2 SAMUEL 20
JT The last paragraph of chapter 19 links on with our present chapter, because it calls attention to the friction that arose between Judah and the ten tribes. The man of Israel said, “Why have our [p. 213] brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away? ... And all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, Because the king is near of kin to me; and why then are ye angry for this matter? ... And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah and said, I have ten parts in the king and I have also more right in David than thou; and why didst thou slight me? and was not my advice the first, to bring back my king? And the words of the men of Judah were harsher than the words of the men of Israel”, 2 Samuel 19:41 - 43. The separation of the kingdom is strikingly asserted: first, Judah says, “the king is near of kin to me”. They spoke in the singular; and then the men of Israel said, “I have ten parts in the king”. The division is strikingly marked off; they are both saying “I” or “me”.
AR Do you mean they are partisan?
JT Clearly so. I think that is what underlies this chapter. It was very pronounced.
Rem It is remarkable that in the outcome of the history of the tribes, these ten were first in the division against the house of David. Although they went through the reign of Solomon, the seed of discord was evidently already in their hearts.
JT Yes. It lay in the sovereign selection of God centering on Judah. Divine selection is sure to create rivalry unless we are subject and recognise God’s rights in it.
Rem Love should be in operation to meet it.
JT That should be the concern of all of us. We get in Ezekiel 37, “And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, And thou, son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it. For Judah, and for the children of Israel, his companions. And take another stick, and write upon it. For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions. And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thy hand. And when the [p. 214] children of my people speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not declare unto us what thou meanest by these? say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hands of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions, and will put them with this, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in my hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thy hand before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them from every side, and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all”, Ezekiel 37:15 - 22. That is unity — a fine result of the work of God.
CAM There seems to be a very different principle working here.
JT Very lamentable conditions. I mean the result of David’s weakness affording Joab a free hand is very sorrowful. It is not like what was read in Ezekiel; here it is a politician and murderer gaining the upper hand. There is not much hope. He represents the tribe of Judah, too. Judah had allied itself with Absalom in the rebellion and were slow in bringing the king back, and now they are making much of the fact that David is near of kin.
TA I suppose those in Corinth who said, “We are of Christ”, would be the worst of the parties there.
JT They must have thought carefully in taking on the name of Christ for their party. It did not make them cease to be a party, but gave them more prestige.
ABP Is the step from Romans to Colossians one which is definitely attacked by the enemy?
[p. 215] I had in mind that the epistle to the Corinthians seems to come in there. There may be the individual work pursued to a great extent in the saints, but the setting of that work together should function assembly-wise. It seems to be the crucial point here that the enemy attacks. This is the Jordan area.
JT Yes. It is a crucial position. It is to the credit of Judah that they clave to their king from the Jordan to Jerusalem. The test seems to come in just there.
Ques Does chapter 19 expose a weak underlying state in the men of Israel?
JT Quite so. They had not behaved any worse than the tribes of Judah in the rebellion, with the exception of Shimei, perhaps. I think their state is shallow. I think the ten tribes represent a shallow position among the people as over against those who are the subjects of and recognise sovereignty.
Rem They go after Sheba; chapter 20:2.
JT The last paragraph in chapter 19 lays the basis for this. The enemy had this man ready; it says he was there. “And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite”; he was there. It does not seem a premeditated thing, as was Absalom’s revolt, but a sudden attempt of the devil through one man — evidently a man that knew the shallowness of the ten tribes. He appeals to them. “He blew a trumpet, and said, We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, Israel”, verse 1. He must have been a suitable agent of the devil at this juncture. He happened to be there. It does not seem to be premeditated, but as if Satan had his agent to make a sudden thrust against the position.
AFM What would be the significance of his trumpet? He blew a trumpet. At the end of the [p. 216] chapter Joab blew a trumpet. Is there any significance in that?
JT It somewhat characterised Joab to blow a trumpet. David had the trumpet blown in relation to the ark — in relation to the service of God.
AFM Was there supposed authority at the back of this?
JT That would be the aim of it. It would have influence where there was no moral influence. He could not have had any moral influence; the sequel shows he had not.
AR The enemy takes advantage of a state. A low state is existent in the people, so that they immediately follow a wrong lead. “Then all the men of Israel went up from after David, following Sheba the son of Bichri”. They are prepared to give up David and follow a wrong lead.
JT Partisan conditions can always be affected in this way. Paul knew what to say to affect the Pharisees in the council. “I am a Pharisee, son of Pharisees”, he says; (Acts 23:6). They say, There is nothing wrong in that man. He appealed to their partisan sentiments.
Ques Do you regard Sheba as a product of the state of the people?
JT He is an agent of the devil. He is said to be a man of Belial. He happens to be there, but from the devil’s viewpoint, it was arranged. But he understands, evidently, the shallowness of the affection in the ten tribes for David. “I have ten parts in the king”, 2 Samuel 19:43. You do not love a man in parts; you love the man himself. Paul says, “Is the Christ divided?” 1 Corinthians 1:13. They said they had ten parts in David. Could anyone love ten parts of David?
Rem Of Judah it is said that David was their king.
JT Yes; and they clave to him. “But [p. 217] the men of Judah clave to their king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem”. It was a steady pace; no wavering. That was to their credit as over against the shallowness of the others.
JTJr Does that represent the element that would cleave to the authority of Christ — the sceptre and law-giver in connection with Judah?
JT Yes. In this chapter one person after another comes before the mind; and now these harsh words. This is a serious situation. Not all the men of Judah were harsh; there were some godly men there, undoubtedly. One can understand some saying, This is a serious matter. We must cleave to the king at all cost, whatever our feelings are. I think the harsh words provoked this condition. Undoubtedly the condition was there; and this man happened to be there, and Satan is using him.
Rem So that we should be balanced in relation to assembly investigation, the care meeting coming into the matter, a brother may not be himself; he may get angry, and we may misjudge the whole position by that act of harshness; whereas in this respect it is a question of what the brother is characteristically.
JT Yes. And if a brother is right generally but fails in some detail he would himself detect it at once. Some of us were speaking of the different sinners contemplated in Leviticus 4. There is a list, inclusive of the high priest, the whole assembly, the princes and the common people. If the high priest sinned there is nothing said of the sin coming to his knowledge. Typically, he would be spiritual, and thus he would be sensitive and judge his sin at once. If a spiritual man makes an error, normally he corrects himself at once. Like Samuel: he erred in regard to Jesse’s sons in the selection of a king; but he quickly recovered himself. The suggestion here is that Judah had more spiritual wealth than the ten tribes; and [p. 218] the more we have in these circumstances, the more quickly we shall right ourselves. If something happens that is unexpected and might cause a cleavage amongst us, the man of spiritual wealth is likely to right himself more quickly than others. Although the men of Judah spoke harshly, they would say to themselves, The king is now the issue; we must not let side-issues come up. It is said, “the men of Judah clave to their king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem”. That was the salvation of the position.
AR Chapter 19 might suggest following with the ten tribes, but chapter 20 indicates that those of Judah were adjusted quickly in regard to what was partisan.
JT That is what I was thinking. The king was the issue, not what they had said or done.
APT Is Paul an instance of that in Acts 23? He says, “God will smite thee, whited wall”, Acts 23:3. But he quickly recovers himself.
JT Quite so. “I was not conscious, brethren, that he was high priest”, (Acts 23:5) was Paul’s answer.
ABP Are there two elements that appear in a crisis: those who accept the issue, and those who stay at home from the meetings? “every man to his tents, Israel”.
JT Those who recognise the issue move in relation to it. Suppose the men of Judah had gathered themselves together and attacked Sheba at once: there would have been another civil war, which God was not immediately ordering, and a diversion from the great issue, which was David coming back to his house. He is on his way to his house: and this great event must not be thwarted. That is the great thing — what Christ is doing: what He has in mind. Thus “the men of Judah clave to their king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem”. Antitypically, the kingship of Christ, the headship of Christ and other offices He fills enter into all this;
[p. 219] also the Person, of Christ, and His return to His house. David filled the scene: he was going back to Jerusalem, steadily going there. Hence although Judah gave occasion for bitter feelings, they adjusted themselves. Instead of following up their harsh words with harsher ones, they clave to their king on the way to his great objective.
Ques Is Gilgal in line with recovery here? They were recovered to David as king at Gilgal and the Jordan.
JT Quite so. Recovery ought to take place quickly if we are spiritual. This evidently happened in the neighbourhood of Gilgal. Can David be diverted and can confusion be thrown into the camp? That is the enemy’s effort here. The men of Judah might have been harsher; there is good cause for it now. They simply clave to their king.
Ques Do you think the ten tribes would be governed by feelings that are wrought upon; natural feelings?
JT There is no doubt that Satan knew what was there: there was a cleavage. It was manifest at the end of chapter 19; and now Satan, through this man, is taking advantage of it and he appeals to the idea of parts — the party thought. That is, Christ divided. Every spiritual man would say, There is only one king. Christ is not divided; we shall cleave to Him.
Rem These same statements are used again later on in Kings where the division of the tribes takes place. The same words are used: “What portion have we in David?” (1 Kings 12:16).
JT This was designed by the devil, because there was a want of real affection for David.
Rem You see the devil working through this whole section. Is the enemy energetically working to divide the saints?
JT Exactly. It is to bring out what the enemy is [p. 220] doing through the bad state of the people and the poor resistance to him. There is want of power in David to meet all this. David does not do anything at the beginning of Sheba’s revolt; he does not say anything. He goes on to Jerusalem; but the point is the men of Judah clave to him. They go through. When he gets to Jerusalem he does say something about Sheba; but he is determined to deal with the manifest evil in Joab. He calls Amasa and Abishai, but he is not reaching his end. So that I think the lack of moral weight and strength in us is shown up in such crises and the enemy gets a great advantage. The cabinet, as it is formed at the end of chapter 20, implies defeat, for Joab is over all the host of Israel. The whole position is in this respect defective.
AR Does not verse 11 show that one of Joab’s young men was a partisan, too? He puts Joab ahead of the king: “He that favours Joab, and he that is for David, let him follow Joab”, and this murderer is at the head of the list.
JT Yes, Joab is now exposed as a wicked man and thus liable at any time to be the enemy’s agent. In the final settlement of the kingdom we have a murderer at the head of the officers. That is a terrible thing after all this exercise. In a typical sense, this state of things bears on the history of the assembly.
ANW Judah’s act in cleaving to the king is good; but at the moment are you suggesting that the leader is at fault?
JT The king is weak. He has in his mind that Joab must be put out of the way, but he cannot do it. He is putting up a man that had not proved himself. Amasa had been a rebel; and Abishai is a regular Joab man; and Joab comes into the position again, a murderer twice.
Ques Why do you think David is weak in dealing with Joab? Because he had not reached self-judgment in regard to [p. 221] Mephibosheth?
JT That is one item. But then the sword was not to depart from his house; the government of God comes in. We have had this matter up before — that of David’s weakness. Why is it that a man of such military skill and wisdom and ability should have allowed the reign of Absalom? The answer seems to be found in the antitype of this whole matter — the history of the assembly. We have a crisis in any given place and the result is that after all the Lord has not had the whole matter in His hands. We have not been with Him in the thing, clear of ourselves. Undoubtedly there was some feeling in David against Joab because of the harsh way he had treated him. Perhaps there was resentment which made him determined to set aside Joab at this juncture. The result is the enemy gets an advantage. I may be so set on some particular thing that affects me. that I may open the door to the enemy.
Ques Is the assembly referred to as setting forth this?
JT I think the history of the assembly is in mind. Joab was extremely harsh to David; inexcusably harsh, as seen in chapter 18. That was a personal matter really. In truth David provoked that. He was so weak in his conduct that he provoked Joab there. If he had judged that he would have been saved from any personal resentment, but he is so set on disciplining him in the army that he takes up Amasa and Abishai and they both fail him. Militarily, Joab is the man for the moment, but he maintained his place through murder. God would deal with that as He did through Solomon, not through David. In the meantime Joab puts down Sheba’s rebellion and remains over the host of Israel.
AR You are speaking of Joab as a responsible element?
JT That is it. I may be concerned about something personal during a great crisis, something that [p. 222] affects me personally. I believe David was so affected here. He was below his kingship. He is floundering about to discipline Joab and he is not succeeding.
Rem Solomon says there is a time for everything.
JT Just so. You might have to leave a thing to another and God will give opportunity to deal with it. The time has not come. David was not dealing with Joab’s case at all, because the result is Joab is over all the host of Israel. That is a poor thing for David.
CAM Do you think that down through the various stages of church history the weak element of rule and all the consequent sorrows are really due to some kind of personal feeling, or some selfish end to be reached? And so the fact is stressed that being set for Christ, personally and only, is our safety.
JT That is the issue. The king was coming back to his house, and in this sense he is a type of Christ, but in many other features he represents weakness, as is evidenced in these chapters.
RWS “They arranged that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others from amongst them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question”, Acts 15:2. Is that in line?
JT It is. Some might say that the matter could have been settled in Antioch. You can understand friends of Paul saying, Why must we go to Jerusalem? You know, people speak in that way. Why cannot we settle it here? We have spiritual men here. But God would not have it that way. Paul and Barnabas had to go to Jerusalem, seemingly at a disadvantage, but it was a success. God made it a success.
AR I suppose what you are saying helps us as to the defects at Corinth. The apostle has nothing to say to the leaders. He was promoting unity.
JT At the close of Paul’s last letter he deals drastically with the men who were against the truth [p. 223] and against him. At the beginning of the first letter he asks, “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13).
APT I was thinking that in a similar way the matter of circumcision was settled in the meeting spoken of in Acts 15; but it still remained for Peter individually to be wholly right as to the matter in question. Paul could have said, We will look into persons first and see how they stand; but Peter’s case was to come up later.
JT If it had come up at Jerusalem I do not think Paul would have rebuked him. We must avoid personal motives no matter how right we may feel ourselves to be. The issue is Christ, some feature of Christ, His kingship, sonship, headship — keep to that. And if there is something wrong in some person in regard to me, God will bring about a battle-field for that.