2 SAMUEL FOUR
2 SAMUEL FOUR
JT This chapter follows on verse 8 of chapter 2. It contemplates, as we had last week, a transitional state of things. The crisis arising in the history of the testimony contemplated at the beginning of the book implies certain features which existed negatively and positively to be worked out. So that these two leaders, Abner and Joab figuring in this section are both party men. At the end of chapter 3 we have an exposure of Joab’s murderous state and how Abner, in connection with that very state, came to his end; he was murdered. This brings out what partyism really is, and how far it will go.
Ques Have you any thought about the lamentation [p. 11] of David for Abner — is there any suggestion in it of Christ?
JT It illustrates what a spiritual man will do. It was an awkward situation, he would make the best of it. David had to clear himself of the stain of guilt of something which took place in his kingdom, and he did what he could to clear himself; but then the book subsequently shows that the evil was there and caused weakness that was never overcome.
Adjustment had to be handed over to Solomon. The lesson would be for us in circumstances like these to face whatever there may be inimical to the testimony; party elements, opposing elements, are to be met and dealt with righteously, otherwise they become an incubus upon us to harass us later.
Ques What is the meaning of verse 29 of chapter 3: “let there not fail from the house of Joab one that has an issue, or that is a leper, or that leans on a staff, or that falls by the sword, or that lacks bread”, (2 Samuel 3:29)?
JT It was just a curse. We have corresponding passages in the New Testament — a curse put off, as this was, and a curse inflicted immediately or in principle as in Galatians; Paul says: “If anyone announce to you as glad tidings anything besides what ye have received, let him be accursed”, Galatians 1:9. The postponement of the curse in 1 Corinthians 16:22 was not because there was no power, but the dispensation, I suppose, required that it should be put off until the Lord should come. “Anathema Maranatha” is “until the Lord comes”, which would be really Solomon taking the thing over.
Rem It may drag on until Solomon comes to the throne; do you think that the more we realise sonship the more power there will be?
JT That is what would be learned, I suppose, in Solomon meeting the thing righteously in this case. He does not deal with the culprits all alike; he fixes retribution according to the crime. Sonship is brought [p. 12] forward by the apostle in Galatians, and it is in Galatians that he pronounces the curse at once. It is not put off. Why should the saints be suffering to spare the man?
Ques Is that why Paul withstood Peter to the face?
JT Quite so. He did not defer it or leave it because of Peter’s distinction. There is a good deal in this of how things are to be met; God allows things in transitional periods to work out to their own exposure, good or evil. There must be authority. God has never left his people without the element of authority, and power to enforce it. David stands for that here but he is not equal to it, although he shows clearly that he has judged the murderer; but words are not enough, we want more than words.
Ques Do you think it was because of natural relationship?
JT His explanation is that they were too strong for him. They are all his nephews, sons of Zeruiah; why should they be too strong for him? Possibly Joab’s underhand influence entered into the matter; he had great power with the army and others.
Ques How do you view the king doing what pleased the people, is that in his favour or otherwise?
JT I think it is to bring out his spiritual qualities. He was always loved by the people and it speaks well for the people that they regarded him. But the book does not let David off at all, it shows that the element of weakness is there, unjudged in the king. It worked out in Absalom and Adonijah later, a most distressing state of things. At times you marvel that it should be so. The teaching for us is antitypically the history of the assembly as a whole or at any given time, that is, what is right in the main being unable to face what is left over in the way of contrary or opposing elements. We cannot wait for unity in dealing with evil; we must do what is right.
Ques The Lord said to Thyatira: “I have against thee that thou permittest that woman Jezebel”, Revelation 2:20. The Lord would hold against the saints that they are responsible for allowing certain things. Why is it addressed to the angel of Thyatira?
JT It is for the general body in Thyatira. The angel would be the responsible element, and, of course, we are all responsible. Anyone who takes himself out of that responsibility is not in fellowship. “I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel, she who calls herself prophetess, and she teaches and leads astray”, Revelation 2:20. That charge stands out against that church ever since.
Rem The letter written is to bring about through some person an assembly conscience or a local conscience. The locality should have a conscience as to the state of the saints.
JT Each letter would be to arouse the conscience in the whole body. Take Thyatira, “I have against thee”; however few or many were right, all are responsible. That is the thing that has to be faced, whatever the Lord is against.
Rem Ahab humbled himself and the judgment was postponed.
JT I suppose that particular phase of the kingdom is one of the most striking as illustrative of grace, the wonderful patience that God had with Ahab. In type that corresponds with Thyatira: “against thee” would be responsible Ahab, he was responsible for Jezebel. The long patience that God exerted toward Ahab is very striking and shows the patience He has now in the history of the assembly. Jezebel survived Ahab, but God acted wonderfully to Ahab, wicked man that he was! He defeated the Syrians, God put him at the head of the army and gave him victory. He spared the king of the Syrians and God still had patience. He slew Naboth and [p. 14] God still had patience when he humbled himself, showing how patient God is with those of us who are responsible in any given phase. In the long run he will exact every cent, every penny. The prophetic word is to bring to bear on the conscience what may not have been dealt with.
Ques How do you regard David’s sentiments relative to Abner? Abner was supporting the king for personal reasons.
JT Abner was nothing more than a party man at best, but he had more to his credit than Joab had. David, in a magnanimous way, in keeping with his attitude in regard to the death of Saul, refers to Abner as a prince. It is a spiritual man making the most of a bad matter. Sorrowful matters arise and we all have part in them. The spiritual would make the most of a matter in adjustment. There is spiritual adjustment in David’s speech so that he could go on with a good conscience in the rule of the kingdom; but then, is the evil really met? or does the sequel not show that it was never met in David’s time and that he suffered accordingly?
Rem There is something to Abner’s credit in that he took sides with David in spite of his motives.
JT He knew the truth. He knew David was God’s choice. A man who knows the truth and is opposing it is in a serious position. The fact that he is opposing it may mean that other considerations hold him back. He knew all the time that David was the divine choice. Possibly God might give a man credit for arriving at a true judgment, but where is he morally when he knows the truth and is not standing by it?
Rem He might have said, I will take sides with David because I am against Ishbosheth.
JT We cannot always be sure as to the underlying history. Every man has some history with God, perhaps something we do not know about.
[p. 15] We cannot be sure of anything that is not on the surface. Why did David speak so of Abner? There may be something that is not recorded about the man — I think we ought to take David’s judgment about him here. He may have had secret relations with God that David knew of. David might have said, ‘Well, he was a true man at bottom’. We sometimes say of one or another, ‘His wife hinders him’ or ‘His natural links keep him back’; and we say it rightly, because the man left by himself would be right; and God is infinitely fair in these things.
Ques How could Abner be put down in the record as a prince?
JT Well, there are two ways of looking at it. There is secret history, known to God and perhaps to himself, but particularly to God, and God is infinitely fair and gives him credit for everything. If influences have swayed him from the course, God takes account of that. Jeroboam’s son died because he was good. He is the only one God said there was any good in (1 Kings 14:13), and he died. He was taken out of the evil. The public history may not vindicate a man, but the Judge of all the earth is right. For instance, Lot is called a righteous man, what are you going to make of that? You would hardly say that from Genesis. Peter says that and he has the government of God in his mind. If I am swayed from the right course which I would probably take, God gives me credit. How could He speak of these men save on that abstract line? God looks at the heart.
Rem I was wondering if it corresponds with the public history at the present time of the assembly, how she is suffering, with believers in various organisations around.
JT And from divisions from the time of the revival of the truth of the assembly; the brethren are suffering.
[p. 16] Rem In spite of what David says about Abner it says, “all Israel was troubled”, chapter 4:1. Those that had been following this wrong leader are being affected by the death of Abner.
JT This chapter is to bring in the irretrievable weakness of Saul’s house. It is a time of testing and these three chapters are to show how things are to be worked out as they happen of themselves. David is not doing anything except passing comments, passing judgments on guilty men. Ishbosheth is spoken of as “Saul’s son”, and then again Jonathan is “Saul’s son”; they are all of Saul, all being weakened or destroyed, the whole house is dying out under the government of God. We must wait and see what God will do, it is the government of God. Things are happening of themselves in David’s favour. Let time do its work, let elements that are existing do their work; this fourth chapter shows the complete destruction of Saul’s house. Mephibosheth might have been a hope, but he is lame, so that even that little glimmer of hope fails; God made him lame when he was a child. I think what is in mind here is the extinction of the royal line of Saul. Ishbosheth is slain. Faith would say, There is no hope for the house of Saul, put your mind on David. God is doing that.
Ques Do you think God is working behind the scenes in these matters?
JT Well, David is not doing it. It is the elements themselves destroying themselves, that is the idea; applying it to the world, it is gradually coming to that, the elements are destroying themselves.
Rem All the public matters that are happening in rapid sequence bring that out.
JT The history of Europe including that of this country for 150 years past is all seen by the eye of faith to focus on the end, and what the end is going to be. Elements are nullifying each other to [p. 17] make way for God. If God did not allow these things to operate against each other they would soon overwhelm us. They are operating against each other and the way is made for us to go through. Keep your mind on Christ if you love His appearing. God sees what is going on in your heart, and as you ask God about this and that you see that the one thing is nullifying the other and God is making the way through.
Rem Baanah and Rechab were captains of bands, party men.
JT That is the rule of the day. That is exactly what this section is bringing out. Abner was a captain under Saul more distinguished and greater than they and so was Joab; but partyism is the principle. Ishbosheth’s own men, captains, turn against him, David has nothing to do with it. David calls him a righteous man, it is the skill of a spiritual man in making the best of a matter.
Rem Mephibosheth is nearest to the throne on Saul’s line, after the death of Ishbosheth.
JT That is another thing, we meet him again but not to be heir to the throne. There is no evidence that he wanted the throne. The point in Mephibosheth would be that he has a spiritual element in him, he loves David; he is no rival of David.
Rem He is a real Hebron man, judging the flesh in himself.
Rem Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt, it has to do with a man that went out of the world. Mephibosheth did not seek the throne for himself.
JT He loved David. He is brought in here to show that the house of Saul is hopeless. We are often helped negatively as well as positively. We see every side of Saul cut off here, no available heir. The nearest was lame and unfit. God is showing that every support to this line of things seems to be [p. 18] giving way. It shows too, that God has this man in His mind for grace. He has cut him off in spite of himself from aspiring to be successor; it is like the grace of God keeping us out of the world. This seems to be the lesson with Mephibosheth, he is cut off from the house of Saul by being disqualified. Many of us are saved from the world by being kept unfit for it. Lack of prosperity is sometimes an asset.
Rem “He shall sit at my table continually”;(2 Samuel 9:11) it is not a temporary idea.
JT The lameness would be his badge. He is an object for grace here on account of another, Jonathan; so that we have a beautiful picture of the gospel, that God has made him lame to make him a subject for grace. It is much better to be at David’s table than on Saul’s throne, successor to a wilful king. God in His government prevents our success sometimes to keep us for another world.
Rem The pressure that God has allowed in recent years has really worked greatly in our favour in that our young people are deprived of prospering to any extent financially; God has come in on the other side and blessed them in view of His world.
JT Yes; “he that is wise” may observe how God is saving the young brothers and sisters. If they were more prosperous they might not be in these things. I do not think I ever before saw it so clearly in connection with Mephibosheth, but that is just what happened. He is the king’s son but he is not fit to rule a kingdom; he is going to be in Christ’s realm typically. How infinitely better!
Ques David began to reign at thirty. This man was made lame at five years; is that to emphasise the position of weakness?
JT David is fully fit for the office and God is making way for the man that is fit. He is removing all others so that “all Israel” came to David in chapter 5. It is very striking and I am sure there is [p. 19] a lesson in it: first we see the government of God clearing a way for David, one element working against another to make way for the fulfilment of the counsels of God; but then incidentally this man is made lame at five years, he is taken out of the way of David’s universal supremacy; being direct heir to the throne, but kept for grace, for David to show, as a type of Christ, on what a wide scale God operates! Thus God can accomplish several things at the same time.
Rem A covenant had been made between David and Jonathan; Jonathan had said, “Go in peace”, 1 Samuel 20:42.
JT It all goes with what we are saying, what God does governmentally to work out His counsels and make subjects of grace.
Rem David was never marked by a spirit of rivalry.
JT I think it shows how God honours a man who acts according to His mind. David is honoured here in that the way is made clear. God is doing it, even in making Mephibosheth lame.
Rem David never had to push himself; I suppose Joab thought he would effect the thing.
Ques Does not Peter’s address support that? — “Let the whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”, Acts 2:36.
JT “Whom ye have crucified”; so that as just remarked David leads in making the most of a person who might have been adverse to one. Go the limit in speaking well of him, that is the principle, God honours that. He said to Solomon You did not ask for the death of your enemies, you asked for wisdom; I will honour that.
Rem Paul may have thought he had said too much adversely about the Corinthians, but the coming of Titus greatly encouraged [p. 20] him.
JT Of course in the first epistle he says what he can from the divine side — it is what God has done for them. They could not say that God had not done His best, so that Paul says in effect, You have all the endowment you need. In the second letter he is speaking well of the brethren; how God honours that! Paul says, Whatever you say about me, I will speak well of you. I believe that is the secret of the wonderful light he had about the new covenant, one ray of glory after another, as if God would fill his soul, a man who could clothe the saints so beautifully. I think we ought to stop and think about the Corinthians. They were only about two and a half years old; think of a large number of brethren in a wicked city being converted so recently and yet forming the assembly of God! Is it not wonderful! The enemy was coming in and marring the work, but still it was there. And God was filling out Paul’s soul with glory as he speaks well of the brethren.
Rem The reference to Corinth is helpful. We know that it was to the Corinthians he spoke so definitely about the prophetic word, and that has certainly been emphasised of late, but lest there might be an over-bearing sense of fault finding left there, this spiritual man brings in this wonderful other side of his great appreciation of them. There might be a tendency perhaps in our prophetic ministry to undue fault finding; but that impression could not be left, if these feelings of the apostle were also emphasised.
Ques Is ministry in the main God’s way of helping us?
JT I think it is, especially the prophetic ministry. No scripture can establish that more clearly than chapter 19 of this book of Samuel. The prophetic ministry preserves David when all seemed hopeless.
Ques Why is David partial? He slays these captains of Saul’s son but he does not slay Joab.
JT I think it was weakness. He admits that [p. 21] they are too hard for him. Sometimes when a case arises we are right inwardly and know the truth of who is wrong, but we have not the courage to face the thing. Joab was a very able man. You can see how God in a weak state of things will make a way for what is right. David represents what is right but there is weakness attached to him and God knows this and he is making a way for him. God did not deal with Joab yet and David has to say, “I am this day weak though anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me; Jehovah reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness”, 2 Samuel 3:39. God did, of course, but then it was David’s responsibility.
Rem There was something unjudged in David that did not come to light until later when Nathan had to judge him.
JT Yes; it may have been that Joab connived in this wickedness, and he also operated to bring Absalom forward. He is just a politician.
Rem “Jehovah reward him”: he is invoking Jehovah to do it, he acknowledged his weakness.
JT Quite so — I am not able to do it, let Jehovah do it. Of course, God would listen to it, but then David has to acknowledge his weakness in the matter.
Rem Joab was captain of the hosts; he knew how to use a sword well. David should have used a prophetic word which is sharper.
JT That is the application of it today. The prophetic word is sharper than the sword.
Rem The chapter tells us of a dead man in Hebron, of two men slain in Hebron and also of a burial there.
JT It seems to be the grave of the whole matter, the end; and in the next chapter everyone wants David, God has cleared the whole field for him. Then we have this touch of grace with Mephibosheth and David.
[p. 22] Ques Does sonship referred to in Mephibosheth set forth sonship by adoption as a far greater thing than sonship on natural lines?
JT Quite so. It is a type of the Christian as a subject of grace, not only that his sins are dealt with, as it were, but he is set up in sonship in the divine realm.
Ques Do we get some indication here as to the right to discriminate between different persons? It is necessary to slay some but there are some to whom David’s feelings would be called out, such as Abner. There are differences in cases that come before us. Where there is some possibility of recovery and right feelings should not our attitude toward them be different?
JT David’s attitude toward Abner and Ishbosheth bears on the whole ten tribes. It would effect fellowship and right feeling in them. It is the secret I think of the next chapter, that all the tribes came to him.
Rem His tribute was after the men were dead; in other words, his tribute was wisely placed when they could do no more harm and it was a safe time to speak well.
JT I think what ought to be borne in mind is Ishbosheth and the ten tribes. They would say, What a fair-minded man David is! He calls our king a righteous man; he must have said the truth. I suppose Ishbosheth was a harmless man; David calls him a righteous man slain in his own house on his bed, and he calls Abner a prince and a great man; that would affect the tribes. You must get the people and bring them along with you. I think that is fair.
Ques Do you view those out of fellowship in different lights?
JT One has often thought that many of them have just been misled, you feel differently about them.
[p. 23] Rem In this last section David had a man slain when he appeared to have a good message.
JT Yes, and he points that out to these two murderers; he is a true man in this matter; he is fair.