THE SPIRIT OF JUDGMENT (5)
[p. 168] THE SPIRIT OF JUDGMENT (5)
Judges 13:15 - 21; Judges 14:5 - 9; Judges 15:14 - 20; Judges 16:22; Judges 16:28 - 30
JT Gideon’s judgeship was basically right in that he asserted the principle that governed the time, which was that Jehovah should rule His people immediately, and that there should be no king save Him. The action of Abimelech later was to overthrow that. There is a certain analogy to this in the history of the church; with the revival of the truth of the dispensation, the rights of God being fully owned, a subsequent movement occurred with the intent of denying and nullifying it. Abimelech’s attempt was to nullify the principle that Gideon asserted. The men of Israel would have made Gideon king, but he disclaimed all right to, or desire for kingship for himself or his son.
AFM What was the feature of that evil movement?
JT That which we are gaining from now became interfered with; namely, the revival of the truth of the assembly. There was the desire to rule in a clerical way on the part of some. Abimelech was related to Gideon; it was therefore an evil rising from within, not from without — a sort of antichristian movement from within.
AFM Desiring to have a place of pre-eminence.
JT Yes. And Jotham’s parable (chapter 9) met that in testimony; it was spoken from mount Gerizim and at a distance; but was spoken very plainly, as intending to show that only one who was worthless in himself would aspire to kingship. The thorn bush did this. The “trees” which were useful, and consciously so, renounced the thought of kingship. They preferred to maintain their own service. The fig, the olive, and the vine were conscious of rendering service, and refused to leave their function of bearing fruit.
[p. 169] AFM They abode in the place which God assigned them.
WM A similar thing is pointed out by the apostle, Paul, who says, “From among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things”, (Acts 20:30). It does not say perverse things.
JT That was Abimelech. He had a certain relation with Gideon, but the whole position was perverted.
Rem Perhaps those of us who know something of events of eighty years ago see application of this to the Newton movement.
JT I was thinking of that. It was not bad doctrine which came out at first, but the revival of clericalism.
AFM Do you think that the revival of clericalism was to “draw away the disciples after them”, as in Acts 20?
JT Yes, like Abimelech, he made an alliance with the Shechemites.
AR Was Abimelech’s movement an attack against God who was to rule over the people?
JT Yes; it was definitely against God. And the offence was the more heinous because Gideon had asserted that God alone was to be King.
Rem In this day men sin against the Holy Spirit in the same sense.
JT Reminding us of that remarkable tract, ‘The Notion of a Clergyman; Dispensationally the Sin against the Holy Ghost’.
AP Where did Abimelech get the idea of being king?
JT It is what is in each of our hearts, and belongs to fallen man. It appeared in Nimrod; and, in connection with the people of God, the idea came in with the descendants of Esau; before there was any king in Israel, they had their kings. It is what man as after the flesh aspires to.
AFM It did not conflict, with the desire of faith for a king, when “every man did what was right in his own eyes”, (chapter 21:25).
JT God finally brought in a king; but Jehovah was to [p. 170] be their King. And that is what Gideon asserted. We are brought into the kingdom of God. One great feature of the testimony today is the kingdom of God; it is the moral sway of God here.
Rem I suppose in 1 Samuel the desire for a king was engendered by what was seen in the nations around; the influence of what surrounds us is terrible!
JT Yes. The epistle to the Romans brings in the kingdom of God, which is a moral thing. It is a mediatorial kingdom, but none the less God’s kingdom, for the King is God.
AFM That is, in Christ.
AR Is there any significance in Abimelech’s relations gathering around him in chapter 9?
JT Well, they were his mother’s brethren. He did not have a mother like Gideon. That was, doubtless, where the difficulty primarily lay.
GWH So that the thought of kingship according to God is not inconsistent with this mediatorial system which is developed in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.
JT No. You come to the mediatorial side in chapter 13. The Angel’s name is “wonderful”. He did wondrously too. There is a foreshadowing of Christ who bears this name.
WB-w The overthrow of Abimelech was by a woman and a young man.
JT It is the feminine side; an unnamed woman crushed his skull. It is the same thing in character, as with Sisera and Goliath, the head is prominent. Satan works in opposing God through man’s mental ability.
WB-w It says, “And a woman cast the upper stone of a handmill on Abimelech’s head, and crushed his skull. Then he called hastily to the young man that carried his armour, and said to him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that they say not of me, A woman killed him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died” (chapter 9:53,[p. 171] 55).
JT The woman knew how to use what was ready to hand; no doubt she had often used it in domestic affairs.
JS Just as Samson used the jawbone of an ass.
JT Exactly. He found it.
JS Is Samson seen on a lower plane than Gideon?
JT It will be necessary to review the position clearly from chapter 13, so that Samson’s ministry might be rightly understood, for many young people must be greatly puzzled as to how God could use a man like this at all. I think the incident of Manoah is somewhat higher: “the Angel ... ascended”, it says. As to Gideon, we read: “the Angel of Jehovah departed out of his sight” (chapter 6:21).
Ques Have you any thought why the name of Samson s mother is not given? In other cases the name is emphasised. Has this incident another point in view?
JT I think she represents a subjective condition, reflecting somewhat on those responsible. I think she represents what often occurs, that the general condition of a meeting may be beyond its leaders. The responsible ones may not be equal to the current state of the brethren, which is a great disadvantage. So that although Manoah prays for another visitation, and the prayer is answered, yet the visitation is again to the woman, not to him. I think he is slighted; his position is owned and his prayer answered, but the woman is honoured right through.
AFM Would you give us a brief outline of the judges that intervene?
JT Just to touch on them: Abimelech is a type of antichrist, and a deadly blow is dealt him by a woman. There is a feminine element running through this book that is to be taken notice of; it insures victory for God. We must also note, alas! a feminine element in a bad sense, in the later chapters. There are two other judges following, Tola and Jair; then Jephthah, a man on very much lower ground than Gideon. There was great general declension, after Gideon’s judgeship, as chapter 10:6 - 9 shows. But “the children of Israel cried to Jehovah, saying We, have sinned against thee” (verse 10). The Ammonite attacks and Jephthah is called; he is an extraordinary man, really a sort of freebooter; and yet God uses him. I think this is to remind us that God acts to carry out His thoughts in ways different from what we might conjecture. Jephthah had remarkable knowledge of Scripture. There was evidently something hidden in the man that did not appear in his general conduct up to this time.
GWH Something which God sees, for He “searches the hearts”, (Romans 8:27).
AFM The attack here (chapter 10:17) was from the wilderness side where the two and a half tribes were. Is there any significance in that? Does it suggest Romans and Numbers?
JT I think it is Romans, the truth of the gospel; the danger would be of being robbed of it. The children of Ammon claimed territory that God gave to Israel through Moses, not Joshua. It is a lower level, but most important. If we lose Romans, the foundations are gone. So Jephthah outlines the territory, and points out that Israel had possessed it for three hundred years. ‘Why then did not Ammon contest it before?’ he asks.
WB-w They sent for Jephthah saying, “Come, and be our captain, that we may fight against the children of Ammon” (chapter 11:6).
JT He did not want a position like Abimelech. God used him, which shows that there must have been a moral work in him. He is well able to outline the divine territory; and understands Israel’s history. He says, “Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon” (verse 15), which is an important point. He does not strike a blow until he clearly lays out the case. There should be no war without the case being made clear; he was not entering blindly into the [p. 173] struggle, nor does he wish his enemies to do so. Israel’s cause was a righteous one. Of course, a great deal could be said of Jephthah, of how he uttered his words at Mizpah before the Lord; all of which shows that there was more in him than appeared on the surface. He is an example of the latent ability which may be among the people of God, but which is known only to God, and brought forward by Him as needed. We should be warned against pushing brothers forward for leadership: God’s choice is usually hidden, and brought forward and promoted by Himself. Jephthah, however, was much behind Gideon in the traits of Christ; his conflict with Ephraim was very distressing.
GWH It was so lacking of the wise, conciliatory spirit Gideon had shown.
AFM There was not the same discipline or spiritual formation in Jephthah as in Gideon, nor the same judgeship.
HSD He is mentioned in Hebrews 11.
GWH Which shows there was faith.
ARS Jephthah is primarily the people’s selection, not God’s.
JT Yes. But the Lord takes him on and uses him. As our brother remarked, he is honourably mentioned in Hebrews; such comments of the New Testament help us. There was faith and a knowledge of the territory of God. In a certain way there is an analogy in Luther. That was his point, really, Romans. He knew that much; and God uses us according to what we have. It is clear that Jephthah had a knowledge of the contested territory which God had given to Israel, and he would not forfeit one inch of it.
WM Why has Samson to deal with the Philistines more than with others?
JT This is an extended Philistine oppression. Shamgar’s contact with the Philistines earlier evidently was when they were not generally oppressive; he slew six [p. 174] hundred. It was an exploit against that class, a class which is always present. It is well to strike at them when you can. They represent a principle of the flesh in its bigness, as growing up in the land; and Shamgar struck successfully. But in Samson’s time it was a long oppressive domination of forty years.
AFM It appears that they came from Egypt, whence Israel came, but did not learn redemption.
JT They claimed a status because they were in the land. But they did not get there in God’s way; they took the short cut; whereas, Israel came God’s way.
AFM The Philistines, as you said, were big; but Israel had to become small, they had to learn the way out of Egypt by death.
JT What Rahab did to the spies indicates what the Philistines did not do; she sent them out “another way”, (James 2:25). The Philistines came to Canaan the ordinary way; but “another way” is the way that faith takes. Christendom is on the principle of the ordinary way, as were the Philistines; whereas, faith takes the other way, which brings in conflict. The Philistines are marked by the numeral five — five cities, five lords; this developed into the numeral six — six toes, six fingers. There is development in the position, and they became Israel’s most potent enemies. They were finally subdued by David.
GWH It says, “Jehovah gave them into the hand of the Philistines forty years” (chapter 13:1). As though He had done it.
JT This character of discipline is seen right through the book. God allows different enemies to dominate. So that chapter 13 brings out His way of meeting this feature of oppression: He takes account of Manoah’s wife.
GWH He meets this enemy through Nazariteship.
JT But He begins by speaking first to the woman. That is a special feature running through this book; it is [p. 175] the element represented by the woman, in a subjective and corrective way. It is not that all the people were marked by it, but that God is pleased to establish this principle.
AFM Does this peculiar oppression give us a key to the declining state of the people?
JT I suppose it does. It is very solemn, that the form of the flesh typified in the Philistines should have been allowed to flourish until it dominated Israel. What has occurred in the history of the church is in view.
GWH It would be through the breakdown of the responsible element.
JT Evidently. So that we have to carefully consider this chapter. The Angel appears to the woman with good tidings, and she relates the facts to her husband. Manoah is a remarkable kind of man; not only is he interested in the communication to his wife, but he prays to God to let the man of God come again. She says of the man of God, “His appearance was like the appearance of an angel of God” (verse 6). She had ability to discern in this person a heavenly visitant. How different he was from a Philistine! Manoah did not distinguish the Angel as his wife did; so that when he came the second time Manoah says, “What is thy name, that when thy word cometh to pass we may do thee honour?” Well, he was assuming quite a little in promising that he would do him honour. “Let us detain thee”, Manoah says, “and we will make ready a kid of the goats for thee”. We should notice that the Angel’s answer suggests what is mediatorial: “If thou wilt offer a burnt-offering, thou shalt offer it up to Jehovah”. He is asserting the rights of God, as the Lord Jesus did.
AFM He is called “the Angel”.
JT Yes. So Manoah’s proposal to do him honour “when thy word cometh to pass” is poor. The angel says, “My name ... is wonderful”. It is very poor to talk about honouring one so evidently great,
[p. 176] when his sayings come to pass. You can see how this name is expanded, for in Isaiah 9:6 Christ’s “name is called Wonderful”. And then the Angel immediately proceeds, as the offering is made, to do wonderful things. Manoah did not have to wait until his word came to pass; it was a question of discerning the greatness of the person before his eyes. People put things off to the coming of the Lord; but the point is what is now before us. The person is here whose name is wonderful, and he does wondrously. It says twice, “And Manoah and his wife looked on”. They were brought to that point, of looking on.
WM Saints speak about the coming of the Lord, instead of what we have now. I suppose the event of His coming is not the hope of the church.
JT It is the Lord Himself. “Christ Jesus our hope”, (1 Timothy 1:1). It is not exactly an event, but a Person that we have before us. Here He is doing wonderful things, in response to which, Manoah and his wife looked on and fell on their faces to the ground.
Ques The inquiry of Manoah as to the Angel’s name is like the Jews in John’s gospel looking for signs; it was lack of faith.
JT Yes. The trouble was in not seeing who was there. So here the Angel ascends in the flame of the altar. The Lord says, “Behold, more than Solomon is here”, and again, “Behold, more than Jonas is here”, (Luke 11:31,32). It is not now a staff in the Angel’s hand, as with Gideon. It is more like John’s ministry, in this chapter. The staff connects with what God had been doing. Here it is, typically, the Lord Himself who is the beginning.
JS What He is in Himself. So that the Lord ascends in John.
WM It is not previous work or experience, but something new.
JT The Person Himself is in view. John has that [p. 177] in mind — to bring in the Person, who is greater than anything He does; it is Himself.
SMcC The disciples “contemplated his glory”, (John 1:14).
JT They saw what was there. It was said to John the baptist: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit”; and John said: “I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God”, (John 1:33,34). And yet the Son of God was not viewed as doing anything at that time; for the same John says, “In the midst of you stands, whom ye do not know, he who comes after me”, (John 1:26).
JEN I am glad for these thoughts as to John’s gospel. There is no true beginning until Christ.
JT You have a real beginning, the Person Himself.
WM As we have it here, the responsible element fails; it is the woman, which is similar to John.
JT Women, as representing the work of God, are prominent in John’s gospel.
ANW The woman speaks of Him as Jehovah, but Manoah, as God.
JT It says, “Manoah knew that it was the Angel of Jehovah, And Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God” (verses 21,22). Manoah was the responsible element, he had a sense of responsibility to God, but he did not know God. The woman knew Him, and bases her remarks on that knowledge. She said, “If Jehovah were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt-offering and an oblation at our hands, neither would he have showed us all these things, nor would he at this time have told us such things as these” (verse 23). I think that is excellent; she speaks from her knowledge of God. Manoah ought to have known these things, for both Abraham and Moses had seen God in the sense spoken of here; but he is not equal to the privileges accorded to him.
[p. 178] Rem She turns (verse 23) to the name of revealed relationship, Jehovah.
JT Manoah’s wife goes beyond Deborah; her reasons are based on her knowledge of God, as verse 23 shows.
Now coming to Samson, it may be well to point out, as was said already, that it must be a great puzzle to understand how God could use such a man. But if his life is taken up typically, it may be seen that God, in the history of the church, has done wonderful things in spite of adverse conditions. We have unmistakably, the Nazarite at the beginning, and then the death of Christ in a remarkable manner, both in the slaying of the lion and in the honey in its carcass; and the “fresh jawbone of an ass” points to the continued freshness of His death. Then there is reference to the Spirit in the drinking of the well of Lehi, and Colossian ground typified in the taking of the doors and bars of Gazah to the top of the mountain that is before Hebron. Samson’s awful fall follows, brought about through the disclosure of the secret of his power from God. Then with the regrowth of his hair there is seen power which results in the overthrow of the world. The history unmistakably refers, not to a particular phase of the church, but to its whole history — what God has done and will do despite the conditions described. The element of Nazariteship is seen running right through the history of the assembly, which shows that in however small a way or in whomsoever that element exists, God will surely recognise it and vindicate Himself.
PA Is there any subjective feature in the life of Samson?
JT The renewed growth of his hair and his exploits of power indicate that there was a work of God in him. He is one of the men of faith mentioned in Hebrews 11, and faith is an evidence of the work of God in one.
Rem It says, “And the Spirit of Jehovah began to [p. 179] move him at Mahaneh-Dan, between Zoreah and Eshtaol” (verse 25).
JT The Spirit began to move him in his own locality.
AFM Are the people at the lowest ebb here? Whereas before, God generally delivered His people not only through the judge but through the people themselves, here it is by Samson alone and through Nazariteship.
JT I think the oppression here has to be taken account of as covering the whole history of the church in the antitype. Whether the element of Nazariteship is great, as it was at the beginning, or small as subsequently, or whether it is found running side by side with the greatest sins, such as the history of the church shows, yet God always is true to that principle, and power is there as the result.
Rem I suppose, “Let a man prove himself” (1 Corinthians 11:28) would be Nazariteship preserved in freshness and vigour. If it is in evidence, it must be in relation to the Lord’s supper.
JT It would be so. I have no doubt the position in chapter 15, the exploit at Lehi, alludes to the Lord’s supper; it comes in there in the fresh jawbone. The Philistines spread over Lehi and Judah; that is, they were right among the leading tribe, which is most sorrowful. And those of Judah answer Samson, “Knowest thou not that the Philistines rule over us?” (verse 11). That is a most solemn admission; and they actually bind and deliver him over to them. This act of Judah foreshadowed that of the Jews in handing Christ over to the Romans.
JS “We have no king but Caesar”, (John 19:15).
JT Yes. They handed the Lord over to His enemies, thinking they had triumphed; as no doubt Satan thought at Gethsemane and the cross. It says of Samson that the “Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, and the cords that were on his arms became as threads of flax that are burned with fire”. That is to say, the power of God exhibited itself in regard to that which [p. 180] held him.
AFM You refer to this as typical of Christ’s death and resurrection?
JT Quite. Then it says, “And he found a fresh jawbone of an ass”. Samson found it. I think that the figure runs on to the Lord’s death as seen in the Lord’s supper. It is not a mere historical matter; if it were only that, it would be as dry as the dry bones that Ezekiel saw in the valley. That is what the ‘sacrament of the Lord’s supper’ is like in christendom; there is no freshness about it; it is just a religious observance with no sap in it at all. The Lord’s supper implies that His death is an ever present thing, as if it happened this very day. It is never really and fully enjoyed except in this light; which makes it not a question of history simply, but enables us to enter into the present bearing of His death.
WM How do you apply the fresh jawbone to the Supper?
JT The death of Christ is brought to us in this fresh way. One might inquire as to that which is on the table. The answer would be, ‘a loaf’. But the Lord said of it, when instituting His supper, “this is my body”, (Matthew 26:26).
WM Do you mean that the ass represents Christ as become sin?
JT Of course an eastern ass is a noble domesticated creature, and typically it refers to Christ in that sense. Balaam’s ass, for example, was a remarkable creature: It said, “Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine to this day? was I ever wont to do so to thee?” (Numbers 22:30).
Rem It was a faithful servant.
JT But the jawbone would refer to the state of Samson as a believer. He was dwelling in the cleft of the rock just prior to this slaughter of the Philistines. What had engaged him there? We must bear in mind that these exploits are not simply incidents, but are types. He judged Israel twenty years we are told; he was not always [p. 181] slaying Philistines. The cleft of the rock was an invaluable place to be in. Moses had been there before him, and Samson would doubtless know that. God had put Moses there. Typically, he was in Christ — in the sense of security. The jawbone suggests the power of mastication; there is not only to be the reception of the word of God, but its mastication and assimilation. The Lord Jesus emphasises the word of God, in His temptation in the wilderness. He says, “Man shall ... live ... by every word which goes out through God’s mouth”, (Matthew 4:4). He would Himself live as a Nazarite by the word of God. We have, so to say, to read between the lines of Scripture, and masticate the word of God if we are to get His mind. Of course, we must not add to Scripture, but to understand an incident, we must, in dependence on the Spirit, take in the full setting and bearing of it.
GWH Has not the revival of the Supper in its true significance served to overthrow the Philistines, in the last hundred years?
JT It is so vital that it enters into everything!
WM Samson put forth his hand and took the jawbone.
JT And by it he slew a thousand men. He did more than Shamgar with an ox goad, which is another thing, and refers undoubtedly to experience. The jawbone occupies an important place in Scripture in connection with the food of the priests. Of the sacrifices they were given the jawbone and the maw (or stomach); the former means that I masticate; the other, that I assimilate. So that I acquire spiritual power, and am available to God.
JTJr Would it be like a fresh word from God?
JT It would indeed; Samson became, as it were, identified with the jawbone; he is fresh. We have to look at things in a spiritual way. First, he found it; the exigency of the moment required an implement; he had slain the lion without anything in his hand. But the jawbone [p. 182] found, refers more to a believer who is in power acquired by the word of God, and characterised by the death of Christ.
JS You find ability to use that which is at hand.
JT How often one finds, in seeking to serve the Lord, what one did not know was there! You are conscious that you need something, and it comes to light.
EP Paul’s presentation of the Supper in 1 Corinthians is like a fresh jawbone; it met the Philistine element at Corinth.
JT One feature of Samson is mutuality. The honey of chapter 14 is a mutual thought. So that the Lord’s supper is brought in to bring down the Philistine element among christians, and to bring about mutual affection.
WM There is no place where a man feels so small as at the Lord’s supper.
JT That is a very wholesome remark. Paul says, “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body”; and then in connection with the cup, “This ... is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:23 - 25); how full and how touching are these words!
Rem The use of the jawbone of an ass is suggestive of the lowly presentation of the truth in Corinth. The apostle begins in chapter 11 with the place of the woman and then comments upon the disorder in their love feasts, until the chapter emerges into the sublime memorial of Christ — what the Lord had given Paul direct from heaven.
JT He had been amongst them with no pretension at all. “I did not judge it well to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified”, (1 Corinthians 2:2).
WM After the defeat of the Philistines Samson was able to write [p. 183] a hymn!
JT It is a poetic contribution. How much poetry there is in Scripture! There is no singing until you get redemption; but there is poetry before. Now Samson here is able to put his feelings into poetic language: “With the jawbone of an ass, a heap, two heaps, With the jawbone of an ass have I slain a thousand men”.
AFM You would hardly think that a blunt jawbone could effect such great results; but it shows how effectual a word fresh from the Lord is.
JT So that in the directions for “open” meetings in 1 Corinthians 14, one point is brevity; another is that you have something; a third is that while you are speaking another gets something, and you are sensitive enough to sit down. The first speaker would rightly have a definite word, but the second or third speakers would be sitting by and get revelations, something that is revealed at the moment.
Rem You are saying this abstractly!
JT We must keep the truth before us, even if we come far short of it. The brother who is exercised about a word is sitting (not wanting to stand); if he has a revelation the first speaker holds his peace.
WM How would he know when to do that?
JT It is a test to one’s spirituality. The Lord’s supper puts us in touch with one another, and prepares for the three following chapters. 1 Corinthians 12 begins the subject of ministry, which gives prominence to the Spirit. Chapter 13 is the more excellent way of love. Chapter 14 is ministry in the assembly; it suggests the highest kind of spiritual sensitiveness — one speaking is conscious that a brother sitting by has a revelation, and gives way to him. It should be noticed that chapter 14 contemplates “the whole assembly come together in one place” (verse 23);
chapter 11:18 is “when ye come together in assembly”.
ANW Would you be more concerned about the first speaker’s part than with that of those who follow?
JT I should. The first speaker gives the lead. It is a great principle with God to give a lead.
Ques. What about brevity?
JT Brevity is enjoined. “And let two or three prophets speak”, 1 Corinthians 14:29. It is a limitation of mercy.
Ques What do you mean by a limitation of mercy?
JT The brethren should not be worn out. Besides, “we know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9); indeed, we cannot take in much at once.
AFM There is nothing wrong in having a psalm, a teaching, or a revelation.
JT But then one should know when to give out what he has and discern when another has something which he has got just at the moment. The assembly is one, and the Spirit acts in line with that.
AAT Should the brothers be in line with one another?
JT The idea of a “word” is what may be spoken as well as what is spoken; that is, it conveys what you have even if you do not speak. Elihu had much to say, but he waited for his opportunity, (Job 32).
SMcC “If any one speak — as oracles of God”, (1 Peter 4:11).
JT That is, you speak on the part of God. So that for all who take part in meetings, it is a question of being with God and discerning conditions that exist; there must be a constant meeting of conditions which arise.
Ques Why was Samson thirsty after this great event?
JT It says, “And it came to pass when he had ended speaking, that he cast away the jawbone out of his hand, and called that place Ramath-Lehi”. I think the casting away of the jawbone means that it is not to be used again; which agrees with what we were [p. 185] saying, that the ministry must be fresh. But he needed something to replace the jawbone, for he was very thirsty; and we have to go on to something after this. At the next meeting we shall need something fresh also; for we cannot rely on what we gave out at the last one.
JS Did he need something for his own soul?
JT He was very thirsty personally, and called on Jehovah and said, “Thou hast given by the hand of thy servant this great deliverance, and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised? And God clave the hollow rock which was in Lehi, and water came out of it. And he drank, and his spirit came again, and he revived. Therefore its name was called Enhakkore, which is in Lehi to this day”. ‘The caller’s spring’ (footnote) remained; a fitting monument to Samson’s faith, and an encouragement to us to make room for the Spirit.
ANW Would you clarify a little more, for practical benefit, the difference between having a word and a revelation?
JT Having a word is right enough when you come to the meeting. ‘Logos’ means that; it is one of the words used in scripture for ‘word’ and means that you have something to say (i.e., the subject before you utter it), and also the utterance of it. It is quite right to have it, to come with it; but that, I think, would be the exercise of the first speaker. The second speaker’s word is by ‘revelation’; as he sits there something comes to him by the Spirit. The Spirit of God will use what you have; but it is on the principle of something coming to you from Him that you speak. The great value of such meetings is that the door is open for the Spirit. If there be haste or competition the Spirit is ‘grieved’ or ‘quenched’.
AFM There are very few ‘open’ meetings held among us now.
JT The Lord is owning the ‘open’ meetings in some [p. 186] parts. It is a question of having confidence in the Lord and in one another. The Spirit’s movements are always true. If the brethren have confidence in us, we must not betray it. A brother should wait for his opportunity, and be sure he has something to give.
Pursuing Samson’s history, in chapter 16 we have Hebron. Samson carries up the doors, posts, and bar of Gazah, typical of Christ leading captivity captive. And then the great fall of Samson, due to the disclosure of his secret of Nazariteship; so that it is an out and out disaster, but room is made for God, and Samson’s hair begins to grow, there is life there, referring to an element in the church. It refers, I think, to life as presented in John’s ministry. It is said that Jannes and Jambres could not advance farther; their folly was exposed by life. Samson’s hair begins to grow; the growth is the sign to faith that the world system is coming down; typically it falls in Samson’s final victory; that is what faith sees at the present moment.
WB-w What about the great fall of Samson — is it the breakdown of the public body?
JT Yes. That disaster is historical now; but encouragement lies in the fact that Samson’s hair “began to grow after he was shaved”. The hair beginning to grow becomes very practical with all of us; the growth of the hair denotes life, as indicating a healthy state of things. In it we have the evidence of life, and however small it may be, it is the death knell of the world. The world, as such, must come down.
AFM It says, “Who is he that gets the victory over the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:5).
JS The whole world structure is brought down.
JT First it is brought down in our souls — “Now is the judgment of this world”, (John 12:31).
WM It is the subjective condition that gains the [p. 187] victory.
JT It is of great importance to follow that thread through this book.
AL “Strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once”. Samson now values the power he had forfeited.
WB-w He was to begin to save Israel; and at the end his hair began to grow.
JT There was not finality with him; that is in Christ, and will appear when He comes.
Ques Why does Samson perish with the Philistines?