GIDEON THE BROTHER
GIDEON THE BROTHER
JT I thought it would be helpful to pursue the subject of Gideon. In this chapter we have indicated what he was as a brother. Chapter 6 is what he is — among other things — in his relations with God; chapter 7 is what marked him in the conflict; and chapter 8 indicates what he is as a brother, and how he manifests the traits becoming to a brother. If God is pleased to come in sovereignly and raise up a leader, those who have already been in the first place are sure to be affected, so now this chapter helps us in seeing in Gideon the spirit of a brother. He recognises the leading tribe — Ephraim. He credits them with a great share in the victory, so that instead of a conflict arising between them he pacifies them; whereas Jephthah, later on, lacking the spirit of a brother, contends with Ephraim, and fearful slaughter ensues. But chapter 6, as we had yesterday, affords wonderful instruction as showing how the servant is set up in his relations with God. It is first power with God, then power with men. Another great truth that comes in incidentally is the principle of example. Christianity has been inaugurated on that principle; it is not by precept but by example. Now the old economy was on the ground of precept. Moses was not all that he said: Christ was all that He said, and hence is not only the law to us but the example. That is seen very clearly in Gideon. Chapter 7 brings in his followers; his companions in arms were wholly dependent for what they did on what he did.
Rem That is what Paul would refer to when he linked up his manner of life with his doctrine.
JT Yes, he brings it in, particularly in Philippians — they were to walk ‘as they had him as an example’. Many, he says, walk of whom I speak [p. 189] with tears; they minded earthly things; they were enemies of the cross of Christ.
Ques Do you mean that the manner of life is the brother?
JT Well! it comes in really before that. Of course, it comes out in the brother, but it comes out more in the way of example. The warrior and the servants — are in chapter 7. First of all, the army has to be reduced. The army is tested as to whether they are on natural lines, or on spiritual lines; i.e. whether they can lap the water like a dog — which is contrary to nature for a man, though quite natural for a dog — or whether they have to bow down and drink in a lazy, natural, easy sort of way. That was the most drastic test for them. It reduced the army to three hundred, and then after that test they had to learn how to do things from Gideon. They were to do what he did: that was how the victory was to be achieved. So that whether it be Christ, or whether it be one who is of like passions with ourselves, such as Paul, we have to go by example if we are to be effective. It is not only what you are told to do; it is what you see another doing. We are to be observant as to how things are done; in that way. I think chapter 7 is, in principle, the gospel of Mark. The gospel of Mark is the levitical gospel, it is the gospel for the levites, and the principle in Mark is not simply what the Lord did — although that is there — but how He did things. Many of us do a good deal, but then the question is whether we do it rightly — whether things are well done. The leaders of christendom do things as they think right, but the gospel of Mark is the check on all that; it is the workman’s gospel. So that it is not only the thing that is done, but it is the manner in which it is done.
Ques I suppose that would be illustrated in what Paul in Acts 20 says to the elders of Ephesus. It was [p. 190] not only that he served the Lord, but he did it with all humility of mind and many tears.
JT Yes; that was how the thing was done; it was befitting, and Timothy was a man similar to that: he was a man accustomed to tears. Paul remembered his tears, for tears of that kind were valuable. Paul’s tears were such as the Lord would put into His bottle, and Timothy’s too — they were worthy of preservation!
Rem I thought too of how the latter part of Acts 20 would illustrate what you said as to the Lord looking on Gideon: “I have shewed you all things, that thus labouring ... and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus ...”.
JT That is excellent; that is just what I was thinking; Mark really got his ideas from Paul. He knew a good deal about the christian household, and he speaks more about the Lord being in a house than any of the other evangelists do. He was a companion of Paul at the beginning, and he had opportunity to see how the work was done. He failed in that; he went back to natural principles. Now, the greatest evidence that he was recovered lies in the fact that his gospel is taken up with the manner of the workmanship. He occupies you with the Lord’s workmanship. So that the gospel looked at in that way is like chapter 7 of Judges — it is the true Gideon. ‘You look at me; do as I have done; what you see me do, you do’.
Rem So that in that way, it is not simply that the work is done, but Christ is expressed in how you do it.
JT Yes, God thinks a good deal of that. With Luke, it is not so much how the thing is done, how relief is brought in, but he magnifies the thing accomplished. Whereas Mark emphasis how the thing was accomplished, he tells us the Lord did everything well.
[p. 191] Rem It is not sufficient to have the line of the truth, but we have to be characterised by the spirit of it.
JT Quite so. One enhances the things he speaks of by his manner. I think every brother ought to be exercised about doing something. First of all, timidity has to be judged; those that were fearful and afraid had to be sent back. Then, secondly, if you are not afraid, you must be free from the love of ease and comfort; while God accords to us many mercies to enjoy, if He gives them to us, we must not live in them. If anyone lives on honey, for instance, he will build up a very poor constitution spiritually, but you will find a little of it is all right. It helps a man, as we see in Jonathan; it enlightens his eyes. Saul forbade it altogether, which is a feature of apostasy — forbidding what is legitimate. But with anyone who lives on honey, the question is, whether he can really continue.
Ques Where would John the baptist come in?
JT Well, he lived on locusts and wild honey, that was not what ordinary people lived on. It was evidently something outside the range of natural culture; it was not honey cultured in a bee-hive at home.
Rem That would be more what would come out of the rock.
JT Yes; it was something that he found wild, uncultured by man.
Ques What do you mean by that?
JT Man loves culture. It is the thing that God has given, but it is refined down to suit the debased natural taste of man.
Rem There is that which is sweet in nature which is of God; and there is that which is sweet in man’s world.
JT Yes. I think John had the thing wild from man’s point of view, but I should not say from God’s; I think he found it just as it was in the wilderness. These soldiers of Gideon had the water there; it was a great blessing, but it had to be taken just for the sake of supporting them for the moment. They passed on, having another thing in view. The prophet has the testimony in view; he just takes what God gives him as supporting him.
Rem Everyone could not take up the Lord’s battles in that way.
JT No. I think we have, first of all, to judge any sort of timidity, and consequently, if one takes up the things legitimate in nature, he is not to make them an object. He is just to view them in so far as they are subservient to the testimony, or his position in it. That is where most of us fail, we make business an object, for instance, instead of making it subservient to the testimony. We should just touch it as using it, but not abusing it.
Rem I suppose if one is really set for it, all these tests we go through will really bring us out fit.
Ques Fit for what? The conflict?
JT It is a question of the testimony really. When you look at it spiritually, what Gideon had in his pitcher was what Paul had in his heart — the earthen vessel. 2 Corinthians 4 is the antitype of Judges 7. The third chapter is the ministry — the excellency of the ministry; it was a ministry that far excelled that of Moses, the ministry of righteousness. In chapter 4 we have the suited vessel for it: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels”, which is literally an allusion to Gideon’s pitcher. Gideon did not have the light in himself; he had it in an earthen vessel in his hand. Paul was the vessel himself so that now the Lord says, You have the treasure and you have the earthen vessel. So Paul says, “We which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh”. It is the life of Jesus — that [p. 193] is the light that shines, it shines as the vessel is broken. The Lord Jesus was delivered unto death; it was the dying of Jesus. Jesus is really the true Gideon: He went all the way into death. Paul was delivered to it.
Ques What is the force of the breaking of the vessel?
JT The force of it is that God delivers us to death in discipline, so that the vessel is broken up — all that is round the light to hinder it. I think it is one accepting death on oneself.
Ques Is that “always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus”?
JT Yes. God had in view the life of Jesus to be displayed, and Paul was quite in accord with that. So he said he bore about in his body the dying — not the death — of Jesus; that is, Jesus going down from the mount of transfiguration to Calvary.
Ques Do you make the treasure equivalent to the light?
JT Oh, yes! “God, who commanded the light to shine ...”. Then the apostle says, “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels”.
Rem I am alluding to the light in Gideon’s pitcher, was it the same as the treasure?
JT Yes, I think it is. I think the treasure is like that; it is an allusion to Gideon’s pitcher. Paul calls it a treasure, it was only a light in Gideon’s pitcher.
Rem The pitcher was broken — the dying has to be maintained.
JT Yes, it is a constant thing.
Ques Was not the light the sword of the Lord — of Jehovah?
JT Yes. It was in that way that the conquest was to be secured by the breaking of the pitcher. The effect was that the enemy was set in complete confusion; he was put to complete rout by the [p. 194] testimony. It is a question of the sending out of the testimony.
Ques Did not that characterise Paul’s movements?
JT Yes. That is what I thought Paul became — a reflection of Gideon as a model. He is the only one in Scripture who is set out as a model for us except the Lord Himself.
Rem I suppose that in chapter 4 to which you referred in 2 Corinthians, it is really apostolic, but I take it that you mean the same principles which came out in the apostle have to be maintained in us.
JT I am sure that is the point. We are like the three hundred of Gideon’s army, and the word for us, I think, is to look on Paul. “Able ministers of the new testament”, I think, is apostolic. They were competent ministers of the new covenant, and their sufficiency was of God. But we, in our measure, are to be followers, as he says, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ”. So that if Paul were living now, for instance, and he wanted to set himself before us as an example, and he could not come himself, he would send a son of his — that is Timothy — to put us in mind. He sent Timothy to the Corinthians that they might be reminded of his ways as they were in Christ.
Ques Why do you bring the brother in last? You spoke of the warrior in chapter 7.
JT The brother is what we shall be in heaven; it is the last, it continues. The warrior character and the levitical character will cease.
Rem What I meant was that I thought what we were as brothers ought to give character to us as warriors.
JT Well, it does; but I think it is right to bring in the brother last. It is a greater thought even than an apostle, because the brother remains. What will Paul be in heaven? A brother — he will not be an [p. 195] apostle there. He will be nothing more than a brother. He may have greater affections, perhaps, than some of us, but as to his rank, he is a brother.
Ques Would you say that it is in having the spirit of a brother that the service is regulated or adjusted?
JT Undoubtedly. Gideon was a brother at the beginning as much as at the end; but the Spirit of God leaves the traits of the brother until the end — until chapter 8.
Ques As a matter of fact, has not each one who reaches the company of brethren really got a victory over the enemy first?
JT Quite. And he is a brother from the outset really and truly. The gospel of John fits in more with chapter 8; the gospel of Mark with chapter 7. Gideon said to the kings, “What manner of men were they whom ye slew at Tabor? And they answered, As thou art, so were they; each one resembled the children of a king”. And then Gideon says, “They were my brethren, even the sons of my mother”. That is the gospel of John.
Ques Is there the thought of order — moral order — in the way in which things are presented in 2 Timothy 2: “Pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace”? Righteousness involves conflict; the brother would come in with the third — love.
JT That is very good. Faith, hope and love. The greater of these is love — that is the brother — that is the thing that remains.
Rem In times of distress and difficulty, we find that we often reverse the order, and we speak as if we did not carry out the spirit of a brother, but the first principle is righteousness.
JT Yes, but the brother is the standby; the brother is born for adversity. The apostle may fail, and the Levite, but the brother never fails. Love never fails and love is in the brother.
[p. 196] Rem In speaking of the testimony, Paul would, of course, be a child of the covenant, and those who followed Paul would necessarily be the same, that is, children of the covenant in connection with the testimony.
JT Well, yes, in a way. The covenant sets us free, but a person could not properly be a vessel of the testimony unless formed in the testimony. The Lord is the model for us. If anyone wants to understand the model servant, then he should read Mark; if anyone wants to understand the brother, he should read John. In that way, the gospel of John is morally the greatest gospel, because it deals with what is eternal. It is not the thought of administration; it is not official, it is what abides; it is eternal. John is on the eternal platform.
Ques Would you say that the Midianites had to be dealt with before there could be the exercise of the brother as such?
JT Yes. We could not be here this afternoon if the Midianites had not been dealt with. I mean to say, the clerical principle has to be judged — that kind of person who takes away the food supply. We could not be together if it were unjudged, I mean in a practical way. You could not arrive at the brethren unless you judged that thing. So that chapters 6 and 7 necessarily come in before you could see the brother. Now, Ephraim is one of the brethren. He has not yet disqualified himself from being a brother, though he has lost his place as a leader; he has failed there. Many a man has lost his place, alas! as a leader, but he retains his place as a brother. He must recognise the brother.
Ques Why did Gideon seek to propitiate him?
JT I think it shows that he (Gideon) was like the second bullock. The second bullock was not one year old; it was seven years old. That is to say,
[p. 197] Gideon had progressed and was a developed man; he was not a novice. The apostle was much concerned lest novices should have to do with the things of God; they are sure to do damage. We must recognise the elder brother; we cannot disregard him, although we may not follow his lead. We must recognise his brotherly relation to us, and we cannot go far wrong by making allowance for everything possible. If the Lord has used him, give him credit for all possible, for if God is with a man, you can afford to be very liberal.
Ques Do you think that Gideon as having the spirit of a brother saves the situation in his humility?
JT It would have disrupted Israel; a new conflict would have arisen at once. If you get rid of the clerical principle — I am referring to the Midianites — which may cover other things, there is always the danger, though that be got rid of, of disruption amongst brethren. If we have not the Gideon spirit we shall have disruption. It was the spirit of Gideon that saved the situation.
Rem That is the spirit which says ‘I am an unprofitable servant’.
JT Yes, he had a humble estimate of himself. The more you are with God, the more magnanimous you can afford to be; the less you demand, and you can afford to give all credit to people.
Rem But he did not say it in a conventional way; he really meant it.
JT Yes, it was quite true, they had captured these two kings (chapter 7: 24, 25). We see they had achieved a good bit in spite of the fact that they had failed before. It is a very fine thing to see a brother who has been defective (and perhaps passed over by God before) come up at the end and do his part. It is only right to give him credit, and, in fact, to maintain unity you have to do that.
[p. 198] Rem The apostle recognises Mark in the end after he was recovered.
JT Yes, and Barnabas too.
Rem I suppose the principle in christianity is that every little bit of good is taken account of. I thought of the Lord as the perfect Servant, “Behold my servant whom I uphold ...”; there is the recognition with Christ of all that is good and all that is of God, “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench”.
JT Yes. He is not marked by destruction or by overthrowing.
Rem I thought too, there might be a tendency to be occupied only with the evil in another; but in christianity you take account of the good first.
JT Yes. So that if Ephraim envies Judah, Judah does not vex Ephraim. We must not vex the elder brethren.
Rem Is it not the principle that a soft answer turneth away wrath? It seems to be distinctly manifested here on the part of Gideon.
JT It is a very fine example of it. You have in the first instance the grace of the brother recognising the original leader with all due consideration; and secondly, he refers to some that had been killed — those were not Ephraimites, they were his brethren. Chapter 8: 18, 19 brings in the true brethren of Gideon. The Ephraimites, although brethren, were not exactly sons of his mother. The defect invariably lies in the mother, in the want of a good mother. We have all got the same status; Ephraim had the same status as Gideon, that is to say, they were all Israelites — they were all brethren on the father’s side, but they did not have the same mother. There are many of us who do not show a good motherly influence; it is the mother that gives the character. The mother does not give the status; the father gives the status.
[p. 199] Rem We all have a good mother!
JT We have. Our mother is Jerusalem above. But then, do we recognise that mother and take character from her? Gideon does not say, They are the sons of my father; he says, They are the sons of my mother. It is not said they were the sons of Joash. They were the sons of his mother, and yet she is not mentioned by name. It was sufficient to say that she was his mother.
Rem That touches the question of being freeborn.
JT Yes. It really suggests that we are in the good of sonship. The mother in this dispensation is the system that God is allied with — that He is in covenant with. It is an allusion to marriage in Galatians. We know that He is not in covenant with the old legal system any longer, He is in relation now with a heavenly system of things.
Ques Do you think that this is why in Galatians Paul says, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you”?
JT Those men that troubled them would take away the mother influence — the heavenly influence would be cut off.
Rem Resembling the children of a king — is that status or character?
JT That would be status. They were like Gideon — all of them as the children of a king; that would be their dignity. But their character was from the mother.
Rem That is a very interesting point, as to the father and mother, because it would be borne out by what the apostle says to the Thessalonians, that he was gentle among them as a nurse cherishes her own children. It was the way in which he conducted himself towards them in affection; he counted on them taking that character. But further on, he [p. 200] takes the place of a father, and there it is connected with the kingdom and their calling.
JT Yes, I think he had to do the part of a father and mother, and the thought is that of a nursing father — only married people understand that. It is a man who has to do the part of a mother. It is in that way, I think, the apostle treated the Thessalonians as babes. It is the only epistle in which the saints are said to be in God the Father — it is a very remarkable statement. The mother side is not in view. They are in God the Father, and Paul likens himself to a nurse; but then a nurse is not a mother. But he was also a nursing father: he had the fatherly affections. It is where the saints are in the light of the heavenly calling of the assembly that the mother comes into view, it is the heavenly calling and place of the assembly that brings in the mother character.
Ques Do you mean that the tenderness and affection that are in the mother have to be in each as a brother?
JT Yes. The motherly influence forms the character, and then the next thing, one would notice, is that you get the best children in large families. If you have only one child, he is at a very great disadvantage, he never learns to be a brother or a sister. Now, God sees that, so that christianity is seen in children and in sons. It is not in a child or a son. It is in children or in sons, because you must have children to produce family affections.
Ques Would you say that the greatest part of our education is in relation to the brotherly spirit?
JT Yes. It is in connection with the saints in that light, that we are formed for eternity. What Mark teaches is for time. Workmanship is for time, but the family relations and affections are not for time only — they are for eternity. So in that way John is the greatest gospel. What goes on now in [p. 201] our relations with one another as brethren, is for eternity. The nearest thing to heaven is the circle of the brethren — it is in principle, heaven; it is not very far off from heaven. The idea is that the Father’s house is a family sphere. It is where the affections of Christ as Head flow out; and then they flow out toward one another. They become active in that way toward one another.
Rem The ones that appropriate the good mother are the ones that come to be slain first.
JT It appears so here. The Ephraimites were not slain; those that were slain were those that were like Gideon. Another point seen here is that they were all like the children of a king — they were all like him, which shows there is a similarity in the family; there is a family likeness, and it is very strong. The Lord, in a way, is Head of the family. He is the Son, and there are many sons.
Rem As in Corinthians — conformed to the same image?
JT Yes, that is the principle, “We ... are changed into the same image”. I think the emphasis is on the “same”. We are like one another.
Ques Whom do Zebah and Zalmunna represent?
JT They are evidently representatives of a bad spirit, men that can slay children of this type — children of a king. Great beauty shone in these persons whom they slew, and their death follows that. Had they spared these brethren, they, in turn, would have been spared! In other words, they represent the spirit that is in opposition to the brethren. According to John’s epistle there is a certain spirit of opposition to the children of God; it is the spirit really that is seen in Cain — the family of Cain; it is the spirit of opposition to the divine generation, and God can never excuse that. “They have both seen and hated both me and my Father”. It was in that order of generation. “If the world hate you,
[p. 202] know that it has hated me before you”, John 15: 18. That generation is hated. It is a spirit that hates, persecutes, and slays that generation. The nations are judged according to the way they treat the brethren (Matthew 25). It is a serious thing to persecute one on account of his brotherly spirit, in fact, it is an unpardonable thing in the sight of God. It denotes a Satanic spirit, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren”. Instead of hating them we love them.
Rem It is a sort of test in that way.
JT Yes, it is. Instead of coming into judgment you have the testimony that you have passed from death into life, because you love the brethren.
Ques Do you think they were right in asking Gideon to rule over them?
JT I was just going to call attention to that; we have there another trait of a brother. They were not right in doing so, because it would have brought in the Midianite snare again if they had set up a ruler. What you see in Gideon is that he is a true brother; he was true to the dispensation — God was King over them. So that no brother would rule over the saints in that sense. Paul says, “Not that we rule over your faith, but are fellow-workmen of your joy”; that is how the greatest brother looked on the saints. The men of Israel said unto Gideon, “Rule over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son also”. They were making provision for a long time! But Gideon said, “I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: Jehovah will rule over you”. That is very fine. That is one of the finest traits of a brother. What an opportunity he had!
Rem The spirit of a brother is more the character of a preserver and a guider than a ruler.
JT Quite so; he would do his best for the brethren.
Rem Ruling hardly comes in in [p. 203] that relationship.
JT No. The triumph is that a man is so entirely free from his natural aspirations that, on such an opportunity as this for their gratification, he declines it absolutely.
Rem You were referring to Acts 20. Paul finishes his address by commending them to God and to the word of His grace.
JT Yes. He guards them against clericalism by saying “Remember the words ... It is more blessed to give than to receive”. Gideon would be a giver, not a receiver; though, alas! he fails later in the chapter; but we may pass over that, for all the types fail.
Ques What is the thought here in Jether being afraid to draw his sword?
JT He was the first-born. He came short, like the first bullock. He was not up to the mark. He was unable to slay the two kings.
Ques Would you say what a brother does when he sets up an ephod?
JT I do not know. While Gideon shone in his refusal to become a ruler he failed religiously. That is, he set up something in his house that ultimately became a snare to the people. It was of a religious character. I think one might fail on that line — in making oneself a centre religiously without assuming to be a ruler.
Rem I thought the general bearing of the chapters is that we are always in danger. However much Gideon had been helped in the past, he was in danger at the end.
JT You are never out of danger while you are here, even the most special servant. It is a very searching thought. The Spirit of God is pleased to record this one thing that reflects on the character of Gideon; but on the whole he was a faithful man, in fact, he becomes a test to Israel — they did not remember him at the end of the chapter.
[p. 204] Rem If we had the testimony before us we would be preserved. Would you say in a word, what the testimony is?
JT I do not know of a better way of putting it than Mark who says: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. It is a remarkable thing that instead of saying, The beginning of Jesus Christ, as if of something that would speak of the Lord Himself, he says, “Beginning of the glad tidings”, showing that the point he had in his mind was the glad tidings, and how they were to be promulgated at the beginning. Now, I think it is clear that the glad tidings are the testimony; of course, the Lord is the personification of them. He refers to them in that way as the great thoughts of God, but then it would be the glad tidings as including all the divine thoughts for man effected in Christ.
Ques Why this desire on the part of the people to make Gideon a ruler?
JT There is always that desire with us. It is a sort of latent desire that shows itself constantly, because if you place a man in a position of ruler it relieves you from exercise. We do not like exercise or responsibility; we like it in our business but we do not like it religiously. Now, the book of Revelation is only addressed to people who feel their responsibility. If we do not accept our responsibility the book is not addressed to us; it is addressed to the angel — the responsible element.
Rem I was thinking of the bramble — it did not refuse the honour that was put on it; all the other trees refused the honour.
JT That is the next chapter; it is most striking. Abimelech comes in in the next chapter. He is the antichrist. He is the opposite of Gideon. Instead of refusing to rule over his brethren, he slays them. He slays seventy of his father’s sons; that is the spirit of antichrist. And then he is shown up by [p. 205] Jotham who likens him to the bramble-bush, the only bush that would accept the throne; it is a worthless bush, the bramble. Any man who covets in the Lord’s things is only a thorn-bush, he does not bear any fruit. The other trees declined, saying, ‘I am not going to leave the position which God has assigned me, and in which I am useful’. It is remarkable how the disposition to make a ruler — to place someone over us — is constantly found. It is simply that we do not want the responsibility ourselves; we want to pass it over to somebody else.
Rem That would be to bring in the clerical spirit again.
JT Yes, it makes room for it and it feeds it. The idea of being a member of a congregation in christianity is not found. It is found in the Old Testament.
Rem They were not prepared for the exercise. A ruler would invariably take the wrong way.
JT Well, the one we appoint would.
Ques Would you say a ruler is control by power, but the brother sets forth affection?
JT Yes, I think so, I think a brother retains his place, so that he can be free to exercise his affections.
Rem I was thinking of John and Peter. It seems that John had the secret of the Lord. As a brother John is the model, and, having the secrets of the Lord, he could tell Peter.
JT Yes, he calls himself their brother and companion in tribulation.
Rem Though Gideon refused to be a ruler, he was a leader and he made suggestions to Ephraim that Ephraim followed.
JT Yes, I would say so.