THE SUPPLY OF THE SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST (4)
[p. 231] THE SUPPLY OF THE SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST (4)
JT The section from verse 5 to 11 is the very heart of the epistle; the example of our Lord Jesus Christ in His descending love being set before us, that His mind indeed, as descending, might be in us. The facts of the incarnation are spoken of in Matthew, and particularly in Luke, but it is the mind that was in Christ Jesus, as stated here, which is before us now.
WJH Do you think that the holy conditions that have been referred to, immediately preceding this, correspond with the holy men and women in the beginning of Luke’s gospel among whom the Lord Jesus, personally, was introduced?
JT That is a very helpful suggestion. The state of Zacharias, the official priest, was not equal to it; but that of Elizabeth and Mary, as recorded, was suitable; and Zacharias came to it through discipline.
WJH Is this section in contrast to Satan’s fall? Satan fell in hatred, but the Lord descended in love.
JT Quite so. Adam, as influenced by him, is undoubtedly in mind. Satan’s suggestion was equality with God: he said, “ye will be as God”, Genesis 3:5. He injected the ascending mind into Adam, so that that mind is natural to us as men, and will have full expression in Antichrist, who “exalts himself on high against all called God”, 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Hence, the example of the Lord here — His mind being in us — is the testimony by which to meet that at the present time.
Rem Jude refers to the angels “who had not kept their own original state” (Jude 6); that is a prerogative that is open only to the Creator.
JT To leave one’s appointed state is lawlessness in any other. What Jotham’s speech, in Judges 9, condemns [p. 232] is just that; he exposes the efforts made to induce one to leave his divinely appointed place so as to exalt himself to rule. The consciousness of being divinely appointed, and functioning in the appointment, holding to the condition, is the antidote to that. The spirit of Antichrist is characteristic of the present time, and God has revived the Spirit of Christ in His people, and He would lay upon us the need of possessing the descending mind of Christ so as to carry out the will of God and to serve acceptably to Him. “Let this mind be in you” assumes ability in the Philippian saints to grasp the thought of Christ’s down-stooping — a very great matter — ability to grasp the attitude of His mind at that time. There is the converse of this in Ephesians, the idea of ascending, which belonged to no other, involving His personal right to go up. No other had a right to ascend but a divine Person. “He that descended is the same who has also ascended up above all the heavens”, Ephesians 4:10. Hebrews 1:3 and Hebrews 8:1, etc., strikingly testify to our Lord’s personal right to ascend to heaven.
HES This movement was a voluntary one in contrast to the fall of man, or Satan.
JT Plainly. It is the Lord’s own movement: “who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God”. He was in the form of God, and it was no robbery to take that place, but He took another place, that is, a servant’s place.
Ques Why is the thought of robbery introduced?
JT I think the allusion is to Adam. It was robbery for him to seek equality with God; and also for Antichrist, being a creature, to set himself down in the place of God.
WB-w Why is it “Christ Jesus” and not “Jesus Christ”? Is it the anointed Man who is in mind?
JT I suppose that is what is meant. The sequel of the passage is, “Wherefore also God highly exalted him”.
[p. 233] It is that One. He is spoken of as Christ Jesus, that this mind was in Him.
PSP Do you mean that it was in Him before He became Man? I thought it was the mind that was in Him before He came here, that is, He made up His mind — if one might so speak — to go down and come into this world.
JT It is the mind proper to man. The mind was in Christ Jesus. That does not set aside that it was there morally before He actually took human form, but the bearing of it is what is in man, and proper to man in these circumstances.
Ques Do you mean that we must look at Him here in contrast to Adam?
JT Yes. Manhood is in the apostle’s mind in alluding to it in this way. The mind that was in Christ Jesus is set out in a series of statements running into each other: “who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; but emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form, taking his place in the likeness of men”. Some translate, “having taken” — the descending mind being attested in the action — avoiding to say that it was there before.
MWB Would you regard the mind which was also in Christ Jesus as described in the successive steps referred to, and embracing them all?
JT Yes; that is, taking a bondman’s form, taking His place in the likeness of men.
WB-w Do I understand that you do not connect the mind with what He was before He came into manhood?
JT I do not deny that the mind began morally in deity: the scripture says, “who, subsisting in the form of God”. It is there, but it is what developed in Man that is in mind. It is spoken of as manifestly there. It comes in in a Man. It is spoken of as it is seen operating. It is in taking the bondman’s form that He emptied [p. 234] Himself. There was no distinct action on the descending line, as far as I see, before that. It would not be characteristic of His position in the Godhead. To view Him abstractly in the Deity and make Him subject will not do, but viewing Him in this way as taking a bondman’s form makes it simple. This, I believe, is what is conveyed in the passage before us.
DLH Have we not to keep in mind the Being or Personality that is unchanged? It is the same Being, but in a new condition.
JT Quite so, and it is in the new condition that subjection and obedience are seen. “Having been found in figure as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death”.
ASL What would you say about the expression, “emptied himself”?
JT If we came to a full stop after that expression “emptied himself”, there would be a real difficulty, but the reading is that He “emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form”. The emptying is in taking the bondman’s form.
HD'AC In the very fact that He took it.
ASL The bondman’s form is in contrast to the exalted form.
JT Quite so.
MWB Is it not important that the obedience is linked with having taken that form? There is no suggestion of obedience in the form of God; that could not be.
JT That is important to make clear. The movement was His own, and taking the bondman’s form explains the emptying.
Ques Have we a somewhat similar passage in John 13:1 - 4? It says, “Jesus, knowing ... that he came out from God and was going to God, rises from supper and lays aside his garments ...”; that was for service.
JT Quite so; the laying aside of His garments was an action of this kind, His garments denoting His [p. 235] dignity. He laid them aside there for the moment, and took a servant’s form. Girding Himself with a towel meant this; but later He laid that aside and put on His garments and sat down. He resumes His place of dignity. This indicates that the bondman’s form cannot be permanently descriptive of Him. The fact that He took it does not set aside the truth of His Person or His part in the Deity; the Person is the same, and in the form of Man He is spoken of as God: “who is over all, God blessed for ever”, Romans 9:5.
JJ What is the force of emptying Himself?
JT It is a much debated word, but what we are saying is the force of it, that He gave up outwardly the form of God in taking a bondman’s form. The word “form” involved a real change, that He was to be a servant; that One who as God always commanded, took a servant’s form — what He was, and what He is.
WCG Why do you use the word ‘outwardly’?
JT It is the word to use, because He did not change as to His Being — room is left for the inscrutability of His Person. We cannot say He has left His part in Deity absolutely; it is simply what has come about before our eyes — inscrutable infinitude remains. Yet the form He took is not a mere external form. The word “form” here is substantial; it was a real thing. For the moment He really took a servant’s form. He was capable of, and had, the feelings and all else proper to a bondman apart from sin.
EJMcB Is the point to emphasise the genuineness of His humanity, but at the same time always to keep in mind who He is?
JT Yes; we have always to make allowance for the inscrutable, that in human form He could say, “Before Abraham was, I am”, John 8:58. That would guard us from any derogatory thoughts.
JJ Does the rendering, “made himself of no reputation”, in the Authorized Version, give the meaning of the position?
JT [p. 236] It does. Some say that it is as good as any, it is what the facts presented prove, and He said, “I am in the midst of you as the one that serves”, Luke 22:27. That was what marked Him among His disciples.
WRP Would change of status give the idea? He stepped out of one status into another.
JT I think the word “status” used in this way is good, but of course we must leave room for the inscrutable, as already remarked. Scripture is accurate, not only literally, but also spiritually, and by carefully following it we are preserved. We must, as it were, think in its terms, assured that it must agree with itself in everything. The Lord taking a bondman’s form is more than becoming Man. Manhood was a great thought in the divine mind, and there is no suggestion in this passage of belittling it. It was as becoming Man He took a bondman’s form, but manhood has to be viewed by itself, and in Christ it is most exalted and glorious, answering to Psalm 8. The Lord took a bondman’s form because of the need; that service was needed. Bondmanship is mentioned before manhood in our scripture, the latter in the words, “taking his place in the likeness of men; and having been found in figure as a man”. A stronger word is used for bondmanship, humiliation being the thought stressed.
ASL The distinction between bondman’s form and outward figure as a Man is helpful. Bondman’s form is a moral thought, and the other is humanity, the likeness of men.
JT It is not that the Lord was always in the attitude of a servant. He was not; but it characterised Him down here, as He said Himself, “I am in the midst of you as the one that serves”. But that does not disprove that He also acted as God down here.
Ques Are the four gospels necessary to give the filling out of verses 7 and 8?
JT You can see how those verses were exemplified in the gospels; but manhood does not in itself imply bondman’s form. “Likeness of men”, refers not simply to the fact of His humanity, but that He took up outwardly what characterised men generally, sin apart. It is “men”, not “man” here. He was, as it were, an ordinary man. You might see Him in Nazareth, a Man among men. “Is not this the carpenter, ... brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3) was said. Thus He took His place in the likeness of men.
Ques Why do you emphasise the thought of His place?
JT The scripture says, “taking his place”: it was divinely intended that He should take such a place. There was no one like Him, of course, but you could see Him as a Man in ordinary circumstances — He ate and drank, and worked as a carpenter — all to bring out the reality of His manhood: “taking his place in the likeness of men”. It was not manhood as in Adam innocent, but such — sin apart — as was to be seen in Palestine at that time. All was in infinite holiness, of course, and our Lord was personally immune from the consequences of sin in a moral sense, although He took part in physical toil, hunger, weariness, etc.
Ques Did Satan seek to divert Him from this in the wilderness?
JT That is what he had in mind: “If thou be Son of God, speak to this stone, that it become bread”, Luke 4:3. Satan’s remark implied that sonship did not belong to manhood, he would detach the idea from manhood; but the Lord said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”.
CEWB With regard to the Hebrew servant, in Exodus 21, is it right to apply the statement to the Lord that He shall be a “bondman for ever”?
JT While the type in Exodus says that, that is only one side of the Lord’s position. It is not scriptural to make the bondman thought cover all that He is. It would preclude His prerogative as God and His dignity [p. 238] as Man, His sonship. It is to bring out what love would do, the length to which it would go. Our Lord is now “highly exalted”.
HMS Would you here connect the Lord’s own words, “he will gird himself and make them recline at table, and coming up will serve them”, Luke 12:37?
JT Yes, He can do that and will do it, but, as we see in John 13, He put on His garments of dignity again after serving.
MWB It is interesting that the word “serve” there, in Luke 12:37, is not that for bondman service.
DLH Would not Luke 12:37 have its fulfilment rather in the kingdom? In the eternal state the Lord Jesus takes His place as Son of God “in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all”, 1 Corinthians 15:28.
JT Yes. The idea of bondmanship hardly fits in with the eternal state of things. Yet we must not limit Christ’s love. Indeed scripture says it “surpasses knowledge”. It will be and do for us far beyond our greatest thoughts of it.
EuR As Man, He is glorified with the glory which He had before the world was. That is outside of this consideration, is it not?
JT It is. John 17:5 contemplates that He returns to that glory.
JSE Is the contrast to the bondman seen in the word “Lord” in verse 11?
JT Yes, every creature is subject to Him.
LDM Does each of these steps imply the Lord’s deity?
JT Yes; only a divine Person could leave His first state. His leaving His first state indicates His divine right. He is not here viewed as sent.
JJ Would you say the inscrutability of His Person, suggested in these verses, is covered by the passage in Luke 10:22? It says, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is [p. 239] but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is pleased to reveal him”.
JT Yes; and what we have here underlies that.
Ques It says in Mark 13:32, “But of that day or of that hour no one knows, neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father”. Is He speaking there as One taking a subject place?
JT Yes. The introduction to the Apocalypse helps as to that. He received the Revelation from God: as John says, “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him”. He takes the place of receiving all from God, “and he signified it, sending by his angel, to his bondman John, who testified the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, all things that he saw”, Revelation 1:1,2. He is there clearly in a subject place, and receives from God the facts relative to the future, a very remarkable thing, and then He signified it to His bondman John. The book of Revelation ought to be read from that point of view, that it is the Lord acting mediatorially, but receiving it from God. I think it is in that sense that He said, “nor the Son”; He takes that attitude of subjection.
EJMcB Is the apostle’s intention in setting this out to the Philippians that we might understand and get the gain of the incarnation?
JT Yes; that we might have the full thought, that each one might learn how to humble himself: the will of God requires it, and it is the way out of all difficulties.
WSS Is the object of this presentation that bondmen should be formed? The Revelation is to be shown to His bondmen. Paul and Timothy are delighted to speak of themselves as bondmen in the light of this scripture.
JT Quite so, and that is how the apostle introduces himself in the letter: “Paul and Timotheus, bondmen of Jesus Christ”. The epistle would make us [p. 240] that, and would make us happy in the bondmanship, that it is a morally glorified state, glorified by the fact that God Himself has come into it in manhood. In Paul you would see the idea of one ready to go down. How he could say he was “less than the least of all saints” (Ephesians 3:8), I suppose, enters into this thought. Of course he said that truthfully.
HD'AC It is a fine thought that God Himself had come into it. He did not cease to be God in it, but His deity was in the background.
JT It is what is before our eyes that Scripture deals with, showing at the same time that what was taken on was real in itself, but could not be compassed by the creature. We are met with inscrutability at every point. The gospels make Christ’s humanity a fact, portraying it to us, a Man moving about here in service, and yet He is God. While as Man He cast out demons by the Spirit, He says His Father who dwelt in Him did the work. “Confessedly the mystery of piety is great. God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in the Spirit”, 1 Timothy 3:16. Think of God taking a position where He is justified in the Spirit; not by His own prerogative, but in the Spirit!
JTS Is the tendency with us ever to take the first place, but would the contemplation of the way in which the Lord Jesus has moved, lead us to take the last place?
JT The Psalms open this up wonderfully. What a place the Lord took! “I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and the despised of the people”, Psalm 22:6. That is what He said He was, and we can only understand it in the light of these facts; and how it is Paul could say, I am “less than the least of all saints”, Ephesians 3:8. It shows what conscious humiliation involves.
Ques Would you say that the Lord Jesus acted as God at any time while down here in manhood?
JT Certainly; “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2:19; He did it Himself;
[p. 241] it was the action of God. But His general position or state is manhood, and what is proper to it, so that laying down His life and taking it again is obeying the Father’s commandment.
FI Do we get His deity in John 18:6, when He said, “I am”, and they fell backward?
JT Yes; God was there.
Ques Is the same thought seen in 2 Peter 1:1, where he says, “Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ”?
JT Quite so.
EuR Is obedience one great feature that the Lord would have us take on in our assembly relations? He is referred to here as being marked by it Himself, and then the apostle goes on, “even as ye have always obeyed”.
JT Yes. What follows in verse 12 is the outcome of what we are speaking of now, but 1 Timothy 3:16 helps as to what we are dealing with here: “Confessedly the mystery of piety is great. God has been manifested in flesh”. Undoubtedly that is what is implied in the passage; it is God.
HD'AC I believe there is no question about it myself.
JT Yes; that is what is meant; and that He should come into a position where He is “justified in the Spirit”! It is what came out in Christ in the power of the Spirit. It was humanity in dependence, but what came out was the justification of Himself, that He was undeniably God. Even although He did everything by the Spirit, no one but God could do them as He did them; even the apostles could not do things as He did them, although He said, “He that believes on me, the works which I do shall he do also, and he shall do greater than these”. Although the works might be greater, they were not done as He did them.
AN Was it the exercise of His power as God when He arose and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, Peace, be still?
JT It was. “Justified in the Spirit” would imply that He was anointed by the Spirit, and He went about doing good. Other men went about doing good, but not as He; the way He is doing things indicates plainly enough that God is there.
HMS Is Isaiah 50:8 in mind? — “He is near that justifieth me”.
JT That is God justifying Him; as we get it in verse 9, “Wherefore also God highly exalted him”, but being “justified in the Spirit” means that in carrying out the will of God, He did great works by the Spirit, but in such a way that God was manifestly there. Of course the Spirit is God, but the point is who was there in flesh.
HD'AC The whole subject of piety is involved in that. The Lord respected every institution of God.
JT It is the “mystery of piety”; that God should be there in One marked by humility and dependence; He is there, and proved to be there, by what was done.
HES Is that seen in the remark made at the sea: “Who then is this?” Luke 8:25.
JT Quite so. He said, “He that believes on me, the works which I do shall he do also, and he shall do greater than these, because I go to the Father” (John 14:12); but the principle and testimony was that they did them in His name (Acts 3:16). He does not say, In the name of God I do so and so.
EG He raised the dead, but Peter had to pray to God in connection with the raising of Dorcas.
MWB In this connection would you say a word as to the passage in Acts 2:22: “Jesus the Nazaraean, a man borne witness to by God to you by works of power and wonders and signs, which God wrought by him in your midst”? Would we be right in viewing the Lord’s miraculous actions not so much as the assertion of His deity, but as the definite sign of God’s approval of His service, though fully agreeing with what you [p. 243] said, of course, that He did things in a way that no one else could possibly do them?
JT That is also true, He being viewed as Man, God’s servant. “God was with him”, we are told. As the perfect servant, He carried on His service in that way, as sustained by God. He prayed, and the like of which we have often spoken, but then He was “justified in the Spirit” — God was “justified in the Spirit”. It is an evidence that God was there; and moreover He was “seen of angels”. How did they see Him? They saw more than a Man; they saw what came out in the Spirit, the way things were done. God has come within the range of the creature in what was manifest. They were done by a Man, but the manner of the doing belonged to Deity — to no one else, so that the position of the Deity in humanity is established beyond question: angels saw it.
AN It is well expressed in the words of the hymn:
“We see the Godhead glory
Shine through that human veil”. (188:6)
HH Do you think being “justified in the Spirit” would stand in contrast to the public justification of God in the world to come?
JT It shows the great place the Spirit has in this question.
Ques Does He bring those two thoughts together when He says, “But if by the finger of God I cast out demons ...” (Luke 11:20)?
JT Well, the finger of God was there. If I see the finger of God, I see something of God. The writing on the wall in Daniel was by the fingers of a man’s hand — it was judgment. The finger of God is God acting with the utmost discrimination, but it is God acting, and hence you find the beneficiaries refer to God; they glorify God.
Ques Are you suggesting that the condition into which the Lord came in manhood was not only required [p. 244] in order that it should express the mind of God, but that God Himself should come into that condition?
JT That is the wonderful inscrutability that marks the whole position. The flesh of Christ was a veil — God was there. If God is pleased to come within our range, there is evidence that He is there.
EBG Is the Lord’s incoming and His outgoing by way of death, to be viewed as one whole pathway?
JT It is all one thing, and God is in every part of it. It is a question of what one would realise as with Him. “Am I so long a time with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip?” John 14:9. Thomas says, “My Lord and my God”, John 20:28.
EBG Should the greatness and glory and purity of the incarnation be before us at the Lord’s supper as we view the loaf, as well as the Lord laying down His life?
JT I think so. In the Supper it is the body of Christ in death, but we cannot but think of it as for the will of God throughout, and its beginning, of course, was the incarnation.
HH Does not the holy personality of Christ in Incarnation, seen in the loaf, give a wonderful tone and character to the cup as presenting the covenant? We do not connect the covenant with the loaf, but does it not give character to the covenant as in the blood of such a wonderful Person?
JT Quite so. Who else could effectuate it? And it is the impression conveyed to the angels in that wonderful pathway that is referred to in 1 Timothy 3. So in the case of the man in Decapolis, the Lord said, “Return to thine house and relate how great things God has done for thee”, but he said “how great things Jesus had done for him”, Luke 8:39. He had a sense that God was doing it unquestionably, that God was there. Hence His name “Emmanuel”.
Rem As you said, the word of Thomas testifies to it: “My Lord and my God”, John 20:28.
JT What he saw in the Lord’s hands and side showed the reality of His manhood, but yet he said, “My Lord and my God”.
WC Would you say why the receiving up in glory is referred to after the preaching and believing on Him?
JT The verse seems to be poetical. It is to set out concisely the actual facts of the history of Christ in testimony; the main facts are presented: “God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in the Spirit, has appeared to angels, has been preached among the nations, has been believed on in the world, has been received up in glory”. The facts are put together so as to convey the full thought of the mystery of piety. What a verse! Yet that is what creatures can take in, because it has come out in testimony. It induces piety — it is the mystery of it. Christians are normally initiated into it. To be of practical value to us we must be initiated into a mystery. Those thus initiated are a mystery to others. We ought to see that 1 Timothy 3:16 involves the impression made by what came out. What is behind what came out is unfathomable; it is beyond the creature, but nevertheless God is there.
EuR Is the idea of being “manifest”, that an impression is made?
JT Yes, it is involved.
Ques Does “seen of angels” suggest that the angels never saw Him before?
JT Yes, but it does not mean that they saw the form of God. The form of God is not seen by any creature. It is a question of God being seen in what came out, and it all came out in a Man. It is the impression you get — God was there.
WC It has been suggested that there is an allusion to the assembly in that last expression, as coming after the preaching and believing upon Him. Is there any warrant for that?
JT I do not think so; it alludes to the Lord, and how He was received up. It is a question of what was [p. 246] personal to the Lord. It is not received up into glory, but “in glory”; it is the manner of His reception. “Received up” — the antecedent there is God.
ASL I was going to ask whether what was true of Him as it is unfolded in that remarkable verse, is not in some sense continued in the assembly. The manifestation of God in flesh in that blessed Person is continued in the saints now. And then, “justified in the Spirit” in contrast to the flesh; there has been no public justification, but there is the sense of it inwardly. Then the assembly will disappear in glory.
JT You are just working it out by extension to apply it to the assembly, but “God” — or ‘He’, as some think it should be — mentioned at the beginning, will not admit of that, as far as I see. The direct teaching of the verse applies to God.
DLH Is it not all objective? The passage is a complete circle; God coming out from glory and going back there. It completes the circle, and you can hardly bring the assembly in there.
JT “Received up in glory” is the Person of Christ, I am sure. The tense is past — “was”, not “is being” nor “shall be”.
MWB Why is it the “mystery of piety”? Does not that imply man’s relations Godward? What is the thought of piety?
JT It is bringing God into your circumstances, but then, God has come into man’s circumstances, and the great mystery attaching to that is what is in mind — the depths of thought and feeling involved — the “depths of God”. The facts given are to show how God has come into man’s circumstances, how He is to be known and the state produced, and living “piously in Christ Jesus” would result. Piety is not in legal observances, but in the true knowledge of God.
HD'AC Does that remain a mystery or is it divulged to us?
JT It is a mystery, but, as remarked, true believers [p. 247] are initiated into it. God is known to be there, but you cannot compass what is there. You always feel there is that which is beyond us.
WCG What is the connection between this and the working out your own salvation in verse 12?
JT The exhortation there is as to how the company at Philippi, or any local assembly, works out its own salvation. The instruction is intended to enable us to do this, so that it says, “So that, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed” — he had been speaking of the obedience of Jesus — “not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure”. The apostle was not there, although he hoped to come, but they had always obeyed; and now further thoughts had come in as to obedience, and they are enjoined to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling. But then, God was there; God was working in them. It is involved in “ye have always obeyed”. In Christ, He has brought in the great thoughts of obedience and humility, and these are to enter into our experience and history in the testimony; for as ministry comes to us, the intent is that it should be worked out, and that it should greatly augment our future walk and testimony. The section beginning with verse 12 has this in mind. It is a question now of the brethren moving together after all this, and what he has in mind is the increase of the testimony. He says, “it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure”. That is, both in the willing and the working, God is there. What the apostle has been saying is to enlarge the saints and to accelerate their pace in the testimony, and he further exhorts them: “Do all things without murmurings and reasonings, that ye may be harmless and simple, irreproachable children of God in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation; among [p. 248] whom ye appear as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life, so as to be a boast for me in Christ’s day, that I have not run in vain nor laboured in vain”. Their position is clearly defined; it is not that they should appear, but they were appearing as lights.
WL Does not the greatness of the example, in verses 5 - 11, of the mind “in Christ Jesus” give dignity to these circumstances that the apostle was bringing before them, the ordinary circumstances of everyday life?
JT That is what is in mind. If an accession of light comes to us, it is to enter into what we are already going on with. It should give greater fulness and brilliancy to our testimony, so that if we already appear as lights, we are to be even more luminous than before. It is for Christ’s day, you will observe: “to be a boast for me in Christ’s day”. It is very interesting to see how he is looking forward to his part in Christ’s day, not only his personal formation, but what he has done, his work, that which is to appear in Christ’s day. Then, “that I have not run in vain nor laboured in vain. But if also I am poured out as a libation on the sacrifice and ministration of your faith, I rejoice, and rejoice in common with you all. In like manner do ye also rejoice, and rejoice with me”. You are impressed with the idea of rejoicing. What character it gives to the saints, that they are buoyant spiritually and participating in his joy!
MWB You have referred to the way we die. Is this libation a reference to that idea?
JT Yes; it is a pouring out. It is making more agreeable to God what is in mind. He says here, “But if also I am poured out as a libation on the sacrifice and ministration of your faith, I rejoice”. It would be the manner of his going into death, that he was poured out, as in the pouring out of wine, or any other liquid, on a sacrifice, showing how pure his thoughts were in view of possible martyrdom. The word refers to what [p. 249] is poured out sacrificially in relation to something else, to make that “something” more fragrant and acceptable. The apostle was not in Philippi, he was in prison at Rome, but he was occupied in the ministration of their faith, and his death would be most fragrant to God as bearing on all his wonderful service; as he says, “I, from Jerusalem, and in a circuit round to Illyricum, have fully preached the glad tidings of the Christ”, Romans 15:19. His whole service was to be most fragrant; as he says, “that the offering up of the nations might be acceptable” (verse 16). He was to add a drink offering, making the whole matter most fragrant to God.
MWB Then, does “the sacrifice and ministration of your faith” refer to his service generally, and the pouring out “as a libation” to the crowning act which gave it a sweetness in his martyrdom?
JT Yes. The libation is not something by itself, here it is to be added to Paul’s service to make it more acceptable.
Ques Is that confirmed when the apostle says that he was already being poured out?
JT That is the idea. It is the end of the service. How many servants have missed this idea of libation! The manner of your death makes all you have done more acceptable to God.
EuR Does the libation link with the thought of joy? It says, “I rejoice, and rejoice in common with you all. In like manner do ye also rejoice, and rejoice with me”.
JT The thought of the libation enters into all that, and suggests the idea of joy. The servant has to bear in mind it is not how he begins, or his service generally, but whether the libation is to be there, whether the whole matter is to become fragrant on account of one’s end. Immediately he says further, “But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus to you shortly, that I also may be refreshed, knowing how ye get on”. That is to say, the idea of the libation runs into that. He is [p. 250] thinking of them and speaking of Timotheus in this connection. He is bringing personalities into the service, rendering it all the more fragrant to God. The whole chapter is characterised by this libation, and in Timotheus and Epaphroditus you have the filling out of this great thought in service. How great it is when you get such personages as Paul and Timotheus and Epaphroditus!
LM Do those three men correspond with the three mighty men of David, working unselfishly for the gratification of the heart of David?
JT Yes. That thought enters into this, and the idea of libation is very exalted. You can scarcely conceive of a more exalted thought in connection with service than that one should finish up by enhancing all he has done for God.
JJ And the way the apostle refers to Epaphroditus in chapter 4 is in keeping: “Not that I seek gift, but I seek fruit abounding to your account. But I have all things in full supply and abound; I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things sent from you, an odour of sweet savour, an acceptable sacrifice, agreeable to God”, Philippians 4:17,18.
Rem Our concern should be as to what we can do to enhance the position. There is not only the going down, but the looking on with joy to the approbation of God. The apostle could crown Timothy with this thought: “For I have no one like-minded who will care with genuine feeling how ye get on” — and Epaphroditus: “my brother and fellow-workman and fellow-soldier, but your messenger and minister to my need, since he had a longing desire after you all”.
JT Quite so. God always looks down from heaven to see if there is any good, and you want to enhance what there is. I believe that is what comes out here, and that is the connection with Timotheus and Epaphroditus. What a brother Epaphroditus was! “Your messenger and minister to my need”, Paul says. They [p. 251] had sent through him to the apostle “an odour of sweet savour, an acceptable sacrifice, agreeable to God”; and now he is returning to them, and he would surely enhance the position in Philippi.
WCG What you have been saying emphasises the thought that before honour is humility. Divine approbation of service requires the lustre of humility.