SCARBOROUGH, MAY 11TH, 1932
SCARBOROUGH, MAY 11TH, 1932
Mr. P. Lyon.
Beloved Brother, — It was good of you to write me so fully and I much appreciate too your steady service in sending on our mail.
Please God, I shall try and be in the London area during the week of the 24th and the following one, but I have promised to call at Bath, as I wrote you, and I have not cancelled this yet. If I am equal for it — Purley coming on the Saturday — I shall be at the A.M.H. farewell meeting. We are thinking of spending a few days with Mrs. Jerrard during that week, but we have not enquired of her. I hope to know all more definitely next week at Birmingham. At any rate, we hope to be with you on the Monday after Purley.
There was much help at Newcastle and great interest, but the local condition is distressing beyond words. The Lord was surely good to give us such a season in spite of this. The trouble no doubt dates back to ———’s time, but the present acute form of it is due to the pressing of Mrs. D———’s claim. I felt it laid on me to point out that the general fellowship was affected, asking the brothers to meet. J.H.T., A.N. and others from different meetings were present. As it was manifest that God was not helping those who were acting for Mrs. D——— and as Bangor, Croydon as well as Newcastle were involved, some qualified brothers acceptable to both sides should be asked to examine the whole matter and if any unrighteousness was found by them it could be dealt with in an orderly way. I am hopeful that this suggestion may finally be accepted. It was pointed out to W——— that he is acting as a solicitor for Mrs. D——— and combining this with his part in the meeting. The former should stand by itself — he is, in principle, Mrs. D——— demanding payment, which element should not be admitted into the [p. 359] assembly. You can understand what I mean. I think W——— sees this. But I must leave for the meeting.
Our united love to you all,
Affectionately in Christ,
James Taylor.
PS — J. M——— acknowledges the debt as a moral obligation and has paid more than half and purposes to pay all, but this is not accepted as satisfactory — he must own the debt as legal.
Abridged Notes of Reading on Philippians 2: 1 - 11, at Mr. Percy Lyon’s house, London, England, June 2nd, 1932.
The epistle starts with Paul referring to himself and Timotheus as bondmen of Jesus Christ. This is significant in view of what is before us in the verses read, indicating the kind of spirit necessary in approaching a subject so profound and holy. The supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1: 19) combined with that lowliness of mind referred to in chapter 2: 3, are both essential if we are to apprehend the truth the Lord is developing as to His Person at the present time. The merely natural mind and intelligence must be excluded and a state of soul found with us giving liberty to the Holy Spirit to impress us with His thoughts and to form us intelligently as to them. This state of soul was found amongst the saints at Philippi, giving the apostle perfect freedom to address them, not as apostle but as “bondmen”.
The mind in Christ Jesus is as He became Man. The designation “Christ Jesus” does not apply to Him as in absolute Deity. “Did not esteem it not an object of rapine to be on an equality with God” has to do with the mind of Christ Jesus in manhood. He was consciously “on an equality with God”. The mind of humiliation does not properly belong to God as God. Psalm 113: 6 no doubt anticipates the incarnation. There is a tendency with us to put back into the Deity human thinking. The mind in Christ Jesus does not refer to human thoughts as in Deity. It is the mind that is proper to Man, and is undoubtedly mentioned here in comparison with that of Adam — one Man in contrast to another.
[p. 360] Subsisting in the form of God. We have to leave that as beyond us. The expression of His substance (Hebrews 1) is not what we have here. The expression of the thing is not the thing itself. Substance denotes what God is essentially. Christ as Man was the expression of this. It is not a superficial thing. What God is was there in its root principle. Philippians 2 is the form of God, conveying not merely what is external, but what is substantial. Subsisting in the form of God conveys that it is not an appearance taken on. En morphe Theou. It had no beginning; it was not taken. The form of a bondman was taken. “Subsisting in the form of God” has a past setting in Philippians 2, and so the passage does not warrant our saying it applies now. The Lord may take up the form of God — who can say? though not permanently, as we should never see Him then. We cannot limit Divine Persons. The form of God is a condition which was never taken — it was always there. The statement as to it here shuts out speculation. It is not said that the Lord left the form of God, but a change in this respect is clearly intimated. Inscrutability enters into the passage, and we are unsafe if we do not bow to this, maintaining it in our minds. This chapter does not permit us to say that Christ subsists in the form of Man, and yet it shows in the strongest way that He took human condition in the fullest sense — sin apart. As to the glory referred to in John 17: 5, we do not know what it was, we can hardly say it was the form of God.
But emptied Himself. We cannot say He emptied Himself of anything. This refers to the taking of the bondman’s form; two sides, as it were, of the same thing. The Scripture makes the emptying Himself synchronise with taking a bondman’s form. To make it an act of mind in Deity is too definite as making the Lord do something in the sense of humbling Himself as in Deity, before taking the bondman’s form, which does not seem to conform to the way Scripture states the truth. We cannot use the word “emptying” without modification in our minds. As already said, we have to leave “subsisting in the form of God” as beyond us. His Personality does not alter. Equality is bound up with His Personality. John 5 stands as manifesting in the Lord a marvellous blending of equality in subjection. The emptying Himself is a divine pattern for us, but seen in manhood. There could be no pattern for us in Deity (the inscrutable).
[p. 361] Form of a bondman is not only physical but involves attitude of mind. Primarily human form was not bondservice. In John 13 when the Lord sits at table it is not in bondman’s form, but when He rises from supper and girds Himself to serve it is. But then, the service concluded, He resumes His place as sitting, and He is then no longer in that attitude of mind. We cannot say that bondman’s form may not be taken by the Lord now. Exodus 21 would show that it may. Bondman service involves the extent to which love will go and we cannot limit the Lord in the exercise of His prerogative to serve in this way even when in glorified condition (see Luke 12: 37). He is Bondman to His Master, but Husband to His wife, and Father to His children (Exodus 21: 5, 6).
Taking His place in the likeness of men would be that He was outwardly like an ordinary man, as one of the race. It would no doubt specially be seen in His private life. “Is not this the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?” (Matthew 13: 55). He was distinguished amongst men at His baptism when He was anointed, the Spirit descending upon Him in bodily form as a dove.
And having been found in figure as a man. God says at His baptism: “In whom I have found my delight” (Matthew 3: 17).
Humbled Himself. This is connected here with the figure of a man, not with the bondman’s form, which is surely significant. The glory of His humiliation was seen from the outset, but it is not the Babe nor the Youth of twelve years, but the Man — found here in figure as a man, who “humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death”, and would go with the anointing of Christ at His baptism.
Taking — the word implies that it was His prerogative to take.
Creation is not infinite, but God is infinite, and He having come into the creation, we are in an environment in which we shall be fixed eternally. We are in infinity, not lost in it, we are there intelligently, being “filled even to all the fulness of God”.
1 Timothy 6: 15, 16. The Lord Jesus Christ, it would appear is included in that. The inscrutable enters into the passage.
Ephesians 4: 10. He has ascended up above all heavens. Though Man, it involves His Deity, as filling all things.
John 5: 19. “The Son can do nothing of Himself” is not a reference to His power which is ever undiminished, but to His choice. Having taken up the position of subjection and relative inferiority to the Father, He is in keeping with it. Reference to the Triumvirate at one time ruling over the ancient Roman Empire is illustratively helpful. One of the three might be a general and he would go down to the battlefield and serve and give his orders as such. In serving thus he did not cease to be Emperor or on equality with the other two, nor did his prerogative as such cease, although in abeyance. This is suggestive of what is found in John 5 where the beautiful blending of equality in subjection is seen in the Son. He asserts there they must honour the Son as they honour the Father.
1 Corinthians 15: 28. The place the Son is in is not imposed upon Him. It says, “Then the Son also himself shall be placed”. It does not say who does it. He will represent the great principle of subjection, but we cannot say He will always (during every moment, so to speak) be that.
As already mentioned, the apostle in writing to the Philippians speaks of himself and Timotheus as bondmen. It is blessed to be such and maintained as such, as we are not likely to vie with one another as bondmen. The verses read (Philippians 2: 5 - 11) are intended to impress us in this way. They are like a jewel of gold set in its right place — not in a swine’s snout (Proverbs 11: 22) — coming as they do in an epistle addressed to a company of saints such as was found at Philippi. Lydia would be amongst them. She was one who attended to the things spoken by Paul. She would be a most attentive listener to him. The letter would be read perhaps in her house. They might say, ‘Well, evidently the Lord left the form of God’, but Lydia would say, ‘No, Paul does not say that’, and if one said, ‘the Lord would give up the form of a bondman’, she would use the same negative words. She attended to what he spoke. We likewise want to habituate ourselves to attend to what Scripture says. We get more disclosures as we continue to listen. The Lord will go on speaking as we go on listening (see Luke 19: 11).
Revised by J.T.