2 SAMUEL 14
JT We seem to have had the mind of the Spirit in considering chapters 9 and 10 as the kingdom of God marked by grace; grace toward Mephibosheth in chapter 9, and toward the king of Ammon, although he despised it, in chapter 10. Chapter 11 brings out the decline, for “at the time when kings go forth ... David abode at Jerusalem”, 2 Samuel 11:1. Then comes the great sin of David and the conviction of it, pointing to the history of Christendom since the breakdown. On the side of good we have in David a worshipper of God, and in Solomon a type of Christ viewed as Son coming into prominence, beloved of God; and on the side of evil we have Amnon and Absalom, the two evil features arising governmentally because of the failure of David. Chapter 14 begins with this state of affairs, the good and the bad moving together, as in Matthew 13 the wheat and the tares grow together.
Chapter 14 brings out, in Joab, an element that has its correspondence today, a combination of evil seeking to conceal itself in an outline of right procedure and words but still culminating in Absalom being re-established in favour, although he was a murderer; so that the combination of evil is very strong as this chapter shows. David represents the responsible element in the system, the professing body; this chapter brings out the elements combined in Joab which have place today.
Ques Is the enemy taking account of the disposition of the king’s heart, a wrong disposition?
JT That seems to be the fact. It says: “And Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was toward Absalom”. The king’s heart was in the wrong direction.
Ques Is this the same kind of sin as Adam’s? He acted with his eyes open, not sinning in ignorance [p. 115] but being influenced to do what he knew was not right.
JT That is right. You mean David knew Absalom was unrepentant.
Ques Will you say something more about the responsible element being sympathetic towards this kind of man publicly today?
JT I think these are the facts that govern the history of the assembly from the time of the breakdown. There has been a right element; the responsible element called the orthodox party has been with us from the earliest days, from the third century. In the main they were holding the truth but they inclined to the wrong man, he that is shown to be wrong, a murderer, although he ingratiated himself with the public leaders; he was historically a murderer and here is shown to be just a diplomat, a politician, currying favour with those in charge. Those in responsibility publicly are in the main right as to their principles, but secretly they have the wrong man. Joab had no love at all for Absalom, but David had, and Joab worked on David’s misplaced affection because David’s heart was toward Absalom. It was toward him, not toward judging him, for justice was not in exercise as seeking to get him back to deal with judicially; that was not his thought at all. David longed to go forth to Absalom, Joab worked on that; Joab is a combination of evil, well covered, but still there.
Ques Do you think that his heart being toward Absalom would indicate certain unjudged reservations such as we might have in regard to anything and which the enemy might kindle into flame at any time?
JT His reservations were evidently the outcome of his misplaced love for this murderer; it would have a correspondence in that way. Absalom was next in line to Amnon, and heir; but the sequel shows that he had a very undue place with David, for when [p. 116] he was slain David was more moved on account of him than he had been on account of Amnon who was murdered.
Ques Do you see this in the church’s history publicly, that as time goes on what is political will be combined with what is responsible?
JT I think the past history of the assembly affords us the anti-type of all this. The leaders who ruled in the Councils and did their best to encase the truth in the creeds were not governed by the Spirit of God in what they were doing, but still they were seeking to maintain the truth of Christianity in their way. But they afforded an opportunity for these elements to work. These elements are combined, for Joab is a combination: a murderer, a clever man, a military man, orthodox generally, but a known murderer. Now he is glossing that over and ingratiating himself with the king at the expense of the rights of Christ, the rights of the whole position; a murderer is to be brought back and reinstated in affection as heir, because the wise woman’s speech would imply that everything would hinge on this man, Absalom; everything hinged in her own mind on this son who murdered the other son; “they will quench my coal that is left”, she says. It is an allusion to Absalom as if everything is to depend on him. It was a clever move but all tending to one thing, that is antichrist; not to the antichrist personally, but to the characteristics of antichrist.
Rem That element is not dealt with finally until Christ Himself deals with it. If David had retained all his affections and right point of view in connection with the sonship of Solomon all would have been well.
JT Solomon was just a babe and Jehovah had signified that He loved him, and yet David seems to be moving toward Absalom. What a state of soul must have been there! It is seen in the history of the assembly, though in David personally here.
[p. 117] Rem In church history the letting go of sonship in its right form really makes room for antichrist.
JT This brings us back to what we were saying of chapter 12, bringing out from the failure a worshipper, and Solomon. These are the two outstanding good things. In the history of the assembly there was a remnant preserved but the general position was that the Creeds dealt with the sonship of Christ unspiritually. With the best of intentions they brought in falsifying principles to establish the truth of sonship and resorted to language that is utterly foreign to the divine vocabulary. They endeavoured to maintain orthodoxy but did not bring down Solomon to us. They had clever men in their ranks; take this woman, she is a wise woman, but what she has to say is put into her mouth by a schemer. David is the responsible man, and owned of God so far, but sorrowfully mixed in his mind and affections so that you marvel at him. Here is Solomon born, and David himself had been into the house of God and worshipped, accepting the death of the other child. Solomon is called Jedidiah because Jehovah loved him; this child is Christ in type, but evidently David is deflected. There is not another word about Solomon in this book, yet after Absalom’s death David mourns, “My son, my son!” overwhelmed with grief. So that you have in this woman a person available and amenable in the hands of a man like Joab.
Rem Abraham’s mind was on the wrong son but the woman in that case seemed to have the mind of God.
Rem In chapter 3 David admits that the sons of Zeruiah are too much for him; subsequently the sons of David are too much for him.
JT He is just throwing up his hands; it is a sorrowful situation. It would look as if the antitype is in mind in the history of Christendom, men seeking [p. 118] to maintain the truth and yet their mind is in this direction and they are capable of being influenced.
Rem And the illustration employed to influence David is in many respects similar to the one used by Nathan.
JT It was probably copied, the idea was borrowed. As usual what is of God is imitated. No doubt Joab knew all about Nathan’s parable and how successful he was; David never discerned what was in the parable until it was shown him. I have no doubt Joab saw that, and saw how David could be deceived and at the right time the truth brought home to him, for this woman breaks it to David as she proceeds. In verse 13 “the king is ... as one guilty”, she says and then she goes back to her own story about her own son; so that it looks as if it were the kind of thing that has come down in history, the copying by unspiritual men of what God is doing.
Ques When was David recovered from this state?
JT The book goes on to bring that out. You see him exiled from his capital, going up by the ascent of the Olives, weeping, barefoot, and worshipping on top of the mount; you can see how he must have recovered himself. But then, did he ever recover himself? He has to admit in chapter 23, “Although my house be not so before God”, 2 Samuel 23:5. He tells what a king should be but he does not say, I am that king. God puts it into his heart, but as ever, we have to turn to Christ; He is the only One who answers to what a king should be.
Ques Does the expression, “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ” (Matthew 1:1) in Matthew indicate that although He is not (typically) brought forward here, behind this the true person was held by Bathsheba, that is Jedidiah?
JT You mean Solomon was held? That is true. But I think another thing that would help us greatly in this history is the place Nathan has; he [p. 119] is the man who meets the whole issue, first in regard to building the house, that it must be built by a son; and then in regard to the kingship of Solomon when Adonijah was setting himself up. It was Nathan who met the issue. Bathsheba did not do it, she came in after Nathan. It is to bring out the importance of prophetic ministry; that is what God uses to meet all these issues.
Ques Was not Bathsheba sympathetic? Her love is referred to by Solomon.
JT She was sympathetic and Nathan immediately brings her in, or rather, he goes to the king and reminds him of his oath to Bathsheba; but she did not take the initiative, and she failed again in connection with Adonijah. She interceded for him, she was a poor affair herself, so that the whole issue hinged on Nathan’s ministry and that throws into prominence the importance of prophetic ministry today.
Rem The first mention we get of Nathan is in chapter 7 where he failed a little himself; he said, “Go, do all that is in thy heart” (2 Samuel 7:3).
Ques Why is he not mentioned through this whole section and in the succeeding chapters?
JT Well, he has done his work. I think it stands in relation to the sonship of Solomon, the Christ; that was his main work. How it fits in now, the place the prophetic word has! Solomon is undoubtedly the true son, alongside of whom we have the other sons, Amnon and Absalom, reputable heirs to the throne. I believe these are typically the men who have been pushed forward in Christendom; but they are not the full thought, it is Solomon whom God loves.
Rem The so-called orthodox church did not grasp the thought of sonship.
JT They really brought in the Word, the Logos, but parallel with that they brought in a son who was “[p. 120] begotten of the Father before all worlds”. It was a human idea introduced into the Creed and that is what we have had all these centuries. In chapter 11 Solomon is brought in as a babe, and God says, ‘I love him, I will give him a name’. That is what they had at the beginning with the apostles, for really the thought of sonship was in Paul; but it was lost in the creeds, and the creeds are 1,700 years old. Let anyone read them and he will see it.
Ques Matthew’s gospel refers much to the prophets; for instance, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”. (Matthew 2:15) Would that be in line with the fact that the prophetic word is used to point the way to the sonship of Christ?
JT It would. You have it typically in Genesis, in Isaiah and in Psalm 2. “Out of Egypt I called my son” was said by Hosea,(Hosea 11:1) and how much is made of that in Matthew! Joseph is taken up to protect Him; “take to thee the little child and his mother”, (Matthew 2:13) the angel says. What an object of supreme interest He is to heaven! Solomon is presented first of all through Nathan’s message and now he is an infant, called Jedidiah because Jehovah loved him. Matthew corresponds because the prophetic word is so stressed in Matthew.
Ques Is that why the Lord stresses the idea, “Then are the sons free” (Matthew 17:26)?
JT He is seen as the Son in chapter 16, and on the mount He is owned from heaven, and now He brings the sons into it at the end of chapter 17.
Ques Did David know that the Lord had called Solomon “Jedidiah”?
JT I should think so; if it were your son you would know it. Heaven thinks a lot about our sons.
Ques Why is the sonship of Christ stressed in Hebrews 1?
JT I suppose to deliver the Jewish Christians.
[p. 121] It is the great delivering thought; and so in Galatians, Judaism is legality but sonship is liberty.
Having spoken about the general thought of the chapter the next thing to look at is the character of this man Joab, because we shall find him in our own hearts, ingratiating himself with those in responsibility: “And Joab sent to Tekoah, and fetched thence a wise woman, and said to her, I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on mourning garments, I pray, and anoint not thyself with oil, but be as a woman that hath a long time mourned for the dead; and come to the king, and speak after this manner to him. And Joab put the words into her mouth”. We have not far to go to see this kind of thing; “a long time mourned for the dead”, an appeal to natural sentiment, a carefully designed appeal in the person herself to natural sentiment to arouse sympathy in David; and getting his sympathy aroused, gradually bringing in the thought behind it. The idea is to show that they are working with David according to what is in his heart; it is all to arouse natural feeling. That has been the public history of the assembly, natural feelings are appealed to in the kind of things brought forward; the very best of us is likely to be affected by this sort of thing, a carefully designed matter to affect the most spiritual. Look at the Romish system, how they dress themselves, these Joabs; they put on the kind of attire that appeals to natural sentiment. We have a picture here in which the leading elements are really murderers, a terrible situation. Think of the wonderful habiliments of the leaders of the great Romish system, and of the Greek church, and of the whole public body; they are all designed. Look at a nun, see her on the streets like a person mourning for the dead and there is not a ray of light in her countenance; it is all to appeal to natural sympathy and sentiment. We shall see how this woman flatters David. It is [p. 122] well worth looking into. Joab has carefully designed this, the kind of person he is using is not an ordinary person, not a disreputable person at all, she is wise; and the organisations of which we have spoken certainly go in for wisdom and learning, not a stone left unturned to make their appeal.
Rem This woman makes the matter commendable.
JT But she is serving a murderer and he is waiting to bring back a murderer; you see what David is contending with. The lesson is not to allow ourselves to be deceived by anything presented to our sentiments, philosophy and vain deceits, that sort of thing. It is “the mystery of iniquity”, and it has been going on all these centuries and we can see in the present state of things in Christendom that it is all ready to be unfolded; as soon as God lifts His hand it will be there.
Ques What about the beauty of Absalom?
JT That comes in too; it enabled him to steal the hearts of the men of Israel. But here it is a son; David said, “my son”, his heart is toward him. This woman’s subject is well chosen. So far as I can see David’s name is not mentioned in this chapter, it is “the king” right through, the person in authority So that she comes in in verse 4 and “fell on her face to the ground and did obeisance, and said, Save, O king!” and then she goes on and tells Joab’s story. Undoubtedly Joab had studied Nathan’s effort in his parable to reach David’s conscience, but he is not reaching David’s conscience, he is reaching only his natural sympathy and sentiment. This woman has no prophet’s garb. Joab knew well how to appeal, just like Satan; he knows so well how to attack on the line of what is natural.
Rem Jude speaks of those who creep in unawares, and I was thinking of the words about the plague of [p. 123] our own hearts; these things are not only in Christendom, they exist with us.
JT Satan studies us; he considered Job. Joab had well considered David, but I think on the line of nature, his natural propensities.
Ques Was Paul under these things a little in Acts 21? They appealed to his natural sentiments.
JT I daresay. We have several allusions to his adopting legal things, vows and all that, so that the most spiritual of us is exposed, and that is the lesson for us. Satan studies each of us, especially those who are more prominent, and his design is to use what will affect you.
Rem The second cry from the cross was the termination of the first man; entering into that would preserve us.
JT You feel that every morning, at least I do, particularly the daily taking up your cross. It is a solemn matter, the cross would save you from anything of this kind.
Ques What is your cross?
JT I think it refers to the particular kind of thing that affects you, do not evade it, take it up, it is protection.
Ques Of the two cries I suppose the first would be the judgment of sin and the second the judgment of self?
JT I think so; the first is sin in a general way, the full bearing of it, but the second is man dealt with judicially, set aside.
Ques Is it right for the king to acquit a murderer?
JT That is the whole point, David’s heart was toward a murderer. In the New Testament they chose a murderer instead of Christ. Here David is doing that. Why is he not content with the man God loves, Solomon the babe? He had named him Solomon, a man of peace, but it does not say that he loved him although undoubtedly he did. The type is [p. 124] what we are dealing with here, his mind is toward Absalom, that type of man.
Ques Would the constant reference to “the king” in this chapter in contrast to the earlier chapters suggest that God loves to see grace being dispensed righteously but that love is withheld when we dispense grace unrighteously?
JT You would rather be called by your name than by your official title. Personally I would rather be called by name.
Rem The Lord Jesus was as much beloved by the Father when He was on the cross as when He came out of Jordan. There was no change.
JT “Therefore doth my Father love me because”, John 10:17. He was giving Him a fresh motive for love.
Rem John’s epistles help us in this direction. John has much to do with antichrist but he says, “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding that we should know him that is true”, 1 John 5:20.
JT That is the whole point in John’s ministry, the Son of God, and that is what saves you from antichrist. John says: “these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God”, John 20:31. That is over against antichrist, that would save us.
Rem The testimony of the centurion to the Son of God was as if another world had come into that man’s thoughts.
JT This woman goes on to the idea of water poured on the ground; she rises in her remarks. In verse 12 she says: “Let thy bondmaid, I pray thee, speak a word to my lord the king”. She is bringing the matter home to him now like Nathan, and she continues until the king says in verse 11, “As Jehovah liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth”. She takes away the veil there,
[p. 125] she is really speaking to the king himself in verse 12, and then she comes back to her own affair. She can reach David, but not his conscience. Absalom was banished, rightly banished; he was a murderer. She is succeeding, and the lesson is that I should not be caught in that kind of snare, not to allow my natural feelings and sympathies to interfere with divine justice. She is insinuating to David, You are an old man, you are going to die, we are all like water spilt on the ground; you will need a man to rule this kingdom. That is what she inferred, and that David was not doing right to the people of God: “Why then hast thou thought such a thing against God’s people?” verse 13. It is an attack against the son, against Solomon, as it was later with Adonijah. In saying that we must needs die and are as water spilt on the ground which cannot be gathered up, she is saying what the orthodox Christians would say, but she has not got the thing right; the truth of resurrection is that water can be gathered up again. The water poured out and the sucking lamb pleased Jehovah, so that we have the thought of what pleases God. We are all to be raised up. This woman has in mind that we are all dying, but God “devises means”, she says, “that the banished one be not expelled from him”. Who is this banished one? I know this passage is often used in the gospel and you can use it in that way, for God does devise means, but if He brings a man back it is not without repentance. She had in her mind that a man should be brought back unrepentant, she does not hint at all that her own son should repent of his murder, she is blaming David.
Rem And David allows it, too. It is said that Absalom had been three years in Geshur, as if time would clear up matters.
JT There is not a word about Absalom making any expression of contrition at all. You get servants [p. 126] in the great denominations like this, truth mixed with error.
Rem The woman taken in sin accepted the second writing on the ground.
JT You might say that because the Lord said: “Neither do I condemn thee”, it was all right, but He adds, “Go, and sin no more”, John 8:11. He does not seem to have much confidence in her.
Rem David does not interfere with this woman’s subject, he gives her a lot of scope to go on with it.
JT Yes; what the ministers of the gospel are to preach is put into their mouths, that is the general idea.
Rem Sometimes assembly matters might be handled this way by the unspiritual, glossed over, half-finished, but there is bound to be trouble sooner or later.
Ques Would you say something about Absalom here?
JT That is the next thing. David discerned what was in mind, as it was designed that he should. Joab wanted to ingratiate himself with the man in authority, and that is the element that has come down to us.
Rem When Absalom returns Joab is slow to bring him to the king, and Absalom says in self-defence, “if there be iniquity in me, let him slay me”.
JT He knew well enough there was iniquity in him. He would probably say with the rest of them, “God have mercy on us, miserable sinners”, but he would never confess his own matter. Joab intended that David should discern what the woman meant, he knew David wanted Absalom back and he wanted David to know that he wanted Absalom back, but he would resort to this artifice to tell him, and it worked perfectly. David sends for Joab at once (verse 21) and says, “Behold now, I have done this thing; so go, bring back the young man Absalom”. That is a [p. 127] knavish thing. He knew well enough the man was guilty, but there he is, caught by the flattery of Joab. And then we get the beauty of Absalom, as if it might be said, Why should he not be desired? Why should we be deprived of such a fine man? There was no one like him in the whole kingdom. See, too, what it says as to his hair. He was not a Nazarite; he shaved his hair each year, and it weighed two hundred shekels after the king’s weight; it was an immense amount of hair, it would be about six pounds if you went by the ordinary weight of a shekel. I suppose he shaved it off because it was inconvenient. It is a young man in his beauty, with the attributes of the antichrist. These men that have risen suddenly into power are wonderful men: Napoleon, for example, was a superman; and so with all these men that are before us today; people marvel at them. That is the kind of thing noted here, his beauty and the weight of his hair; “But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him”, verse 25. Why should such a man be kept away? it might be asked. Why should we be deprived of a man like that? Then we are told that he had “three sons and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a woman of a beautiful countenance”. The whole position is very attractive. Where could there be a better man for the kingdom than this? that is the idea.
Rem This position can work in Absalom’s favour now he is in Jerusalem; he was relatively harmless in exile, but now he can work against David.
JT David is bringing Absalom back, but Solomon is to be used to displace him altogether. I believe the whole hierarchy of Christendom has worked on this line; they do not want to displace Christ exactly, nor do they want antichrist, but they have allowed the man that Absalom represents to have sway and [p. 128] now they have no power to deal with things. The Church of England cannot control even its own bishops; they can say anything they like and they cannot be disciplined.
Rem Absalom’s next act is to burn up Joab’s field of barley.
JT The allusion would be to the truth of Christ’s Person as first-fruits. It is Joab’s barley field, it is the way he would look at Christ; that is an allusion I think to the Church of England. I believe the framers of the Creed and the liturgy earnestly wanted to preserve the truth as they saw it. Joab was an orthodox man and he had a field of barley, but it was near Absalom’s field, an orthodox man alongside of one who is a type of antichrist; there was no separation, so that the Romish Church and the Church of England and all the other churches are near each other. This man who represents antichrist burns up this field and they are not able to protect it. It is very solemn to see how this man when once brought back, though not yet recognised by the ruling authorities (David had not kissed him yet), is able to accomplish so much in lawlessness.