⬇ EPUB

THE PRIESTHOOD

JT Our enquiry this morning led us to the end of Exodus where we saw the tabernacle set up, and God having come in, the glory filling it. As having entered into the tabernacle to reside He is now to be served, hence the subject of the priesthood rightly follows what we had this morning. In the general instructions in Exodus we have in chapter 28 the requirement of the priesthood, “Thou shalt take thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may serve me as priest”, and in verse 41 of the same chapter it is said that his sons also are to be hallowed, “that they may serve me as priests”. The chapter that we have read from Leviticus tells us that Moses carried out the directions in Exodus 28 and 29. What may be added to make the subject clear at the outset is that the verses in Exodus 21 speaking of the Hebrew servant teach us that the service is to be carried on in love. These verses typically set out our Lord Jesus Christ as taking a bondman’s form. He does this in love, saying, “I love my master, my wife, and my children”. He could have gone out free, as the passage teaches, at the end of six years, but because of love He remained a servant for ever. Now while the Lord Jesus took this lowly attitude in love, Exodus 28 and 29 show that in this service He was clothed with heavenly dignity. Aaron is brother of the mediator, typically showing, as we see in the New Testament, that the mediator and the high priest are one Person — Christ. So whether we think of mediatorship in Moses or priesthood in Aaron, it is the same Christ. He is a divine Person whether we view Him as Mediator or High Priest. So we are called upon as holy brethren, partakers of the ^[p. 336] heavenly calling, to consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. While He in love takes the lowly place as a bondman, we have to regard Him in the dignity of a divine Person, so that in Hebrews 8 the writer by the Spirit of God says, “A summary of the things of which we are speaking is, We have such a one high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens”. Thus His deity is maintained and His priesthood, but still He has taken up the attitude of a servant in this dignity: and in Aaron and his sons as a type we see that the saints have part in this service. These remarks will help to make the subject clear to us that God, as coming in to dwell in the tabernacle, is to be ministered to in a priestly way.

Fl. Is the tabernacle system a continuation of what was found in the Lord when He was here, morally?

JT Yes, in principle He was the tabernacle; it says, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt”, or, tabernacled “among us”. So you find here the tabernacle and all that was in it was anointed with oil and Aaron is anointed with it without formal reference to his death.

L “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). He spoke of the temple of His body.

JT Yes, I think the service of God began with Christ. Luke presents Him at the banks of the Jordan; as He came up out of the waters of Jordan He was praying. Of course, He had been praying before, but now He is formally noticed in public as praying. Luke brings us into it; it is said that as the Lord was praying in a certain place, one of His disciples asked Him to teach them to pray. He does and He says, “When ye pray say, Father, thy name be hallowed” (Luke 11:2). He thus inaugurated the priestly service even as here in flesh; but inasmuch as it is stated here in chapter 8 that Moses brought Aaron near and his ^[p. 337] sons and bathed them with water, we have an intimation that His death was anticipated.

FR Would you say something about the difference between the bondman and the priest?

JT That is an important consideration. The thought is that the service is to be carried on in love. In truth God has no regard for any other service than that which is carried on in love; and love will go to any lengths to serve its objects, and that is why I think the figure of a slave is introduced in the type.

DrB Does His service go on for ever?

JT Well, we have to leave that with the Lord. It is His way of speaking of it. He speaks of serving His own and making them to lie down at table to serve them. Only we can never limit the Lord to an attitude that He takes up Himself from His own side, because whilst He is said to be a servant He is also said to be “over all, God blessed for ever”. You will agree with that?

DrB Would He have His part in God being all in all?

JT Yes, we have to leave that; this is the inscrutable; but we have to maintain the two thoughts in our minds: whilst He serves, He is also concurrently God over all. Even on man’s side, in all things He has the pre-eminence. He is here anointed without the sacrifice.

JOS No one could have part in that.

JT No, it is His own pre-eminence even on our own side as priest.

JOS Would it refer to the Lord being anointed in the beginning of the gospel of Luke.

JT That is the antitype of this.

RH Does the act of emptying Himself alter the fact that He is God over all, blessed for ever?

JT It alludes to the incarnation. It was His own act; it was not imposed upon Him. It is said that, “subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem ^[p. 338] it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; but emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form” (Philippians 2:6,7). The taking of the bondman’s form is the explanation of the former statement, He “made himself of no reputation”, as it reads in the A.V. The taking of the form of a bondman does not alter His Person.

Ques He remained Lord of all at the same time, even if He took a servant’s form?

JT Yes, abstractly. We must keep the two thoughts clear in our minds. He retains His part in the Deity, and on the other hand He serves, as we see here. That is one great point in the epistle to the Hebrews, the person who came out in chapter 1 is the person who goes in in chapter 2.

JOS Would the fact in the end of Mark’s gospel, that the Lord manifested Himself to them in another form show that we must not limit the Lord to one form?

JT Yes, we are dealing with what is inscrutable and have to follow Scripture. Although the Lord is pleased to take a bondman’s form it would be very irreverent for us to address Him as a bondman. He says in His marvellous humiliation, “I am a worm and no man” (Psalm 22:6), but it would be utterly out of place for us to speak of Him in that way, so that whilst He is seen in the type in chapter 21 as taking a bondman’s form in love, the official side requires great dignity as seen in His garments.

R Isaiah 42:1 speaks of Him, “Behold my servant whom I uphold”.

JT Yes, “Mine elect in whom my soul delighteth”.

FJr If we consider the Lord as being on our side is there not some danger that we should make His place lower?

JT Yes, that is why it was remarked that as on our side there is abundant evidence to show He is a divine Person. In John 13 where He performs the service of a bondman He says, “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am”.

S Do you think the Spirit would help us to understand when He says, “He that descended is the same who has also ascended up above all the heavens, that he might fill all things” (Ephesians 4:10)?

JT Yes, that is a good scripture because it is the same Person that descended that ascended, and it says that He went up above all heavens, that is He went into the uncreated realm to which no creature has access.

K Are we not much concerned to follow the Holy Spirit as to every thought that would concern His holy Person?

JT Quite so.

FSr It would be a danger to believe what we often hear: ‘God and man one Christ’.

JT That is an imperfect statement because it is making the Person different from what He had been. He has taken another condition, but there is no change in His Person.

LDM In John 13 the Lord lays aside His garments, and then takes them again; does that bear on it?

JT It alludes to His laying aside His dignity to serve, and then taking it on again; hence He says, “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am”.

Fl. Is His taking a bondman’s form incarnation or does that take place before incarnation?

JT I think the form refers to His manhood; He emptied Himself taking a bondman’s form; it alludes to His manhood. It is not simply an attitude of mind, it is a substantial change. I do not think the form of bondman alludes to Him in absolute Deity at all. He emptied Himself, taking a bondman’s form — that is the latter phrase explains the former. The construction of the passage would show that the ^[p. 340] thoughts run into each other. The explanation of the emptying of Himself is in His taking a bondman’s form, running on to taking His place in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man he humbled Himself.

Fl. So you take it all those expressions stand in apposition?

JT That is right, that is the way to take it.

DrB Is the position of bondman proper to man as such?

JT Not necessarily; Adam was not a bondman; but in becoming man the Lord took that position, not only that He would be subject, which was proper to man, but that He would serve in the most abject way in love. Adam was not a figure of Christ in that sense.

R Hebrews speaks of Christ as Son over God’s house.

JT Quite so. His dignity is preserved.

Ques Why had Moses to apply the blood to different parts of Aaron’s body?

JT Now we have come on; we have left one part of our subject, the Person of Christ. We have now come down to Christ as identified with ourselves so that the blood of the ram of consecration is now brought in. In verses 22, 23 “He presented the second ram, the ram of consecration; and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram; and one slaughtered it; and Moses took of its blood, and put it on the tip of Aaron’s right ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of his right foot” (also quoted verse 24). Now we see Christ typically associated with the saints, brought in to serve through His own death. That is, it is with Him as having died and risen and having been glorified that the saints are brought in in service. We are here in the presence of the greatest spiritual wealth or richness in the service of God. First we ^[p. 341] have the bullock of the sin offering (verse 14), then the ram of the burnt offering (verse 18), then the ram of consecration in verse 22. All the appurtenances thereof (verses 25 - 27) suggest the greatest spiritual richness, because it is a question of the inauguration of the priestly service — Christ in heaven and the saints as His brethren.

JOS Does Peter, in speaking of the promise of the Father, allude to the anointing of the priests?

JT I think that is the antitype of this. “Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear”. The Spirit by which Christ had been anointed is the same Spirit by which the saints were anointed at Pentecost, so we have here in type the great priestly system inaugurated for the service of God, and Peter tells us in his epistle that we are “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). So that our reading today is to see what this is and whether we understand it now. It was to continue throughout the whole dispensation.

Ques By the application of the blood to different parts of their bodies Aaron and his sons were enabled to be priests?

JT The first thing is that the blood is put on the tip of Aaron’s right ear and on the thumb of his right hand and on the great toe of his right foot. Christ’s dignity is maintained again there. Then we have the sons and it is put on their right ear and their right hand and on the great toe of their right foot. In wondrous condescension in taking man’s place Christ had His ear opened; that is He took the place of hearing.

Rem As I hear I judge.

JT Just so. It is very wonderful that the Lord should take that place, and He is a man in every sense in that way. “He wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned” (Isaiah 50:4). However, in this type His dignity is maintained in that the sprinkling of the blood was on Aaron separately, and then on his sons. As far as the Scriptures show, the Lord never prayed with His disciples; He is seen praying alone.

JOS Is that why they are brought near after the blood has been put upon Aaron?

JT It says as to Aaron that Moses put the blood on the tip of Aaron’s right ear, and then it says he brought Aaron’s sons near. Our brother’s suggestion is that Aaron is not brought near. It is to be noted, however, in verse 6 that Aaron is brought near and his sons, but the omission of Aaron being brought near here is the evidence of his distinction as we have been saying. So that in the service of God, according to this type and many others, Christ and the assembly are engaged in it on the ground of His death and by the power of the Spirit. The type does not set forth the Spirit of adoption, but in public we are to maintain the dignity of God’s service.

K As to what Moses did to Aaron, would it be done, so to speak, in God’s stead.

JT Moses represents the authority of God and all that is carried out by Christ on God’s side.

Mm. When you say we do not get the Spirit of adoption in this type, does it represent more the congregation side, the individuals composing the assembly?

JT Yes, it is the saints viewed as individuals but in the dignity of sons or brethren; the service, however, has the assembly in view.

JOS Is it in the sense in which the writer of the Hebrews says, “Let us draw near” (Hebrews 10:22)?

JT Well, Hebrews does not give us the sons of Aaron properly. The saints generally are viewed in rather an initial way in Hebrews, so it is a question ^[p. 343] of a great Priest over the house of God to encourage us to draw near.

Ques Priesthood is connected with the Father?

JT No, it is connected with God.

What is to be noticed is another thought here, namely, that this instruction comes in the book of Leviticus after we have had the instruction regarding the individual offerings. The suggestion is, as applied, that this great thought of the priestly system of service cannot be understood apart from the personal offerings indicated in the earlier chapters. The saints are viewed in chapter 1 as having some wealth, a bullock, a sheep or a fowl. God says, as it were, ‘I have come in to dwell among you and I am waiting for your offerings’. We have the various offerings specified. If all Israel began to come with their offerings what delight there would be for the heart of God to see them coming with their cattle up to the door of the tabernacle; that is the moral side of the thing. It is practically useless for us to dwell on chapter 8 unless there be an answer to the desire of God for offerings in the earlier chapters. The offerer in chapters 1 to 5 comes to the tabernacle with his bullock, and he slaughters it himself. Then the sons of Aaron are there. That means in bringing the offering so near he takes on himself the priestly attitude, so that one by one the saints come up, and they become priests practically as they enter the court and offer their offerings. If all are offering, then we have a nation of priests, and chapter 8 would be understood. All these priests, acting in love and drawing near to God are related to Christ. That is how we reach the truth of priesthood.

R In Hebrews 8:3 it is said that it is necessary that He Himself should have something to bring. Would that be Christ?

JT That is Christ ^[p. 344] Himself.

FSr Would you explain as to God the Father and the priestly service in reference to God?

JT I think priesthood stands related to the covenant. It is a question of an answer on our part to the love shown in Christ in the covenant. Perfect love casts out fear. The appreciation of the covenant constitutes us practically priests; but priesthood viewed officially has in mind that we are still in a scene of defilement; we are a holy priesthood; so that in assembly we shut out, in the power of the Spirit, all that is contrary to God. This goes on; but as we reach heavenly ground, while the thought of God must ever remain; we have the thought of Father, so that there we touch the family side; we get beyond priesthood in other words. In eternity there will be no need for priesthood because there will be no opposition, no defilement. This is an interesting subject, but the time has gone.

Rbt. Would you say that as priests we have to do with God but as sons we approach the Father?

JT Yes, that is in the Spirit of sonship.

Whilst we are here we need to maintain the thought of priesthood; it implies the exclusion of what is contrary to God, and moreover it implies intelligence as to what is to be done. They were custodians of the law, others were to hear the law at their mouth; but we can understand, if we think of it, that all that will cease in eternity. We shall be there in the relationship of sons with the Father, nothing to hinder, no adversary or evil occurrent.

← Previous Article 33 of 42 Next →