Philippians 2: 5-11; Genesis 2: 18-25; 24: 61-67

WHAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO JESUS

W.L. One's exercise is to seek help that we might be freshly impressed by what has been given to Jesus personally. First, in His exaltation - "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and granted him a name, that which is above every name". That is what is personal to Himself. I have wondered whether, while it is not mentioned here, Paul would be thinking of Exodus 15 when he wrote this - "Jehovah, for he is highly exalted: The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea" (v 1) - a celebration of Christ's victory. So Philippians 2 is what has been given to Him personally. And in Genesis 2 we might see what has been given to Him personally in the way of a helpmate His like. In Genesis 24 we have one whom He received personally that He could love - and "led her into his mother Sarah's tent; ... and he loved her."

L.McF. A very timely suggestion. In Philippians what is moral underlies His exaltation. Is that so?

W.L. It is indeed, although we do get who He is, a clear statement of His Deity; which needs to be stressed today. In the day in which we live His Deity is being challenged more than ever, an attack against the Person of Christ. But as you say, Paul develops the passage in regard to His bondmanship and His manhood. It is quite clear that He has been exalted, as you rightly say, because of what He is, the kind of Man He is.

J.A.P. In Thessalonians it says the false man exalts himself (2 Thess 2: 4) and Mr Darby says in his note it was arrogance, the devil opposing that kind of man.

W.L. The Lord's own words are significant, "Whoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled," Matt 23: 12. God will do that. But here One who humbled Himself. I suppose this passage here is well-known to every lover of Christ, the greatness of who He is - ''who, subsisting in the form of God". What that would mean no human mind is capable of understanding. The hymn puts it well, 'The creature mind, howe'er sublime, Thine Essence cannot know' (hymn 199). It is far beyond us. So that if we are to know anything at all of God, who He is and what He is, it was necessary that One who is God as to His Person should come into manhood.

C.F.D. What would you say about the expression that He emptied Himself?

W.L. As you know, Mr Raven said that he preferred the Authorised Version - "Made himself of no reputation". He said 'emptied Himself' raised the question 'emptied Himself of what'? No doubt Mr Darby's translation is accurate. Jesus never ceased to be what He always was on account of what He became. You have something to say about it.

C.F.D. That He 'emptied Himself' is a very interesting expression. It shows that He had the power to do that. You and I would not have the power to do that but the Lord had. I was wondering whether, while the Lord never ceased to be what He was on account of what He became (as you have quoted), what He did in essence was to lay aside for the moment what belonged to Him from the viewpoint of Deity so that what man saw in Christ was a humble Man taking a very lowly place. What do you think?

W.L. I am sure of that. It was quite obvious, when He was here, that He was not recognisable as to who He was in the essence of His being. Although Mr Darby's hymn puts it well, 'We see the Godhead glory shine through that human veil' (hymn 188), generally, if I am right, He acted as a dependent Man according to the will of God. There are other instances, for instance in John 18 when they came to apprehend Him, He said, "Whom seek ye?" and He said, "I am he", and “they went away backward and fell to the ground", John 18: 5,6. That was the assertion of His Deity. But even in that context Judas had to identify Him with a kiss; He obviously looked no different from the others around Him. Would that be right?

C.F.D. I think it is right to hold to that. Judas, doing what he did in treachery, had to identify Him because the Lord looked like other men. He would have looked like the other eleven. I suppose all that is involved in the fact that He emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form. The bondman's form would be a lowly form outwardly, would it not?

W.L. It is remarkable that that is the first thing that it says. Probably, if we had been writing it, we would have said first ''found in figure as a man" and then ''taking a bondman's form," but the stress first is ''taking a bondman's form", showing the extent in humility to which He went - most impressive, I think.

C.F.D. Does the Lord set out a pattern for us in what He does? I think you said that, if we are to be exalted, it is as we know how to be otherwise. We were noticing locally that Gideon took a very lowly place, and he is really exalted as a type of Christ, is he not?

W.L. Exactly. That is the way of spiritual blessing, we may say the only way. So Paul prefaces this section by saying "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus". The mind which was displayed so vividly and so beautifully in the Lord Jesus Himself is to be seen distinctly and clearly in the believer. Now is that so? Is that mind that is seen as Paul portrays it here seen in me, seen in all of us here? The mind which was in Christ Jesus. A most remarkable thing.

L.McF. Romans 12: 2 "And be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." Would that link with what you are saying?

W.L. Yes, I am sure it would. The epistle to the Romans is essential to that end, so we should learn to identify the kind of man that never could have the mind that was in Christ Jesus. That man has to go. It is easy to say that he has gone before God, but he has to go for me and for you.

L.McF. "That ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." So the will of God enters into what we are saying.

W.L. "Acceptable" has been described as 'the meat in the sandwich'.

C.F.D. You must explain that.

W.L. "Acceptable" comes in the middle. There is the 'good' and there is the 'perfect'. That stands, that is beyond any kind of dispute as to God's will. The thing is, is it acceptable to me? So "acceptable" in that passage comes in the middle.

L.McF. Now we are to prove that.

W.L. That is right, and we prove it by evidencing that we have this mind in us, "Let this mind by in you which was also in Christ Jesus;" that is the going-down mind. Very many problems would be settled if we all had going-down minds. Difficulties would vanish quickly, things that loom large in our minds, sometimes becoming an obsession. It is the mind again - persons who become obsessed by things come to a point when they cannot even think clearly. "Let this mind by in you" is, as you say, what leads you to think clearly. So when anything comes up, if you have the mind which was in Christ Jesus, you see things as they are, not as someone may think they are.

L.D.P. We were reading in Luke 22 where there was a strife amongst the disciples as to which of them should be held to be the greatest, and the Lord says, "I am in the midst of you as the one that serves", Luke 22: 27. Does that fit in here?

W.L. That fits in very well. He was here as a bondman. What a spirit that is! It is absent in the world, very much so. That spirit cuts right across human ambition, which is a terrible thing.

J.A.P. The remark our brother made underlies the Supper and how we come to the Supper. The Lord instituted it in that manner; then how do I come to the Supper?

W.L. That is most helpful. What a privilege it is to come with a mind like that to the Supper. I was thinking, as we progress in the passage, that it is necessary - "Wherefore also...". That is as a result of it. It was inevitable that God should exalt such an One; speaking reverently, God could do no other than highly exalt such a Man, One who had emptied Himself and humbled Himself.

K.N.P. It says, "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand", John 3: 35. ls that coming into manhood, as we have here, giving up of Himself? The basis there is in love. What do you say about that?

W.L. I am sure that is right: it is a matter of affection. The Lord as Man here gave the Father every reason to love Him. Not one thing in the Lord's life, not one thought, was out of accord with the love of the Father - not one step, not one action. It is remarkable how He drew out, we might say, the affections of the Father. That is what happened at the Jordan, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight", Matt 3: 17.

A.S.H. Men gave Him the grave and the cross, and they also said, "When will he die, and his name perish?" Ps 41: 5. But here He has "granted him a name that which is above every name", the exalted Name, the exalted place that He now fills.

W.L. Those quite remarkable chapters in the book of Esther come to mind, where Mordecai had saved the king's life and Ahasuerus - it seemed to suddenly dawn on him - said, What has been done to this man? And the answer is one word, nothing. He says, That is a terrible thing. Then he says, "What is to be done with the man whom the king delights to honour?" Est 6: 6. This is the answer to it. God has highly exalted Him, and granted Him a name, that which is above every name.

J.A.P. Every knee involves, finally, unbelievers too, all men. Is that right?

W.L. Yes. And even infernal beings - "heavenly and earthly and infernal beings". One thing I look forward to, I trust I will see it, is Satan bowing the knee to Jesus and calling Him Lord. What a thing that will be. The one who opposed Him in everything He said and did down here, opposed everything that God has done since the beginning, yet there is a time coming when even Satan himself will bow the knee to Jesus and confess that He is Lord to God the Father's glory. So it will include every animate being, heavenly, earthly and infernal beings and every tongue - none left out - will confess and every knee will bow. It is morally right that it should be so.

L.McF. We get in verse 5 the mind which was in Christ Jesus, while we get in verse 11 "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to God the Father's glory." Is there some different thought in the way that is presented?

W.L. You are meaning the use of Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ? It is the same Man. Christ Jesus is the exalted Man, the Man where He is; Jesus Christ is the Man who was down here - the same Man, no different, in a different condition but the same Man. Is that how you understand it?

L.McF. Yes.

J.A.P. Your reference to Esther is interesting because even Haman had to bow down. He did not like it.

W.L. Yes. He had to bow down and then he went up fifty cubits. He was hanging from his own gibbet. He had to bow first and acknowledge that Mordecai was right.

C.F.D. What do you think is suggested in that, anything in particular?

W.L. I think it is the absolute evidence that all could see, that it was the kind of man that God had rejected. It is the total contrast to the Son of Man lifted up.

C.F.D. One was the government of God and the other was the blessing of God.

W.L. Exactly. That is just what we have her, "highly exalted him". As I said, Paul would have in mind Exodus 15 as he wrote this, “for he is highly exalted: The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea."

Now in Genesis 2, there is something else that has been given to Him. God says, "I will make him a helpmate, his like." We are obviously speaking about the type of the church, the assembly which is His helpmate, His like, one who is like Him. Further down it says, "And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man." What a thing that was! Adam looked at all the items of creation and found no helpmate his like, but it says God brought her Man. The Lord Jesus has been given a companion, a helpmate; one who is His wife, His bride, His fulness, His complement. What glories belong to the assembly! The variety of the glories that are His we have briefly touched, He has been highly exalted; what other glories He has - personal, official, mediatorial, moral - all belong to Him personally, but then there is this great vessel, His helpmate, His like.

C.F.D. Is the secret of being his like related to the fact that she was out of himself? She is of his order; it is his rib that was builded by God.

W.L. That is most helpful. I think that would link with John 12. The deep sleep would be like the grain of wheat that fell into the ground and died and brought forth much fruit. The brethren will observe there is no mention of the blood here; it is flesh and bones. The blood would relate to the moral side but what we are touching here is a very deep spiritual matter, a sinless scene. It is not Eve here in Genesis 2.

C.F.D. This is before any breakdown is introduced.

W.L. That is most important. It is ishshah here, lsh and ishshah. She was called Eve after the breakdown. We speak about Eve, we know it is the same person, we do not need to be too technical, but we speak about Eve as being a type of the assembly before sin came in. It is not exactly that, it is ishshah that is the type before sin came in. Is that right?

J.A.P. I see that. Therefore there is no sinful history connected with that.

W.L. It is the same person.

L.McF. Would you say something about likeness, "his like”?

W.L. It says in the note 'counterpart'; it is out of himself, from his rib. It is quite remarkable, to give this a practical turn. Paul uses this matter in Ephesians, "I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly", Eph 5: 32. He brings it down to the very practical matter of relationships between husband and wife, inserting it in the Ephesian epistle, which is very important.

J.A.P. What do you mean by that?

W.L. Every true marriage has as its standard the great truth of Christ and the assembly. This is man and woman, lsh and ishshah. So a believer's marriage should be a reflection of this great truth of Christ and the assembly. Paul develops that in Ephesians 5, love in the marriage; he develops the thought in the human relationship, but then quite remarkably he says at the end of it, "but I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly." He does not use Christ and the assembly there as a figure of the human relationship; he uses the human relationship as a figure of Christ and the assembly - "but I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly." How practical these things are!

A.S.H. As to the activities and thoughts and plans of divine Persons, the woman being brought to man, Jehovah not only gave him but He brought her to Man and he says, "This time" as though there was nothing greater than that.

W.L. That is helpful, because man according to God involves both Christ and the assembly. It is important to see that. As to the acme of things in Ephesians – “the assembly in Christ Jesus", Eph 3: 21- we might say, speaking reverently, they are inseparable; Christ in manhood and the assembly are inseparable. This is something to lay hold of. It says, "This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man." I think we need to be enhanced in our minds and enlarged in our thinking about the greatness of what in God's purpose has been provided for Christ as His companion His like. It is a tremendous concept that God has provided for the Man, the One who subsisting in the form of God emptied Himself. God has considered so much for that Man that He has given Him one who is exactly His like, bone of His bones and flesh of His flesh. That is the great light of our day, the great truth of Christ and the assembly. That is what laid hold of the saints, as we well know, in the beginning of the recovery, the greatness of Christ, the Head on high and His body here below.

J.A.P. In the readings in New York on the Assembly, in regard to the passage about which you are speaking, it was said, Eve was a whole new person, another person come into Adam's view. It is beyond me to understand that, but it is Christ and the assembly, is it not?

W.L. That is very helpful. "And he took one of his ribs and closed up flesh in its stead." As far as grammar is concerned there was no need to say "and he slept"; it brings out the glory of the obedient One, the Man who was here in perfect accord with the will of God. There was no resistance to the deep sleep. Then it says, "closed up flesh in its stead". I think that is a careful guarding of the glory of His Deity. "No one knows the Son but the Father," Matt 11: 27 -"closed up flesh in its stead," a careful guarding of His Person. Would that be right?

L.McF. Yes. "The Word became flesh," John 1: 14. Is there a link with what we have here?

W.L. Yes. He came into that condition and that substantial condition remains; the condition of flesh remains. We speak about the condition changed, but the writer to the Hebrews tells us quite clearly that we have access through the veil that is, His flesh (Heb 10: 20).

L.D.P. "Built the rib" - does that have in mind formation; the assembly formed after Christ's likeness?

W.L. Yes. He built the rib that He had taken from Man into a woman. Man was not built, Man was there; the woman was built from that rib. "And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man." That does not contradict what Paul refers to in Ephesians that He will present the assembly to Himself (Eph 5: 27).

C.F.D. He presents the assembly to Himself glorious, without spot, or wrinkle or any of such things. So the perfection seen in Christ will be seen in the assembly as the Lord presents it to Himself.

W.L. Very fine that. Here in the type she is brought to the Man. That would be, as we were saying, God's consideration for Christ in manhood that He must have a helpmate His like. It may well be that that passage in Ephesians is an allusion to His Deity, "present the assembly to himself". I think there is an allusion to His Deity there.

C.F.D. You mean only a divine Person could do that?

W.L. Does that carry you?

C.F.D. Certainly. He, presenting it to Himself, involves the whole power of what was in Christ from the viewpoint of His Deity. Another has said (I am only repeating) that only a divine Person could do that.

W.L. I think that is fine. These things are very important.

C.F.D. As to this matter of "This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman " - the Lord came into a flesh and blood condition, in His manhood here He was in a flesh and blood condition. He died, His blood was shed and in resurrection it is flesh and bones. Is there in any way a link with this? The flesh and bone condition is what is referred to here and He is in flesh and bone condition after the resurrection. Put that together for me.

W.L. Is it not in that condition, although Mary in John 20 did not recognise Him, that He said to her "Woman"? He saw the potential there in Mary and the affections of Mary, and I think the Lord would say there to Himself, if it is not being irreverent, "This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman," because He calls her "Woman". He saw there in her the whole assembly, I think.

C.F.D. Does that in any way link with the fact that when the woman was presented to the man he saw himself over again? Now in resurrection He sees in Mary in principle in type Himself over again. Is that right?

W.L. There is no mention of the blood as we were saying (although John mentions the blood in ch 19: 34) because the blood relates to the moral question, the question of sin and redemption. These are important things - the assembly does not need redeeming. We as individuals need redemption but the assembly as such does not need redeeming because the assembly is sinless. I am not sure if we have grasped that: it is in the good teaching and it is right. The assembly is purchased.

C.F.D. Do you have in mind that the assembly in total represents the finished work of what the Lord has accomplished, and that what is seen in the assembly is marked by perfection. Therefore there is no need for redemption to be applied to the assembly as a vessel.

W.L. As individuals we need redemption but the assembly as an entity does not require to be redeemed. So the passage we have quoted in Ephesians – “having no spot, or wrinkle" and "the washing of water by the word" - does not suggest that the assembly was an unclean vessel and needed to be purified. The service of washing of water by the word is to keep her in a state that properly belongs to her.

J.A.P. What do you say about the passage which says, '”to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own", Acts 20: 28 and then what you get in the book of Ruth 4: 10 "have I purchased".

W.L. That does not relate to the moral issue, the question of sin and sins. It is not a question of sinful history, it is the price that has been paid, "purchased with the blood of his own". We know there is a difference between purchase and redemption there a difference between ransom and redemption. He gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Tim 2: 6) but all are not redeemed. These are important things to understand.

C.F.D. You want to clarify that; all are not redeemed.

W.L. To break it down further, because of the work of Christ - I suppose it would be the difference between propitiation and substitution - John says, the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone but also for the whole world", 1 John 2: 2. That is as to the whole matter of sin and sins God has been propitiated, but substitution is that if I want to get the gain of that work of Christ Godward, I must lay claim to it by faith for myself. Is that how you understand the truth?

C.F.D. That is good.

W.L. Genesis 24 is another aspect of this thought. Abraham as a type of the Father was seeking a bride for His Son. In Genesis 24, as you know, the aspect is more the journey through the wilderness in the company of the Spirit. In the beginning of the Acts, the incoming of the Spirit, the baptism of the Spirit, which only happened once - there is only one baptism of the Spirit, I think we are all clear? that. Paul says, "For also in the power of one Sp1nt we have all been baptised into one body," 1 Cor 12: 13. That does not mean that every time a person believes there is a fresh baptism of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit was once for all at Pentecost when the body was formed. Anyone who believes since is brought in to what has existed since Pentecost. So this is a journey through the wilderness. The servant is a type of the Holy Spirit. The Lord says in His own ministry, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and will love the other," Matt 6: 24. The servant says Abraham is his master. Then when Isaac comes on to view and Who is the man? Rebecca says, he says, "That is my master! " A wonderful type of the economy, divine Persons in these relative positions They have taken; the Father as supreme, the Lord having taken as Man a relatively inferior position. And then the Holy Spirit is subject to both the Father and the Son.

L.McF. Rebecca would be a product of the Spirit's work during the wilderness journey at the present time.

W.L. Quite so. It is remarkable there is no suggestion of growth with Rebecca. The first time the servant sees Rebecca she is, we might say, a mature person. He sees in her, even before he knows who she is, the very features he was looking for. The Spirit of God can take account in ourselves the features that are according to God, that are so pleasing to God, assembly features.

J.A.P. What you say regarding the Master is interesting, because there is a reference to the brethren praying in Acts 4 to the Lord (v 24), and Mr Darby's note is 'the master'. From one point of view the Lord is our Master, is He not? The Spirit would help us to accept that. Sarah called her husband lord, that is also said in Scripture. I do not think that is much understood amongst us. Not that we are worthy sometimes for our wives to do that, but there is the idea of subjection which has publicly been lost in the world.

W.L. That is very true. That is a feature that comes out in Rebecca. Bethuel and Laban they were a bit rebellious, "You are not going with this man," just delay ten days, "Let the maiden abide with us some days, or say ten; after that she shall go" - delaying tactics. That is what the enemy is at. He is at that today lest the saints take on the full truth of Christ and the assembly and what the Spirit of God is labouring for. The enemy says, Just delay, you have plenty of time. She says, "I will go".

C.F.D. Is that not very current - just wait a little - not so quick - not just now - a little later on. You find this coming in in relation to the glad tidings. The gospel is presented to men, Christ an object of faith and then to move responsibly in relation to that. It is what we would call the dragging of the feet, we drag our feet. The result is it gives the enemy an opportunity to work.

W.L. That is very true. We were told when we were young, procrastination is the devil's recruiting officer. Put things off and the devil will get you. And it is the same when moral issues crop up among the saints, if they are not taken up rightly, quickly, the situation usually deteriorates and it becomes more difficult to handle and solve. Would that be right?

C.F.D. I fully agree with that.

W.L. So let us be in the spirit of Rebecca, who said, "I will go." This man has a mission and I will be fully in accord with that, "I will go", I will not hinder his mission. He is eager to get back to his master and fulfil his mission. I think we could read into this, The Spirit and the bride say, one word, Come - perfect unison between the Spirit and the bride. And Rebecca comes to that when she says, "I will go."

A.S.H. You spoke earlier as to maturity. Is it right to say that that is seen early with the maiden? When the question is asked she spoke right out, she is a mature person; "I will go."

W.L. He says, 'send me away and I will go to my master.' And they called Rebecca and said to her Wilt thou go with this man? And she said I will go. The very same words the servant had used. You might say, bringing it down to our day, this creature vessel is in perfect accord with the Spirit of God. Now that is the biggest challenge of today that we are in accord; to bring it into Revelation language, when the Lord addresses these churches He does not end up by saying Hear what I am saying, He says, "He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies."

D.McF. Would you say a word as to the veil and covering herself?

W.L. I think it is comely. That is another feature of the assembly. A feature that is proper to the saints is comeliness and she is showing clearly with the veil that she is exclusively for Christ. Have we come to that? Have I come to it? Have you come to it? Have we all come to that, that we are exclusively for Christ with an eye for no other? "And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were coming. And Rebecca lifted up her eyes. Both Isaac and Rebecca lifted up their eyes and the saw each other, and the veil, as you say, was an indication - "Then she took the veil, and cover d herself." She is saying quite clearly, I am exclusively for Isaac. I think it is the beginning of Romans 7, “to be to another" v 4. I think that is in figure what Rebecca came to here. She says I am going to be to another. Would that we were all like that and use that language of Romans 7, we are going to be to another exclusively.

L.D.P. I wondered if Ruth fits in here. It says she was stedfastly minded to go with her (Ruth 1: 18).

W.L. A fine word that, "stedfastly minded". That links with how we began, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus". "He stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem", Luke 9: 51. In the words of the prophet, "therefore have I set my face like a flint," Isa 50: 7. How stedfast that was, no thought of turning aside.

L.McF. What do you say about the camels? Isaac lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were coming.

W.L. I wondered if we could link that with verse 61, there is Rebecca her maids, the camels and the man, all these elements. The maids would be those who were supportive of Rebecca. That raises the question, Am I a supportive person? Am I a support in my local assembly or am I a hindrance? Am I a trouble-maker? All these things enter into this. The maids would be for Rebecca 's help, not to hinder her. Then the camels, power for movement. There came a point when they were no longer needed; "she sprang off the camel" when she arrived at her destination. We have the comfort of the Spirit on the journey - there comes a time (He will always be with us of course) when the wilderness journey will be over.

A.S.H. Would it be right to say that the camel is the carrying power?

W.L. That is good. Power for transport, for carrying. The end is "And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done." I love to think of communications as to the whole dispensation between divine Persons themselves. The servant told Isaac all things that he had done. What a wonderful thought that is, and it leads to Isaac leading her into his mother Sarah's tent. For the time being Israel is set aside.

C.F.D. It makes you wonder what proceeded amongst divine Persons during the ten days. You think of the Lord ascending and the Spirit did not come until a period of ten days - the communication, what must have been proceeding in heaven at that time.

W.L. How wonderful it must have been! We are not told anything about it. It must have been a wonderful time.

 

NEW YORK

22 March 1997

 

Key to initials

C.F.Dadd (Plainfield); A.S.Hinkson (New York); W.Lamont (Cumnock); D.McFarlane (New York). L.McFarlane (New York); J.A.Petersen (Plainfield); K.N.Pye (New York); L.D.Phillips (New York)