CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2
In this chapter the principles of life and death are the great point. In one sense we die out of sight, but it is that we may come out in another light altogether, in another colour; not that people could understand it. It is not here a question of a Christian’s everyday life and duties, but of his testimony. Everyday life has to be carried on, and we have to take up a variety of things down here. But that is not the point of this chapter — it is not even like Romans, where the ordering of the world is recognised; but it is the testimony of the Christian, the principles of which are death and life. You die out in obedience, but you work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, and the effect is that you come out in a new colour, holding forth the word of life — the testimony. If I wanted to find out what a Christian is to be in his everyday life among men, I should hardly look to Philippians for it, but rather to Romans; but if I wanted to know what a Christian should be as dead to the world, I should turn to Philippians. You would not come out in this way unless you had learned something of Romans. It is the practical getting out of sight. In Romans it is a question, to a large extent, of deliverance from sin; but it goes further here — it is coming out in a new way, “blameless and harmless” as children of God.
Is it collective? — Yes, I think so. The point of the apostle is, while recognising the great encouragement he had had from the Philippians, that they should complete his joy, that there should be complete oneness; it is, I judge, the idea of collective testimony.
Why is it “as lights”? — I think the work ought to come out in every one, but if you want to carry it into effect in its fulness you must see to your relations one towards another. I am certain that in our day individual testimony has been made too much of. You can understand that in the great professing systems, what we call collective testimony is impossible. There are individual Christians mixed up in all sorts of unsuitable things, but there is no such thing as collective testimony, and so the idea of it is not realised.
Is the maintenance of unity essential to it? — There could be no collective testimony without it. At Philippi there was a little jarring, not complete unity, and so Paul says, “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-minded”. I see three points in John’s gospel: (1) Life, which is individual, and connects itself with the wilderness; it begins there; (2) Unity; (3) Fruit. Up to chapter 6 it is all life, but not out of the wilderness — the bread, the manna; but in chapter 10 the point is unity: one flock, one Shepherd. Then chapter 15 is fruit, which connects itself with this chapter; it is what you get here. In order for fruit there must be unity; if anything interferes with that, there will not be fruit. Fruit is the evidence of life, it is the spontaneous product of life in healthy conditions. As surely as possible in a tree, if there be life in a healthy condition, fruit is the spontaneous product; but you may be sure of this, if not of one mind there will not be much fruit — there is a hindrance to affection. Still, what comes out is, that you have to get out of sight as to all you are in your own eyes, and that is not so easy; for there is not one of us but attaches a certain importance to himself — you are something in your own eye. But all that has to go, and that is why Christ is brought in, for whether in the form of God or the form of a servant, He made nothing of Himself if one may venture to say it of Him. It is very humiliating for a man to be nothing in his own eyes.
[p. 361] If the Christian had not the consciousness of being something for God, he could not be nothing in his own eyes. The Lord was conscious of what He was to God.
Is the Lord brought forward as a pattern? — I think so, to shew the mind; not exactly the mind that was in Him, but which is in Him — it is characteristic. It goes right back to what He was in the form of God; but the mind is not altered.
Is it in principle, “I am meek and lowly in heart”? — Quite so; it is part of His perfection the moment He comes into man’s place: all that is beautiful and perfect in the eye of God is seen in Him; it is moral perfection in man. It is the adaptation of what is properly divine to the place of man. He brought it into man; He got nothing from man. I suppose these allusions in verse 1 are to what the apostle had experienced from the Philippians in their ministry to him; but evidently what he sought now from them was perfect oneness, which involved one mind, and that the mind of Christ. He had great joy in them, but he wanted it to be completed. It was great delicacy to take occasion of their grace to intimate what was lacking. There is the fullest possible recognition of what he had experienced from them. He could count on their receiving what he said, for there was real attachment of heart to him on the part of the Philippians. I do not remember that he uses the expression “My beloved brethren” elsewhere. I think there is more real freedom of utterance in Philippians than in any other epistle; Timothy is the only one like it. There was no restraint on the apostle’s part, he was so at home with them. I do not think that people could ever be content to go out of sight if they did not apprehend what is in Christ; it is only His mind that would put you out. It is not effort; effort brings you more into sight. Trying to be humble is poor work.
I suppose this (verses 6 - 8) is the most remarkable statement with regard to Christ and the incarnation [p. 362] that you find in Scripture, if you take in the whole extent of it. You get the facts elsewhere, but looking at it as the mind that was in Christ, you do not get any other such complete statement. The great point of it is, the purpose of mind. It is not the mind in the sense in which we commonly understand it — the thinking faculty — but the purpose.
Is his exhortation that this should be the settled purpose of their souls? — I think so. It brings in enlargement of heart; you look not on your own things only, but on the things of others. There is not one of us but needs the word, for everything around tends to narrow us up here. As regards ourselves, we have not really anything to surrender. If a man estimates himself at his true value, what has he to surrender? Nothing, for he himself is under death. What has a man to give up when he has death on him? He is but a life-tenant as to all he has. It may seem a great deal to give up, but in result it gives you up. Now with the Lord, it was totally different; it was with Him a question of obedience, of divine grace, which brought Him into our place. He surrenders all in that sense: He had something to give up. There were two great steps in His path: one, when in the form of God, the other, when in the form of man. He emptied Himself, and then as man He humbled Himself and became obedient. I think it is His mind, in contrast with the act of mind in the first man, who coveted to be equal with God. Then you get what is more positive — taking a servant’s form, and becoming in the likeness of men. One side was the making Himself of no account or reputation, the other, the form assumed. I have a dislike to the word ‘emptied’ — though it may be a literal rendering — because it brings in the thought of emptying of something, which is not the idea. The act of mind of Adam did not give Adam anything; it was the act that gained him something. With Adam act of mind, the object of rapine, was to be equal with [p. 363] God; but in contrast to that, Christ emptied Himself. The only other place in which the verb rendered ‘emptied’ is used in the active is: “that any man should make my glorying void”. The revised translation of verse 7 may be called a paraphrase, but that it conveys the sense I have no doubt.
But was it not the estate that was given up? — That is not the statement; it was an act of mind: “I come to do thy will”. It is the setting of the one act of mind against the other act of mind. (See Psalm 40: 7, 8.) Christ takes that place: the act of mind was the greatest possible proof of His divinity, and it comes out in what He does; He takes a servant’s form and the likeness of men.
Then you do not put it as positive till you reach that point? — No, the emptying was no positive act, but an act of mind that led to the positive act — the taking the body prepared for Him, the servant’s form, the likeness of men. It is in connection with His being in the form of God that He makes nothing of Himself and becomes a man. It is the act of mind put in contrast with the mind of Adam in aspiring to be equal with God. The overt act comes out in taking the servant’s form; with Adam it came out in taking the fruit. “Thought it not robbery to be equal with God”. He did not think it an object to be snatched at; it is a contrast to Adam. Then comes the overt act — He takes the body prepared: “the likeness of men” is explanatory. The second great step is, that having become man He humbled Himself. He had everything to surrender as man. All belonged to Him as man just as all had belonged to Him as God, yet He humbled Himself, it was the most complete self-abnegation; though He was rich, for our sakes He became poor. All the promises belonged to Him as man, though He could not take up anything, for He would have taken it alone. Redemption was an absolute necessity if any one was to be with Him. It is not the atoning efficacy,
[p. 364] but the measure of His obedience. Once He entered on that path, it was humility and obedience that characterised Him. He could not go lower than to be made a curse — it was impossible.
Is not disobedience always assumption? — Yes, always, for it is the assertion of will and that with the creature must always be assumption. Voluntary humility is not set upon doing the will of God, it is not humility at all.
Is it your thought that we should recognise what He is in the unity of the Godhead? — Yes. He must have been a divine Person to empty Himself. You cannot have everything turned upside down, God must be God and man man; but, nevertheless, a divine person comes to do the will of God, and takes the body prepared for Him, but God remains.
Do I understand that you limit the act of mind to the one verse? — The taking a servant’s form is more than an act of mind. He takes a body, it is an actual fact. He is in the form of a servant, and the likeness of men; but then, it is not simply taking the form, but accompanying the taking of the form is the act of mind suitable. It is not simply a divine Person in that form and place, but in everything suited to that place, because the act of mind was there; not merely a divine Person in a body, but all moral perfection as suited to that place; that is what I understand by the act of mind. Then He goes as low as He can, and the answer is, God hath highly exalted Him. God is in the place of God still, it is only God who can exalt. He is exalted as man, the place He has taken for eternity.
“And given him a name which is above every name”. Renown is the idea of “a name” to me — what is set forth in a man. We say a man has got a name — that is, renown. What God sets forth in a man is that man’s renown. God called Abram, Abraham; his renown is that he is the father of a multitude. So “Isaac” — [p. 365] laughter, that is what was set forth in him. If God gives a name, it is the renown God gives. “My new name” is not the literal name of Jesus, but the renown attaching to Him; all that God sets forth in Him is included in His name. I think ‘Lord’ is too definite as to name; it is whatever God has seen fit to set forth in Him that constitutes His name — Lord, Saviour, Jesus. Peter says to Cornelius that it was He who was ordained of God to be judge of quick and dead; that is covered by His ‘name’, and through His name whoever believed shall receive forgiveness of sins. ‘Name’ on the part of God indicates the way in which He sees fit to be known; but in its application to a man, it is what God sets forth in that man. It is not a question of a proper name, as ‘Jesus’, but the renown that belongs to the man by the ordering and appointment of God; the One who bears the name of Jesus has such renown. It is to the glory of God the Father.
It is a great thing to apprehend that before honour is humility. Christ came into the place of humiliation. It is a great thing for us to accept humbling, and it is a mercy from God if we are not allowed to be anything great in this world. The higher up a man is in the world the more difficult it is for him to come down. J.N.D. used to say that the only good of position was the privilege of giving it up for Christ. The same principle of humbling in obedience comes out in the Christian, but it comes out in testimony down here; and I am sure that if people do not give up in spirit what attaches to them and tends to make them conspicuous in the world, there will not be much testimony. I do not want to abolish social distinctions, but I speak of the spirit of the Christian. If one is of any account in one’s own eyes there is a hindrance to testimony. In that sense, if we do not humble ourselves we may be humbled, or we shall fall out of the ranks, and in that case there is not really the acceptance of death,
[p. 366] the mind of Christ. Lowliness is the way of unity. If the flock is following the shepherd, the eyes of the flock are upon Him, and that is the only way to get unity. “Let this mind be in you”; there is no unity if our eyes are upon one another. If my eye is on you and yours on me we shall see the weak points in each other, and we shall not get on that way. We look too much at each other. It is impossible but that there will be things calling for forbearance in one another. Honestly I can say, I would not like everybody to be like myself. I am sure that people have to forbear with me, and the same thing comes in with all. The mind that is in Christ Jesus is what we need.
What do you mean by falling out of the ranks? — The ranks of testimony. I have seen a good many do it; they do not cease to be Christians, but they are not in the ranks. I quite admit there is not much testimony in these days, but to say there is none would be to cast a great slur upon what the Spirit of God has been working in this century. It is out of that testimony that many have fallen; they have not been prepared to surrender worldly advantage; they were people of a certain status, and that had much to do with the late defection. If you are not prepared to surrender worldly status, you will have little entrance into the purpose of God. You must be prepared to accept death, and there comes a moment when that is put to the test, and people do not always answer to the test; but I do not unchristianise a person on that account. The ground of salvation, as far as I understand it, is that the grace of God has come to man where he is. But there is another side of truth, and that is, man going to God. It is perfectly plain to me they are two distinct things — God coming to man, and man going to God. Man cannot go to God in his own importance; he has to give all up, it is the first step. I believe the apprehension of the cross in its moral bearing is the first step, and then the drinking the bitter waters of [p. 367] Marah. I doubt if they are really drunk until the truth of the cross, in the aspect of the brazen serpent, is apprehended. The brazen serpent to Israel has its antitype in the preaching of the cross; man’s state has been condemned in the cross to God’s glory, that God might impart the Spirit to man, might thus form him in a new state. It is the purpose side of the gospel — a side which few are prepared to accept.
“Work out your own salvation”; it is working it out in result.
Is it in view of the apostle’s absence? — Yes, he had guarded them as long as he was with them. The way to work our salvation out is to come out in the true colour of testimony. A man must emancipate himself from every hindrance, so that he comes out in the true colour of Christ — blameless, harmless, lights in the world, and all this with fear and trembling. If you know anything of the world, and of what you yourself are, the effect must be to produce fear and trembling. I should not be afraid of anything in the world if I had not got the answer to it in myself; that necessitates fear and trembling. A general who underrates the importance and strength of the enemy is not a good one. Many a Christian does very well in adversity, but does not shine in prosperity. The snare of prosperity is where a great many fall. Then I think the fear and trembling is dependent on what comes after — that it is God that works in you. If any one has a sense of that, it will produce fear and trembling lest one should interfere with the work of God. There is no unfolding of doctrine to my knowledge in Philippians. It has often been said to be the counterpoise to Ephesians which gives you the doctrine. If really instructed in Ephesians, this is the character in which you would come out down here. It presents what a person is, not what he says: he shines; a light is a moral idea. “Holding forth” would be testimony, but not exactly preaching. It is what comes out in the [p. 368] saints; light and life go together, it is the light of life. The disciples were the vessels of testimony collectively. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”. The church was that corporately; it was God’s vessel of testimony down here.
Before we proceed further, I would like to ask what rendering you were referring to in answering the questions put as to verse 7? — “Made himself of no reputation” is what I spoke of as right. “Emptied himself” has sometimes been spoken of as though it meant emptied Himself of something, and it does not mean that, but that He made Himself of no account. I believe the old rendering gives the true idea. If you want literality, it is “emptied himself”; but then a thought is suggested to our minds of what is not implied. I have a conviction that the translators had a sense of the difficulty which made them render it as they did. What the emptying took form in was in assuming the servant’s form; the thought took shape in that way. He took something upon Him — that is not divesting Himself.
When you say ‘act of mind’, you mean that He was minded to do something, and He did it? — Yes, as in Psalm 40 He says, “I come to do thy will”, before ever He takes the place of man.
Is the state of the believer what is spoken of here? — Yes; I do not know any scripture in the New Testament in which the state of the believer is not the subject. If light is brought in, the object of bringing it in is in reference to the Christian’s state. It is remarkable, as we saw in Ephesians (chapters 1 - 3), that the apostle brings in as much light as he can; when he can bring in no more he sets to work to pray. You put the truth before people in a lecture, and at the close, when you can go no further, you pray about their state. You cannot touch their state. I cannot affect your state nor you mine. I might bring light to you,
but we cannot affect one another’s state; no one but the Spirit of God can do that. We cannot go beyond instructing, but that is not exactly divine teaching. Every bit of light I get in any way, the Spirit of God uses in reference to my state. His purpose is to use it to affect me as to my state; it is not simply light mentally, but it is to affect my relations with God and the saints.
And I suppose unless it does have that effect, we do not get much more.
In that sense, to get increased light is a serious thing, for it raises the question, How is it going to affect you? If not, it is only the knowledge that puffeth up. A man may be inflated by the great knowledge he has of Scripture. I do not think any light comes in in Scripture that has not reference to, or at all events a bearing on our state. What might seem to be otherwise, that is, the whole scope of divine counsels, is all opened up in reference to the state of the Christian. The apostle prays (Ephesians 3) that they “may be able to comprehend”, etc. The great spirit of the prayer is that they might be filled to all the fulness of God — that is state; the idea is that there might be an adequate presentation of God in the saints. Here it is the same kind of thought — God is the One who works in you to will and to do of His good pleasure. The Lord says: “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart”. I think the law was looked at as the expression of the good pleasure of God as regards man. The great point of God’s working in us is, that it becomes liberty to do God’s will. God works in you to will, not simply to do — this is liberty; it would be servile or legal otherwise. It shows that God’s purpose is according to His good pleasure; He works that Christians may be here for His good pleasure. It is an immense recovery for God that in the scene where the will of God has been contested we are to be here for His good pleasure: “On earth peace, good pleasure in men”. It is what has come to pass down here. The good pleasure of God cannot be in His people if they do not answer to the light of His purpose. You will not be for His good pleasure if you only take the ground of a justified person down here; you would not have the consciousness of His pleasure, and you could not be for it without having the consciousness of it.
Is it in connection with the “working out”? — Yes, you come out in the light of God’s purpose; no will of your own, but His good pleasure. You cannot now have anything, any testimony short of Christ; no testimony short of Christ could suit God. In Old Testament times it might be; but once Christ has been here under the eye of God, He will not put up with anything in character inferior — everything must be according to Christ: “righteous, even as he is righteous”. Take Ephesus: no church testimony suited afterwards. The warning to Ephesus was, He would take their candlestick out of its place; if not according to Christ He would remove the testimony. It was not up to the mark, according to the mind of God. It is clear, if God has replaced the first man by the Second, no other will do. It is a most solemn consideration to my mind that Christ has actually been here under the eye of God, and if Christians do not answer to that they are nowhere, and so the threat comes to Ephesus, “I will remove thy candlestick out of his place”, and there is no more mention of any candlestick in the other churches. Why is all the infidelity that exists in Christendom? Because there is not the presentation of Christ in the church; if there were, you would not have infidelity, the presentation would be unanswerable. You might have plenty of hatred, but not infidelity in the Christian sphere itself; man would have to own its power. But you have not the presentation of Christ in Christians. When the church [p. 371] failed in that way, God would not let them any longer have miracles. I do not think God will use Christians largely now to convert the heathen, because there is no testimony in the house; it is a corrupted Christianity. In Philippians we do see Christ in the saints, “blameless and harmless ... holding forth the word of life”.
Why is it the “word of life”? — All the truth which Christians had was a testimony of life; you cannot hold forth the word of life except as you are in life.
The apostles were told to preach “all the words of this life”. — Yes, because they were up to it. When the Lord preached the glad tidings of the kingdom, He did not tell people about the kingdom, but He presented that in which it consists; and so it is now. Mere statement is nothing; you may have statement and really present nothing at all. “Holding forth” really implied that the whole company were in the light of life, they were a candlestick.
Are they looked at collectively — “children of God”? — You do not see the children of God individually, you only appreciate them through their love one to another. How can you know them else? If that does not exist, I do not think there is much light. The one injunction of the Lord was, “that ye love one another”; that was to be their testimony. He put no burden upon them beyond that. If you had a company in G — —, or L — —, who loved one another as Christ has loved them, you would never have a bit of trouble, nor a case of discipline.
You were saying the pathway of the Christian is one of obscurity; how do you reconcile that with being lights in the world? — Well, it would be like the Lord; He went and hid Himself, but He could not be hid. People will not leave those who have the truth alone; and if we were more effectively a testimony to Christ down here, they would not let us alone. The Philippians were quite an obscure company. The apostle [p. 372] speaks elsewhere of their deep poverty, yet they were lights in the world; there was no light at Philippi outside them. What would be the use of Scripture in the world without the company? Men had the preaching of the gospel before they had the New Testament scripture — a living setting forth of the truth. The scripture became the security of the company. The “holding forth” was by the company. The word of God is living, but it is seen to be living when it comes in contact with man, when it is lighting a man’s soul; it is not living between the pages of the book — that is the letter. If we get into the light of divine purpose the effect is we love one another, as Christ loved us; that is first love.
Did the Ephesians ever get back? — There is never corporate recovery in Scripture. Israel never got back to the first estate, but when Christ came there was a remnant; the effect of grace was moral, and in a few, not national. I think one would give up much to be found among a remnant in the light of divine purpose; that is the company I should like to be with. It is proved by the promises to the overcomers in Revelation 2 and 3 that the church as a whole never gets back to its first state, the overcomer always has to pull against the stream. Even in Philadelphia there is the promise to the overcomer. The general tendency is invariably to decline.
What is the preservative? — Well, I think you have to recognise the individuality of the overcomer; to look to yourself, not to other people; to be careful not to find fault with anyone else, but to take care of yourself, and yet not to get into the spirit of Elijah — “I am left alone”. God’s answer was: “I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal”. This was a rebuke to Elijah, for he ought to have known something about them. Yet he was a wonderful man, but I think a little too much self-occupied. He was legal, and in a kind [p. 373] of way his mission demanded that he should be, for his mission was to recall the people to allegiance to Jehovah and the law, and when that failed he was disappointed, and went to mount Horeb to give the law back into the hand of God. Then God comes to him, and shows him that what he would have been well pleased to see, was not that which would effect anything for Israel; the still small voice did that. Grace could do more than law. The attempt to recall people to what they have departed from will not affect them, the only hope is to present to them the grace of God.
“The day of Christ”. Christ’s day is pretty much in contrast to man’s day. You may labour in view of man or in view of Christ. Which man have you in view? Paul’s object all through his course was to present every man perfect in Christ. Christ was his standard, not man. It is astonishing how much we are affected by man, and very likely it is because we know so little about Christ.
Are you referring to service only? — Yes, service is to a large extent done in view of man, the approval of man is courted. This is not consistent with true devotedness. We do not see how completely the first man has been superseded. A vast number of people can talk about the setting aside of the first man at the cross, but know little about the Man who has superseded him. If self is set aside it is that the ground may be occupied by Christ; He displaced man to make room for Himself in man’s heart. If I affect you it is by the light of Christ that is in me. In worldly Christianity the same thing that makes a man a priest, according to man, would make him a political leader — it is the love of influencing men; but with the Christian the object is totally different. We do affect one another, but it is by the light of Christ in us, if going on with God. I should fear to get any natural influence over others. If going on with God, we rightly have [p. 374] influence over His people for good, without thinking of or wishing for it. If going on yourself; you will be thankful to carry others on with you; but whether they go on or not, you go on. The apostle would go on; if others went on with him he was rejoiced, but in any case he went on. In the present day there are men with very marked and strong individualities, and with it a tendency to hero-worship. It is all human and fleshly; there may be light underneath, but as to the outward thing it is all the first man. What came down from heaven was “blameless and harmless”. That is what Christ was. It is the exemplification of Christ in the saints. It is not that which would fit you to shine in the world in a natural way.
Another thing comes out: perfect obedience — no will. It is what was seen in Christ; all the grace of it — the frankincense — was for God. How divine the Scripture is! We have the beautiful picture of the meat-offering long before Christ was seen. Perfect purity, anointed with oil, dried or baked, nothing of human moisture in it.
We see the traits of Christ coming out in the saints in what follows to the end of the chapter. Epaphroditus was full of heaviness because the Philippians had heard that he had been sick. The same thing is seen in the apostle — he was content to follow in the path of Christ, was ready to be poured out; he made himself of no account so that he could do the will of God. It was not that he had not rights, but if he had he made no account of them. Do you not think we greatly fail in that because we do not see the church as the vessel for the setting forth of Christ? Eve was taken from Adam to be the fulness of Adam, so the church was taken from Christ, and is His fulness. It is very beautiful to see all this grace coming out in individuals; Timothy, too, anxious about their state, the only one like-minded with the apostle. He must [p. 375] have been a great comfort to Paul, yet the latter sends his comforter away. Then, too, the rejoicing on the part of the Philippians in seeing Epaphroditus again would mitigate the apostle’s sorrow in parting with him; these are all traits of Christ. What is Christianity without divine affections? It is worse than Judaism — a greater pretension to light.
I think it is so important to see that the way we get everything is not simply by the Spirit’s indwelling, but by the Spirit’s work. A state is produced by the Spirit, and that state capacitates you for enjoyment of what is of God, and that is more than the mere fact of the indwelling of the Spirit; you enjoy things by the Spirit’s work. He is bent on forming Christ in the Christian, and according to the measure of the Spirit’s work, you enjoy.
Is it God’s education? — Yes, as I might educate my child for the enjoyment of the station in life in which he is set. Your power for enjoyment is that in which you have been formed by the Spirit. It is as in the divine nature that you enter into all that belongs to you. Thus your enjoyment is not apart from the Spirit, nor is the Spirit apart from you. You are in the Spirit. The Galatians had but little enjoyment, because there was so little of the Spirit’s work in them; so, too, in the Corinthians. Romans 8 shows that in principle we have everything in the Spirit; but you do not see much in the chapter of the Spirit’s work in you. It is witness, and cries, and groanings. “You hath he quickened” is a different thing, and presents the result and completeness of God’s work in the believer.