AS IS THE HEAVENLY (1)
AS IS THE HEAVENLY (1)
JT I thought we might get some special good from the consideration of certain chapters of Abraham’s history. We may consider the circumstances of his calling and how he was led on, typically, to a heavenly path. Perhaps we may divide the subject as follows: chapters fourteen, seventeen, twenty-two, twenty-four and twenty-six. In the last you reach the full Christian position, typically, in Isaac.
Abraham, being the father of all believers, becomes in a special way a model for the Christian. Ours is a dispensation of faith. We belong to the household of faith, and in that way he serves as a model for us. He was more a pattern for Christians than for those who shall follow on, because they will be blessed on the principle of sight. He walked by faith, not by sight, and so foreshadows our dispensation in a special way. Further, we are called saints, so that he furnishes the history and outline of the dispensation in that way too. Then there was departure, alas, in his history, and also recovery; thank God! There was recovery, too, in a brotherly spirit, and to the position of a stranger and sojourner.
EGM Why do you start with this particular chapter in the history of Abraham, rather than that which tells of his call?
JT I thought that, in thus dividing up his history, we could embrace the two previous chapters in dwelling on this one, because this is a sort of sequel to them. It shows us where he dwelt, by the oaks of Mamre, and the brotherly spirit that marked him.
Abraham is not on either side in the conflict.
[p. 345] He belongs to a group apart. There are really three groups in the chapter; the two groups of kings contending, and then Abram’s group; for it is said, “And one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew. And he dwelt by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eshcol, and the brother of Aner. And these were Abram’s allies”. So his group is apart from the two kingly groups, and he comes in for blessing from Melchisedec; thus this chapter is a section in the history. The next chapter begins another subject.
GWH You spoke of the “dispensation of faith” and the model of faith. What is faith?
JT I suppose the best definition is the one the Spirit of God uses; “[the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen”, Hebrews 11:1. By faith things are substantiated to you and you are convicted that they are true.
GWH Would it be right to say that faith brings the world to come into view now to the believer?
JT Yes. The “things hoped for” and the “things not seen” belong to that world. So that it indicates what the dispensation in which we are is, in contrast to the coming one. “Blessed they”, says the Lord, “who have not seen, and have believed”, John 20:29. Abraham, being a typical believer, is said to have seen much. Although he had things on the principle of faith, yet he is said to have seen many things, but evidently he saw them on the principle of faith.
WCR He was one of whom it says, “having seen them from afar off and embraced [them]”, Hebrews 11:13.
LRM Would you say that Abraham, Caleb and Joshua, being men of faith, were living in anticipation of what was yet unseen, which kept them bright in their journey as they went along?
JT Yes, Abraham looked for a city, and he saw Messiah’s day. He saw things, so I think in that way he furnishes us with a model of Christianity, for it is said, “God’s dispensation which [is] in faith”, 1 Timothy 1:4. In the course of his history you see how he was convicted of things, and the conviction he had governed his course. So I thought this chapter is one of the landmarks on the way and shows that the man of faith, having profited by his failure in going into Egypt, dwelt apart from the world.
WB-s You get Abram in Bethel. He comes back to the place where he was at first. The second time he was confirmed in his faith. Abram acquired a lot of wealth in Egypt, but he went back to Bethel. Lot made his choice of the plain, a well watered place, but Abram was content to have the place of which God told him. That is faith.
JT In the primal call in Genesis 12, the Lord had said, “Go out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, to the land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. And Abram departed as Jehovah had said to him. And Lot went with him”, Genesis 12:1 - 4. That is the primary movement, and then the brother was there. “Lot went with him”. He was not the direct subject of the call, but he went with him. Also into Egypt Lot went with him, but it is at the point of recovery that the brethren disagree. As you said, Abram came back to the place of the tent, which he had at the beginning, but then, alas, he and Lot had accumulated wealth during the wide detour into Egypt, and the wealth became the occasion of the disagreement.
JAT Why should they have gone down to Egypt?
JT [p. 347] It was a lack of faith. He deviated from the path of faith. The call was to go into a land Jehovah should show him, and that was not Egypt.
WJY Is your point that if we are in the pathway of faith there is no disagreement?
JT It is a remarkable fact that what they accumulated in Egypt became the occasion of the quarrel. It says, “And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, towards the south. And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold. And he went on his journeys from the south as far as Bethel; as far as the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai; to the place of the altar, that he had made there at the first. And there Abram called on the name of Jehovah”, Genesis 13:1 - 4. Further it says, “And Lot also, who went with Abram had flocks, and herds, and tents”. I read that fifth verse to show the situation at the point of recovery, that, whilst Abram overcame the handicap of possessions, being fully recovered, Lot did not.
EGM It is evidence that the exercise was all on Abram’s part. What characterises the man of faith is he comes back to the point of departure.
JT You may lead a brother into a false position, but you may not be able to lead him out of it. That is the serious side of the circumstances here, that Abram was not able to take Lot out morally, although Abram came out of it himself, for the next chapter shows that Egypt was in Lot’s mind. He “beheld all the plain of the Jordan that it was thoroughly watered, ... like the land of Egypt”, Genesis 13:10.
BTF As far as Abram was concerned there was no strife on his part.
JT No, he is entirely recovered, and the cattle do not seem to have overcome him. The Spirit of God makes a point of the fact that he came back to original principles. He came back “to the place of the altar that he had made there at the first. And there Abram called on the name of Jehovah”, chapter 13:4. He came back to first principles, but Lot did not come on in his soul, he was damaged in Egypt.
EGM The departure of Abram was a very serious thing for Lot.
JT More serious for Lot than for Abram, because Lot was not recovered. What damage may be caused to a weak brother by one who is stronger. You may lead him astray, but you cannot recover him. You may lead him into a false position, but you cannot take him out of it.
WB-t Was not Lot confused in his perception, for he could not distinguish between the garden of the Lord and the land of Egypt? He seems to mix them in his mind.
JT It is so presented at any rate, “Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of the Jordan, that it was thoroughly watered, before Jehovah had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah; as the garden of Jehovah, like the land of Egypt, as one goes to Zoar”, Genesis 13:10.
AL You spoke of Abram coming back to first principles. Is the inference that Lot refused them?
JT By his behaviour, a believer gives expression to the progress he had made in his soul through the previous experience. It does not appear here that Abram made any headway spiritually whilst he was in Egypt, but it is quite evident that having returned, he had lost nothing. That is, he comes back to the point of departure and begins over again. It says in chapter 12, verse 8, “there he built an altar to Jehovah, and called on the name of Jehovah”. Then in chapter 13, verse 4 it says, he “called on the name of Jehovah”; the same expression. There is no indication that he had made any headway since the time he builded that [p. 349] altar, but then he is recovered. It is, as far as I understand it, that he has come back in his soul to the point he had left, and that is what I think you might call complete recovery; that one has not carried back any of the principles of the country into which he departed. I believe, that in our day this truth is most important, because generally speaking there has not been complete recovery. Certain principles of the world, which the saints have acquired, have been brought back and mixed with first principles. Would you say that?
HG Yes. You see at the beginning of chapter 13, that Abram’s journeys take him back to Bethel, unto the place of the altar which he had there at the first.
JT It is quite evident that he advanced at Hebron. “Then Abram moved [his] tents, and came and dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron”, chapter 13:18. I refer to it, because it indicates a certain stability reached in connection with the purposes of God. He takes up his dwelling place in Hebron. Was that what you had in mind?
HG I thought there had been surrender on his part. He lets Lot have his choice and then God gives him His choice, and the result is he gets enlargement and dwells in the plain of Mamre, in Hebron; we may remember that Hebron is the point Caleb took from the hands of the Anakims. It is the heavenly position and he was there on a decidedly higher platform than that he had been on before. It indicates the measure in which the man knew God.
JT Not only was he recovered from Egypt, but got on to that which was before the world, Hebron being builded before Zoan in Egypt. It seems to me that he made distinct spiritual headway. You might say he was in Colossians. Bethel would not go beyond Romans, I suppose, the revelation of God;
[p. 350] God made known, a great point surely, but Colossians we may say, is that which was “before the ages for our glory”, 1 Corinthians 2:7. Abram lived there typically; in other words, in heavenly associations, as you say.
WB-t In chapter 16 Hagar is spoken of as being an Egyptian. Would it indicate that Sarai came under the influence of Egypt in any way?
JT It is very likely. She had this Egyptian handmaid.
WB-t While Abram seems to have been entirely recovered, I was wondering about Sarai, because Hagar comes in in connection with Sarai and makes a good deal of trouble for Abram.
JT Maternal instincts and exercise associated with Egypt cannot produce anything but evil. Her maternal instincts were associated with Egypt. I think that is quite clear.
GAT How would you apply that today?
JT It is the principle of admixture, a godly father, and a worldly mother. It is that which has resulted in Christendom. The right idea in the father is presented, but the mother is all wrong. The system which gives birth to the children is of the world.
WB-s It makes a wild man.
JT Yes. “A wild-ass of a man”, chapter 16:12.
EGM You spoke about Abram being brought back and recovery by the brother. Abram was recovered to Bethel. Lot came back positionally, but not in his soul. How do you correct that?
JT The question is whether Lot was ever really recovered; that is, really recovered to heavenly ground. He was “saved, but so as through [the] fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15), at the end, but Abram pursued the line of recovery. I mean this chapter shows he had his brother in his heart. That is the thing. You cannot really produce anything in his soul; but there are certain means by which a brother may [p. 351] help another.
EGM You seek to recover your brother, but do not go on with him?
JT Abram dwelt in the plain of Mamre, in Hebron, where he built an altar. Now that altar would denote, that he was coming on to the knowledge, not only of God, but of God’s purpose. I think he had light as to God’s purpose and he dwelt there, and he dwelt there at the time the war broke out; it was a “world war”, you might say. It was not a local war between two nations, but a war of the nations grouped under two heads. Abram is apart in his own dwelling place, as it says, and someone came and told him. He was not versed in what was going on. “He dwelt by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eshcol, and the brother of Aner. And these were Abram’s allies”. That is, there is a distinct group here in connection with Abram which he dominates, and the word brother is there both in regard to confederacy and in regard of Abram’s affections.
HG Abram was called for the first time “the Hebrew” and he is in perfect correspondence with the heavenly man.
JT The word Hebrew here is really of spiritual import, whereas the word Hebrews as used by king Saul in 1 Samuel 13:3, was natural. He used it as the Philistines would use it, but here “Abram, the Hebrew” suggests, I believe, one belonging to another land, a stranger here.
HG It is also remarkable, that it says the victorious kings took “Abram’s brother’s son”, but in connection with recovery, Abram recovered “his brother”, not his “brother’s son”, which is still upon the spiritual line.
BTF Would Abram be a picture of a man who had entered into the heavenly position and appreciated fully the depths to which Lot was in danger of [p. 352] falling?
JT He made distinct headway by dwelling in Hebron. He reached the purpose of God typically.
WB-t What you say about the three groups is very interesting. I think we have all noticed the two groups and have rather isolated Abram. I notice in verse 7, that the Amorites that dwelt in Hazazon-Tamar had been smitten, whereas these three men that were confederate with Abram were Amorites and seem to have been safe.
JT It seems as if everything spiritually, depended on Abram’s confederacy. Certainly safety is dependent on what corresponds with it in our day; that is, Christian fellowship and all connected with it.
EGM When Abram starts out to recover Lot he takes only those trained in his own household.
Ques Why do you think at a later period in the history of the people Egypt is seen as a refuge for the child Jesus.
JT It was the fulfilment of prophecy. Israel had gone down there. It was a refuge on account of the famine. Jacob evidently had great reluctance in going down, but the Lord appears to him at Beer-sheba and says, “I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down to Egypt”, Genesis 46:3. In going down to Egypt Jacob was to be assured that God was everything; and that typically, all was secured in Isaac (Christ) the risen Man. Besides this, Joseph was there. The Lord Jesus in going down into Egypt fulfils the prophecy, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”, Matthew 2:15. He had called Israel out before, saying to Pharaoh that He must have His son; the history of Israel is taken up in the Messiah, and so He is called out of Egypt.
WCR So He would be perfectly sympathetic with what they had gone through; all their sufferings?
JT “In all their affliction he was afflicted”, Isaiah 63:9.
WJY How would you apply the thought of confederacy to us today; that is, distinguishing [p. 353] between the household of faith, and that which is confederate with it?
JT I suppose it would be fellowship. There is a good deal said today, you know, by the Government as regards organisation. Christianity is an organism, and involves certainly the most perfect organisation that one can conceive. It is a unity, operated by power, the power of the Spirit, and controlled by divine order, “for God is not [a God] of disorder but of peace”, 1 Corinthians 14:33. It is really a perfect organisation in a spiritual sense. It says here that “they were confederate (Lit. ‘Masters of covenant’ ) with Abram” not he with them. In that way, they would come under his wing.
HG As Paul and his company on the way to Rome.
JT Yes, quite. It was said to him, “God has granted to thee all those that sail with thee”, Acts 27:24. God gave them to him. I suppose in that way God includes in his care what comes under faith, like a household.
JEN If it were not for the man of faith the organisation you speak of would fail.
JT It is sustained by faith. This is the dispensation of faith.
WJY Referring to that which was confederate with Abram, would you define it this way, that there is safety in keeping company with that which is spiritual?
JT I think that is very clear. The principle may be worked out in a great many ways. You may see it in a man’s household, and I believe a district is helped by the presence in it of men of faith. I am only applying the principle. I do not say that is what is seen here, but the presence of Christians, people of faith, in a country brings down divine care there. I only refer to these things to show what a wonderful thing it is to have faith,
to “believe God” as Paul says, Acts 27:25. Our brother called attention to what Abram had. It says, he had “trained [servants], born in his house, three hundred and eighteen”,. There is the first point, I think, in regard to recovery; that for conflict he had trained servants born in his own house. They would in that way belong to the household of faith, and these come under special care.
EGM Would you say the first workings of recovery would be seen in a man’s own house?
JT No doubt, but the idea of a man’s house widens out in Christianity to the household of faith, which embraces all those who are of faith; the word trained here is very suggestive.
E.G.M. Trained for war?
JT Quite so. We surely cannot escape war. Christianity involves war, but it is to be the “good conflict of faith.”, 1 Timothy 6:12. That is the warfare for the trained servants in the household of faith.
EGM Using those weapons which are not carnal?
JT Quite. The weapons of these servants are not fleshly, “but powerful according to God to [the] overthrow of strongholds”, 2 Corinthians 10:4.
GAT What do you mean by Christianity involving war?
JT The expression “the church militant” involves that while the assembly is down here there will be war, so we have to be trained for war. Our struggle is against spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies. Satan marshals his forces to deprive us of our blessings and privileges, so we are to be prepared to contend for these things and hold them. Christians “do not war according to flesh” (2 Corinthians 10:3) as the apostle says.
BTF There is to be war with Amalek; that is war with Satan in the flesh.
JT That is Galatians; “the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh”, Galatians 5:17. That is [p. 355] what you might call the lowest character of Christian conflict, what goes on in a man’s own breast; but Ephesian conflict is not that. There the conflict is with spiritual wickedness in heavenly places. The conflict in Ephesians is the way Christians maintain the position that apostolic testimony brought them into. They are to stand in it.
WB-s Do Ephesians and Joshua run together in that respect?
JT I think so. In Ephesians the Christian is to stand. It says, “For this reason, take [to you] the panoply of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having accomplished all things, to stand” chapter 6:13. The thought, I suppose, is that Paul had taken the territory. The apostles took the territory and the saints are to occupy it.
GAT That is a very important remark. Do you infer that we are expected to maintain the position the apostle has taken?
JT Quite, and not to give up any of it. That is, I think, what Ephesians supposes.
WB-s Flesh would give way to striving with one another. It is better to give way as brethren.
JT When a conflict between brethren is threatened, Abram says to Lot, “I pray thee let there be no contention between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we are brethren”, Genesis 13:8. That is the language of the man of faith, and so Moses says, “Ye are brethren”. They should not contend one with another, but it was the man that did his neighbour wrong that thrust Moses from him, Acts 7:26 - 27.
HG The contention of the herdmen of Abram and Lot was consequent upon their abundance. One often finds it in connection with ourselves if we are few in number we greatly appreciate each other. We love and there is no trouble, but if there is abundance more grace is called for. It is the herdmen.
‘I am with this man’ and ‘I am with that man’ and that is where the spiritual brother shines. He refuses to become a party to the movement.
JT Their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. That is very serious. Their substance becomes so great, that it adds to each brother so that he feels independent of the other and can get along by himself; it were infinitely better that we remain poor as regards this world’s goods than that our riches should interfere with our brotherly relationships one with the other. If means are of any use at all they are to become the occasion of sacrifice.
Ques Should we have all things in common today?
JT Under Paul’s administration provision is made for individual possessions. If one had to lay down his means today, to whom could he entrust it? When Barnabas sold his land he confidently laid the proceeds down at the apostles’ feet. I suppose they could administer it better than he, and he recognised that, but it would be a question today as to who you could trust with the administration of any means you might have. I think, generally speaking, Paul’s instructions would suffice; he says, “But of doing good and communicating [of your substance] be not forgetful, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased”, Hebrews 13:16. As having material things one has a means in that way of pleasing God every day.
WJY The principle would be in accordance with the early part of Acts. That is, he would be dividing his substance.
JT Quite.
WB-t “Sell what ye possess and give alms”, Luke 12:33. I thought in connection with that verse that a man holds what he has for God, and gives alms. The thought is not with him that it is [p. 357] private property, but rather that he holds it for the purpose of giving alms.
JT We have often spoken together of certain of the Levites who required wagons. I suppose one who has means can afford the wagons whereby these Levites can carry their burden. So long as we hold a right principle in our souls the working out of the details becomes simple. If one is not to be trusted with a few dollars he certainly is not to be trusted with spiritual things, for the spiritual is much greater.
BTF As far as Lot was concerned, what brought him into the place of difficulty was that he went to Sodom, choosing worldly position and associations.
JT Quite; so our position is to be apart from the world. Dwelling by the oaks of Mamre we are outside of it all, and known to be such, for Abram is called “a Hebrew” there.
WCR In contrast to Abram dwelling by the oaks of Mamre, it says Lot “pitched tents as far as Sodom” (Genesis 13:12), and then it says, “The people of Sodom were wicked, and great sinners before Jehovah”. He seems to have no moral sensibilities. I suppose that is the effect of the false position he took. If you take a false position you lose your moral sensibilities.
JT Yes. How solemn that a believer, should drift into such circumstances. The very word Sodomite has been an expression of extreme wickedness ever since.
GAT The evil was not that he had to go through the city, but that he took a place in it.
JT Taking a position in the gate of it. When the angels visited him and would have taken him and his household out of the city, he sought to take his sons-in-law with him, but he seemed to them [p. 358] as one that mocked. He had no power with his house, with his children.
WCR Then when the men of Sodom came to interview the strangers who came to Lot, he calls them brethren.
WB-s Is there any difference between this and Ziklag, where David pursues the enemy and recovers all?
JT It is much like it, only here Abram’s exercise was to recover his brother. That was what he had in his mind. It says, “he brought back all the property, and brought again his brother Lot and his property, and the women also, and the people”. It was complete victory; and it is very interesting to see a man like Abram taking the place of a general and having military servants under him. You would not have thought of it before this. It would not have suggested itself to you, for a Christian does not exhibit anything of a military spirit ordinarily. But when the testimony is touched, or the brethren, then it is that he sets himself to fight.
EGM You infer from that, that a man in the heavenly position, that is, a Christian, is fully qualified to meet any emergency?
JT Yes, and he is not taken by surprise. He is ready.
BTF You would say the training corresponds with “Children, obey your parents in [the] Lord”, Ephesians 6:1.
JT Yes. Every man of faith if he baptises his child has the assembly in view. He has not anything less than that in view for his child, so the household of faith is in that way a place of training.
Ques The battle was fought at night, was it not?
JT Yes. “He divided himself against them, by night, he and his servants”.
GAT Do you think a man who has his house in order, as Abram had, is bound to be used [p. 359] in the hands of the Spirit for helping and upholding his brethren?
JT I think that is evident. Now we come to divine intervention here, the divine sequel. It says, “The king of Sodom went out to meet him after he had returned from smiting Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, into the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s valley. And Melchisedec king of Salem brought out bread and wine. And he was priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heavens and earth. And blessed be the Most High God, who has delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him the tenth of all”, Genesis 14:17 - 20. It seems as if this is God’s side. What the saints see now is that all this terrible strife brings into view that God is the possessor of heaven and earth. He is the great Proprietor of the heavens and of the earth. All the boundaries of the nations are determined by the purpose of God. He sets their bounds according to the children of Israel; so that whatever international boundaries may be set, they will all be upset when God comes in. He sets them in relation to the children of Israel. He is the possessor of heaven and earth and puts the assembly in the heavens, and puts Israel upon the earth, and all the nations are subordinated to that. He will set their boundaries. Faith sees that, and Abram, it seems to me, is a model in that way. Abram is not interfering, nor is he concerned except as to his brother.
Rem God determines “the boundaries of their dwelling”, Acts 17:26.
JT As being of the household of faith, that ought to enter our hearts, that God will come in. Whatever happens, God will have the last word.
Rem So if we fight for the fellowship we get the same reward as Abram [p. 360] got.
JB We get the refreshment which will be universal when God asserts His rights as possessor of heaven and earth.
JT Melchisedec, priest of the most High God, is also king of Salem. He is king of righteousness, and king of Salem, which is king of peace. The most high God disposes of things according to His sovereignty, peace is coming in, divine peace, but peace based on righteousness. It says, “For this Melchisedec, ... first being interpreted King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is, King of peace”, Hebrews 7:1 - 2. So we have here the suggestion of the peace founded on righteousness, which shall be abiding, and all under the direction of Him who is the possessor of heaven and earth.
EGM And the man of faith waits for that.
JT We just wait. In the meantime we get the good of the priestly ministration of Christ.
AL Melchisedec comes forth here before the test comes to Abram and strengthens him and when the test comes he is able to stand it.
JT Yes. The king of Sodom says to him, “Give me the souls”. That is the proposal:
“Give me the souls and take the property for thyself”. No, Abram was not seeking after the goods at all. He set out for the persons. Faith is not exercised about goods, but about persons. “I do not seek yours, but you”; says Paul, 2 Corinthians 12:14.
HG Abram’s concern was the brother.
JT Satan often lets us have the goods if we abandon the brethren. The king of Sodom says, “Give me the souls and take the property for thyself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand to Jehovah, the Most High God, possessor of heavens and earth”. What an answer was that! Talk about goods! God is the possessor of heaven and earth, and Abram had lifted up his hand to Him. He said, “if from a thread [p. 361] even to a sandal-thong, yes, if of all that is thine, I take [anything] ... ; that thou mayest not say, I have made Abram rich; save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men that went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion”. It seems to me one of the finest stands that a Christian can take. In the full light of God, the Lord of heaven and earth, you refuse all. When it is a question of the deliverance of persons you want them alone.
BTF The priest came out at the right moment here, so that Abram had the priestly support he needed in order to enable him to refuse?
JT Abram was strengthened to stand the test proposed by the king of Sodom. Those that were confederate with him come in for their reward, rather for their portion. It says, “Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men that went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, let them take their portion”. I suppose he in that way asserts a right principle, that those that take part in the conflict are entitled to certain gain, but as regards himself, he is on other ground. Like Paul I suppose, he has no thought for anything but for the testimony. Paul maintains that those who serve in the gospel should live of it, as a principle, as a right, but as regards himself he was speaking only of the testimony, not his rights.
GWH The great move seems to be from Bethel to Mamre. That is where the increase came in. Would that be from Romans to Colossians?
JT I think so. The spiritual increase. Colossians suggests what was before the world, before Egypt.