PRIESTHOOD AS IN NUMBERS (1)
PRIESTHOOD AS IN NUMBERS (1)
Numbers 8:19; Numbers 17:6 - 13; Numbers 18:1 - 7
JT The consideration of the subject of priesthood as seen in Numbers, will, I believe, be of service. It is not a question of their service inside, in Numbers, but outside; to a large extent it is in regard of the levites. So that it brings out the relation of the saints, viewed as priests, to those who minister. The book contemplates the tribes set in relation to the tabernacle according to their position on the breastplate; and the levites are set relatively to it on the south, on the west, and on the north; whereas Moses with Aaron and his sons, are at the door of the tabernacle which was eastward. The whole position is expressive of the will of God as to His people here on earth, in their local settings, and the levites are set in that relation. The type sets forth the place we have in the affections of Christ before God, and our public position corresponds with it, and so is according to the will of God. All that should be taken into account as to the functioning of priesthood, centring, of course, in Christ. Aaron and his sons had supervision of the levites, these being given to them. Then in chapter 18 they are united to Aaron, so that there is no divergence between them and the priesthood; all this would work out in detail, in the saints maintaining the priestly state and discernment, the spirit of judging what is said, so that we have the truth, not only in the letter, but in the spirit of it. I was thinking also of the priesthood as coming in in the way of life shewn in Aaron’s rod, after the great rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. That brings us down to our own times in the history of the church.
HH [p. 319] Is priestly service in relation to God, and levitical service in relation to one’s brethren?
JT Priestly service has both aspects. Levitical service is on lower ground. In Numbers service directly to God, inside, is scarcely in view at all. It is the bearing of priesthood externally, and is therefore a question of Christ and His feelings manifest in the saints, taking account of the levites and understanding their service. That is what I understand to be the bearing of priesthood in Numbers. Aaron and his sons with Moses are at the door of the tabernacle. That would mean the authority of Christ as allied with the priesthood to keep guard of the sanctuary. That was their position as encamped. It is important to take account of the respective positions when Israel were encamped.
HH Yes. I think you have said elsewhere that the arrangement of the names on the breastplate corresponded with the arrangement of the tribes in their wilderness setting.
JT Yes; it is a question of the tribes on the breastplate — as is said, “according to the names of the children of Israel ... for the twelve tribes”, not according to their birth (see Exodus 28:21). Their names were obviously written in the light of the position of the tribes according to the divine arrangement. In other words, it all works out from the place love gives us within. Our places externally are correlative to our places inside. Note the emphasis on ‘names’ in Exodus 28:21.
HH We make a great feature of our place inside, but we have not been quite so much exercised about our public position, but the two stand in proper relation to each other.
JT Therefore, the priesthood within, would maintain the will of God without; that is the object of it.
JJ What epistles would you refer to to illustrate those two things?
JT I think Romans and Corinthians lay the basis for Numbers. Romans 12:2 speaks of “the good and acceptable and perfect will of God” for the individual believer, and that would work out in Corinthians as to one’s local setting, whether one is in his position according to the will of God. That raises the whole question of one’s movements, where one lives, and so on.
JJ So 1 Corinthians has very little about the inside place, as you were saying.
PL In 1 Corinthians 3:22,23 it says of Paul, Cephas, Apollos, “all are yours; and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s”. Are those the levites?
JT Yes. The understanding of that would have saved the Corinthians from putting forward party leaders. The position of the levites is determined by the will of God, as is the position of the tribes. The Corinthians were making way for the clergy, by setting up local leaders; all were theirs. But then in chapter 12, the gifts whilst they belong to the saints, are regulated primarily by God. God sets them in the assembly (verse 18), which would imply that they are under restriction. They are not only under the hand of the Lord, but as set in the assembly they are surrounded by spiritual intelligence.
MWB Would that be the priestly influence that would regulate their service?
JT Well, exactly; so that in chapter 14:29 we have formal allusion to the service of the levites; they come in for the judgment of those who hear: “let the others judge”.
MWB Is that what you referred to as the sensibilities of Christ in the saints?
JT I am thinking of that, of the great need for discernment in regard to what is ministered, so that we have not only what may be literally correct, but the spirit of truth.
WC Would that apply to all the part taken in the meetings as such?
JT I think it would. Of course, when you come to the [p. 321] assembly proper, the ministry is on somewhat higher ground as priestly, but all ministry must come under criticism. The Bereans were commended because of that; it is a principle set down.
SJBC Why does Paul say, “Christ is God’s”, not Christ is yours?
JT We cannot place Christ within our possessions as we can Paul. Christ possesses us, as the passage states; verse 23 gives the order of possession.
HH In Malachi 2:7, it says, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and at his mouth they seek the law; for he is the messenger of Jehovah of hosts”. It is responsibility.
JT That fits in with the second part of Numbers, the priesthood being asserted at the end, in its bearing towards the people; they “keep knowledge”. All was really in the custody of the priests, the law, etc. Viewed as priests, we are trustworthy; that is, God entrusts us with things, and that saves us from the clerical element.
PL Would this critical faculty appear in the way the inward parts of the sacrifices were treated by the priests?
JT I think that is right: “truth in the inward parts”, (Psalm 51:6). If we have truth in the inward parts it will come out in what we say.
Ques Does this mean that the responsibility for the truth rests on the priests and not on the levites directly?
JT Of course the levite is responsible, but final responsibility would rest on the priests. They are the custodians of it. They keep knowledge, and the law is heard at their mouth. That is what is emphasised in Malachi; and hence the need for cultivating priestly sensibilities and discernment, so that we may judge rightly of things. What I notice is that one’s casual judgment is exceedingly unreliable. One goes to a meeting and hears an address, and is casual and not critical; (I do not use the word ‘critical’ as being objectionable but in [p. 322] the sense of judging) — and something is said that is new and it strikes him. Well, he is not critical and goes away with the thought of a novelty something that is particularly striking, but which may not be just the truth, whereas if a man is critical, in all probability he will discern what is right. I mean that the judgment of the saints is reliable if their attention is specially called to the thing to be judged; if something is put to them specifically it is almost a certainty that we will get a right judgment from the brethren; if not immediately, certainly in time. But if we remain in a casual attitude towards what is ministered, what is new is apt to strike us, what we have not heard before, and if we fail in having this critical spirit, we shall perhaps carry away and accredit something erroneous. There is much being ministered, and the Lord would call into action the priestly discernment, not now the service towards God in the assembly, but what Numbers contemplates, the priest’s relation to the levites, so that there should be nothing but what is in keeping with the Spirit of truth. The Spirit ungrieved in the believer is sure to teach him; He will not be quiescent if things are not right; and so the more sensitive we are, the more likely we shall be to discern.
CHW Would you say the apostle lays the onus of this on the saints in Thessalonica? “Do not lightly esteem prophecies; but prove all things, hold fast the right”, (1 Thessalonians 5:20 - 22).
JT Yes, that is an excellent confirmation of what we are saying. “Do not lightly esteem prophecies” would mean that we ought to listen to every brother, even although he may not be of special repute; for how are we to get the latent ministry amongst us save as we give opportunity to the younger men to speak? But then, “prove all things, hold fast the right”, is the guarantee for the preservation of the truth amongst us.
JOS John recommended Gaius for holding fast [p. 323] the truth.
JT Very good. He was a true priest.
JJ I suppose you see the principle of the rebellion of Korah at Corinth, and the using of the rod in Paul holding things in life.
JT The elements of rebellion were setting in there. They were checked by God, so that you get Aaron’s rod in the second letter; but the rod of authority had to be used in the first letter. The position according to the types was that Moses and Aaron and his sons were at the door. It is the combination of authority and grace, and these come out beautifully in the two letters to Corinth. But the great rebellion contemplated in Numbers 16, came in afterwards, that is to say, the uprising of Korah, who was situated on the south side of the tabernacle. He had a very favourable position, along with the tribe of Reuben, so that it was a local uprising that spread. That is the position in chapter 16 and what came out was that the cloud covered the tabernacle. That is, God came in and extended His wing over the whole position attacked. I think we should notice that — that the great uprising in christendom continues, and God has indicated the whole bearing of the testimony in what is recovered; the cloud is on the whole tabernacle. Then chapter 17 is to bring out what can be entrusted with the care of that, so as to silence rebellion, and there is no other way of silencing rebellion save by the principle of life in resurrection; that is what I think we may see as bearing on our own position now. The principle of life has come into evidence, as in chapter 17 in Aaron’s rod, and life in itself, not merely in a potential way, but in what is beautiful. There was the bud and the blossom and the ripened almonds, there was positive fruit, the almond denoting the faithfulness of God. That is what comes to light; and there is the charge to Aaron and his sons, and Levi is to be ‘united’ with them. This refers to the meaning of Levi (see Genesis 29:34). It would mean that the service is not to be carried on in an independent way.
One’s gift is to be used of course, but the uniting with the priest, is a very balancing thought. It would be a guarantee, not only against rebellion, but for the unity of the faith. You cannot think of divergence among the levites where the principle of union in service with the priest is recognised. Now that is something that may well raise a question with us, as to whether it enters into our service.
HH I was thinking a little of Abiathar, one who though a priest, was badly carried away by the rebellion of Adonijah. I thought it was something analogous to the present day, shewing how one who may have been devoted in service, yet through losing priestly instincts, may be carried away by what is popular; united indeed, but on the side of lawlessness.
JT Yes. If I am required to be united with Aaron, it is priesthood normally as in Christ. Then the sons of Aaron come into evidence, and I am in relation to them too, but apparently here union is with Christ as Priest: “they shall unite with thee”, (Numbers 18:4).
HH There is a saying, that union is with the exalted Man and association with the Son of God. Would that have a bearing on what you are saying?
JT This is not the union of the church with Christ, but of the levites with Him as Priest. It is not Christ representing us in heaven, but the priestly quality in Him as bearing on the levites; that I am united with the priest in my service.
JJ Would not Paul express it perfectly in Romans 15:16: “carrying on as a sacrificial service the message of glad tidings of God, in order that the offering up of the nations might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit”. He was united with the priest.
JT That helps. Throughout all his epistles you will see how he is united with the priest in his service. It was a question really of Christ speaking in him. It rises to that level and the saints were to recognise that.
PL [p. 325] You get this principle in the Lord speaking to the disciples in Luke 24:46 as to handling the Scriptures and the truth: “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved the Christ to suffer”. Is that the spirit of the truth? Luke presents things “from the beginning”; what he was “accurately acquainted” with “from the origin”, (Luke 1:2,3). Would the Lord prepare us thus for our place at the door of the tabernacle?
JT Exactly. One has felt for years that the volume of ministry is considerable, always thanking God for it; but I think Luke is aiming, not only at volume, but quality; and he begins with being “accurately acquainted from the origin with all things”. The word ‘accurately’ would imply that there had been the opposite, and as a matter of fact, the history of the church shews that inaccuracy and even gross error immediately succeeded the ministry of the apostles; there was a rapid drop from the spiritual ministry marked by accuracy, down to inaccuracy and absolute error; so that the writings of the so-called ‘fathers’ are painful to read. Well, Luke, both in his gospel and in the Acts would bring out this very feature. He brings in Apollos, for instance, a man “mighty in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24), which would mean, not only that he could preach from a text in the Old Testament, but could convey the spiritual import of it. He was “accurately acquainted” as far as he went; but “knowing only the baptism of John” was not instructed in the truth as a whole; and Aquila and Priscilla “took him to them and unfolded to him the way of God more exactly”. That is where Luke would help us; he would, so to speak, unite the levite to the priest, he would bring us so near to Christ, that He Himself is speaking through us. One of the greatest things a minister should desire in his service is, that his voice should be the voice of Christ, and his words the words of Christ.
HH Do you think in that incident you get the discernment of priests in Aquila and Priscilla, and then an [p. 326] illustration of union with the priest in the subsequent service of Apollos?
JT Just so. Aquila and Priscilla might rightly criticise Apollos and say that he was not equal to Paul, but they “took him to them”, that is, they acted as priests. Their service corresponds with Numbers. The took “him to them, and unfolded to him the way of God more exactly”. I am sure he would never forget the service thus rendered to him by a man and his wife.
HH We must always be exercised in regard of adjustment on these lines. “We know in part, and we prophesy in part”, but the proper balance between what is priestly and what is levitical, must ever be maintained amongst us.
JT I think what we ought to see in this enquiry, is the relation of the priesthood to levitical service, involving discernment, to the end that we get the most out of this service, so we must prove all things and hold fast that which is good. There may be much that is extraneous. The only thing worth treasuring, is that which is good. It is the idea of having a treasure.
JJ What is the meaning of bearing the “iniquity of the sanctuary” and bearing the “iniquity of your priesthood”?
JT Of course, we have to make some allowance for the types, but it means the serious obligation resting on the priest. How am I regarding the iniquity of the church, of what has come in since Paul’s time? I cannot ignore that; it is an important thing to see the extent of evil there is abroad in the profession. A true priest will not fail to do this. So that he should take in the sin of the public body in its completeness in Babylon: the angel says to John, “Come here, I will shew thee the sentence of the great harlot”, (Revelation 17:1). That would mean that he gets a divinely given view of the evil in all its enormity; and then later it is said that heaven is to rejoice, and the saints and apostles and prophets, “for God has judged your judgment upon her”, (chapter 18:20). It is our judgment; it is an [p. 327] immense thing to be with God as to the evil. Although morally clear of it as separated from the evil, yet we accept a certain responsibility as to it as before God.
JJ Would it have any bearing on the local company as well as universally?
JT Certainly. We should take account of the iniquity existing locally and generally.
TR And in association with Christ; it is “thou and thy sons with thee”.
JT Just so; it is the saints related to Christ. If you take up the epistles of Paul, Peter, Jude and John, you will see there is no ignoring of the conditions with them. All those epistles are Christ speaking; it is the Priest taking account of the evil. The Lord is not quiescent in regard of it. When you come to Revelation, John hears a voice as of a trumpet behind him; that would call him back to take account of the evil. The trumpet means that attention is called to something urgent, first to the state of the seven churches. So the Lord’s general appearance speaks of what He thinks about these things. That is, the true Aaron is taking account of them, but, am I with Him in this? The book of Revelation brings me into accord with Christ in His judgment of the seven churches and all else in this world.
TR We are not so familiar with that side of priesthood as we are with the privilege side.
JT I do not think we are, and the Lord helps us in taking up our privilege, but if I sit down in the light of the assembly, properly speaking, I must be in the light of the book of Revelation. That governs the position now, so that I have a judgment of all that is around me.
MWB Would Ezekiel help us there in the way he is directed to note the evil which compelled God’s retirement?
JT I think that is important. Perhaps you will say more about it.
MWB I was only thinking of how he was taken from [p. 328] one place to another, and how he has to lie on his side and bear the iniquity. Is that what is in your mind?
JT Exactly. I doubt very much whether we have taken that side of the truth much into account. First, I would take account of the evil in the locality, but the more I am with God, the more I take account of the evil in the whole of christendom.
Rem That needs sustained consciousness with regard to what is within.
JT I am sure it does. Leviticus — our place inside — underlies Numbers. But then, to go further into Numbers, chapter 18 shows that the levites are to be united with the priest, with Christ; so that, as we were saying, He speaks through them and they share His judgment about things here. That is what it would mean; we are so near to the Lord and so sensitive, that our judgment is His, and He ratifies it; so that our judgment is the basis of the wrath of God being poured out upon Babylon, a very remarkable thing. So, passing over chapter 19, the “red heifer”, a subject that bears on what we are saying, chapter 20 brings out the official failure in the most reputable ministers, and becomes a warning to those who are in an official position. Moses and Aaron both fail in regard of the rock. Moses is directed to take the rod, without saying which rod, as if God was saying, You know there is none other now; you can only meet this opposition by priestly grace. Moses took the rod he was directed to take, and everybody would have thought he was in the mind of God, but at heart he was going to do something else; he had another rod. That is, what we are doing ostensibly may not be really what we are going to do at heart, and Moses used his own rod — the rod of authority — instead of Aaron’s, the rod of grace.
SJBC Moses’ rod would take away the murmurers, but Aaron’s rod took away the murmurings.
JT The murmurers drink, and not only they but also [p. 329] their cattle.
CHP Do you think Acts 13 would bear on the relationship between what is priestly and levitical? It is said, “they ministered to the Lord, and fasted”, and then Barnabas and Paul were sent out to serve.
JT That is good. The priestly element was there, the persons mentioned ministering to the Lord, and they laid their hands on the levites.