FAMINE IN DAVID'S DAYS
FAMINE IN DAVID’S DAYS
JT Each of the famines we are considering affords a certain lesson for us, and our present inquiry will be as to what lesson this famine teaches. We have to take account of the time of it; viz., “in the days of David”. The previous one that we considered occurred “in the days when the judges ruled” (Ruth 1:1), as if to call attention to some defect in their rule.
CAM Would the idea be that the matter of responsibility was different?
JT I think what is stated here is to bring out what may occur in times when God is blessing, for God blessed the reign of David. So that there is some particular lesson in it that it should occur then and not in the days of Saul.
ARS You would have thought that there would be no famine in David’s reign, because he was standing for God, and yet it did occur at that time.
JT That is the point to notice. There may be a time of general prosperity and blessing, and yet something like this may happen; so that we cannot be too sure as to the underlying state among the people of God. Things may be going well, outwardly, and yet God may see need for special discipline. Here the famine continued year after year, for three years. So that we must note the extended period over which the famine occurred, and then inquire why it occurred.
AFM Does not the famine show that God does not overlook such violations as Saul’s?
JT That is what should stand out prominently in our reading — why this affliction took place.
ANW Do you mean that there is more reason [p. 184] for inquiring why it happened in this instance than in the previous ones?
JT I think so, because it refers to an incident so far back. The covenant was made over four hundred years before, and this violation of it would have been a good few years before the famine occurred; also it took place at a time of general prosperity, all of which is significant.
ARS You think that it should have come in the days of Saul.
JT That it did not shows that God does not view things as we do, which makes it solemn. God does not need to give account of His matters; so that what occurs may sometimes be the occasion of surprise.
AAT Is it not remarkable that David simply asked the question as to why the famine was there, and got such an answer?
JT You wonder why he did not ask God before, instead of letting it run on for three years, year after year. If we do not turn to God about our trials they may remain.
AFM You would apply this to what we are passing through at the present time? The question for us all to ask is: Why has this great pressure come upon us?
JT It is time to begin to inquire, if we have not already done so. At the outset of this depression it was assumed that it would end shortly, and people took it lightly, but it is not ending as expected as far as we can see.
AP Is it your thought that the famine might have been averted if the people of God had judged what occasioned it when it arose?
JT Yes; evidently there had been no godly concern with regard to what Saul had done, or the famine would have been unnecessary. The great lesson to be learned here is fidelity — fidelity to a vow,
[p. 185] or to a certain position taken up Godward or manward. That is to say, if we have sworn to our hurt, so to speak, as Psalm 15:4 says, we let it stand. We do not abrogate that which we commit ourselves to as before God.
ANW We are touching a very important and interesting line as to the government of God — God may bring a thing governmentally upon His people, and they may fail to understand why it is brought upon them.
JT Well, I suppose it is largely so now. How many of us have really questioned before God why all this trial has come upon us, and sought His mind about it? Possibly, had we so done, we should have found that each of us had contributed to it.
HSD But David was not responsible for this act, and yet he had to suffer with others through it.
JT He was sitting on the throne of Israel, as had Saul, and the responsibility was attached to that. Earlier the Gibeonites deceived Joshua and the princes, who entered into a covenant with them, to which the whole nation was committed. As to ourselves, it is a question of fellowship, of what we commit ourselves to, and therefore fidelity is in view.
WB-w Do you think that some of our past history might be unjudged by us or not taken up with God?
JT You may be sure that is the secret of it all. If we take things up with God, we shall find that there is something to account for.
ANW Does it not indicate spiritual power in David in that he is allowed to be an instrument in putting right the wrong of another?
JT I suppose it was wisely ordered by God that it should come in under David’s reign. At least, he inquired as to it; whether the method of dealing with it was right is another matter. But immediately he asked God about it he got an [p. 186] answer.
AP Has the fact that it happened in the days of Saul any reflection on the people’s selection of Saul?
JT No doubt. A man that disregards a covenant is held up in Scripture to great reproach.
WGT The princes and Joshua bound the whole nation. The people would have slain the Gibeonites even after the covenant was made, but the princes and Joshua stood by the covenant.
AFM The action of Saul in slaying the Gibeonites was zeal for the children of Israel and Judah. Evidently Jehovah was not before him.
JT It was not zeal for Jehovah.
JS Does it not show wisdom on the part of God in deferring this famine to David’s days so that the people would get more gain out of it?
JT Well, it seems so. Saul would hardly have inquired as David did. He began his reign in this humble and dependent way of asking God as to things; although apparently he deferred this inquiry to the damage of himself and the nation.
CAM Perhaps, in that way God allows matters to stand for the time being, until a day of light and power when they can be dealt with. I was wondering whether this covenant would be similar to a vow. God apparently never forgets a vow made by His people.
JT So that it resolves itself, for us, into such obligations as we have taken on in our baptism, or in partaking of the Lord’s supper.
CAM Or in Nazariteship, perhaps.
JT Yes; whatever we enter into in the way of obligation toward God or toward our brethren. The Old Testament idea is of an engagement by oath, or covenant, which is carried into the New Testament; but on our side it is seen under the head of baptism and the Lord’s supper; partaking in these involves committal. (Compare footnote on the word ‘demand’ in 1 Peter 3:21, J.N.D.’[p. 187] s new translation. )
AFM Baptism is more personal, whereas the Lord’s supper would involve others, which is more serious should failure occur.
JT Yes; it is necessarily collective, implying fellowship.
SJH Why does it say, “Saul, and for his house of blood”?
JT That is what God says, “It is for Saul and for his house of blood, because he slew the Gibeonites”. It confirms what we were saying, that he involved his house; but then he also involved the nation. The house was not cleared, but the nation was. It says, “God was propitious to the land”, but it does not say that He was propitious to the house of Saul because he was the offender, representing the flesh. Sin had occurred; the covenant had been broken by Saul as responsible for the nation, but God did not allow it to pass unchallenged even though the nation had overlooked it, showing that He requires what is past; (Ecclesiastes 3:15).
WB-w The thought of oath, or covenant, is prominent in this chapter; an oath between Jonathan and David is mentioned in it.
JT Yes; we see how David abode by that oath, and spared Mephibosheth on account of it.
AFM Is your thought that the house of Saul was not released of responsibility in this giving up of the seven sons?
JT Yes; it was a question of the house of Saul disappearing altogether. The flesh has to be unsparingly dealt with.
AP What does this phase of the flesh represent?
JT Well, it involves the whole history of Saul — a man what was the choice of the people, and stood head and shoulders above his brethren, but failed in the carrying out of the will of God. He did not keep this covenant, nor did he wait for Samuel, at the [p. 188] outset, to come to Gilgal (1 Samuel 13). God removed him; (Acts 13:22).
AP Is there an element in the religious world or amongst the people of God that has this faithless feature of Saul?
JT I think it is in every one of us. That side of the flesh has to be discerned and judged, so that each one has to question himself before God as to how faithful he has been to God and to his brethren. If we thus question ourselves, we shall probably find out why the pressure is so severe with each of us.
AFM Elijah said, “For the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant” (1 Kings 19:10); and then Hebrews 8:9 says, “Because they did not continue in my covenant”. Would this disregard of the covenant be equivalent to breaking it?
JT Yes. Throughout the Old Testament you have Israel’s unfaithfulness constantly alluded to. But their breach of the covenant is not mere history, but bears directly on ourselves. It is said that Christianity does not involve any such obligation, but it does; the Lord would bring home to us the question as to how much the idea of covenant Godward and manward has been disregarded by us.
WB-w What covenant might we be in danger of not keeping? How would it apply to us?
JT As remarked, baptism is the covenant in the principle of it. The Old Testament, as we know, is not mere history, but gives us terms the meaning of which we have to seek in the New Testament, even if the actual words do not appear. You get the idea of the covenant from the very outset. Even Adam was under covenant: “They like Adam have transgressed the covenant”, (Hosea 6:7). He was placed under covenant, and transgressed. God entered into covenant with Noah, and He is true to that covenant to this day, as we see in the mention of the rainbow in Revelation 4. Time does not cancel God’s engagements [p. 189] and He never forgets them. How much do men abroad in the world think of the covenant of God when they look at the rainbow? But God still regards it as the sign of His covenant with Noah and the earth; (Genesis 9).
AJD Is Romans 12 like a covenant following on the line of baptism in Romans 6?
JT It is the carrying out of Romans 6, only in a priestly way, as “your intelligent service”. The body presented as a living sacrifice to God is never to be recalled, it belongs to Him. Romans 6:13 is: “Yield yourselves to God”; but Romans 12:1 is: “Present your bodies”. The act is priestly.
WB-w What is the meaning of baptism?
JT It obligates everyone who is baptised to be true to it: “As many as have been baptised unto Christ Jesus, have been baptised unto his death”, Romans 6:3). If we disregard the import of His death, we simply trifle with the covenant involved. I use the word ‘covenant’ because of its place in the Old Testament, so that, as before stated, we must look for its meaning in the New Testament.
AJD What would correspond with Romans 6 in the Old Testament?
JT Israel being “baptised unto Moses”, (1 Corinthians 10:2). Leviticus is priestly committal, to which Romans 12 in measure answered. The priests in Leviticus are consecrated to remain in the court of the tabernacle all the time, i.e., seven days. Disregard of priestly obligations brings down the judgment of God; see Leviticus 10.
TA Would any Christian, no matter how young, who desires to break bread be under the obligation of the covenant?
JT Surely. The Lord’s supper is a further thought which corresponds with the covenant made at Sinai. Whilst the Sinaitic covenant may be viewed as over against Christianity as in Hebrews 12,
[p. 190] from another point of view it is a type of Christianity. We must look for the corresponding idea in our dispensation. The people actually committed themselves to Jehovah on the mount, they answered with one voice: “All the words that Jehovah has said will we do!” (Exodus 24:3).
ANW And so as regards the Lord’s table — that comes prior to 1 Corinthians 11 — would you say that every believer; young and old, whether breaking bread or not, is under obligation?
JT It is a question of one Christian fellowship, and one only.
JS Did the children of Israel, in passing through the Red Sea, definitely commit themselves to the leadership of Moses, as having come from under Pharaoh?
JT They did. They “believed in Jehovah, and in Moses his bondman”, (Exodus 14:31). Moses was the mediator. Our ways must correspond with Christ’s death; we should walk in newness of life, and not go on with the world as if nothing had happened.
WB-w “By faith they passed through the Red sea” (Hebrews 11:29); it was their act.
JT It is the one act of faith that is attributed to Israel; therefore they committed themselves to Moses, and were in that position throughout the forty years in the wilderness. But then, when they came to mount Sinai, they committed themselves collectively to all that God had said, as already noted.
JS They came under the will of God — to move in relation to His will.
JT And in relation to His mind too — what He had spoken. God says, “for after the tenor of these words have I made a covenant with thee and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), meaning that the covenant [p. 191] was to be in the spirit of the words that had been spoken.
AJD Every person formally baptised unto Christ is committed to the Lord’s table.
JT Not quite. The Lord’s table is a later thought than baptism. In the types it involves the acceptance of the covenant at Horeb. The Lord’s table and the Lord’s cup of 1 Corinthians 10 refer to the Lord’s supper. Chapter 10 is the public position in the testimony; it is the fellowship, and alludes to chapter 11.
AP Is your thought that 1 Corinthians 10 does not include any more than 1 Corinthians 11?
JT Yes. Those who partake of the Supper are in view. “The cup of blessing which we bless ... the bread which we break” refers to the Lord’s supper. The partakers of the Lord’s table are those who eat the Supper, not simply those baptised. The table involves the fellowship; those who partake of it are in the fellowship and are under obligation to the saints. “Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body”, (1 Corinthians 10:17).
AJD So that if you break the bread and drink the cup you have to look back to chapter 10 and ask yourself whether your associations are in accord with what you do.
ANW In 1 Corinthians 10:22 the apostle says, “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” In chapter 11:30 he says, “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”.
JT The conduct dealt with in chapter 11 is inside whilst that in chapter 10 is outside, but in either case it is a question of those who partake of the Lord’s supper, and no others. You cannot make the obligation of baptism correlative with the obligation of the Supper, because many may be baptised and never partake [p. 192] of it.
JEH Why does it say, “Ye cannot”? We should think that it would say, “Ye should not”.
JT You might say, ‘The State of New York cannot secede from the United States’. It might do it literally, as the Southern States did from the Northern States, but constitutionally it cannot; that is the idea.
CAM “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?” This would incur His judgment.
JT “Are we stronger than he?” The stronger will overcome, so it is most serious to provoke the Lord; that is 1 Corinthians 10. But chapter 11 of that epistle refers to what is inside, where the Lord’s supper is actually celebrated. The Corinthians were carrying on scandalously. “On this account”, it says, “many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”, but it does not say He was yet dealing with them because of the evil spoken of in chapter 10.
WB-w In 2 Samuel 18 Absalom’s system is overthrown, and David’s rule re-established.
JT It is most interesting that this incident of Saul’s behaviour is brought in after David is reinstated on his throne. This violation of a covenant is brought in here in a very striking manner, and I am sure it has a voice to us today.
SJH Is it not a fact that the nearer we get to God the more these things will be brought to light?
JT Yes. No doubt the incident fits in here, because David has been through so much in relation to Absalom and others, that it would touch him; and yet he is very slow in asking the Lord about it.
AFM Do you think David should have asked Jehovah what to do with regard to making amends to these Gibeonites, instead of asking them what he should do for them?
JT I think so. They should not have been their arbiters; it should have been a question of God’s mind rather than theirs; apparently David did not inquire of Him as to that.
AFM Instead of these seven sons being slain, do you not think that some other step might have been taken so that God could have been propitious?
JT It looks so; they were slain at the Gibeonites’ word; whereas the matter was serious, so that counsel should have been sought from God.
JS Would it be near the end of the third year before David inquired of the Lord as to what had happened?
JT It would. Why did he not ask at the beginning of the first year? When God brings some trial upon us He means us to feel it and seek Him as to it; otherwise we do not get any good out of it.
JS Is that not what is happening just now — people are beginning to inquire why?
JT I think that is right; and as we do that, God will help us.
CAM One who knows God can afford to look at the cause of an affliction.
JT David knew God; so that it is immediately stated that he inquired of Jehovah as to it. I believe the Lord is waiting for us to ask Him about the matters that are exercising us; each one of us has to take up the exercise with regard to himself.
AP Are famines to remind us of some failure in the past, or do they have in view the bringing in of something fresh?
JT It is a question of fidelity to a covenant that is emphasised here — fidelity to God, or to one another.
JS There is complete breakdown in christendom with regard to covenant responsibility and commitments.
JT Generally there seems to be but little idea of faithfulness to a covenant, now. Among men it is a question of getting out of a covenant, without much [p. 194] regard for righteousness. The Lord would say to us, “It shall not be thus amongst you”, (Matthew 20:26).
JEH We have to learn that we, ourselves, have not been true to the covenant.
JT That is the lesson for us. We are not here to discuss what the world is doing; although it is important to notice that, in recent years, the nations have been peculiarly disregardful of their obligations; they think nothing of abrogating covenants. Whatever is current publicly has usually some reflection among the people of God, we must therefore be watchful as to this. On the other hand, faithfulness among God’s people acts on men.
AFM In what do you think lies the solution of all this depression and difficulty through which we are passing?
JT You cannot get a better example as to this than David, so far as he went, he asked counsel of the Lord, but it does not seem as if he went far enough. David surely should have seen that they never had such a matter as this to face before, and that divine counsel as to what should be done was needed.
ARS Did not David’s action carry out the purpose of God — that Saul’s house should be cut off by degrees?
JT God was propitious to the land after the burial, but in verses 10 - 14 you are challenged as to why the action should have called forth such an expression of natural feeling from Rizpah. She exposed herself for a long period, day and night, to keep the birds and beasts from the bodies of the slain.
CAM Perhaps the fact that God calls attention to this woman would show that the action was extreme.
JT There was disregard of burial (compare Deuteronomy 21:23). Natural feeling ought not to be outraged in a judgment like this. God has found [p. 195] a way of atonement in Christ, and it was not mitigated at all, but He was buried.
CAM Burial was what God wanted to arrive at.
JT He was not propitious to the land until the burial had taken place. It says that “it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done”. It is to be noted that he took account of all that she did and proceeded to bury the bones of the seven who were hanged, with the bones of Saul and Jonathan. The action of Rizpah involves profound feeling. One is not saying that she had faith, but she was profoundly affected by what happened, and David was moved by what she did. Apparently he would have done nothing more than hang the seven men, but that was not the end of it, for there was this deep feeling in Rizpah. David heard of it and “went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh-Gilead ... and they gathered the bones of them that were hanged. And they buried them with the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the sepulchre of Kish his father; and they did all that the king had commanded. And afterwards God was propitious to the land”. I think a great deal of instruction is contained in all that.
ARS What do you make of David’s getting the bones of Jonathan and Saul, and the bones of them that were hanged and of their being buried together?
JT Burial is really part of the atonement — “Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and ... he was buried”, (1 Corinthians 15:3). Burial implies that everything that is obnoxious goes out of sight; the Lord, in identifying Himself with us, was made sin, and died on the cross; but He was buried because that was necessary.
CAM So that everything in our life that is not in accord with His death should be buried.
JT [p. 196] We begin with it in baptism; burial is in baptism.
ANW We see here that God was over all that was done, so that propitiation was effected.
JT God overruled it, and as a result, was propitious to the land. Fruitfulness would thus be resumed.
WGT “And they did all that the king had commanded”. The element of obedience was in evidence.
JT “Command” comes in after the expression of feeling on the part of Rizpah. What David does is after that, for he is affected by what she does. The moral feature is now seen: all that the king .— -as rightly affected — commands is performed.
AP If Rizpah had not had special feeling, the fowls of the heavens or the beasts would have destroyed completely the bodies of those hanged, which, according to Deuteronomy 28:26, is open humiliation.
JT Yes; such exposure after death is not a feature of atonement. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira it is remarkable that it is especially said they were buried. There was a certain dignity attached to them, and so there was to Saul.
CAM This act of the woman, which was evidently a right expression of feeling, was an instruction to the king himself.
AFM Do you think the way out of the present pressure lies in returning to the truth of our burial by baptism?
JT I think so. Burial is the point here. This is a chapter full of right sentiment; the Gibeonites refer even to Saul as “chosen of Jehovah”. That is the element we should respect. And then Rizpah’s action shows profound feeling, of which David takes notice; the action of the men of Jabesh-Gilead is another evidence of right feeling — that the bodies of Saul and Jonathan should not be exposed to the rude gaze of [p. 197] the Philistines.
GMcP In 1 Samuel 31:12 it says that the men of Jabesh-Gilead burned the bodies of Saul and his three sons.
JT But they buried their bones, and fasted seven days.
WB-w This is a question of burial, not of cremation.
JT Burial is the divine thought. The first mention of burial in Scripture is that of Sarah, the act of Abraham, a man of faith.
SJH There is no right feeling about cremation?
JT Absolutely none. I think it is allied with infidelity. Burial comes in appropriately here, for it was after this that God was propitious to the land.
JS Would you think that the famine was limited to the land?
JT Yes; for it says, “God was propitious to the land”.