WHAT IS MORE EXCELLENT
[p. 433] WHAT IS MORE EXCELLENT
1 Samuel 16: 1 - 13; Acts 20: 4 - 7
JT There is in the Scriptures a suggestion of what is “more excellent”, and David represents it in the Old Testament, as the ministry of that which God presented through Paul does in the New. As we draw near to the end of our dispensation, or rather, of “God’s dispensation, which is in faith” (1 Timothy 1: 4), the divine thought is conformity with what was at the beginning. We have in David the suggestion of going up, and we have that in Paul also, not only in the sense of the literal translation, but in the sense of moral elevation. So that I thought the selection from Acts 20 would cover this proposal, first, because the chapter is so full of what is excellent, the way of surpassing excellence seen in what is recorded of the apostle himself and of others, the elders of Ephesus; and perhaps, what has not been much noticed, the quality of the persons who accompanied him, whose names are given. As will be observed, it is said in verse 4, “There accompanied him as far as Asia”, and then there is a list of names, which, as no doubt we will all be aware as our attention is called to them, represent quality and spiritual formation. We have the idea of the personnel of the assembly, that is to say, of those who distinguish it, as well as the organism itself. There is throughout Scripture the idea of what is excellent in the way of quality, in those who represent the work of God, and the epistle to the Philippians indicates the desire on the part of the saints, expressed in the apostle, to reach forward to the full divine thought for us. The saints there are enjoined to “judge of and approve the things that are more excellent”, Philippians 1: 10. The brethren perhaps will follow, from these remarks, what is in one’s [p. 434] mind. Does such a suggestion fit in at the present time?
HFN I think what you were saying was very impressive. Would you denote some of the features of these brethren?
JT I spoke of them in a general way, as known to many of us in the way the Spirit speaks of them. The first one is a Berean, and then we have Timotheus and others, whose names are well known. We might finish with them in relation to the long discourse of the apostle, the substance of which is not given, the very absence of it only directing our attention to what it must have been, what is unwritten having its own voice. In David I thought of suggesting that selection is in evidence not only in the rejection of the Amalekite, as in chapter 15, and of Saul, but also of the sons of Jesse themselves.
P Would that be in contrast to what was excellent?
JT Well, I think they represent gradation. It is not that they were not regarded as God’s people, because they are afterwards taken care of by David with his parents, but as he is selected, they form a background for the more excellent. Would you agree with that?
HFN Yes. Would you say what is the feature in your mind of the Amalekite, as applying to us at the present moment?
JT Well, in connection with the Amalekite as seen in Agag, Saul excuses the sparing of some of the best of the sheep; the inferior cattle were destroyed; that is, he makes a difference. So the difference between the excellent and the more excellent, or the idea of gradation, is not new, it is current in the world. Then in Agag himself, we have the best, not of the cattle but, I suppose, of the people. He came “delicately”; he was marked by refinement, but [p. 435] he is not spared. And then Saul himself was the best at the time of his selection, but he is rejected. And now we come to a family that has a spiritual setting, that of Jesse the Bethlehemite; and Samuel says, as he looked on Eliab, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him”; as if he recognised that family and thought, surely there was nothing to do but take the firstborn; but we are taught by what follows that that is not how we are to regard the people of God. There is what is more excellent.
Rem The principle applies to the town as well. You were saying elsewhere that Bethlehem plays a great part in the divine economy.
JT Yes, I think the town itself has a place in that way. It is alluded to in the book of Ruth; it has a spiritual setting.
Ques Why does it first come into view in Genesis 35 at the death of Rachel? Would the death of Rachel be like the passing of Israel, and the bringing in of Christ, in some way?
JT Yes, Rachel represents Israel as the first-loved. She is referred to in the New Testament in that setting, too: Rachel weeping for her children. Jacob says, “Rachel died by me”. Rachel’s sepulchre was a landmark in this very book, so that Bethlehem had a spiritual setting, and Jesse also, for he is mentioned earlier. But God would say to us that, in spite of all these things, we are to have a taste for what is more excellent, otherwise we shall sit down in satisfaction with what we have got. We have distinction in our spiritual setting; but the idea of taste and discernment and making room for the Lord to distinguish whom He will among us, comes in, because the word to Samuel was, “Thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee”. We must not shut the Lord out in His rights to distinguish whom He will. He marks off according to His perfect knowledge of what there is; and we must take notice [p. 436] of that.
WTE Does the beautiful appearance go with the lovely countenance?
JT Yes, it is the distinction of David that the Spirit of God gives, and that helps in our subject. He waits till David arrives to give us his description. That is to say, the description given here shows that he was the more excellent.
WTE Does the “appearance” indicate what he was outwardly, and the “beautiful countenance” express what was inside?
JT Yes. ‘Beautiful-eyed’, it is literally; it would be the expression of what was inward, I think.
HFN Does the principle of what you were referring to come out in Jesse’s family? Does not the firstborn come in for more severe condemnation; the Lord said, “I have refused him”? As to the rest of the family Samuel merely says, “Neither hath the Lord chosen this”.
JT Eliab stands out, he was the choice of Samuel, but the comments of the Spirit of the Lord would show that there was something in him that rendered him less fit than any of them, and the sequel shows that it was so.
HFN So that the power to discriminate is one of the finest qualities of the spiritual mind.
JT That is what I was thinking, and you would say it ought not to be absent amongst us.
Ques Would not the sacrifice help on that line?
JT It is a feminine sacrifice, a heifer. I suppose the thought is that there is to be something to correspond subjectively; that is to say, David as the excellent typified Christ as the more excellent, and draws out the best that there is subjectively. We want that, too. So that immediately after the overthrow of Goliath, David is honoured by the women of Israel (1 Samuel 18: 7).
[p. 437] Ques Is the principle seen at the close of Acts 1 where the disciples selected two, but the Lord indicated one?
JT Yes, they use their best judgment. Peter specified that the selection should be of those that had assembled with them “all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us”. They would be the excellent, the Lord Himself had called them “the excellent” (Psalm 16: 3), but then there were the more excellent, some of them would be more excellent. These two would be specially selected from the number as continuing from John’s baptism till the time the Lord Jesus was received up; there is some allusion there to brethren whose experience extends back to the wars of Canaan, and other things; for the wars of Canaan bring out what God is to His people. The coming in and going out of the Lord Jesus among the saints, from the time of John’s baptism to the time He was received up, involved a history without any equal. So that we are reminded that those who have experience among the people of God are to be noted.
MWB Would it be normal in a local gathering that there should be these gradations that you refer to?
JT I think it is laid upon us to have our eyes about us. We have to think of men, for instance, who have been through the wars of the Lord; who have part in the unfoldings of the mind of the Lord, and have known the men whom God used; all that enters into the position. Of course there may be those who historically have had part in these things and have lost caste, but there are those who have not; and these two who were selected according to Peter’s suggestion would be, I judge, men who had gone on. There were many others among the disciples who had not had part in all that; and I suppose the Lord would have the brethren take account of what there [p. 438] is, whether it be locally or generally. We are at a great disadvantage if we have not eyes in our heads; as it is said of Paul, “fixing his eyes on him”; that is a sort of formula in the Acts. Use all the ability you have to discern where people are, and what they are.
MWB So that the warning here that “the Lord seeth not as man seeth” is very much to be noted, because man’s judgment would entirely pervert you as to your judgment, would it not?
JT Exactly. I find it a great advantage to pray to the Lord to give me a judgment about this brother and that brother. You feel your inability to see through people, but it is a great disadvantage if I do not know the brethren as to what they are, and the Lord gives understanding of them. Here He says, “whom I name”; so that you have your eyes open, and you are waiting on the Lord to give you a right understanding of the brethren.
Ques Did not the Lord Himself act in that way in taking Peter and James and John with Him?
JT Well, He made a selection.
HFN Would the same principle be seen in the Lord’s choice of the twelve apostles? It says in Luke the Lord spent a whole night in prayer before He chose them; would that bear on what you are saying?
JT Very much. One could understand how they would all come under review as He spoke to His Father.
Ques So would this discrimination be the result of communion with God in this way?
JT Yes, it is “whom I name”; Samuel did not wait for the naming; he did not wait for the Lord to name the person.
PL Would Leviticus 27 show that? Is Leviticus largely a book of communion and sacrifice, with discrimination in the last [p. 439] chapter?
JT Very much, for us. It is a very great thing to know our brethren, to know their measure and their ability, and that they should know us. I think fellowship enters into all that.
WTE In that connection, what would be involved in, “How long wilt thou mourn for Saul”?
JT We see in Samuel what should be a warning, the most spiritual man of his time was deceived at this point. We are apt to over-estimate or underestimate a brother, and if we do either, we are at a disadvantage. Samuel was the most spiritual man of his time, yet he was mourning for Saul, and then, when he saw Eliab, he said, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him”. With all the weight of his experience and dignity among the people of God, he was committing God to a wrong man. He was indicating that God was going to take up a man He was not naming at all.
MWB Do you think the difference between this case and that of Moses was that Moses waited for God to select Joshua, though obviously having a great appreciation of him in the success of his ministry.
JT Very good. You feel how right that was.
Rem And you see it in Paul with Timothy.
JT Exactly. We have to let the Lord name the man whom He is to use, “him whom I name unto thee”.
MWB Would you just draw a distinction between Agag as the Amalekite and Saul, both of whom were rejected; and then Eliab, who was also rejected, but recognised in another sense? I suppose Agag is absolutely refused. In what way was there any form of recognition of Saul?
JT Agag is just the flesh, he gets no quarter at all — a quality well known for years before; although he comes gaily or delicately, he is just the flesh refined, so that he gets no quarter. Saul, on the other hand, is one who has been anointed of God and [p. 440] has been used of God, like many whom you and I know, or have known; we mourn them to a point, but we should not continue mourning as long as Samuel did; still they are to be regretted seriously, men whom God has actually used as anointed, but who have turned aside. So that Samuel with spiritual feeling, says as to him, “Has Jehovah delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in hearkening to the voice of Jehovah? ... Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, he hath also rejected thee from being king”, 1 Samuel 15:22, 23. Well, what Saul had done was that he did not carry out the word of God fully, he spared the best of the flesh; and I believe that can be traced in every one whom God may have used, but who has been rejected; there has been the sparing of what they may have considered the best of the flesh. Then the household of Jesse the Bethlehemite would be the saints in a right setting, an acknowledged setting, for Samuel even sanctified him; they are set up, and invited to the sacrifice; that is to say, they represent us all as we are sitting here today, with God’s scrutinising eye passing over us as to His service and whom He names. That is what I understand.
MWB It is very sobering, both as to Saul and as to this even more searching case of Eliab and the others.
AD Was not the failure of Jesse apparent? He did not obey the command of Samuel to call his sons to the sacrifice, David was not even there.
JT Well, that is the kind of failure we are all exposed to. We are sitting here today, and maybe we have left David at home, neglected him; because David represents not only Christ personally, but also the traits of Christ in the saints.
AD He was the one essential person who was not present; they could not sit down till he [p. 441] came.
JT No; so the traits of Christ are the one essential in a meeting like this. Therefore we have to examine ourselves for the traits of Christ and see why they are not present. If I come to the meeting with any other trait than what is of Christ, if I am full of something else, maybe I have left Him out, and there is no sitting down. Samuel represents what is adjustable among us. The greater the work of God in a brother or sister the more readily adjusted he is. Samuel is immediately adjusted, and his adjustment is seen in a negative way: that is, he says, ‘We will not proceed on these lines. We shall have to wait for David, to wait for the youngest’ — “We will not sit at table till he come hither”. So there we are, Eliab and the rest of us, sitting in humiliation as rejected; we shall have to wait for David.
MWB Do you think that exercise should be with us in connection with the convening of the assembly in relation to the Supper, that there might be very definite self-judgment, that we will wait till every element of self is judged, and what is of Christ consciously present?
JT That is what I understand, exactly. It is quite obvious that Jesse is accepted, we are in the position of acceptance; as coming together as a local company we are on the ground of acceptance outwardly; Samuel is directed to hallow Jesse and his house, he is accepted, fitted to be invited to the sacrifice. Note the recurrence of the word “sacrifice” here. He is there, and all his household, but now the Lord reserves the right to name someone.
HFN Is not the principle of which you are speaking even more searching in a local setting than in a universal way? In a universal way we will bow to that principle.
JT It is, and it can only be worked out in a local setting where we know each other. So we have [p. 442] to make room for the Lord, when He says, “Whom I name”. Samuel proceeded without that, and yet Samuel was the most spiritual man of his day.
PL “Jehovah will count, when he inscribeth the peoples, This man was born there”, Psalm 87: 6. Is that selection?
JT Quite so. God makes His own selection; let nobody think He does not, He reserves that right, no matter who it may be.
HFN What was your thought in regard to the youngest?
JT Well, it says, “Samuel said to Jesse, Are these all the young men? And he said, There is yet the youngest remaining, and behold, he is feeding the sheep. And Samuel said to Jesse, Send and fetch him; for we will not sit at table till he come hither”. He is the youngest, which I suppose, in a somewhat unspiritual state of things amongst us, may allude to what has a place in the family, for he is called the youngest, but a very neglected place. It often is so, that the features of Christ are least cared for. We may start out for the meeting thinking of our dress, or of who is to preach tonight, or who is the ministering brother — or things like that. The traits of Christ are little thought of, but they are the essential; without them you could have nothing.
Ques Would the keeping of the sheep be a qualifying statement?
JT I think so, it is a leading thought here. It brings up an enormous amount of thought in the mind. Why does that come in here? Why does he not say ‘the youngest’ without saying anything about his occupation? But it alludes to the distinctive features of Christ. That kind of thing runs right through in the men of faith beginning with Abel — it is unselfish consideration for others.
Rem It is that which produces the king finally; that is the kind of man to be [p. 443] king.
AD If Samuel had been more spiritual, he would have put that question first: “Are these all the young men?”
JT Yes, for the word was, “I have provided me a king among his sons”. That is the line on which we should come together, hoping that the brethren have these traits and that they are not coming without them; or coming with the appearance of Eliab, the appearance of a man after the flesh.
PL Would you get the idea with the Corinthians? Paul says as to Timothy, a man with a shepherd spirit who would care for their state, “Let not therefore any one despise him”, 1 Corinthians 16: 11. Were the Corinthians in their gatherings likely to leave such an one as Timothy out?
JT Yes, that is good. They would have been thinking of men like Eliab, distinguished men, those who compared themselves with themselves, showing they had no right standard.
MWB What had you in mind when you remarked that David was marked by going up?
JT He says to Jehovah, “Shall I go up ... ?” (2 Samuel 2: 1), and we were noticing that the idea of priesthood comes in with David informally, even the ephod was taken on by him, and finally worn as he danced before the ark. We were noticing that all his prayers get answered one after another, and amongst them there is this one, when he asks Jehovah as to whether he should go up to one of the cities of Judah, and Jehovah directs him to go up: then he asks as to which city and Jehovah says, “Unto Hebron”, as showing the line He was on, and he goes up.
What comes out with David here is the excellent quality of the young man. When I begin to see the beautiful traits of Christ, I say, ‘Why should I be in assembly ignoring that, when in truth it is the [p. 444] only thing valued there, the only thing that God accepts’?
Ques If these features are not recognised amongst us, does that show the state of the local meeting?
JT It does; the house of Jesse here is just a local meeting. They were the people of God, but their state is bad, and even Samuel’s state is not good; so the most spiritual of us may be found like this.
Ques Does it suggest that David’s history had been overlooked?
JT It does. Where were Jesse’s eyes? How would he neglect such a young man as this? There was none like him. “He was ruddy, and besides of a lovely countenance and beautiful appearance”. That is the account the Spirit gives of him, and then Jehovah says, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he”, as if God was pleased with that. It is a question of spiritual life; ruddiness means that I am living spiritually; it is the flush of life.
Ques Do we get a contrast to this in Jacob and his son? He gave Joseph a coat of many colours; does that suggest what Jacob saw in Joseph?
JT Exactly; Jacob loved Joseph, he did not fail in this respect.
HFN Have you a thought as to the difference between love’s excellent way, and the way the apostle speaks to the Philippians of the things that are “more excellent”?
JT When we come to that, there are things that engage us, not only persons, but things. There are things, even in what is presented to us in testimony, that are more excellent than other things. Many are content with the ordinary things presented in the gospel, precious and valuable as they are, but there are more excellent things which we are to go in for.
HFN Would they have reference to what Paul referred to as the hidden things in relation to wisdom?
JT [p. 445] Exactly. In Philippians 3 he tells us what was before him; he wished to attain to the resurrection from among the dead; that is a most excellent acquirement, it gives you victory; death will never have any terror for your soul as you reach that point. Then he says, “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus”. That would be something even beyond, so that our taste becomes refined in that way; one’s taste is oneself in a way, there is spiritual refinement.
Ques The apostle says, “have your mind ...” Colossians 3: 2. Would that be the thought?
JT Yes, that is another suggestion of it. You can see how God sets before us objectively in David what was more excellent. It is not that the others were rejected as Christians, they are rejected as the selection of God for kingship; not otherwise. And the Holy Spirit describes the man that God chooses, so that we might see that the divine selection is right; as soon as he appears he is described to us. God made His selection before, but now it is apparent that it is right, as he is anointed in the midst of his brethren. They are still his brethren, they are not rejected in that sense.
Rem The setting is beautiful, but incomplete without David.
JT The household was right. Jesse was sanctified and called to the sacrifice, but there was this defect which was fatal unless it was repaired, and when David arrives it is apparent that God’s choice is right. It is not that Jesse was such a poor Christian typically; he was not; the Old Testament saints have to suffer for us as well as the apostles. One like David might suffer for the sake of millions of saints; his sin is recorded and mine is not — he suffers for us, that is how we learn, from their example. God would have [p. 446] no pleasure in exposing the failures of His people; He does it so that we might not fall into these things.
PL And anyone who had judged his sin would be glad to have it so; the proof he had judged it would be his readiness to be an example.
JT Quite so. We hardly realise the actuality of the fact that the Lord Jesus appropriated our sins personally; He took all the shame of them that we might be spared the consequences of them; so even the saints have to suffer for us relatively, that we might be saved from them.
JJ Is that why Peter is exposed so much in the gospels?
JT I think so.
JJ Would you say the epistle to the Romans would enter into the lovely countenance and beautiful appearance, if we are to be like that?
JT I think so. I think it is making us to live, the bloom of life is seen in the ruddy countenance; and then the appearance is more the intelligence shining out in the countenance — “the health of my countenance”, Psalm 42: 11.
PL Would the one be newness of life as in Romans, and the other the eyes of your heart in Ephesians?
JT I think so, and the renewing of the mind — it goes on to Ephesians.
Then later in the chapter one of the young men of Saul said, “I have seen a son of Jesse” and he gives a description of him, it is another view of excellence.
He plays well — he has ability to entertain, that is really what Saul needed, to be entertained, and David excelled in that. “He is a valiant man and a man of war, and skilled in speech, and of good presence, and Jehovah is with him”. There is none like him. That is not the account of the Spirit of God, but of someone who saw him and took notice of him.
Ques Why is Eliab’s countenance not to be looked at; David’s is to be noted?
JT I think with Eliab it was just external, what nature would put on. The reference to David is an allusion to the eye, literally the word is beautiful-eyed, alluding, I think, to the intelligence involved in the eye.
Ques Do we all come under the adjustment that is mentioned here, the word of the Lord coming to us?
JT I think we do. I do not think we shall ever be in assembly rightly, unless we are adjusted in this way; we have to depend on the Lord to have a right estimate of the brethren.
WTE Are you suggesting that the more excellent things are found in certain persons in the gatherings?
JT Yes. At Troas they were not local, they were just there; the point is “they accompanied him”. I think the Spirit would suggest to us quality, the personnel of those who are distinguished as the result of the work of God.
PL The power to travel with Paul would suggest spiritual mettle.
JT Exactly. The first one is a Berean, Sopater. I need not remark on the Berean, he is a Pauline saint, he searched the Scriptures; he does not swallow things down because of the importance of the man who says them. However important the brother may be, we need, as the Bereans did, to search “the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”, Acts 17: 11. Brothers and sisters who do that are most essential among us: otherwise we may absorb things and think they are right when they are not.
WTE They are referred to as “more noble”.
JT That is the thought, the quality.
WMB Today there is very great need for attention to what has been written, is there not? We cannot over-estimate the importance of [p. 448] written ministry, but Scripture has its own divine place.
JT It is most important: “to the law and to the testimony” (Isaiah 8: 20), and “it is written”, Matthew 4: 4.
Ques Does that come out in David in his occupation of caring for the sheep; he was working things out for God?
JT I think so. In looking after the sheep you are typically caring for the saints, which is a fine service; but a Berean is concerned that what is ministered should be the truth, and nothing but the truth, and the Scriptures are the test of all that; he searches them daily whether these things are so.
Ques The apostle’s word to Timothy was that the Holy Scriptures would make him wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3: 15).
JT Yes, Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures from a child.
Ques You were saying elsewhere that the disciples who were with the Lord at the institution of the Supper were an authority as to it; now here these men are with Paul; would there be something similar in this?
JT I think so, they are men who have part in the service.
PL They are Paul’s sons, seven of them, contrasting with the seven sons of Sceva who fled away naked (Acts 19: 16).
JT Just so; they are sons of the testimony, anyway. Sopater would be some allusion, I suppose, to a son with a father. Then those “of the Thessalonians” would be locals, men who understand local responsibility and order. When you have an epistle addressed to “the assembly of Thessalonians” or to “the assembly of God which is at Corinth”, you have the expression of what is evident in a locality. Aristarchus and Secundus are brothers who understand local responsibility and order. Then you have [p. 449] two others, Gains and Timotheus of Derbe; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. There is not time, or perhaps ability, to bring out all the meanings of these names, but I think we shall all be helped if we consider them; they refer to the personnel of those who distinguish the work of God. There are always those who stand out, and the testimony requires there should be “leading men among the brethren”, Acts 15: 22.
PL Does it not speak of wisdom having hewn her seven pillars?
JT Quite so. We have five men at Antioch, as we have often noted. All these men accompanied Paul; he is the great thought throughout these chapters and what God ministered through him. “These going before waited for us in Troas; but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and we came to them to Troas in five days, where we spent seven days”. Now if we put all these things together we have a remarkable combination: the others coming from Philippi and these noted men waiting at Troas till they came. They must have had a good time.
HFN You referred to five at Antioch and seven here, but when you come to the shipwreck you only have one named and that is Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica. Have you any thought as to that?
JT I am glad you mentioned that, I had not noticed it, but I suppose he represents this local element.
Rem Luke would be included in the “us” though not mentioned.
MWB Is there a suggestion in the five days of experience that lead up to the seven days, which would be a complete exercise of fellowship as experienced in a place?
JT I think so. They “waited for us”, then when Paul arrived and the saints had come together [p. 450] on the first day of the week he speaks a long time, as if to say ‘you did well to wait’, and we do well to wait if we do not understand Paul. Let him speak; hear all he has to say.
PL Does not Peter encourage that? He speaks of things “hard to be understood” written by “our beloved brother Paul”, 2 Peter 3: 15, 16.
JT It is well to wait and get understanding. Paul tells us, “the Lord will give thee understanding” (2 Timothy 2:7), for there are things hard to be understood, but He will tell us. A brother suggested to me before this meeting that we should have things simple, and it is well to do so if the brethren are able to follow, but we must learn to wait five days till Paul comes, and get his mind about things. If we miss what he has to say, we miss the mystery, we miss the best there is, what will come out by and by, so we must wait and be patient.
PL Did Simeon wait for the best?
JT Yes, he waited for the salvation; others did too.
HFN Have we not to recognise that things are hard because we are dull of hearing?
JT I think we should go in for the best, and if I do not understand, go to the Lord and He will give me understanding.
JJ Paul had a great affection for Tychicus; he says, “In order that ye also may know what concerns me, how I am getting on, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make all things known to you”, Ephesians 6: 21. It shows the unselfish delight he had in others.
JT Quite so. I think the apostle Paul teaches us how to value the brethren. His salutations to the Romans and in all the epistles teach us how to regard a brother. I acknowledge I am very poor in regarding the brethren. If one really loves the brethren and [p. 451] enjoys their company, there is real feeling in commending them. There are twenty salutations in the epistle to the Romans. Paul might have used the word once, but he uses it each time.
PL It is like the ephod of the priest, all the tribes in his heart.
JT That is the great objective thought. There is only one ephod, the one that Christ wears; the breastplate is in it, the saints on the shoulders, and in the breastplate.
Ques, Was there a note of peculiar pleasure when Paul says, “Take Mark, and bring him with thyself, for he is serviceable to me for ministry”, 2 Timothy 4: 11? He was recovered.
JT Quite so, he was profitable.