THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM
[p. 317] THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM
2 Samuel 5:6 - 9; Ephesians 2:18,19
JT The account of the capture of Jerusalem given in 2 Samuel, speaks of David building inward. The corresponding account in 1 Chronicles 11 does not mention the inward side, but it mentions Joab, and that he “renewed the rest of the city”. This account in 2 Samuel 5 does not mention Joab. I believe the Lord might help us through these scriptures as to the Godward side of the truth. There is the outward side too, of course. The Lord’s supper stands in relation to what is public. I was thinking this morning as we were sitting together how the Lord was hated where He was brought up. They would have slain Him in Nazareth; and He was actually slain at Jerusalem. I was thinking that unless the testimony rendered is submitted to, the more hatred there will be. Where He was brought up they would have cast Him down headlong from the hill on which their city was built; a sorrowful use to make of an eminence which gave distinction to the city!
Jerusalem would be the amplification of what we are saying. Whilst the Lord was not brought up there, Jerusalem was central, and had the means of acquiring knowledge; all the historical facts referring to Christ would be known there. There was no suggestion at all that any mistake had been made, that they did not know; and He was crucified there; indeed, He went further, we are told, outside the gate, bearing His cross. There was no hiding of the matter, it was public; the historical facts were all known. Whatever the city or town or village may be, the same is true, that where the greatest testimony is rendered the greatest hatred will come out, in some way or other. So the saints are not to be deceived by any outward appearance; there is no change at all. The Lord says, “they have both seen and hated both me and my Father”, (John 15:24). The disciples heard, and saw, and handled, and loved; but the world both saw and hated the Father and the Son. So that we are not to be deceived by any external appearance; the hatred is there, and will soon come out, if it has not already shown itself. The Lord’s supper stands in that relation, it is where the hatred is; but there is attached to it the idea of fortification and strength. “David dwelt in the stronghold”. The Lord said, “hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”, (Matthew 16:18). There is the public side which everyone who partakes of the Lord’s supper should understand and accept, and the reproach and opposition attached to it. There is, on the other hand, the inward side, which I thought we might look at.
Ques Was it in your mind that in Luke 22 the account of the passover, leading on to the institution of the Lord’s supper, begins with the priests and scribes plotting to kill Him; so that in the place where the greatest testimony was rendered there the hatred came out?
JT Just so. They took counsel in the palace (Matthew 26:3). The atmosphere around the upper room was murderous. That is where the Supper was. There is an outlet from that in the mount of Olives both in Matthew and Mark; but it is not so in Luke. Luke, I think, has in mind that Christ should come in where the opposition is, and have a place there notwithstanding the opposition — an undisturbed place. That is the idea in a memorial. The memorial is not in the mount of Olives; the memorial is in the midst of evil; where He is hated and rejected, there He has a place actually, without the external conditions being altered at all. He retains a place there.
McC. Is Psalm 23:5 on this line? “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies”.
JT Yes.
HH What about “the hand of him that delivers me up is with me on the table”, (Luke 22:21). What does that mean?
JT That contemplates evil inside — a most distressing consideration. It is well, especially for the young ones, to see that the Lord’s supper is where the evil is.
HH It does not improve; it gets worse.
JT And it is in every town. The idea is that the Lord’s supper is celebrated in towns or places. Whatever the outward appearance may be, or however small the place, the world is there and it hates Christ.
FAP Is it your thought that the Supper continues in spite of what exists outwardly?
JT That is what I thought we might see. We can see the outward position of the Lord’s supper; the emblems are public, and they denote that in spite of the murderous spirit outside, the brethren have gone on with this. It is public, and involves reproach and opposition; but then there is the inward retreat that the Lord has: He has acquired a place here; He gives us to know that He is here. He has a footing here where the opposition is.
DG Where there was hatred, there is love now — in the saints.
JT Yes. The Lord has an undisturbed footing amongst the saints, as coming in. Then He takes on the thought of what the assembly is Godward. That is, whilst conditions around remain unchanged, the service of God goes on. That is a great matter; involving the protection of the kingdom, so that in spite of the existence of evil we can follow the Lord to His own side.
JT-r Do you connect the challenge of the Jebusites with the hatred against the Lord seen in Luke?
JT Yes. It says, “And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land”. That would mean, that the opposition in heavenly places is to be set aside, so that the Lord might lead us into His own side of things.
Ques What do you think the blind and the lame represent? Are they the influences the enemy would use to keep the Lord out of the midst?
JT I thought that; it is just the condition of men and women naturally, and it adds, “hated of David’s soul”. It is a state: the blind do not see, and the lame cannot walk; so they have no part in the assembly. They are here in the place of God’s selection, but they despise Christ. Those who have part in the assembly must both see and walk.
Ques That is a striking expression: “hated of David’s soul”. Will you say a little more about it with regard to the Lord’s supper and the condition of things among us?
JT I think it stands over against what is in view here, the great position indicated in Jerusalem; so that any blindness and lameness is to be viewed in the light of what is said here, lest any of us should be marked in that way. The Lord hates that state, for it can have no part in the assembly, and it would keep Him out. The enemy would use the state described derisively, as if the Lord could not come in because of that; as if they would be enough to keep Him out.
HH The most favoured spot on earth is mount Zion; it is not to be held by these conditions.
JT I think the allusion is to the state of men, our own state naturally; that is, the sphere of God’s operations now is in men’s hearts and minds.
[p. 321] Ques Is this the same thing as that to which the Lord refers when He speaks of hating father and mother?
JT It is just the natural; but then it is lame and blind. The state treated of is the state of people utterly useless in the assembly or in “the house”. But David takes Zion, the stronghold, in spite of that.
Rem In John 9:40 the Pharisees ask, “Are we blind also?” “Jesus said to them, If ye were blind ye would not have sin; but now ye say, We see, your sin remains”. They would have hindered the blind man from seeing too.
JT Quite so. They said they saw, and hence were responsible.
FAP Would you say it is a question of opposition to the rights of the Lord in the saints?
JT The opposition is constant to keep the Lord out. That is the point here; “as much as to say, David will not come in hither”. That is a clear-drawn issue, but He does come in. He comes into our hearts in spite of this influence. It is “the city of David”, it is the place where the Lord’s rights in redemption are asserted.
JT-r The blind and the lame figure much in the Lord’s pathway, and He healed them frequently.
JT It is a state He does away with; He overcomes it. “David took the stronghold of Zion, which is the city of David”. I regard that as the Lord entering into our hearts and minds, and He regards it as His own: he “called it the city of David”. It is His own place, and He dwells there. Where else is He dwelling, save in the hearts of believers? So that the reference to the lame and the blind would be to reprove anything like that in us, any blindness which prevents us from seeing what He is doing, and lameness which would prevent our following the Lord [p. 322] to His side; any such opposition that would prevent His taking up His rights in the assembly.
HEF What is the force of getting up to “the watercourse”?
JT I think it means getting at the work of God in the saints, what the Spirit effects; the Holy Spirit may be even in us, and yet this condition of lameness and blindness may be more or less present. If the Lord does not get at that, then it simply means that our minds and natural ability are at work in the things of God. “The watercourse” would allude to the Spirit, or what He effects in the saints.
DM Then our affections are moved.
JT Yes, and there is intelligence. There is a vital springing up, as soon as you let the water free.
DG “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”, (2 Corinthians 3:17).
JT Exactly; that is what is in Him, the effect of His presence among us; but He wants to have the Spirit in us. Thus the question at Ephesus, “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?” (Acts 19:2).
HEF Must not the blind and lame be dealt with if that is to be brought about?
JT Exactly. The Spirit may be in us, and yet so hampered and grieved that He is not operating. The Lord aims at getting at our state. The general thought is to clear the way for the Spirit. It is only in the Spirit that we can really be in the assembly according to God; and that brings up a very wide inquiry: what the Holy Spirit is in relation to the covenant, and in relation to the family. What He is in relation to the covenant comes in early in the assembly meeting, because the thought of the covenant is in the Lord’s supper; what He is in relation to the Father comes [p. 323] in later.
HEF I notice that in verse 9 David builds “round about” and “inward”. Would the covenant strengthen the thought of what is round about?
JT I think so. “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit”, (Romans 5:5). In 2 Corinthians 3:17 there is a remarkable combination of the activities of the Lord and the Spirit in effectuating the covenant; “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. But it says in verse 6: “not of letter, but of spirit”. That shuts out mere religious feeling, which is very current among us, and which hampers the Spirit. Then we have a long parenthesis, in which it is stated that the ministry of the Spirit subsists in glory (verse 8) — not the ministry of the Lord, but the ministry of the Spirit. Then at the end of the parenthesis in verse 17 it says, “Now the Lord is the Spirit”. It is the combination of the Lord and the Spirit; and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”.
HH Does what you have been saying correspond to what we call deliverance — that is, setting us free from what is really connected with the flesh, the Spirit enabling us to be free from the flesh?
JT Yes. The building “round about” is fortification; that is the Lord fortifying our hearts against other things; it is like the doors being shut for fear of the Jews in John 20:19. The power inwardly shuts out what would hinder; so that I think the ministry of the covenant might come in there. The Lord and the Spirit are combined in 2 Corinthians 3. There is the thought of authority, and then the action of the Spirit. He, too, would fortify our hearts, filling them with the love of God; the sure way of fortifying us is by filling us with what is exclusive of evil.
FAP So that the appeal in verse 8 seems to be on the individual line: “Whoever”; and when there is movement in that way the stronghold is secured for David.
[p. 324] JT That is the thought. The heart is fortified; for it is a question of the Lord’s rights there. “The city of David” is in view, a place in which the Lord has rights, and which takes character from Him, because He dwells in it. As getting a footing in it, He fortifies it; so that as sitting down in assembly we are not hampered by our own affairs. He would fortify our hearts, if we would let Him, so that we have peace; there is room for the Lord, and He would now operate: He would build inward, not making anything of us publicly. The account in 1 Chronicles 11 which has in view the millennium deals with what is outward: “he built the city round about, even from the Millo round about; and Joab renewed the rest of the city” (verse 8). With regard to what we get in 2 Samuel the building is “round about from Millo and inward”; and enters into Ephesians, because the point is “we have both access” — that is, there is the idea of unity in access — “by one Spirit to the Father”.
FAP Is the fortification set up so that the work might go on inwardly?
JT So that there might be scope inside, and that the saints might not be hampered by ordinary things. We are thus free to worship the Father.
FAP “David built round about from the Millo and inward”: The Millo was the rampart or citadel (See note, New Translation).
JT We cannot get on without that fortification. The enemy will come in with anything to prevent the brethren being at the Lord’s disposal in the assembly.
FF David had been crowned in Hebron seven years before this, but there was determined opposition on the part of the Jebusites to keep him out of Jerusalem.
JT This type contemplates general unity as it is brought in in Ephesians. Hebron does not represent the full thought of God in this respect; it is only [p. 325] partial unity. At Hebron you are brought to the idea of another world; this world is left behind; but it is not the full thought, which is set forth in Jerusalem. So “we have both access”; that is the general unity.
ASG Does John 4 help us on that line, the woman being wholly fortified?
JT Yes, no doubt when she went back into the city she was immune from fleshly influences. She went to the men fortified against all that influence. That is the principle of it. One thus delivered as in the assembly would be immune from all that would affect her naturally.
Ques Is the building inward connected with being “strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man” with a view to apprehending “the breadth and length and depth and height”, (Ephesians 3:16)?
JT That is leading on from what we have here; “we have both access”. There is the idea of unity. Those whom Paul addresses at Ephesus had been alienated from each other; now they are united; so that they have access to the Father. Then we need more than that; in the next chapter the apostle prays that the Father might give us to be “strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man”. That is the full thought of the inner side.
HSA Does “both” refer to Jews and gentiles?
JT Yes; but what is said would apply anywhere where there is alienation of heart among the brethren. The thought is access collectively on the principle of unity.
HH Do you think the idea of the anointing of David by all the tribes (verse 3), is an encouraging word for the young ones? They want to be consenting to that, and they commit themselves in the Supper — as you were saying, in what is outward. The young people who belong to the Lord ought to be asking to break bread because they all have Christ in their [p. 326] hearts, and they want to be identified with the place this truth has in relation to all the tribes.
JT That is how it works here: “Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron, and spoke, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh”; that is a spiritual statement. It is not the Lord saying it now; it is our saying it. The Lord says it in John 20:17: “go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. That is His way of saying it. But here the saints in type are saying it, they are claiming David; they say, moreover, “Even aforetime, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel”; that is, while Saul reigned, David was apprehended as the one who led out and brought in the people. That is a beautiful service. He looked after the people, and he did it under very difficult circumstances, because Saul was adverse to him. This passage applies to young christians, as helping them to overcome when darkening influences are exerted over them. They say, “when Saul was king over us”; even then David led them out and brought them in. The Lord does this for us now notwithstanding that others may assert rights over us. That is what we have here; Saul’s influence is gone now, and David is given his full place: “Then came all the tribes of Israel to David to Hebron, and ... king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Jehovah; and they anointed David king over Israel”. The covenant implies fellowship; it is a bond that you enter into, meaning that you are not going to play fast and loose while you profess to own Christ. The covenant means that one is committed, and it binds one to a certain course.
DM The outcome is that the king and his men go up to Jerusalem.
JT He has with him those whom he can trust, who have committed themselves to him in [p. 327] the covenant.
FAP Is it that the enemy would use occupation with ourselves on the line of weakness, to hinder the Lord from getting His place with us in our hearts?
JT Well, there are so many things to hinder. The question for each one to raise is, What is hindering me? Why can I not have part in this that is taking place at Hebron, and be free at Jerusalem? “The king and his men went to Jerusalem”. He has men now. Christians are men as they commit themselves formally to the covenant. They are obligated to the Lord and to one another, I think it is thus that we are regarded as men.
DG In 1 Chronicles 12:18 those of Benjamin and Judah, led by Amasai, say: “Thine are we, David, and with thee, thou son of Jesse”. Is that not a good confession?
JT Excellent. It is very fine to see here that, following on the covenant and the anointing, the people had the place of men. “The king and his men”. The queen of Sheba says to Solomon: “Happy are thy men!” (1 Kings 10:8). So the Lord Jesus says “the men whom thou gavest me”, (John 17:6). The assembly is formed of men, not children, not babes.
Ques In what way does the Lord build inwardly with us? The apostle does not attempt it in Ephesians 3; he prays that the Father might do it.
JT I think we get a good illustration of the inward building in John 13 to 17. The Lord was sitting in the upper room while He spoke and the trend of all that He says is inward, it is toward the Father. First the scripture speaks of His having come from God and going to God; and then He speaks of going to the Father. He says in the course of His remarks: “If ye loved me ye would rejoice that I go to the Father, for my Father is greater than I” (chapter 14:28). And so right through till chapter 17, when, having said these things, it says that Jesus “lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father”. If we had [p. 328] been there, listening to the Lord, we should have discerned that the trend of His remarks was in that direction. The idea is that we should follow Him; not only in regard to what He says, but in regard to the spirit or current that would be there, and it was toward the Father; it was inward.
JT-r Is that why you link the thought of what is inward with the Father?
JT Yes, chapter 20 is the climax in John’s gospel; “go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (verse 17). He is directing them to the Father, so that it synchronizes with Ephesians. John shows how the Lord is building inward and Ephesians shows that that was Paul’s aim too; he was aiming at getting the saints’ minds directed towards the Father.
HH Would you say that the public side in John would culminate with the twelfth chapter, and the inward side begins at chapter 13 when it raises a question with regard to our relations with each other; it is not purely individual?
JT In John it is the persons who are in view not so much the assembly as such, but unity of love amongst the persons; it works out in the same way. John supports Paul in that vital sort of way; so that while John does not give us the Lord’s supper and Paul does, yet John tells us that the Lord said a great deal while it was being instituted; and John was lying in the bosom of Jesus and knew the trend of His affections. The current was strong, leading toward the Father, and out of this world. That is what the Lord is doing in our times, using John’s ministry in that inward way to give us understanding in regard of our heavenly portion; the vital element in us, like the living water, and the breathing into us by Christ, is so that we might have part in the Father’s world.
[p. 329] HH Would you say that while Paul suggests the thought of the assembly, John is more engaged with the suitable material for it?
JT John is occupied with the persons who form it; so he speaks of “great fishes, a hundred and fifty-three” (chapter 21:11).
Ques Is there a sense in which the saints come under the direct touch of the Lord as distinct from ministry? Joab does not build inward, but David does. Even Paul could not lead the saints into this; he commits them to the Father.
JT Joab has no place in this passage. It is not ministry by a gifted brother. It is the influence of the Lord Himself.
Ques Would the building go on at the Supper?
JT In principle, it goes on all the time. It is a question of what the Lord does Himself. “David took the stronghold of Zion”. However he did it, it was his exploit, and as you look back on your history you say, It was an exploit on the Lord’s part in my case! What a marvellous thing that the Lord ever got a place in my heart! And what a heart it was! Think of what people are as brought up in the religious systems around; there is an element of the darkness that is in the world attaching to all these. Nevertheless David took the stronghold, and he dwelt in it. What is the good of taking it if he does not dwell in it? He named it “the city of David”. Then having secured it he builds “round about” and “inward”, suggesting, as we have said, how the Lord directs the saints to the Father; and you get the most wonderful things there.
FAP You referred to the Lord speaking to the Father, saying, “The men whom thou gavest me”. Is the building up in John 13 to 16 in relation to that material?
JT That is right. Each one was taken out of darkness; it was an exploit to get into any one [p. 330] of their hearts. The stronghold represents our hearts; it is where Satan had a place. The Lord nevertheless took it in spite of the derisive remarks of the Jebusites. It was the prowess of Christ that did it, as every one of us would acknowledge in relation to his own experience.
DG The Lord is the only one who could do it.
JT That is so; and He has a right to do so in redemption. David took Goliath’s head to Jerusalem; the city was taken; at least that is the order in which the facts are stated. Now he is making good the testimony as to his power; he is there himself, having overcome those who held the city; and he dwells there.
ATS The Jebusites evidently did not know what was involved in that wonderful victory of David over Goliath.
JT Ephesians 4:8 says, “Having ascended up on high, he has led captivity captive”. Christ has gone to the highest point with the token of His victory. That is the thought. The great primary thought is that the head of the giant is taken off. That means that all our heads have to go! That head represents the natural ability we have, which is always turned against God. Whilst that head stands there can be no headship of Christ as to us in a practical way; so, as we were saying, the gospel presents the full thought. The Lord Jesus is “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1:4). When that thought gets into your mind your head goes. They had the giant’s head in Jerusalem, that is, the testimony that your mind, your natural ability, is useless. If you recognize that, the Lord will take charge of your mind and heart, and He is going to be Head to you; and that is really where the assembly is owned in a practical way. The head of the giant [p. 331] is a matter of testimony. You may have inquired as to whose head it is. Well, it is the head of the greatest creature opposed to God. As in Jerusalem it is proof that the opposition is completely destroyed. This makes way for the working out of the all-various wisdom of God in the assembly.
HH Elisha was governed by the man who had gone up. The sons of the prophets speak of his master being taken away from over his head (2 Kings 2:3,5). So Elisha was not governed by his own head.
JT And he got the spirit of that man, and then Elisha would be like his head; henceforth he was a heavenly man.
HH He does not trust his own head; he asks for a double portion of the spirit of Elijah.
FAP This seems to be a moral victory in the saints: “Whoever smites the Jebusites”. The conflict is with us in this way now?
JT Yes; it follows on properly after the giant’s head had been there. David had taken the head there; it is a matter of testimony; but now he is there himself; he says, “Whoever” with regard to taking the place; but then the Spirit of God stops there; there is no mention of who did it. There is a hiatus, as you notice, in the New Translation. In 1 Chronicles 11 we are told that Joab went up first, but Joab does not fit in 2 Samuel. It is a question of the Lord Himself. It is not a question of ministry, or of some great gift; for a great person like Joab, though a valuable man in his place and time, is apt to hinder you under these circumstances. It is entirely a question of Christ Himself, of what He does.
Rem We get a kind of proverb at the end of verse 8: “Therefore they say, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house”; it is not the city or the stronghold but the house.
JT That is suggestive here. Why should they come into the house? They are hated of David’s [p. 332] soul. The proverb would mean that the idea of the blind and the lame being excluded from the house was fixed; the thought of their coming in is repugnant. They shall not come in. It is like shutting the doors for fear of the Jews (John 20:19). It is a question of keeping out adverse elements.
JT-r Does it mean that they would get healed if they came in?
JT The time to get healed is before you come to the house. It is the first thing in the gospels; but this refers to what is characteristic — the lame and the blind continuing in that state.
FAP How different our meetings would be if we came resolved in that way that the blind and lame should not come in!
JT Yes; they must not come in. I must come in seeing. The man in John 9:11 says to his neighbours, “I saw”, but when the Pharisees challenge him he says, “I see” (verse 15). That is how a man should come in to the assembly. He should be able to walk too.
HB The lame and the blind would not be able to go round Zion and mark her bulwarks, as it says in Psalm 48.
JT No, they can neither see nor walk. What is before us really applies to the terrible condition in christendom today in spite of the profession; and it obtained in Jerusalem at the time of the Lord’s death.