⬇ EPUB

2 SAMUEL 12,13

JT From what came before us last week it seems that we should regard this history as wider than the actual persons involved, viewing it as having a bearing on the public history of the assembly. On the side of good, the results point in David to a worshipper, through contrition of heart; and in Solomon to Christ known typically as Son. On the side of evil we have in Absalom a type of the antichrist.

^[p. 102] The birth of Solomon is over against the death of the previous child, the one representing the result of lawlessness and the other a divine result; so that it says, “Jehovah loved him”, verse 24, and because of that he is called Jedidiah — object of the Father’s love even from infancy.

The general position is that it was the time when kings go forth, and David failed in kingship. This would synchronise with a certain period in the history of the assembly when the kingly thought failed, with consequent sin, and the government of God came in through the prophetic word as in Nathan. He represents the medium of recovery, showing to what great pains God goes to secure the conviction of David.

Ques I would like to see a little more clearly where this failure of the king, and the prophetic word, and recovery fit into the history of the assembly.

JT The failure of the kingly side would be the failure of the authority of Christ in the assembly through the unfaithfulness of those He was using. That is what chapter 11 brings out. Sin having occurred, Nathan, representing the prophetic word, was used to bring conviction to David and in the conviction the thorough acceptance of the government of God, so that the child’s death is discerned to be governmental. God goes a long way with David in this instance, sparing his life though He did not spare the child’s life. That is, the idea of government is carried through, being effective in the death of the child. David formally states that “While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I thought. Who knows? perhaps Jehovah will be gracious to me, that the child may live. But now he is dead, why should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me”, chapter 12:22, 23. There seems to be the entire acceptance of the government of God. Grace was there, sparing David’s life, as the prophet said, “Jehovah has also put away thy sin: thou shall not die”, 2 Samuel 12:13, but the child died, showing that the idea of government must go through, and the sword should not depart from his house. This child has to die on David’s account and David accepts that. Then we have Solomon, who is a type of Christ coming in in the last days.

Rem With regard to God’s government in chapter 12, one feature of it seems to be immediate and the other future.

JT You mean, “I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house” (2 Samuel 12:11); that would be future. The remainder of the book shows how that was carried out. The death of the child was immediate, and David accepted it I think as the basis for another son, another product.

Ques Do we see David gaining spiritually from the government of God in the intense exercise through which he goes?

JT In the acceptance of guilt he reaches worship. Then we have Solomon, one whom God loves as a child, which would point to the truth of the Person of Christ coming in in a small way — only a Babe — but God loved Him. It is not yet Christ as seen at the Jordan at thirty years of age, but the idea of sonship suggestively as drawing out the love of God.

Rem Would you say that the seven days must be gone through? I was thinking of Leviticus 14, the seven sprinklings of the leper.

JT I thought that. Seven days would be a complete period of exercise, the perfect exercise as reaching a point. Here it would be the experience that one has of the severe government of God in discipline, so that the full result is reached.

Rem The eighth day follows.

JT I think that is one of the most interesting parts of our subject, Christ coming in even in a small ^[p. 104] way, through exercise of this kind amongst us, and how it draws out divine affection.

Rem The government of God on the whole ecclesiastical system was bowed to, and now it has resulted in sonship. Would you say it is the introduction of the greatest possible thing for God at the close?

JT I think it is. It is a sort of centre or basis for the development of all that is in the mind of God, drawing out His affections, so that we find Nathan brought into action with the prophetic word to tell us that God loves this child: “And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, for Jehovah’s sake”, verse 25. The prophetic word brings out what he is, it clarifies the position and brings out what is existent as a result of all this exercise; something is secured which Jehovah loves.

Ques Would this indicate depth of feeling in God over David’s breakdown? The only answer seems to be that God reverts in His thoughts to Christ.

JT God’s affection passes on, as it were, to the child, although He did love David; his very name means ‘beloved’, but of Solomon it says, “Jehovah loved him”.

Rem I suppose Satan would hinder our getting the good of this whole matter by casting our thoughts back to the indefinite past, whereas it is really a matter of looking forward.

JT The indefinite past is the fourth century, the period of the creeds. If anybody reads the Creed he will be amazed to find how language is employed to say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ at the same time. There is a sense that the Holy Spirit is not developing the truth; the human mind is endeavouring with good intent to put the truth rightly, but it has not the power to conceal the error. The Creed states that the Lord Jesus was begotten of His Father before all ^[p. 105] worlds. That is not true. The creed-makers tried to cover that over by other statements to show what they really did believe in their hearts, whereas we come now to clear sunlight, that the Lord Jesus has become Man, a distinct Person eternally, yet ever God.

Ques Do you think there is an inkling of this in John 9:41, “but now ye say, We see, your sin remains”? Is that similar to what occurred in the early centuries in regard to the Person of Christ?

JT Yes. So that they are responsible as to what is put down on paper in the so-called creeds. Some of us have perhaps looked into this matter more than others. There is not only the Creed, but an exposition of the Creed, a very large volume in which every line of the Creed is taken out and developed. The “General Church Council”, especially the Nicene, which was the leading one at which this Creed was inaugurated, assumed to “see”, and, of course, in a certain way this protected the truth. But it was not maintained by the Spirit of God. The truth is to be maintained by the Spirit of God and not by creeds. The creed-makers were not satisfied with the language of Scripture. They were very clever in the use of words so as to encase the truth and protect it, whereas if we have the Spirit of God, He is the truth. The Creed has been the basic teaching of Christendom for sixteen centuries, but now the truth is all made plain. I believe the point here is Solomon. Jehovah “sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet: and he called his name Jedidiah, for Jehovah’s sake”, verse 25. That is, the prophetic word gives the name.

Rem There is great need for such a son owing to what transpires in the next chapter.

JT The state of David’s house is distressing, as chapter 13 brings out, but here is the bright luminary that is going to effect things for God. Solomon is mentioned only twice in this book; we must wait for Kings to see him in action.

Rem Nathan served to open David’s eyes that he might see himself.

JT I think these two parts of Nathan’s ministry, his conviction of David and his naming of his son, are the foundation for all that follows. We have a true foundation and other things do not shake us. The first book of Kings will bring out how Solomon can deal with evil men, with Joab, for instance. But he is not doing anything in this book, he is just a babe; but Jehovah loves him, and that is for my soul.

Rem “The beloved of Jehovah — he shall dwell in safety by him”, Deuteronomy 33:12. I was wondering if Solomon corresponds in some way with Benjamin?

JT You mean that Solomon is the one that affords the dwelling between His shoulders, alluding to the position of the temple in Jerusalem, It was primarily the territory of Benjamin on the principle of love and preference, and there was brotherly recognition in Judah. It would mean that the temple was in his territory — mount Zion. Kingship gave way in David, but David went down to the bottom in his repentance. We read of his lying on the earth and refusing all comfort. It is beautiful to see his contrition; he prays in effect to God: Come in and cleanse me; my confession is not enough, I want to be set up again. In Psalm 51 it is a question of Zion, and of being able to teach sinners and transgressors. The great answer is Solomon. Things are carried on, but generally in a poor way throughout this book, and it finishes with David’s account of what a king ought to be without saying he was such; chapter 23:3 - 5. I think this is true of our activities in the assembly, we finally have to come to it that only a Solomon succeeds. I realise in my spirit that only that man can succeed, especially in the government of the house; He abides a Son for ever. We must come to that in our souls, especially in our care meetings.

^[p. 107] Ques You mean we shall have no results except on the lines of Solomon?

JT We usually begin on what I can do. I am an old brother, I have had much experience, I have been breaking bread for so many years, etc., but the building of the house and the ruling of the house is in sonship, and I have to come to that in my own soul however old or experienced I may be.

Ques Are you suggesting that Solomon is the public name and Jedidiah the secret name?

JT We do not get the name Jedidiah afterwards; it is given only here, and to bring out what he was to Jehovah. You hardly get a babe like this elsewhere, not even in John Baptist. It must be Jesus typically.

Ques Is Psalm 51 an indication of David’s deep feeling in regard to the blight he had brought on the testimony? “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight; that thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, be clear when thou judgest”, Psalm 51:4. Do you think he would have an impression of having marred the testimony, and he would seek by the public record of Psalm 51 to make the whole matter plain?

JT There is no reference to Urijah in Psalm 51. “Against thee, thee only have I sinned”; that was a deeper thing in his soul than the sin against Urijah.

Ques You referred to the care meeting. Do you think if we really moved this way to reach Solomon all the defects would disappear? Otherwise I suppose we get into the tangles of this political business with Absalom.

JT I think we see here that Solomon stands over against all the other sons. The next sorrow is in connection with Amnon, the outstanding one of the family, the firstborn. But a Solomon comes in before that, which is our salvation as we go through the matter. There must be removal of Amnon and ^[p. 108] of Absalom, though in the most sorrowful ways. These two men must go.

Rem With regard to the other child, they tell David, “He is dead”, verse 19. Does that mean God’s government has prevailed and we come to that conclusion ourselves, so that there is the rising up?

JT David says, I cannot bring him back, I have to go to him. That is a solemn statement of the action of the government of God, but now he is ready morally for a Solomon and he calls his name Solomon, son of peace; but Jedidiah is God’s thought, and that comes in prophetically. It throws light on the prophetic ministry with which God is helping us now, the first word to convict of sin and the other to bring in the Son in Jesus as the Son of God.

Ques Would Romans 7 and 8 correspond to that: death in the 7th and God’s pleasure in sons in the 8th? “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God”, Romans 8:14.

JT So that it says: “Sin revived and I died” (Romans 7:9).

Rem When you speak of sonship you are applying it not only to my knowledge of my relationship with God as a son, but also in relation to the saints working out sonship relatively, because it is the removal of the corrupt relationship and the establishment of the right one.

JT That is what it is, seen first in Christ, the prophetic word telling you that Jehovah loves him. There had been many babes before but this one is designated by the prophet, “Jedidiah”, because of Jehovah. This child affects Jehovah; that is, of course, Jesus typically: “that holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”, Luke 2:36. Jehovah calls Him “Son of God”, “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee”, Hebrews 1:5. It is ‘Thou’ and ‘this’, there is no doubt about it, it is what God is thinking as to that Person.

^[p. 109] Rem So that it is death governmentally to all my scheming and planning.

JT How the love of God comes into the development of the truth of the Son of God! The Father loves the Son and we come into that. David had accepted the death of the child; his own death is just deferred; I shall go that way too, he says. He clothes himself properly; it is cutting across the religious feelings of his servants; they did not understand, nor do the professing persons around us. But when you accept death you change your clothes and go into the house of God. God will respect that. The first 13 verses of John’s gospel are a preface; it is a question of the truth of the deity of Christ, what He was in past eternity and how He has come into this world, and it results in bringing in the sons of God. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only begotten with a father) full of grace and truth”, John 1:14. That is the position, the only One of a Father, full of grace and truth under the eyes of men here below. It is Christ in the fulness of His manhood; babyhood is not mentioned at all. They were able to contemplate His glory because they belonged to the family: “as many as received him, to them gave He the right to be children of God”, John 1:12. They are the ones who can contemplate the sonship of Christ.

Rem There is no middle ground between the Son of God and Barabbas. The name means, ‘son of a father’, indicating the other line.

JT Yes; it is in that gospel that the Lord says: “Ye are of your father the devil”, John 8:44. They were sons of a father, the devil.

Ques Does it suggest that the responsible element as recovered goes right through?

JT And morally displaces what was there. In 1 Kings David is a weak old man, hardly any life ^[p. 110] left, but in 1 Chronicles he is in vigour. Chronicles is from the divine side, but Samuel and Kings are from the responsible side down here and so everything hinges on Solomon; otherwise there will be a usurper on the throne, Adonijah. It seems to me that the truth of the Person of Christ is the great thought now carrying us through to the end. Solomon is a son of peace, his name means that, and if we come into the care meeting with thoughts of war we are continuing on David’s line. The other side is that God loves this kind of man, Solomon. This struggle for the throne goes on under David; he makes no effort to stop it and there is confusion. If Nathan had not come forward in the matter of Adonijah it would have meant disaster again; 1 Kings 1. It is Nathan who rescues the position from man’s will through the prophetic ministry, and I believe that is what is to preserve us in the last days, the prophetic ministry and sonship. In all that passed with Amnon and Absalom and now with Adonijah, David had no power to meet the situation; it is the prophetic word that meets it. In 1 Chronicles David stands up and makes a wonderful speech, but that is from the divine side.

Rem In the remainder of chapter 12 Joab is in the forefront and in chapter 13 Absalom. I suppose that is the responsible element manifesting itself in weakness.

JT David was very angry at what Amnon did. But it is not enough to say to a brother, You are worldly, or your conduct is reprehensible. We must go further than that and use discipline. It says in verse 21 that David was very angry, and that is all you get. Again with Absalom, he is a murderer, a fugitive from justice, and the sorrowful side in this particular chapter is David’s inability to deal with the matter; a most terrible condition exists and he is unable to deal with it.

^[p. 111] Rem So that in all these church matters around us the assumption that everything is all right while evil exists unjudged will head up in this awful man that is coming, the antichrist.

JT It must be either withdrawing from iniquity or dealing with iniquity.

Ques What would have been the right step for David to take in all this?

JT This great man, the man that overcame the world militarily, ought to have proceeded to deal with evil. Why could he not deal with wicked men like Amnon and Absalom? He is powerless.

Rem Joab was a politician, a schemer. That influence corresponds with what is public today. We must await Solomon.

JT Here is the greatest man in the world and he could not rule his own house, he could not discipline his sons. Is it a mere account of David or does it apply to our own times, our inability to deal with the persons nearest to us?

Ques Does it mean that nothing at all should pass in a man’s house that is not right?

JT That is the lesson to be learned. It is David’s house right through here, and his kingly authority is impaired; he is unable to deal with evil in the kingdom. From the first century they were unable to deal with evil, so that the Lord had to charge them about it as we see in His addresses to the seven assemblies in Revelation 2 and 3.

Rem The Lord may be instructing us in sonship and giving us power to work on other lines today in view of the closing of the church’s history. The condition here is indicative of weakness, in which Solomon is not coming into prominence and activity; but since the Lord has helped us on the lines of His sonship there seems to be parallel with that power to deal with ^[p. 112] evil.

JT In 1908 the matter of discipline came out at Alnwick and from that day to this the Lord has been helping the saints on assembly lines, inclusive of dealing with evil amongst us. Of course, the matter goes back to Bethesda, but some of us here have had to do with it directly; it has happened in our own times. Local assembly matters must be left in the Lord’s hands in the locality, that is the principle; a neighbouring assembly cannot rule another assembly, nor commend another assembly; each local assembly is on its own footing before God, having provision within itself for rule and discipline. That is what came out in 1908. It has been developed ever since, and collaterally with that the truths of the Lord’s Supper, local assembly prerogatives, sonship, prophetic ministry and the service of God. It was the great issue, what the local assembly was and the Lord’s authority there, the Lord’s rights there. It is a primary thought that Paul and Barnabas went out and formed assemblies, “and having chosen them elders”, Acts 14:23. They did it. They were commissioned to go out in that service and appointed elders in each assembly and later in each city (Titus 1:5). The idea was to set up local assemblies on their own feet. They had the means to govern and discipline there.

Ques How would it work out when there is more than one meeting in a city?

JT The local assembly would cover all the meetings, as for instance here in New York, one assembly and sub-divisions. In these small meetings in Asia Minor it says they chose elders “in each assembly”; so that when Paul writes to the saints in Galatia he says, “to the assemblies of Galatia”, Galatians 1:2, not, ‘to aggregate of the saints’.

Ques Would “ye are Christ’s body” in 1 Corinthians 12 show that the assembly was functioning in ^[p. 113] that city?

JT It was not an independent body, of course, so that the article “the” is not before the word “body”. To “ordain elders” would mean to furnish all that is necessary in the way of government.

Rem In this last short period just on the eve of our departure, church history is being lived over again.

JT I think these chapters forecast the failure of the assembly; it is wider than the sin of one man, it is the public position. David’s failure in not going forth resulted on the good side in a worshipper in David and a son in Solomon; and on the side of evil in Amnon and Absalom. That is exactly the position now.

Ques Should we be slow to oppose the judgment of the local assembly?

JT We should not do it. The Lord is there. It is not that we assume to be infallible, but still if the action has been taken in assembly it is a serious matter to interfere with it.

Rem According to Revelation 2 and 3 the Lord holds the responsible element answerable for every matter there.

JT Quite so. So that it is “the angel” he addresses, the responsible element.

Rem Then there would be some element in all local companies that is holding on to these wonderful things that the Holy Spirit is reviving: the prophetic word, the service of God and sonship.

Rem I suppose it is the whole assembly, the tabernacle, the great general thought of general fellowship worked out locally.

JT As 1 Corinthians shows, universal fellowship is recognised; indeed there is only one fellowship, but it works out locally.

← Previous Article 12 of 40 Next →