CHAPTER 1
[p. 347] CHAPTER 1
This is not strictly a doctrinal epistle, it is more occupied with the mind and spirit of the saints. We do not find in it the unfolding of divine counsel; it supposes people to be in the light of that, and speaks of the experience down here answering to it.
Had anything special called it out? — Yes, the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle in the gospel. There was a great contrast between the Philippians and the Corinthians in relation to Paul. One thing that shewed where the Corinthians were spiritually, was their lack of sympathy with the Lord’s work; they were too much taken up with themselves and their own importance.
Was not the way in which the Philippians looked at Paul a great mark of their state? — Yes, and we are tested to a large extent by our appreciation of those who are specially the vessels of God’s testimony down here.
Is it because the men are identified with their teaching? — Yes, with Paul it was remarkably so. Paul does not exactly take the ground of apostle here; he and Timothy were servants or saints.
Is that so that we should not feel what is here to be beyond us? — Paul was putting himself before the saints as an example, identifying himself with them on what was common ground, so that they might go on with him. Apostles were not very ecclesiastical as far as I can see. God-ward, they had the sense of what was committed to them, but they had much more pleasure in identifying themselves with the saints and
†Notes taken at Greenwich. Revised by F.E.R.
[p. 348] the saints with them, than in being looked on as a distinct class. It was a trial to them to exercise authority, they had no pleasure in it: “We are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong”. It is so contrary to the spirit of priest-craft, though they had the sense of their responsibility to be faithful and true in what was committed to them. I am certain that the New Testament, including all that was written to the churches, is much less ecclesiastical than we are accustomed to think. We on our part have been affected by habits of thought around us — all that we have been brought up in. Naturally, we like ecclesiastical form; it is something in the eye of man that can exist apart from the spiritual condition that composes it. It suits man to have something to shew, but it is not the idea of Scripture; this epistle does not fit into it. Yet it recognises church order — bishops and deacons. I think the point in those offices is not so much of office held, as moral and spiritual qualifications that fitted the holders for them. Christian fellowship is a most important principle in this world; it has its force in a scene where there are contrary elements. I do not think the idea of fellowship would come in if there was nothing to hinder or oppose. The greater the opposition, the stronger the fellowship.
In what way does this epistle follow Ephesians? — You get the marks in it of a person who has entered into Ephesians, having one object — the practical setting aside of oneself, having no selfish interests to serve.
Should we have more fellowship if we were more firmly established in the truth of Christ’s rejection? — Yes, and if we felt more the strength of Christian bonds we should be more conscious of the contrariety. Organisation is man’s work, fellowship is of the Spirit. The Philippians had ministered to Paul, shewing practically their fellowship in his service and testimony, and what they had done calls forth what the apostle says here.
[p. 349] Was it that he was pleased that they had fellowship with him, or with the work of God? — We should lose much, I judge, if we did not apprehend the identification of the apostle with the gospel.
Does not spiritual life in a Christian involve fellowship? — Yes, I think so. In Old Testament times there was no fellowship exactly, or at all events in a very limited sense, as in Malachi; fellowship came in with the gospel. Christ was rejected, and certain people who believed in Him were bound together in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Christianity has become nationalised, and the idea of fellowship thoroughly lost. That which was national rejected the Holy Spirit, the only true bond of fellowship.
Is not verse 6 sometimes used of people who have been born again to shew they will be brought into the full light of the gospel? — I do not think it refers exactly to that, for the Philippians were Christians who had made some progress; the expression applies to advanced Christians, and is connected with their going on well. It was a delight to the heart of the apostle to see saints identified with the testimony. Every Israelite was connected with the tent of the testimony, and this is what marked the Philippians. You get the same idea in 2 Timothy: “Be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel”. The gospel was not in prosperity then. There had been a time when, in a sense, it was so, as at Ephesus; but now the apostle was bound, and it was the time of the afflictions of the gospel. At Ephesus the power of the testimony seemed to be carrying all before it, but at the time the apostle was now writing the gospel had come into reproach.
Is the reproach known today? — I think so. The signs and wonders had in measure passed away, and so the advantages to man were in that sense gone. If the Philippians were identified with the suffering, they had the grace, too (verse 7).
[p. 350] Is the connection in verse 9 that they might understand the state of things? — I think so; some were preaching Christ out of contention. It supposes a mixed state of things that called for the exercise of spiritual judgment on the part of saints. There are a great many things that seem plausible enough at first sight, but when you get a little deeper you find you cannot go with them. We have to approve the “things that are more excellent”; but love is to abound.
Does this shew that the affections being right is a great matter in testing things? — Yes; love, or what is often called love, might pass over many things, but in the things of God this cannot be. There must be pure and holy love that does not pass over what is unsuited to God. When you have come to love you have come to what God is, and that is holy love; love is something pleaded as a ground for passing over all kinds of things. You get no enlargement in the love of God till the foundation of righteousness is laid in the soul. If a man talks much about his love to God without a solid foundation of righteousness, I do not believe in it a bit. Love does not want to bring sins into the light of judgment, but it is not indifferent about them.
Verse 7. They had the apostle in their hearts when he was in bonds. I suppose his prayers went up for them, and they were all partakers of his grace. If you are identified with the work of God and those who are carrying it on, you will be partaking of the grace; but it is impossible to define how this works. You could not be in fellowship and contact with the servants without being more or less partakers of their grace. I desire to be in company with those who are in the testimony for the moment, for there is a testimony for the moment, and it is not revivalism! We must admit that the Lord has a mind about things at any given moment. There is something down here, small enough perhaps, but that which meets the mind of the [p. 351] Lord, being the fruit of His grace. We need clear knowledge and judgment to discern, for as sure as possible if anything good springs up there will be also imitation; even fellowship can be imitated externally, as in such a thing as Freemasonry.
Verse 10. “Sincere” is, without mixture, pure, unalloyed. It is more difficult now than in that day; the difficulties now are enormous. Things were much more declared in that day; but when Christianity is nationalised, it is far more difficult to judge the path. You are insensibly influenced by what is around — you cannot help it. We have not persecution, but we are in the greatest possible danger of being demoralised; it is so very easy to drop down to a lower level and to maintain orthodoxy and proprieties. I do not believe one of us is safe from this if not conscious of being in the mind of the Lord for the moment. There is no moment in the history of the professing church as to which the Lord has not revealed His mind.
Verse 13. “My bonds in Christ are manifest”. It is beautiful to see that the apostle was vindicated in that way; he was not looked at as being bound as a malefactor. The effect was to give confidence to the brethren. If a man is going on right God will vindicate him, and not allow him to be looked upon as an evil-doer.
Was it that which affected the brethren, so that they preached? — I think so.
Did it command the respect of men generally? — Yes. God’s testimony must claim and gain attention. The effort to gain attention by revivalism is deplorable. When the truth of the church first came out, it commanded attention much more than at the present day. If God is speaking to man, there is no need for us to make efforts to gain attention, to advertise, placard, etc. It is poor work to use the means that man would use. The Spirit is here to witness for Christ; if in the power of the Spirit, we should attract attention,
[p. 352] and if not, the less attention we attract the better. It is not a question of what we are, but of the dignity of the message. It is humiliating to think of God being dependent on the means that man would employ to attract attention to his own things. People want something that approves itself to man. If approved of God you are independent of man. Approval you must have, no one in this world can do without it; and if not conscious of God’s you will seek man’s. Man is not self-supporting. When the Lord was here men could not let Him alone, and it will be the same with us now if we are connected with God’s testimony.
Are the “fruits of righteousness” (verse 11) what God has wrought in the saints? — Yes.
Is righteousness the fruits? — No, I do not think the expression means that; it is the fruit of righteousness. Everything in the Christian that is agreeable to God is the fruit of righteousness. “Become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness” — there was no fruit when in bondage to sin. There are certain things that spring from righteousness — James speaks of it. I think a mistake has been made as to the righteousness of God, as though it could have any application to you apart from a moral effect in you. I do not believe it possible or intended; you must be morally affected by it. A man has nothing to do to be justified, but if I have an appreciation of God’s righteousness, while I am justified, the light of God’s righteousness must affect me; you cannot divorce the two things. The objective side has been presented to the exclusion of the other. I do not think that is the divine way. God makes His righteousness known that we may know Himself. It is not conceivable that God could come in to make Himself known without our being affected by it; it must become living and operative in us. I am speaking in a certain sense apart from the truth of an indwelling Spirit. When the light of the gospel comes in, making God known,
[p. 353] a person is affected by what is made known to him. The full effect is that he is set free from sin; then you get the fruit of righteousness. I think God has very great satisfaction in the fruit of righteousness, for He gets it in the very place of sin. Righteousness hardly refers to heaven, but to the place where sin has been; it is to the praise and glory of God. He gives us righteousness; it is a gift, but He gets the fruit. It would be difficult to define the fruit, but God gets it, and it is the expression of a moral triumph where sin had ruled. The idea of fruit in Scripture is, that it is for God.
What does man get? — Testimony, I should say.
Is it the difference between John 15 and 16? — Yes. Man gets testimony, God gets fruit; what is fruit to God is profitable for man, but there may sometimes be fruit to God when there is no testimony to man. People are sometimes in circumstances where they cannot render much testimony, yet there may be fruit. I suspect people ought to be more exercised that there should be fruit to God. The producing power of what you get in John 15 is found in John 13 and 14; and what was the fruit? — Love; that in the midst of a hostile world the disciples of Christ loved one another. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace; that is fruit to God.
Verses 15, 16. “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife”, etc. Things do not appear to have been very happy at Rome — I mean as to the way in which the testimony was taken up. Evidently there was an element in the church that was hostile to the apostle: they were “brethren”, for he speaks of them as “some” and “others”. I think we can understand this in the light of many things that have occurred amongst us. There were those who had other lines, and became animated by other motives. The preaching of the gospel is one of the most difficult things among us; there is a tendency to do it in a way that is compromising [p. 354] to the testimony. The apostle wrote to Timothy as to the state of things in his day, that at his first answer he was forsaken of all. He speaks, too, in a very strong way in this epistle: “Many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping”. It is a solemn thing that the most blessed service should be a subject of envy and strife.
Do you think it was the grace of the apostle that made him say Christ was preached? — I think so; but I do not suppose they preached Christ as he preached Him, but more in connection with Judaism — a Jewish faction in the church — man’s own will in a certain line. Christ was preached, but there must have been some qualification or dilution of the gospel if preached of envy and strife. The apostle uses two strong expressions: “not sincerely” and “in pretence”. You can see now that a great deal of very specious work, which passes with many, comes from motives not quite pure; there is a great deal of activity, and people are often uncommonly active if a little bit twisted. I can understand the Jewish faction at Rome taking the opportunity to bring in legalism, as at the present day. They say, Christ kept the law for you; but if so, you are under law. One sees the sort of place Christ has in such teaching as that; no death and resurrection, no setting aside of man after the flesh. The object, to a large extent, is to make room for clergy; but the truth is, Christians are priests only as risen with Christ. It has interested me that the attestation of priesthood was the budding of Aaron’s rod — resurrection — and if you are sons of Aaron you too must be of that order. I think verse 18 has been used to keep people a little in bondage — that if Christ is preached you must accept the preaching. The motives from which the preaching sprang could not have given Paul satisfaction; if a testimony to Christ, it must have been very low down. I do not suppose they testified very much that the first man had gone in [p. 355] judgment, or to Christ crucified, and the gift of the Spirit. If the first man is gone, you must evidently be on new ground before God, and the only proper answer to the first man being gone, is that you receive the Spirit of another Man, the Spirit of God’s Son; but then you cannot put God’s Son under law. But the point is to observe the way in which the apostle rises above all; he knows that it will turn to his salvation. God gave him compensation.
Was it deliverance from prison? — I do not think so; it was more like, “The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work”, etc. There was present compensation in the supply of the Spirit. We cannot compare ourselves to the apostle; he stood alone with all the power of evil against him. If you or I fail it is in a sense a small matter (though it matters very much to ourselves), but if the power of evil could have brought down the apostle and made him deny the testimony, or come down to a lower level, the testimony would have been most seriously compromised; so salvation in his case meant a great deal. In his own mind he never severed himself from the gospel, he stood or fell with it.
Was it his desire, that in the circumstances in which he was placed, he might comport himself as Christ would have done? — Exactly! His desire was for the reproduction of Jesus Christ in himself (verse 20); that Man was to be displayed in him. That was what was verified in the apostle. There is a good bit of rivalry in preaching the gospel, but God may use it. If I saw things carried on in that way I would rather retire from the field. The Lord retired under certain circumstances into a desolate place, a mountain, the desert. The servant ought to be in the background, he ought to retire. And I think if you retire, possibly the Lord may open a door to you, and a door opened by the Lord is worth any amount of doors you can open for yourself. It is a wonderful thing to think of Christ being magnified in the apostle’s body. There, where the first man had been exhibited in all his crookedness and contrariety, Christ was to be magnified. I think the important thing in this world is moral power; profession, or pretension, will sooner or later come down. And I do not believe there is any moral power for us outside of Christ. The moral power in the apostle was the Christ in him. If a man has moral power there is no questioning it; the world may hate it, but cannot deny it. I should suppose that moral power in the Christian comes out in complete superiority to every influence here — it was so in the apostle.
How would you say moral power is gained? — By company with Christ. It was when Moses had been in the mount that his face shone. One is in such constant danger of being affected by the influences around. You want to go on easily with people. I do not like having to take a separate line; but what one wants is moral power to take a right course, whatever course other people take. Doctrine has not power except in the sense of its giving light. The influence of a person is beyond calculation for good or evil. You cannot describe it, reason could never understand it. You get the secret of it in the apostle — he had nothing to gain by living; to die was gain, but to him to live was Christ; others could gain by his living, and so he elects to live; no doubt the Lord decided it. You can rest easy about things, you need not try to compass them. Abraham had in taking Hagar a right object in view — he was to have a son, and he himself set to bring it about. This is a great danger amongst us; it shews restlessness of spirit. It was of God that Israel should be delivered, but it was not right for Moses to kill the Egyptian; it effected nothing. God let the enemy rush into ruin. There was, however, a very much more serious question as to Israel. When the Lord was here, He came to save His people from their sins. They would have liked to be saved from the Romans,
[p. 357] but to save them from their sins was much more important; and so when He comes again it will be to turn away ungodliness from Jacob. This is God’s covenant with them when He takes away their sins. Moses thought the point was the Egyptian, but God had other things to teach His people; there was the passover to be kept; if the judgment of God had not been held back by the blood, the Israelites would have suffered as much as the Egyptians.
“According to my earnest expectation and my hope”. There was no pretension about the apostle — he was so simple and natural; he never speaks in an inflated way; his words are not the language of self-confidence. The Philippians were a company to whom he could let out his heart. The gospel was a special bond between himself and them, and he greatly appreciated their fellowship. They looked upon the apostle as set for the defence of the gospel, and they were with him in spirit; it bound them together in a special bond. I think the same thing may be found now; a meeting may be going on happily in Christian fellowship, but there would also be special sympathy with and regard for those bound up with the testimony. The real standard with Paul was the testimony, and hence his anxiety that there should be nothing in the vessel that should in any way discredit the testimony. It would be a great thing if we all had that in view, in all things approving ourselves. I suppose he is speaking here pretty much in a levitical character, not perhaps exactly as an apostle. Shut up in prison, his apostolic service was in a certain sense over as to activity. You get apostleship in the unfolding of doctrine, but in Philippians the pre-eminent thought is not doctrine, but experience; and so the apostle does not speak so much in that light, but rather as a servant to and pattern of the saints. So he determines to remain for their furtherance and joy of faith; he could serve them better by remaining than by departing. The gospel [p. 358] was to be the standard for their walk as well as for his, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ”. Dying, for the apostle, meant his complete release from the whole weight and pressure under which he was here — as he says, “The time of my release is come”; but in consideration for the saints he elects to stay and continue to serve, he rejoices in that which is not advantageous to himself. It is interesting in this epistle to see it is not simply common Christian fellowship that is in view, but the gospel looked at as a special bond of fellowship.
Did that include any special testimony? — I think so, for the testimony at any particular time is the gospel in some form. The tabernacle of witness never changed, but its position was shifted continually; a point of great moment to us. The place of testimony is changed, and you have to see what is that place. The circumstances in which the testimony is are always changing, and you want to observe the location of the tent, the attendant circumstances in which the testimony has to be rendered. The special terms and setting of the testimony a hundred years ago would hardly suit today; the location is different. “Striving together for the faith of the gospel” is identified with it: one heart and one soul, no divergence, nothing of this emulation coming in, but an unbroken front. I think you must present the truth with regard to the particular circumstances of the moment. I do not doubt, if we had skill enough to use it, we should see how perfectly the testimony meets the errors of the present day. If you cannot use it so, it is because you have not got sufficient hold of it yourself.
Do you think in other circumstances the apostle would have said, “To die is gain”? — Well, I do not know that he would have said the same when at Ephesus. I think he apprehended that his active service was closed, and it was the suffering part now. He was tested in every possible way — in the activity [p. 359] of his service, and in the suffering — and he answered to every test. He could say at the close, “I have fought a good fight”, and on that ground could claim a crown of righteousness.