2 SAMUEL THREE
2 SAMUEL THREE
JT There is a spiritual movement in mind here, David giving the main lead in it. Other elements that may be operative are allowed to show themselves. These elements are led, on the one hand by Abner and on the other by Joab, each leader having himself in mind. It would seem as if from verse 8 of chapter 2 to the end of chapter 4 we have the working out of these adverse elements during a spiritual movement.
Ques Why is a character like Abner short-lived in contrast to Joab who continued through such a long period with the king?
JT I suppose one of the reasons for his continuance is to bring out the weakness in David. David acknowledges his weakness here, “I am this day weak”. It is a poor thing to have to acknowledge that the position is beyond him, and this is in a condition where David is nominally supreme. Things are allowed to develop, even in chapter 5. If you link on the narrative with 1 Chronicles 11:6, he opens a further door to Joab to become chief of captains, which was David’s own office. A spiritual man in any given spiritual movement may yield to partisan influence and in that way open the door to a condition that is beyond him.
Ques Did Joab’s actions warrant his removal here?
JT He was a murderer. It was wrong that a murderer should be allowed to continue. The assembly should never be in such a plight as this; the Lord has furnished us with means of dealing with the most serious matters. This whole book is stamped with this; it runs right through, and is a warning to us not to allow partisan feeling even in a small way.
Ques Was David’s attitude towards Abner commendable?
JT It was so far. David had to clear himself of course. It would look as if there might have been collusion in this matter, but the Lord enabled him to clear himself, which is the main thing. “Neither be partaker of other men’s sins”, 1 Timothy 5:22. The Lord gave him special grace to clear himself; it was understood that David had nothing to do with it. “All Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to put Abner the son of Ner to death”. Spiritual men are often obliged to clear themselves of partisan results; partisan results are attributed to spiritual men who have had nothing to do with them, because they are spiritually linked with those in the party.
Rem David became continually stronger in the main.
JT He dealt with them in principle but was not able to do so in fact.
Rem There was in Acts what is similar to what we get here, the opposition of the Jews and the Gentiles to the ministry of the apostles.
JT Quite so. I suppose that is how we should look at the first verse: “the war was long between the house of Saul and the house of David; but David became continually stronger, and the house of Saul became continually weaker”. The war was long because of these partisan conditions. David became continually stronger — it does not say, ‘the house of David’.
Ques Why is ‘the house’ left out here?
JT Well, it says later, his house was not right with God.
Ques How do you regard David’s reception of Abner?
JT He seems to be right so far. It was according to the mind of God that the kingdom should come to David. It says in verse 7 of chapter 2, “And now let [p. 3] your hands be strong, and be ye valiant; for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them”, 2 Samuel 2:7. This is clearly a gesture to the house of Israel to accept David as king; so that if Abner came, as he did, as a leader of the house of Israel it seems to be in order for David to receive him.
Rem What Abner did not accomplish, God was accomplishing behind the scenes.
JT Obstacles stood in the way. Really it was Abner who was in the way. He could sway the house of Israel either way because he could always make the position weak. Ishbosheth himself was removed so that the way was made clear for David, although it was not at all to the credit of these two. Abner had just a selfish party feeling; he knew all the time that David was to be king; he is condemning himself in what he says to Ishbosheth in verse 9 of chapter 3, “Jehovah has sworn to David”; and to the elders in verse 18, “and now do it, for Jehovah has spoken of David ...”. So that he knew exactly the mind of God and he is fighting against it, he is condemning himself.
Ques Do you think his slaying was governmental?
JT I do. It is a warning to us.
Ques In each one of these men slain, the sword penetrates their lower affections. Was it the exposure of lack of love in the Spirit, a feature seen positively in the saints at Colosse (Colossians 1:8)?
JT Judas’ death is similar, he fell headlong and all his bowels gushed out. He was wanting in affection. These are remarkable chapters, I think, for the work of God to be seen in spiritual leadership. They show how partisan activities may work within the realm of spiritual leadership. David has to acknowledge he was not strong enough.
Ques Was the same thing going on at Corinth?
JT Exactly, there were several parties [p. 4] there.
Ques There seems to be a turn in the testimony today and a remarkable spiritual movement: are we in danger of partisanship and rivalry as seen in Abner and Joab?
JT That is what the enemy would seek to bring about. The thing is that there should be no leadership that is not spiritual.
Ques Do these wives of David and the mother of these sons indicate weakness?
JT The king would multiply wives. In chapter 5 he continues on that line after he reaches Jerusalem.
Rem You see it in the stipulation he made with Abner about Saul’s daughter, Michal.
JT It indicates where his mind was, I think; see verse 14. Of course you might work out a type in it, an allusion to the assembly, but it is difficult to make it out. He was making self-gratification more than the kingdom, whereas the kingdom was the great thing with God.
Rem All the children born in Hebron were sons. Would this be for the testimony?
JT That would fit. I think you might say that. We get their mothers in verses 2 to 5. At Jerusalem you get further sons and daughters without their mothers’ names (chapter 5:13 - 16). The continuance of the testimony is in mind, but on the other hand it is an allusion to a certain vein of weakness in David, because the king was enjoined not to multiply wives.
Ques What about David taking Ahinoam and Abigail to Hebron?
JT This seemed to be legitimate and right. Certainly Abigail is a type of the assembly. You can understand that the maternal side must be in line in the kingdom, so that it seems to be in order. He had lost them at Ziklag and now he has them again.
Rem Some sons did not turn out very well.
JT One is a type of the antichrist; chapter 3:3. But there is the continuance of the testimony, and [p. 5] the Psalms show what the children are and how they speak with the enemy in the gate. Generally speaking they are a blessing from God, but it is “thy wife”, and not ‘thy wives’ in Psalm 128. Deuteronomy expressly forbids the king to multiply wives.
Rem At this time if Abner and Joab were giving a wrong lead David should have given a right one. They were adverse parties.
JT Saul was dead and David spoke well of him. He was anointed by the house of Judah, but then these two leaders are operating by themselves. In chapter 2 verse 14 they suggest that the young men should make sport before them. Where is David’s power as king in all this?
Rem There is an attempt by Ishbosheth to check what was evil; it is he who brings out what Abner is doing. Then Abner moves to transfer the kingdom to David.
JT It looks as if one element after another brought about this change in Abner’s mind with no reference to David. Yet David is not in this evil.
He is outside it in spirit, but he has to acknowledge that he is weak in the thing. It is a remarkable warning to us that spiritual leadership is the only leadership. These two men were not thinking of the king, they were just two independent leaders. You can see how Joab would carry Israel with him on this line; this laid the basis for Absalom’s revolt later.
The saving feature is that God gave David such attractiveness that all Israel loved him.
Ques Did not David enunciate the principle of his kingdom in the first chapter in the song that he taught Judah? Does not the setting seem to be encouraging?
JT Yes, certainly the first chapter is magnificent as to the spirit of David, and right up to the end of verse 7 of the second chapter; and then we have these two men operating and making sport and [p. 6] sacrificing their followers for sport. Where is David in this? It is significant that David is not mentioned in chapter 3 after verse 7.
Ques What is your thought as to the length of time that is required for David to be brought into the kingdom? It is not till David has reigned seven and a half years in Hebron that all Israel is brought round to him.
JT I think the position at Hebron is intended for that, a stopping point, as much as to say the spiritual condition does not warrant any more. David is held up there, it is a testing time. I think there is some correspondence between that position and what we get in Exodus 24. Great thoughts of God are opening up there; God says, so to speak, I want you to come up here, Moses, and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel. And then, Moses, you come up into the mountain and I will give you the book of the law, “for their instruction”. All that would be with Moses above, the others were to stay below without Moses, they were to have Aaron and Hur if any matter arose and they would have to wait for Moses to come down forty days later. Well now, here we have an example set out in David in verse 1, of the kind of man suitable for the kingdom, an example to all Israel. He became stronger and stronger personally, and then we have Hebron. In view of all this these two men are brought to the front instead of David. So with Aaron and Hur, they are to look after the people while Moses is away. But the instruction is with Moses; the divine mind is with Moses. Why should David be hindered? Well, there is a moral condition in question and that moral condition is to be worked out before we can have the mind of God.
Rem Joab would not have waited in Jerusalem for power from on high.
JT Certain conditions have to come about. The [p. 7] Lord could have gone to heaven at once after He arose just as well as forty days later. It implies that there is a condition that is questionable, that is to be searched out. So in Colosse they were in danger of philosophy and vain deceit; that is to be worked out and judged. All these things are on one line. You have the mind of God opened up, but there is a moral condition of things to be dealt with before we can go on. These elements are at work in Israel here. David is not clear in this matter and these two men are active. In the government of God they come to their end.
Rem They are not subject men. It would be a warning for us as Christians not to take on things without consulting Christ.
JT The point is, What is leadership? Is it Joab or Abner, or is it David? David is weak and the book brings out that he never really recovered the loss sustained here.
Ques Would you say something as to Abner’s end?
JT You just feel that God’s government took him out of the way. David’s attitude seems right under the circumstances. Abner knew that David was the man all along and yet he was insubject, and so he was disqualified.
Rem He worked for self-advantage, which God will not support.
JT Yes. The Amalekite who slew Saul thought he would get a reward. How does this bear on ourselves? What is the divine idea? It is that God will not have mere natural ability. Natural ability may disqualify me. Leadership, if it is not spiritual is worse than nothing. In general David is over against all this. He has the divine idea, but he is missing it because he is not facing this thing in these two men. Applying it to ourselves, it is not enough for us to say that the Holy Spirit is amongst us, because He might be grieved. The point is. What is [p. 8] the effect of having Him? It is the power that worketh in us. But there might be the taking on of something else as at Colosse. Some there were in danger of taking on something else such as philosophy, appealing to the natural mind, and ceremonialism. The work of God exposes that sort of thing.
Rem Might that sort of thing become constitutional?
JT That is just the word to use, ‘constitutional’. Hence the use of the word ‘if’ in Colossians.
Rem “See that ... no one ... shall lead you astray”, Colossians 2:8. These two leaders were on that line.
JT That is just the point really. Hebron is Colossians and the saints are amenable to being led by that kind of man.
Ques Is there sometimes a failure to recognise headship?
JT Yes, and a partial movement — not going all the way in putting off the body of the flesh in circumcision. I believe that is the object in the letter to the Colossians, that they might face the evil and go on to the full thought. You do not need men like Joab and Abner, philosophers, they are men of natural ability but they are not spiritual leaders. The whole position is marred because of them, the whole of 2 Samuel is marked by David’s weakness. Later Absalom is allowed to carry things. Why was that?
Rem “There shall arise from among yourselves men”, showing what has developed. Really it is the application of the truth of the Colossians, so that we might go the whole way.
JT That is the point. Colossians is therefore a critical epistle. It may mean that you have reached the divine end or missed the mark entirely.
Rem One reason for being so slow to take on the ministry at the present time is that we are marked by philosophy and ceremonialism.
[p. 9] JT We get in Colossians 1:23, “If indeed ye abide in the faith”. It is an “if” of uncertainty; their condition is questionable. “If indeed ye abide”, as much as to say, I am doubting you. There is much prayer in this epistle by the apostle himself and also by Epaphras, because the saints were hankering after philosophy; and Paul combated for them so that they might be saved from this danger. The “ifs” of Colossians 2:20 and chapter 3:1 are not the “ifs” of uncertainty but are hypothetical.
Ques What is the difference between circumcision and baptism?
JT Circumcision deals with the flesh viewed in its power. Baptism refers to what is outside you; you reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin. It is what is outside of you, but circumcision is what is inside you; the work of the flesh inside. The point is the totality of it. One of the most remarkable things in Scripture is that God sought to slay Moses. Why? Because he was not dealing with the flesh. He might have tried to lead the children of Israel out on fleshly lines — clericalism — what is developed in the flesh. Baptism, of course, is the public position, that I am dead to the world. Circumcision is to deal with the flesh, whatever power I may have in the flesh. David thinks he is clearing himself because he is pronouncing these judgments, but why could he not have dealt with Joab? If he had faced it, God would have helped him. Moses is a leader and God appoints him to lead His people and yet He is ready to slay him. God says in effect: I have not changed My mind in connection with the flesh; if it is coming up I will deal with it. Baptism would lose its power in a person who has not got the Spirit. It supposes the Spirit; it is a household matter, “thou and thy house” (Acts 16:31); a saved man and his house. It is very important to see this in the jailer’s case, “thou shalt be saved, thou, and thy house” (Acts 16:31);
[p. 10] yourself first as a saved man, and then your house. Whether it is worked out in the Red Sea or the Jordan you get the same principle of baptism. The same thing applies to Jordan — they went through householdly. Household baptism is proper Christian ground. No man is really qualified to be a father unless he brings his household on to that ground.
Ques Is your thought that the whole book suffers from this weakness on David’s part? This principle had been overlooked by David, “although my house be not so before God”, 2 Samuel 23:5. There was not sufficient carrying out of the principle of baptism.
JT The weakness here runs right through the book. We shall see it in the last years of David. How can a man’s house be right unless he brings in the truth of baptism?
Rem Ittai and all his men and little ones passed over with David, the little ones could make the journey too.
JT That is a figure of baptism. The full thought of household baptism came in with Paul.