DIVINE WISDOM OPERATING AGAINST APOSTASY (5)
[p. 56] DIVINE WISDOM OPERATING AGAINST APOSTASY (5)
2 Samuel 19:9 - 43; 2 Samuel 20:15 - 22
Ques Would you say a little for the benefit of those who were not here this morning?
JT We read chapter 18 this morning, which, as you will observe, gives an account of the final stage of the conflict between David’s forces and those of Absalom. What developed was, that those responsible to lead were governed by mixed motives. David was indefinite, being prepossessed with his love for Absalom. He was governed by natural feeling and affection, and so was indefinite, with the result that the battlefield was badly chosen and many lives were unnecessarily sacrificed. The command was divided into three parts instead of being directly centred in David, who was responsible, and who, indeed, was best qualified as a military leader.
The battle took place in the wood of Ephraim, and more people were destroyed by the trees than by the sword; this should not have happened. The door was thus opened to Joab, who, as we have already noticed, was governed by personal motives, having his own reputation before him; so that he, through David’s weakness, acquired the dominating position.
We noted that these records are not consecutive, as typifying the current history of the people of God, but rather present different views.
What we had in chapter 18 refers to the conflict and the principles that should govern us. The conflict we shall have as the testimony continues. Joab acquired a dominant position amongst them, all due to the weakness of the element that was directly responsible to God, and fitted to lead.
[p. 57] Then we noted, in the end of the chapter, another feature of our present position, that is, the carrying of messages. The victory, involving the death of Absalom, had to be reported to David, and Joab is now typical of one in a position to give a message. Ahimaaz says, “Let me run” We noted the disposition of young brothers to “run anyway” Whereas Joab had pointed out that the message was not suited to him in that the king’s son was dead, but Ahimaaz says, Let me run, and he did run, but he had no definite message, so that when he arrived he had to stand on one side — a humiliating thing. The Cushite was fitted for the message; although not so fast a runner, he had a message.
Rem I thought what you said about those who suffered through the trees was important; in a crisis side issues arise, and people are carried away by them.
JT Quite so; I think it should be well noted that in conflict the effort should be to avoid unnecessary losses. Losses there must be; if there is opposition to the truth there has to be discipline, but these scriptures show that the effort should be to restrict it — to reduce it to a minimum.
Rem So that the spirit in which the conflict is carried on is important, there should be a desire to save the brethren.
JT The culminating feature is in the wise woman at Abel, she reduced the loss to one — the chief offender; chapter 20:16 - 22. She did it in her wisdom. I believe it is in this woman’s wisdom that we see the point of all this instruction.
Rem There is a lesson to be learnt from it.
JT I thought that in this chapter we might see that another exercise is in view; it is the ‘reconstruction’ period. There always has to be such a period after a conflict, because everything is affected. All the people of God are affected in a conflict for the [p. 58] testimony, and there has to be a rearrangement according to what has been brought to light. There should be some spoil out of every conflict. So that now it is a question of David’s return to Jerusalem, and Jordan involves an exercise in these new circumstances; death has to be accepted. It is stated “Now Israel had fled every man to his tent. And all the people were at strife throughout the tribes of Israel, saying, The king delivered us out of the hand of ... the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land because of Absalom. And Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle; and now why are ye silent as to bringing the king back?” (verses 9,10). It was a sorrowful situation, but not a hopeless one, for the chief offender was out of the way. And now David is coming back into his place, so that we have the thoughts of many hearts revealed, showing what has been effected in those who came to meet him. It is the time of readjustment, and we find our places according to what we have gained in the exercise.
Rem It is very important that in every crisis, although we may not go through it intelligently, yet we should feel we gain something.
JT Something comes to light that has to be definitely noted in a crisis, and I think that what came to light in David was his undue attention to natural affection. When Absalom was slain, he referred to him eight times as “his son” calling him “My son, my son” showing how obsessed he was, and that is the secret that God would bring to light. There is always something underneath that comes to light, and David exposes himself in bewailing Absalom so many times as his son.
Rem Attention was called to the spirit that animated Joab, and the spirit that was shared by the ten armour-bearers. That we should carry a right spirit is a very important [p. 59] thing.
JT I think we noted that the point was that they were his men — Joab’s men; it comes to light in this chapter that he had a band associated specially with him, so that when Amasa was slain, one of Joab’s men said, “He that favours Joab, and he that is for David, let him follow Joab” 2 Samuel 20:11; he places Joab before David, showing that Joab was a party man; he had more concern about himself than about David.
Ques Are you suggesting that new positions are given in this chapter?
JT Yes; readjustment is proceeding, and David makes plain that he intends to supersede Joab, but he is not able to do it. That is to say, in the government of God the effect of his weakness stands. Joab regains his place as head of the army. In the end of chapter 20 Joab is said to be over all the host of Israel; that was not David’s intent, but he was unable to prevent it — a very humiliating experience for a king. Nevertheless, what we get here is, one and another coming into evidence in relation to David’s return.
Ques It was said earlier that Solomon was out of sight in all this; I was wondering if things lead up to the bringing in of Solomon later.
JT I think all this instruction in connection with the wise woman lays the ground for Solomon’s reign. The wise woman of Abel through her wisdom delivered the city; her thought was to save all except the offender. Solomon was governed by that principle (see 1 Kings 3); he would not allow the child to be cut in two; he brought to light in his wisdom the mother of the child. The mother would have the child whole even if given to another. That is the thing to get hold of; your great thought is not to divide the saints; you preserve the truth, but you preserve the saints with it. That brings to light the mother of the child. And for that wisdom is essential.
[p. 60] Ques Does not that mean that every feature is to be weighed and considered; you desire to face every phase of the exercise so that everyone may benefit by it?
JT There has to be the resetting of things, and Joab has to be displaced. He has discredited himself. He brought back Absalom, and brought all this about through his effort to push himself forward. And now what you find is that Israel “had fled every man to his tent” 2 Samuel 19:8, and there was strife; it was serious, but not hopeless; for David was coming back to his house. He was on his way back, and he resorted to the provision he had made in leaving the priests, Zadok and Abiathar, in Jerusalem. They could be relied on as representative of the secret system within Jerusalem at the time of the apostasy. They were the undoing of Absalom. Now David is coming back to Jerusalem, and he sends to these two men, Zadok and Abiathar, saying, “Speak to the elders of Judah saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, to his house. Ye are my brethren, ye are my bone and my flesh; and why will ye be the last to bring back the king?” (verses 11,12). Here you have an appeal through the priests; it is a question of recognising those who stand the test — men who stood well in the most adverse circumstances. Now they are available to David in Jerusalem.
Ques Does the reconstruction begin with what is priestly?
JT I think it must, it is the divine way to begin with the priestly element. I think we have a principle there as to reconstruction — the recognition of the priestly element. The priests, normally, are pre-eminently free from natural feelings; Phinehas was marked by that as representative of the priesthood; Numbers 25. Freedom from natural feelings is characteristic of priestly service.
[p. 61] Ques Would you say that, in regard to the present dispensation, it would mean the truth of the assembly? These men are in agreement on priestly lines to recover the saints in proper relation to Christ.
JT Quite so; they are those who recognise the Spirit. Priesthood, in the true sense, refers to those who have the Spirit. Every true Christian has the Spirit, but it is another thing to be marked off as having the Spirit — to be spiritual. The apostle could not speak to the Corinthians as spiritual. He had to send Timotheus that he might be amongst them as representative of what is spiritual.
Ques Do you think that, in connection with recovery, we start with the sovereign side, rather than the responsible side? The elders of Judah were exercised about bringing David back.
JT Well, the priestly element is taken into account first. Next, those who were near of kin to David; which would mean a more extended state among the saints. David appeals to them, “Ye are my brethren, ye are my bone and my flesh” The line taken is, first the priestly element, and then the brethren — those that have that relationship with David.
Ques I was wondering what we have in Judah here.
JT Judah represents brethren to David, because he was of that tribe. They would represent the brethren, or those who would respond to that relationship, for after all, all true Christians are brethren, whatever our state may be. The appeal is on that line, “Ye are my brethren”; but the message comes through the priests — not now through the young men, but through experienced men, spiritual men.
Rem So that the exercise is taken up on spiritual lines, as coming from the priesthood.
JT David did not employ any others. Judah was really the most responsible in the rebellion;
[p. 62] they were near to David, but it was at Hebron; Hebron was the centre of it.
Ques Can you reconstruct a meeting after conflict on the responsible line merely?
JT I think the thing is to get the spiritual first, and then the brethren. ‘Brethren’ is a common term; ‘priesthood’ refers generally in Scripture to those who are spiritual, but when you think of the brethren it includes all Christians, and we can appeal to all on that line.
Ques Would David in that way seek to restore confidence in the men of Judah, in his grace?
JT Well, I think you see his wisdom now; “He bowed the heart of all the men of Judah, as of one man”; that was a great achievement.
Ques Is it not touching, the appeal to Amasa, one who had been a leader in the opposition, but now appealed to in grace by David?
JT And it is on the same principle — as related to him — his bone and his flesh. Things have been gotten together firstly through the ministry of the priests, but also on family lines, for after all, that is what God is looking for.
Rem So that, as you were saying, the real mother of the child, who had the good of the child at heart, would not suffer any damage to be done to it.
JT It is a terrible thing to divide the people of God. I think the thing here is that you do not do that, you reach the offender with the minimum of loss; you are concerned to save all the brethren. Save the truth, maintain righteousness, but save the brethren.
Ques Do not these relationships bring in the assembly?
JT They do. That is the point, that these chapters are types; they are not exactly prophetic. Prophecy comes in later, as in Isaiah and Jeremiah. These early books, after the Pentateuch, are to make [p. 63] clear to us the history of the people of God in its various phases, and to give different views of the people of God in our dispensation. This section is to teach us how to overcome antichristian rebellion by wisdom. It is a question of wisdom, which is the handmaid of love. And so the great object is to save all the brethren while still maintaining the truth; if the offender has to suffer, let him suffer, but not any others; because saints are generally misled. What came out in regard to Absalom was that two hundred went out with him “in their simplicity” 2 Samuel 15:11; they did not understand the movement.
Ques Whom do you refer to in the saints? Have you the whole church of God in view?
JT Certainly. We are to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3); but we must seek to keep all the brethren. If one has to suffer, let him suffer, as the wise woman points out. Joab would have destroyed the whole city to get the offender, showing that he was devoid of love for the saints, and of wisdom.
Rem The whole of Judah and Israel come to David in the end.
JT Yes, they do; but twenty thousand people fell, when many might have been saved. Differences ought to be settled before they reach public division.
Rem “Consider those who create divisions and occasions of falling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learnt, and turn away from them” Romans 16:17.
JT The “grievous wolves” do not spare the flock, others would draw disciples after them. Divisions are always thus marked. I am speaking of our responsibility; God allows divisions that the approved may be manifested among us. Now the first movement in answer to David’s appeal is on the part of the men of Judah, and they come to Gilgal. It is now really a question of recovery. The reconstruction period implies movement on the part of one and [p. 64] another. David is at the Jordan. We have to take every scripture in its own setting. Jordan here refers to death; readjustment must begin there. There can be nothing for God apart from death. So that each has to make up his mind that he is not to carry over his own affairs and interests. But, alas! in spite of the fact that that great principle stands out, such men as Joab and Abishai acquire the dominating position; nevertheless, there is the principle. David is at the Jordan and the men of Judah come to Gilgal to meet him. It is needless to say that these scriptures have a spiritual meaning; they are put down by the Spirit of God for us, because we are supposed to understand what Gilgal means. Gilgal is the rolling away of the reproach of Egypt; worldly reproach was attached to Judah. There never has been a conflict amongst the people of God in which worldly principles and conduct did not appear. At Gilgal this is dealt with. The movement is a spiritual one — at least in the setting of it here — and that is the point.
Rem There is a definite disallowance of the flesh.
JT Quite so. It is befitting that we should go to Gilgal; that there should be no reserve, but a frank, open acknowledgment of everything. Then we have Shimei coming; it is a general movement; one and another according to what each has been doing goes to meet the king. There is no hiding of things. So that Shimei comes, and he has one thousand men with him. Well, that is not very hopeful; repentance is not in a company, it is an individual matter. Shimei has one thousand men of Benjamin with him; I suppose he was making a good show to David. Then we have Ziba, the servant of the house of Saul, and his fifteen sons and twenty servants; he has a good show, too.
Rem It says of Judah that they came as one man; they were exercised [p. 65] individually.
JT Quite so. Jacob had many children and droves of cattle in coming to meet Esau (Genesis 32 and 33); it was a question of making a good show, but making a good show will not do. Ziba was a slanderer, and Shimei the railer, and there is no evidence that they had judged themselves.
Rem They wanted to save their faces.
Rem “They shall look on me whom they pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for an only [son]” Zechariah 12:10. That is rather the principle; one had wronged Mephibosheth and the other had wronged David.
Ques Would the fact of Ziba and Shimei being respectively a slanderer and a railer show how solemn the two evils are?
JT Yes, they are very deep-rooted. Slander is the outcome of a very deep-rooted evil, speaking evil of one behind his back; a railer is a man who is dominated by sin; he is not ashamed to speak out in the presence of the person he would attack. There is no evidence that Shimei ever judged himself. He tries to make up for his railing here, and makes a long speech to David, and David says, “Thou shalt not die” God saw to it that he died, for he was put to death by Solomon. What we are in the presence of here is that David is coming back to his house and he wants to show that he is king: “For do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?” Poor David! Current facts hardly proved that he was. He was not king in the sense of moral power, for Joab was too much for him, but he was king in the sense of forgiveness, which is a very important side. David did not really clear Shimei; he committed him to Solomon for judgment later. We must never overlook it that forgiveness is a feature of the kingdom; but it is also said, “By no means clearing [the guilty]” Numbers 14:18.
Ques What does the ferry-boat [p. 66] mean?
JT I think it is to bring out that it is not death in the primary sense. It is Jordan passable in this way; the thought of death is retained. The next one who comes is Mephibosheth; he does not bring anybody with him. He is alone.
Ques. Why?
JT He is solitary in his glory, it seems to me. “He had neither washed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came [again] in peace” He is alone as a lover of David — as one man that loves Christ. He had been slandered by his servant, and he points that out to David, but David never seems to have gotten over Ziba’s story; showing how pernicious slander is. He says, “Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land” verse 29. It is a very poor speech.
Rem It seems a very strange thing that David did not commend Mephibosheth.
JT It does; but it brings out what we are dealing with — the weakness of things. The Holy Spirit would not mention these things if it were not so.
Rem Although Mephibosheth was not with David, he shared all the conditions of rejection.
JT Yes; it says he was not able to go on account of his lameness.
Rem He does not seem to have troubled about personal appearance; he has the king in his heart.
JT He shows by his attire and demeanour that he feels the absence of the king; he is typically a lover of Christ.
Rem The Spirit of God vindicates him.
JT I think that is the point; the Holy Spirit would not mention all these things save to bring out what Mephibosheth was, typically, as a lover of Christ. And he says to David, regarding Ziba, “Let him even take all”; he did not want the inheritance — he wanted [p. 67] David.
Rem That would be the right spirit for reconstruction.
JT Yes. There was one among the saints whom the Lord could call attention to. “Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house; thou gavest me not water on my feet, but she has washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with her hair ... Her many sins are forgiven; for she loved much” Luke 7:44 - 48. She loved much, as forgiven much. If there is one person that loves the Lord, He calls attention to it. And so Mephibosheth shows here that he loved much, because of the grace shown to him.
Ques How is it that he was not with David?
JT The chapter tells you. It says that his servant deceived him, and he was lame. Zadok and Abiathar and others were active men, but Mephibosheth was a passive witness of love to David; he was appreciative of the grace of David. It must be a great matter to Christ, if there is one in any company who feels His absence. The Lord will call attention to him.
Rem Mephibosheth vindicated David; there was no self-vindication: “For all my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king; and thou didst set thy servant among them that eat at thine own table. What further right therefore have I?” (verse 28). He was a mourner really; one that truly loved the king.
JT The more we come under grace and the sovereign mercy of God, the more sense we have of having no rights at all. What rights have I? It is God’s mercy and “His great love wherewith he loved us” Ephesians 2:4. Then we have Barzillai; he came from the other side. He was an old man: “And Barzillai was very aged, eighty years old” I think this passage shows that age in itself does not promote spirituality. He was a great man, and he maintained the king, but he did not have any taste [p. 68] for what was in Jerusalem. David, however, had great respect for him.
Ques Are there any old men spiritually? There are ‘fathers’, but are there ‘old men’?
JT I think when it is mentioned that one is very old, attention is called to something else; that you have not travelled spiritually as fast as you have grown old. Barzillai is said to have been a very aged man, and yet he could not go all the way with the king. There are those who think of their age as if years in themselves counted; they only count if they are “in the way of righteousness”
Rem Paul speaks of his kinsmen who were in Christ before him; Romans 16:7.
JT Yes; but they were not such as “Paul the aged” Philemon 9. The name had evidently a spiritual meaning.
Rem Barzillai might have been a fresher man if he had been on the other side of Jordan.
JT Exactly. The Holy Spirit gives him all possible credit. David had high regard for him, but he declined to go to Jerusalem with David. Of course he gives excuses: “And Barzillai said to the king, How many are the days of the years of my life, that I should go up with the king to Jerusalem? I am this day eighty years old: can I discern between good and bad? can thy servant taste what I eat and what I drink? can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? and why should thy servant be yet a burden to my lord the king?” (verses 34,35). He had lost the use of his senses; as we may say, they had not been ‘exercised’.
Rem In the crisis he had been very true, before Absalom was slain; that was a very good thing.
JT Oh, excellent! But then, what can make up in the Lord’s heart for your absence in His place? No matter how good his excuses were, we find in the end that David was at Jerusalem without [p. 69] Barzillai.
Ques What is Mahanaim associated with?
JT I think that the setting of Barzillai is that he lived on the wrong side of Jordan; he typifies a Christian who, having the Spirit, as seen in the epistle to the Romans, loves the Lord, but does not accept death in a practical way. He has no taste for heavenly things.
Rem It is a serious thing not to go all the way.
JT It is certainly a serious thing not to have the taste to go. Why should I not have the taste to be with the Lord — to hear there the holy chants: “the voice of singing men and singing women”? Think of what he is deliberately giving up! To be sure he is furnishing excuses: “Let thy servant ... turn back again, that I may die in mine own city” He offered, however, to go a little way over the Jordan, which was just complimentary to David.
Ques Did he cease to feed upon the “strong meat”?
JT I think so. He was “a great man”; whereas, if he had gone to Jerusalem he would have been a greater man, only he would seem less, outwardly. One lesson to be learnt here is the importance of maintaining a keen spiritual taste. It was a mark of Immanuel: he ate butter and honey that he might know “to refuse the evil, and to choose the good” Isaiah 7:15.
Rem The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is one.
JT What is to be added in regard to Barzillai is that what he declined for himself he would have Chimham to have; he thought it would be a good thing for him, and Chimham went in for it.
Rem There is never any end to conflict; when there is apparently rest, another issue appears.
JT No doubt the altercation at the end of chapter 19 made way for chapter 20. It says, “And the words of the men of Judah were harsher than the words of the men of Israel” (verse 43); harsh words are provocative. The harsh words of the men of Judah undoubtedly made way for Sheba’s rebellion; because it goes on to say, “There happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite; and 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” 2 Samuel 20:1 Harsh words imply the absence of consideration for one another. Under such circumstances there was not wanting a man to take advantage of them; he blew a trumpet.
Rem There could have been gracious words without any compromise.
JT Quite so; and there might never have been a Sheba; but he “happened to be there”; it was his opportunity. There is always someone ready to take advantage of the strained relations arising from harsh words.
Rem “[Let] your word [be] always with grace, seasoned with salt” Colossians 4:6.
Ques Was there anything in this issue worth contending for?
JT Nothing at all. Israel began, of course; they had ten parts in David; they had been making poor use of them. And now they are boasting of it, and Judah is also boasting; the king is near of kin to them; but they had been making poor use of it, too! If all had been really lovers of David, they would not have been at strife; the harsh words and the cleavage opened the door for Sheba and another revolt. So the lesson is, to close our ranks by love and consideration for one another, and to avoid harsh words.
Ques Would you say that jealousy was at the bottom of it?
JT Undoubtedly. And now the revolt of Sheba brings this wise woman into evidence; the whole [p. 71] lesson here is in what she does; it is “the wisdom of women” It says in Proverbs, “The wisdom of women buildeth their house” Proverbs 14:1; it is what is subjective. “And a wise woman cried out of the city, Hear, hear: say, I pray you, unto Joab, Come near hither, that I may speak with thee. And he came near to her; and the woman said, Art thou Joab? and he said, I [am he]. And she said to him, Listen to the words of thy handmaid. And he said, I am listening. And she spoke saying, They were wont to speak in old time saying, Just inquire in Abel; and so they ended. I am peaceable [and] faithful in Israel: thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of Jehovah?” (chapter 20:16 - 19.) She is a wise woman, and she appeals to what is of the old time; she would go back to first principles — “Inquire in Abel; and so they ended”
Ques Would you connect that with what was at the beginning?
JT Exactly. She would have no innovations; what was at the beginning was enough for her.
Ques What principle is in it?
JT What was said “in old time” She is not dealing with innovations — with modernism.
Rem She took a broad view of the situation: it was “the inheritance of Jehovah” that was in her heart.
Rem At the beginning “they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread, and prayers” Acts 2:42 That is the idea. Whatever light had governed the saints “in old time” she appeals to. Then Joab gives her the facts of the case: “The matter is not so; but a man of mount Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has lifted up his hand against the king, against David: give up him only, and I will depart from the city. And the woman [p. 72] said to Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over the wall. Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and cast it to Joab. And he blew a trumpet, and they dispersed from the city, every man to his tent. And Joab returned to Jerusalem to the king” verses 21, 22. She went to the people in her wisdom: that is what they did in old time, apparently.
Rem She was a wise woman, for the reason that she knew what was to be done. She promised the head; she discerned what was to be done, though she did not do it herself.
JT Quite so. Whilst Absalom’s rebellion was general, this is more local. Sheba’s rebellion is reduced to what is local. So that I think we have instruction here, as to how to deal with an evil person in any locality. The woman refrained from doing it by herself, she goes to all the people in her wisdom. However influential I may be, I cannot act alone in the assembly. In dealing with sin we must get all the saints exercised about it.
Rem So that, if we are to consider for the Lord and the Lord’s people, we have to go back in wisdom to first principles.
JT You must not leave out one in the meeting, because it is a question of bringing in every one, in your exercise. It is the assembly that does it. It has to be the united judgment and action of the assembly; it is not done by an individual.
Rem I was wondering if the principles that governed this wise woman were acted on in Acts 15.
JT Well, I think so; at least the wisdom would be seen there. What comes out is the superiority of those who are dealing with it, to the controversy. Paul and Barnabas went “up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” Acts 15:2 and on the way up ministered to the assemblies and caused [p. 73] great joy, showing that they were above the controversy. And at Jerusalem they were received by the assembly. It is a question of the assembly first. And then the apostles and elders come together to consider the matter (verse 6). The enemy (verse 5) brought the matter up, and the apostles and elders came together to consider it. Peter stood up, pointing out how Gentiles were brought in through his ministry. Then Paul and Barnabas spoke of what God was doing among the Gentiles; what God was doing — the positive thing. The Judaising teachers were not doing the work of God; it was Satan’s work. James confirmed what Peter had said, after which they arrived at the decision. Then the whole assembly was carried in the decision. And so the great thing in dealing with evil is to carry all the saints with you, otherwise you will lose some of them. This woman went to them all in her wisdom, and they cut off the man’s head — they did it.
Ques This woman was “a mother in Israel”: a faithful one who cared for the people of God. Do you put her in contrast to the wise woman of Tekoah?
JT I think so; she had the wisdom of God. Proverbs sets them over against each other — the wise and the foolish. It says, “The wisdom of women buildeth their house; but folly plucketh it down with her hands” Proverbs 14:1. That is what the woman of Tekoah was doing. You can understand that this “mother in Israel” yearned over the saints; she would grieve over the loss of one of them, so she made it a point to go to each one of them.