them up.
JT It is more positive — the new covenant, reconciliation, and new creation.
ANW Would not spoil go beyond what was lost? Spoil is something more than you lose.
JT I should think so. It was David’s spoil first — to call attention typically to Christ’s great victory, for what he secured is far more than what was lost. It all takes character from Himself. Then it is also God’s spoil.
GMacP The apostle brings out the fulness of the blessing which came in through Christ.
JT That is the idea. How varied it is! The Lord’s affections are seen in it — how David remembered the places! Take all these names, each would recall something: Bethel, Ramoth, Jattir, Aroer, Siphmoth, Eshtemoa, Rachal, and “all the places where David himself and his men went about”. He evidently did not omit any. The whole area that he had been accustomed to visit in his rejection was thought of. We are reminded of Acts 1: 21 — “all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us”.
WFK Is David’s spoil something that the Lord gets for Himself from the Supper?
JT That may enter into it, but I think it is more general, what He secured from the enemy; His great triumph, and what He has brought out of death.
JW Do the names in the end of Romans indicate spoil?
JT There is a connection in that. The two hundred left at the torrent would correspond with them in that David saluted them. “And David came to the two hundred men who had been too exhausted to follow David, and whom they had left behind at the torrent Besor; and they went forth to meet David, and to meet the people that were with him; and [p. 232] David drew near to the people and saluted them”. Affectionate respect for the brethren is important. The many salutations of Romans 16 are peculiarly in keeping with that epistle. There are twenty or more specific salutations there, besides general ones as from “all the assemblies of Christ”; and we are enjoined to salute one another with a holy kiss.
VC The distribution of the spoil was to the friends of the Lord; He did not seem to forget anybody. But the passage does not mention any part going to the young Egyptian. Would it tend to show that the young man was merely showing the way to the camp out of a spirit of vengeance rather than out of the spirit of loyalty to David?
JT He had just come into touch with David, whereas the others had supported him in his long rejection. It seems to me that if you take him as a type, he would henceforth be attached to David, who would be enough for him. If you consider yourself, for instance, secured out of the world, resuscitated and brought back to life, and let into the Lord’s service well that is enough, is it not?
ARS He got his life; he got food, and sustainment.
JT If you regard it spiritually, think of the honour of leading David to the enemies’ camp! Take a man like Paul; he was not looking for any spoil. Christ was all he needed. He said later, “No longer live, I, but Christ lives in me”, Galatians 2: 20. “Thine are we, David”, was Amasai’s response to David’s challenge, and that of his fellow captains (1 Chronicles 12: 18). Wherever one is attached to David in his service, David becomes everything to him. It seems that Paul progressed more in this line than any.
AR Do you think that if we are basically right, even though we do not take active part in the conflict, the Lord will minister something to us from the spoil of the [p. 233] conflict?
JT Paul got more than any, I suppose, even though he was not one of the twelve. There are those who are not mentioned as receiving anything, but you know from the way they are presented that they are satisfied in their portion in Christ. The more you know Him the less you are thinking of reward. Jehovah said to Abraham, “I am thy shield, thy exceeding great reward”.
CAM This Egyptian has a most remarkable write-up in this book. That he should be spoken of extensively here tonight is not to be overlooked.
JT Quite so. The account of him given here has been read by myriads and blessed to many undoubtedly. The Lord said of the woman who anointed Him for His burial that “wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world, what this woman has done shall be also spoken of for a memorial of her”, Mark 14: 9.
SP Would you say something about verse 21: “they went forth to meet David, and to meet the people that were with him”? Would that suggest unity and fellowship?
JT I think so, the spirit of love is there. There are those who profess to make much of Christ, but disregard the brethren. But these two hundred men went out to meet the people as well as David.
JTJr David drawing near the people (verse 21), is suggestive. It is a word that is used twice in the chapter, both in relation to the ephod which Abiathar brought near to David, and would suggest bringing God in; then David drawing near the brethren would suggest love, that typically there might be no distance between Christ and us.
GMW What would you say about the spirit of Belial in those that were ostensibly David’s?
JT That is a most sorrowful side of the picture, that there should be such persons as these in David’s [p. 234] army, but it might be a reflection upon David’s recent association, in being with the Philistines.
AFM But the ordinance made was right: David made it a statute and an ordinance in Israel that everyone should have an equal share, whether abiding by the baggage or going down to the battle; and it went through, and those wicked men of Belial were silenced.
JT David says, “Ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which Jehovah has given us, who has preserved us, and given the troop that came against us into our hand. And who will hearken to you in this matter?” (verses 23, 24). That brings out the wisdom of the ruler — a man of moral weight; he knew what to say.