2 SAMUEL 15
JT It has come before us that these last few chapters of 2 Samuel foreshadow in a typical way the public history of the assembly. We have seen the evil that came in through David’s sin and the sins of his two sons, particularly that of Absalom, pointing to history in the assembly which has culminated in room being made for antichristian principles, Absalom representing this. Chapter 14 brings out these features. There were orthodox ones, such as Joab, who paved the way for the return of Absalom, a banished murderer; now as returned he [p. 129] has ingratiated himself with the king and is recognised by David. David is the man in authority so that this chapter would bring before us that feature, the antichristian element in control in a rebellious way. Absalom is not exactly the antichrist, typically, but an antichrist, representing the principles beforehand. He was not allowed to continue in his rebellion but he particularly paved the way for the apostasy of Christendom, the incoming of antichrist, for antichrist is perhaps more religiously than politically against Christ.
Ques Is this more political here?
JT It would be. It is a question of the kingdom, of course. We shall notice as we go on how Absalom had recourse to everything that would make him great, make him attractive to the people. He prepared chariots and horses and fifty men to run before him, and rose early and stood before the gate; “and it was so, that when any man who had a controversy had to come to the king for judgment, then Absalom called him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said. Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel. And Absalom said to him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man to hear thee appointed by the king. And Absalom said. Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man who has any controversy and cause might come to me, and I would do him justice! And it was so, that when any man came near to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand and took him and kissed him. And in this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment; and Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel!”
I think that paragraph is very striking. It would apply to the present time, great care to make those who represent antichrist very attractive to the natural mind; and then putting himself forward unfairly, saying that no one was appointed by the [p. 130] king, as if government was ignored and he must take it on.
Ques Would Adonijah be on the same footing?
JT Yes. Of course David had a double office, he had a ministerial office Godward in a spiritual way as well as a political office. Applying it as we are looking at it now it is more the religious side that is in mind, because in the history of the assembly it is the kingdom in a spiritual sense; that is the sense in which the kingdom is in us now, and following on that the service of God.
Ques Is it a feature of antichrist that he had a previous link with what was right?
JT I think that is right. It is not a man coming in openly from heathendom, but one who has had a place amongst us.
Ques Do you place this chapter in the early dispensations or in times of recovery?
JT It covers a long period. The first thing to observe is that David is still there, the right man. I think we have to take him as typical of what is of God, only exercised in a very weak way, wholly out of keeping with what he had been. One wonders at what happened within a generation, why he should have become so negligent, undiscerning and weak; but the picture is drawn of the typical man rather than as the mere history of David. You marvel how all this could happen before his eyes and he not discern it, a man with such a history as his was; so that it would be more the antitype we have to look at. The real David is still here so it might extend back to the early history of the assembly.
Ques What about Absalom putting himself forward?
JT The way is made for him through Joab’s shrewdness; not that he wished Absalom to be in power, because he did not join him in his rebellion; but he thought that David wished him back, and he [p. 131] would ingratiate himself with David. Although Absalom remained two years without recognition he finally obtained it, and now he is free. So that this spirit of antichrist is allowed to be there as indicated in his making himself attractive to the religious mind; for he is David’s son, he has that status. What would there be in this if it were a mere history of a monarch? It must point a lesson to us, for “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our instruction” (Romans 15:4).
Rem It would stress the fact that there is nothing greater really in the whole range of time than the assembly. These various happenings all throw light on the glorious history of the church.
JT “Upon whom the ends of the ages are come”, 1 Corinthians 10:11; that is, all the dispensations before throw light on us, the assembly. The apostles represented the authority of Christ, so that it would be the apostolic times and testimony carried down, only now things are weak, unaccountably so in the main, like David.
Rem In Acts 20 Paul speaks about what will transpire “after my departure”. Did his presence hold evil forces back?
JT I should say apostolic power held them back. Paul speaks of certain ones creeping in and John sees them going out; John’s ministry deals with them abstractly. “They went out from among us, but they were not of us”, 1 John 2:19.
Rem The word ‘creeping’ is significant, a word attached to that part of the creature kingdom that creeps, unnoticed possibly. I was wondering whether unjudged evil that may come in to a certain extent unnoticed does not eventually recoil on those who are set to go on with God? The allowance of Absalom’s return, the demeanour of Joab in ingratiating himself with David, all that will eventually recoil on the real, on David, and overthrow [p. 132] him.
JT Each man has to see to his own heart. Absalom “stole the hearts of the men of Israel”. “Keep thy heart with all diligence”, (Proverbs 4:23) we are told. If these people coming up to the gate had been true to the principles set out in David and to the spirit of David they would have discerned that this man did not represent that at all. We are carried away by not keeping our hearts with all diligence. Absalom is evidently making a way for himself. He says, Here is a man coming up with a good case, he is of one of the tribes of Israel and should be properly cared for; it is a discredit to David, why does David allow it? Could David not see what was happening? Of course, if you look back on the history of Christendom, the Council men were there with the best intentions, but then reading the history you can see that they were allowing this sort of thing in — philosophy and vain deceit. The Creeds began to be formed under those circumstances. There were some who were right, like Athanasius, one could mention several, and yet this was allowed; it is the weakness of the responsible element in men.
Rem When one important mistake has been made Satan knows judgment will be undermined. Really the judgment of the princes of the ecclesiastical system has been no good all down.
JT The so-called ‘fathers’ were godly men, but some of them missed their way; some were contemporary with John, perhaps a little later, but you marvel at the great deterioration in their writings, how quickly they changed after the apostles died! I think that is what is meant here in David’s unaccountable weakness. Why did he allow this man liberty? It was easy to see that Absalom was aiming at the throne; why did David not see it? It is only accountable by applying it to antichrist. These men allowed philosophy and vain deceit, what the apostles decried. Certain of themselves [p. 133] would arise and on the other hand there were those who would creep in unnoticed. We have to understand the features of the agencies the enemy uses; the serpent was the first creature of God that was used by the devil; at least, he appeared as a serpent himself. That sort of thing has to be watched.
Rem To-day we are in the presence of the defeat of all Ahithophel’s counsel; now things are transparent and the Spirit of God is helping us in the truth.
JT That is what marks the closing days, in which we clearly are. It is wonderful to be in the clear light. But you marvel at the murkiness that marked everything here, that this man should go forward and invite two hundred men only to pay a vow; how could that not be observed?
Ques Do you think the ‘Image of Jealousy’ might be like Absalom here? Sitting in the gate it was as if he would dispute the rights of David; he would make gain of the interests of God in Jerusalem.
JT Quite so, it would arouse jealousy in any spiritual man. He was a murderer yesterday, and still a murderer, yet he is sitting in the gate, and not a word said about it. Why should it be written, if it be not the history of the assembly as we are speaking of it?
Rem I suppose we are exposed more or less to the same thing. In Acts 20 the Holy Spirit made them overseers; these godly ones watched.
JT We need the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ, the very opposite of Absalom’s spirit, which is that of antichrist. John makes much of discerning spirits.
Rem John discerns Diotrephes as loving to have the first place. He says, “If I come I will bring to remembrance his works”, 3 John 10.
JT Quite so, John discerns. The apostles had keen discernment. Paul sees certain ones coming in and certain ones rising up, and John sees them going out because “they were not of us”, 1 John 2:19. He sees the power that deals with all this sort of thing at the root.
Rem Watching seems to be essential. Paul speaks of watching day and night for the space of three years. There is the wall position and the gate position and we are to be the watchmen. This man is sitting quite openly in the gate.
JT Quite so. The prophet says “I have set watchmen upon thy walls, Jerusalem; all the day and all the night they shall never hold their peace; ye that put Jehovah in remembrance, keep not silence”, Isaiah 62:6. And the Lord said: “What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch”, Mark 13:37. There was a great absence of watchfulness here.
Ques Do you think David was carried away by Absalom’s desire to go to Hebron to fulfil a vow, probably one of his insidious ways?
JT There is a remarkable combination of elements. A handsome man to begin with, a wonderful head of hair, a head matter, a man of that kind. The head has a great place with these men. Then he would get down alongside people and kiss them, he would stoop to do that, and then he would say to them, There is nobody appointed by the king to attend to your matters. That is injecting poison into the men’s minds. Then he would add, “Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man who has any controversy and cause might come to me, and I would do him justice!” meaning, I would do what people need. All that is very insidious; he “stole” the hearts of men; that is a trait of the devil. Then he pretends that he had made a vow, that he was a religious man in Geshur, instead of coming back and confessing his sins. How could God accept a vow from a murderer? What kind of vow was that!
Rem Verse 8 is really the bargain of a murderer.
[p. 135] I will come back into fellowship, I will skip over everything to get back.
JT There is not a word about contrition or self-judgment at all, it is foreign to this man.
Rem David seems to have accepted the news without any investigation as to why it should come so suddenly upon him, and today people are accepting modernism, without any investigation.
JT And then too, where is Nathan in all this? Where are the priests, why are they not active? The whole position seems to point to something other than this actual situation, because ordinarily Nathan was a true and faithful man; he never missed his way so far as we know. It seems as if the prophetic ministry was not allowed a place under these circumstances, for Nathan and Gad were both available.
Rem We should accept the challenge; it is one thing to have the heart stolen and another to have it won.
JT Solomon coming in after this should be a help to all of us, especially the young people, because he is son of David. He says, “Son, give me thine heart”;(Proverbs 23:26) and “Keep thine heart”; and, “Write it upon the tables of thine heart”.
Rem I suppose Deuteronomy 24:7 is the same idea, “If a man be found who has stolen one of his brethren”. Not that we can steal one another literally, applying it to ourselves, but on party lines we can.
JT In the chapters in Exodus that follow the account of the Hebrew bondman, who is unselfish and loves to the uttermost, the spirit of stealing is met. Exodus 21, Exodus 22 and Exodus 23, the three chapters that follow, allude to what we are dealing with here, the history of the saints immediately following the full testimony of love in Christ. The spirit of stealing [p. 136] comes in and it is remarkable how stealing is dealt with.
Rem There was some lack in those that had their hearts stolen, because when Absalom approached them they did not investigate to see if what he said about their cases was really true. And yet Absalom was outside the gate as they came up to the city. Had they investigated further they would have found possibly that there was judgment.
JT Quite so. Why should I not go to the king? Why should I be stopped by a man like this? He has no appointment, he is self-constituted. Is not that the history of the clergy? They have no divine appointment at all.
Rem So many things have had to be looked into because it has suited a great many very well to disregard the matter of judgment; they get along better without looking things in the face.
JT As they came up to the gate of Jerusalem here is a fine looking man; but he has no appointment from the king. Why did he not say, The king has appointed me? He could not, he was self-constituted.
The whole clerical hierarchical system is self-constituted; it has taken on everything and has gradually shut out the true David and Absalom is allowed in. As a matter of fact, the emperor who presided over the Council of Nicaea was not even baptised! If I had been there with the present light I would have said, What about Paul’s epistles? What about 1 and 2 Timothy? Is there no man such as Paul today, are there no deacons, no elders? No, the real David is left out and these men are self-constituted.
Rem There is a man who reports to David in verse 13.
JT Yes, but where are true men? Is there no godly man in Hebron? Not a sound, not a voice is lifted up to challenge this conduct of Absalom! It is true the man brought word to David, but why did [p. 137] the thing go on so long? That is why it seems to me that the whole setting must apply to something else.
Rem And the boldness of it too, he really puts his hand on the throne, he is reaching right up to the throne.
JT It is my responsibility to check this evil at the roots. Where are these men who ought to be doing it? Even David does not lift a voice when Absalom speaks of going to Hebron, he says, “Go in peace”. There seems no one to lift up a voice in warning, no one like the house of Chloe.
Rem There were those who went in their simplicity, who “knew nothing”, verse 11. They are not much good.
JT They had not their ears to the ground.
Ques What do you think about pleading ignorance in the midst of difficult issues; what is the reason for it?
JT They are not pleading it here. The Spirit of God tells us what spiritual condition was there. Did none of the men notice the peculiar way Absalom was carrying on?
Rem This is so different from David’s activities in the previous book; it is a direct contrast to his activities in connection with Nabal; his servant then was moving on the lines of “tell it to the assembly”, Matthew 18:17. Abigail was brought in and the matter was adjusted.
JT The man who brought the news to Abigail was not behind the time; he prevented a catastrophe But this man was too late with his news. Why did he not bring it earlier?
Rem Commit these things “to faithful men”, the apostle says. He did not contemplate committing things to any official class.
JT This man undoubtedly would be one of the faithful ones, but what strikes you is that there was no voice lifted earlier. These two hundred that Absalom took must have been distinguished men or [p. 138] he would not have invited them; they would be leading brothers, and they did not know anything. Why do we not know? If we have assembly ears we shall know what is going on.
Rem Absalom lowered the standard. He would not ask, ‘Is thy heart right with my heart?’ He would merely kiss the man, there was no challenge for his heart.
JT Absalom is only concerned to ingratiate himself with these men. A good or bad conscience does not mean anything to him.
Rem I think this should help in the matter of saluting people; it has caused a lot of concern. The motive behind must unquestionably be the thing to test us; if you are going to greet these people in a ‘hail fellow, well met’ manner, that is not Christian saluting at all.
JT And we must remember that whilst Absalom comes down to them and kisses them he is still a man who has fifty men to run before him; he is like a church dignitary, he may come down but he is still a great man.
Rem After a capture like this you can understand why the reformers went to the other extreme and called the pope the antichrist.
JT That is a point, too, in the history of the church; John says there are many antichrists, but we know that the antichrist is yet to come. Whatever people may say about men living today, no one of them is the antichrist. But there are men with the spirit of antichrist. Rome has carried on that spirit for centuries. There is a revival now and some testimony to Christ. It says in verse 13: “And there came one to David who reported saying, The hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom”. It is not a casual remark, it is a report; it must be some voice lifted up by God, like Antipas, for instance, that is against the general state of things.
[p. 139] We now come to the real David so that in verse 14 “David said to all his servants that were with him at Jerusalem, Rise up and let us flee; for we shall not else escape from Absalom. Be quick to depart, lest he overtake us quickly, and bring evil upon us, and smite the city with the edge of the sword”. This is a wise move because there was no time to spare. His true military instincts are aroused at once. If he had remained in Jerusalem and mustered his, forces (because he had them) there would have been civil war, whereas time brought about the overthrow of Absalom. The more time you give, the more the real thing is brought to light. “It is universally reported”, etc., 1 Corinthians 5:1. The report is instituted by God to bring the real state of things to light.
Absalom is at the bar of every conscience in Jerusalem now. That is what the report says, “The hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom”. He had appointed that there should be a trumpet sound: “When ye hear the sound of the trumpet, ye shall say, Absalom reigns in Hebron. And with Absalom went two hundred men out of Jerusalem that were invited; and they went in their simplicity, and they knew nothing”. But here is a faithful man reporting the thing, reporting the actual state of things. This is the real issue, we are on safe ground now, it is a known issue now. The person who returned to David placed the information where it ought to be, just as in the case of Nabal’s servant; he told Abigail about Nabal’s actions and in doing so he told her what kind of man Nabal was. That is, the whole matter was now in the hands of the assembly. But it is not the assembly here, it is the king; he is the only one to save the position because he is the real David yet. The real Christ yet has some place, and this report is brought about for good so that there is ground for the battle.
Rem “In that day will Jehovah of hosts be ...
[p. 140] for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate”, Isaiah 28:5. Absalom and his gate have now been displaced.
JT Turning the battle to the gate is where the solution lies. David is equal to this report, he is no longer apathetic, the whole position is to be changed through him. I think David’s move was wise; Jerusalem saved is the whole position in David’s mind. This is a rebellion, but the position is not to be changed; it is Christ and the assembly still; the report brings that into evidence. These hearts must be recovered, so that David is ready for all this and I think his procedure is wise.
Rem What appeared to be defeat is victory.
JT He would not allow the ark to be carried with him; the position is Jerusalem or nothing. It cannot be a party matter. It is Christ and the assembly in this dispensation, or nothing; let us never be diverted from that. That is what David has in mind. If I have to go let the ark be there; God will bring me back if He is pleased with me. The ark represents the whole mind of God, there is never any change in that; it was never larger or smaller or of any different shape. It is “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and to the ages to come”,
(Hebrews 13:8). We may have to view it in an abstract way but we must hold on to that and God will give us victory on these lines. Some might say, Why should we recognise Jerusalem? Let them come out here to Antioch and fight it out here. But it must be Jerusalem. Paul says, “I went up by revelation”, Galatians 2:2. God told him to go up. So that the battle ground is there, the ark is there. Stand by it!
Ques Does that fit in today with the thought of moral rather than positional victory as attaching to Jerusalem? In holding to the idea of Jerusalem morally we accept the humiliation, and are regarded [p. 141] as not holding to anything much; but in our hearts and minds and spirits we are holding to everything.
JT “David said to all his servants that were with him at Jerusalem, Rise up and let us flee; for we shall not else escape from Absalom. Be quick to depart, lest he overtake us quickly, and bring evil upon us, and smite the city with the edge of the sword”, verse 14. Yet Jerusalem is the right position. Well, you say, you are leaving the position; but it is not so. This is the first move, it is a military move, and so it says, “We shall not else escape”; that is the first thing. God had given him that advantage. Take every advantage away from the enemy that is possible. What a change in David here! It is the real David now with his servants and they are ready to do what he bids them. “And the king went forth and all his household after him”, verse 16. Then, “The king went forth, and all the people after him, and stayed at the remote house. And all his servants passed on beside him; and all the Cherethites, and all the Pelethites, and all the Gittites, six hundred men that came after him from Gath, passed over before the king”, verse 17, 18. See what a David we have now! And there is not a dissenting voice. We have the real issue now with the real David, and the sequel shows that God was in all this.
Rem Why does David say, “If I shall find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, he will bring me again?”
JT I think in reading through this chapter it would show that it is the real David now and we have to wait for the sequel to see whether what has been done is right. Very often we have to do that in our troubles; the issue shows whether the course has been right. Here is one man who has just come yesterday, and he is willing to go up. We have now come to the pass of the brook Kidron as a symbol of death. It is a real test now as to where we are in this issue.
[p. 142] Rem David crossed in verse 23, and he said, “But if he thus say, I have no delight in thee; behold here am I, let him do to me as seemeth good to him”, verse 6.
JT I think that is very beautiful.
Rem It is not a personal matter with David. No matter how great the issue he does not regard it as personal, it is a question of God’s interests.
JT Yes, it was a question of God. He said to Zadok the priest in verse 27, “Thou art the, seer”. That is an important remark, he gives him his place. David never put anybody like this away from him. Gad was David’s seer; it was his salvation that he would allow a man like that near him, a man who would rebuke him. And then he says, “return into the city in peace, and your two sons with you, Ahimaaz thy son, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar. See, I will stop in the plains of the desert until there come word from you to inform me. And Zadok and Abiathar carried the ark of God again to Jerusalem; and they abode there”, verse 27 - 29. David had said in verse 25, “If I shall find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, he will bring me again, and show me it, and its habitation”. I think that is very remarkable too, in these circumstances. David sees the whole position; God’s choice, Jerusalem and God’s ark, are everything. And if God shall delight in David He will bring him back and show him it and its habitation. The ark is more than David. It is like the apostles taking the official side, Christ working in His people. “The same yesterday, and today, and to the ages to come”, Hebrews 13:8; no change in that. That is what I think he has in mind when he says that if God delights in him He will show him it and its habitation. That is salvation in every crisis. I do not take up a party attitude, it is not worth it. There is only one issue, Christ; the official Christ in rejection, but working through His people — that is Jerusalem; and the [p. 143] testimonial Christ — that is the Ark, the unchallengeable thing that cannot be altered.
Rem David, is a man of real feeling, he would not cause unnecessary slaughter. If we were really men of God we would not want to see the saints divided.
Rem In verse 30 he seems to be more with God than hitherto. He wept as he went up the mount of Olives, barefoot. Is not that an important point at this time, bringing in a spiritual element that provides David with necessary light for the moment?
JT I am sure there is light in that. It is one of the best sections of the chapter.
Rem Could you say a little more about the testimony, what is here in testimony? Is that what is held in the hearts of the saints?
JT It is the ark and nothing else. It never changed. Things were put into it I know, but the size never changed. There can be no change in what is testified to, no addition and no subtraction in Christ.