LOVE UNDERLYING PRIESTHOOD
[p. 91] LOVE UNDERLYING PRIESTHOOD
Exodus 4: 12 - 17; Exodus 21: 1 - 6; Exodus 28:1-4; Exodus 28:40-43
JT It is in mind to consider love as the dominating element in priesthood. That is why the verses in chapter 21 were read because in Exodus Aaron is not formally called a priest until after love is introduced. This is according to a principle which was set out in Adam in naming the creatures of God as they came to him, for the thing was named as it was there characteristically. Aaron is much spoken of before, but is not formally named as priest until chapter 28. This comes in after chapter 21 which refers to love. Aaron is introduced because he had suitable qualities, but particularly brotherly love as seen in chapter 4. Love is seen in chapter 21, and it is to be noted there because of its ascending, descending and horizontal activities. Aaron is seen as having a quality that Moses professed to lack, that is, the power of speech. God said to Moses, “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also behold, he goeth out to meet thee; and when he seeth thee he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall speak for thee unto the people; and it shall come to pass that he shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him for God”. What is in mind to consider now is the love system, a system in which there would be God, and Moses representing the word of God, and then Aaron, not the priest, but the prophet. It is a question of speaking, of what God would say in a public way in order to make His mind known and to assert His rights. It is important that things should be said rightly. It will be noted that in chapter 7 Aaron is [p. 92] seen as a prophet. As it says, “And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”. Thus a system is set up in view of the deliverance of the people out of Egypt, and so that, in that deliverance, God is rightly represented systematically. In Aaron God would have one with the ability to speak so as to convey in words what Moses thought. Then we learn in the history of the book that there were priests in Israel; we are not told who they were or what qualities they had, but there were those who had that place in Israel (Exodus 19: 22 - 24). When the time came for performing the service of priesthood, Moses selected youths to do it, as seen in chapter 24, but they were not called priests, as if God were saying that youths are not the full idea. Aaron is to be the full idea, because of his power of speech and his being a Levite. It is not simply that he was a Levite, but he was the Levite, and also he was more than that, he was the brother of Moses, and that is the point which is brought out in chapter 28. The thought is not simply that Aaron should perform the office, but that he should serve God as priest. The thing was there, not simply that he was officially that for convenience, but the thing was there. He was to serve as a priest, and his sons were to serve as priests. That is what is in mind and that we may have before us that love is to prevail, also skill and intelligence; that is to say, all the qualities of priesthood are to prevail. We should acquire skill, which is the ability to do things for God, to represent Him here to men. That is something which is essential to the service; God giving ability to us and the power of speech, for He has made our mouths, He has given us too of His Spirit; and, we are told that no one can say Lord Jesus but by the Spirit. So that the Spirit is really the power of priesthood. If we are to carry on the service of God it is to be in the power of [p. 93] the Spirit; not simply that we know the doctrine, but that we are to have spiritual power.
HB God is able to take account of what Aaron would feel in his heart when he met his brother; “He will be glad in his heart”, God says. That may perhaps be somewhat testing for us.
JT Quite so. It is not that he was just glad in a formal way, which is often the case, as may be indicated in a formal shaking of hands, but the greeting was to be the result of the condition of the heart.
Rem Peter in his first epistle seems to follow the line you suggest. In the first chapter he speaks of the soul, “Having purified your souls by obedience to the truth to unfeigned brotherly love, love one another out of a pure heart fervently”. Then in the next chapter he speaks of the priesthood.
JT I was thinking of him, because he is the one among the apostles who uses the word priesthood and distinguishes it in the sense of what it is to God. The service is Godward. It says, “A holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”, 1 Peter 2: 5. Aaron is clearly intended by the Spirit of God to represent the idea, not simply that he had the office of a priest, but that he was a priest. We know well enough from the facts recorded that Peter went through severe exercises of self-judgment which lead up to priesthood; he was brought to the acknowledgment of sin so that he could act thus for others. No doubt, the apostle Paul had this in mind in connection with him. Galatians 1: 18 says, “I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter, and I remained with him fifteen days”. No doubt he would gather up an idea of what was current among the brethren in those times, and of what priesthood meant in Peter. Peter on his side spoke of Paul as “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3: 15), and he made [p. 94] much of his writings. Paul had to rebuke Peter and he accepted it. These things are to be understood and practised amongst us if we are to proceed in the testimony. When he had to speak to the Galatians as to the wrong doctrine that was current among them, he said, “and all the brethren with me” (Galatians 1: 2). If there are matters amongst us which are questionable, and which required to be adjusted, then the brethren ought to be brought in. It is a question of love, and we will only descend to argument unless we love, but if we love we can act like Peter and Paul towards each other.
FI Is that principle seen at the end of Galatians where it says, “considering thyself lest thou also be tempted”?
JT Very good. “Ye who are spiritual”, it says in Galatians 6: 1. It is clear that the judaizers were not spiritual. They would demand the last farthing, whereas the Lord shows the need of accepting repentance, and that “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them” (John 20: 23), showing that one who has sinned is set free by forgiveness.
FI What you quote from John 20 follows the Lord breathing into them and saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. Does that mean He breathed into them His own Spirit?
JT That would be the idea exactly. What a lot there is in that, the breath of Jesus; how the Spirit of Jesus would disarm resentment of an offender, because we are to forgive one another.
AM Paul speaks at the end of 1 Corinthians 12 of the way of more surpassing excellence and opens up that way in the next chapter which speaks so much of love.
JT Well, that is the point, I believe. Chapter 13 is morally the greatest chapter in the epistle. He is speaking about gifts in chapter 12 and, of course, gifts are important, but sometimes assume too much [p. 95] importance in our minds, for we may exercise gift and be short of love. Paul says, “And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing”. So, if we have not love, however much we may have in other ways, we are nothing.
CH So chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians, which deals with love, comes between chapter 12 where we have the gifts and chapter 14 where we see the gifts, especially the gift of prophecy, being exercised.
JT That is it. The apostle had in mind to write much, and had already written much, but in the ministry he was thinking of the persons who were involved in the discipline. Chapter 5 brings out the discipline and Paul told them what to do in the exercise of it, but then there was really more in the man than even Paul intimated, because he was restored quicker than it was expected he would be. He had sinned grievously, but he was able to meet the thing in confession and so quickly was he restored that the brethren did not keep pace with the restoration, and this is often the case. We must keep pace with the recovery and confirm it. So the second epistle is to bring out the need of confirmation and that should be in the judgment of the brethren at Corinth, so that the brother should be set free in freedom, and be allowed to breathe, as one might say, the Spirit of Jesus, the spirit of forgiveness. The Lord breathed into them so that they should be qualified to forgive. Why should we continue in hardness and in legal exaction amongst ourselves when the Lord’s mind is that we should all be set free?
CH In the second epistle in connection with the man Paul says, “On the contrary ye should rather shew grace and encourage, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with excessive grief. Wherefore [p. 96] I exhort you to assure him of your love”. Would that be what is in your mind that true priestly activity was shown towards that man?
JT That is what I had in mind. Before Aaron is named as priest we see love is an established principle amongst the people; love in all its features. It is seen in the Hebrew bondman who is typical of the Lord Jesus Himself. In spite of all the restrictions He could say, “I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go free”. He can say it plainly. Love as a principle is not set up by statutes, but it is there as evidenced in what the bondman said. The Lord says to the disciples, “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”, John 13: 35. The thing is there in quality and quantity too.
CH The assurance to Moses that his brother had love in his heart would help greatly to remove the spirit of rivalry. They each had their distinctive part in the system.
JT The sovereign action of God is seen in the selection of these servants; Moses would be a real test to Aaron because Aaron was his senior.
SB Do you think that love in activity would bring the brethren into any matter current amongst us in order to confirm it?
JT Quite so. We should not reach a conclusion to any matter if we did not bring the brethren into it. We must bring the brethren characteristically into it.
Rem If we did not do so we would be on party lines.
JT It is objectionable to heaven if we hold to certain things and do certain things in any legal way. Love is the antidote to all that and it never fails.
FI If a brother moving on priestly lines and acting in love goes to an erring brother and as a [p. 97] result there is restoration, is it necessary to bring that to the brethren?
JT No, not necessarily, but that raises the question of priesthood. Where there is a leprous condition the priest is to come to the person involved or he may go to the priest, but the priest is always supposed to be available. If the priest be there then there is hope of recovery, and hence where it is the case of a brother who has perhaps been withdrawn from and he is restored in measure, that is to say, restoration is progressing in him, the next question is, Who shall take the lead in the case? It is a case for the priest, not just a priest, but the priest, whoever he may be that takes the matter up let him show that he is a priest. It is said of Aaron, “[p. 99] That he may serve me as priest”, not simply to serve as an official priest, but as priest.
JS Do we see the thought in Paul towards Philemon and then in the brotherly love of Philemon towards Onesimus?
JT Quite so; “If he ... owe anything to thee put this to my account”, Paul says. That is important as showing that the thing is there before it is named. There was something in Philemon of which Paul knew, and on account of this he approached him as to restoring the slave Onesimus to his place, not only in his household, but in the assembly. That would be the great point that he might be restored as a brother in the assembly.
CD In Luke 7 the Lord could say of the woman, “She loved much”. As she came to Him, the Lord as Priest could discern what was there, but Simon could not understand it.
JT It is a case of what was there. The Lord says, “Seest thou this woman?” (verse 44). The person who is in question is there and that is a great point. There are priestly qualities there too and the Lord says, “Her many sins are forgiven; for she loved much”. The idea of forgiveness must precede the idea of recovery. She, at any rate, had loved and it was seen in Simon’s house. It was a chilly place for such a person but she was there nevertheless.
DI In Deuteronomy 15 the idea of a creditor comes in relative to the year of release and he is to relax his hand. Would that come in here?
JT Very good. The idea runs through Scripture; it is the power of love. So in that quality we have the idea of the priest set out. It is not only that the thing is there abstractly, but the person in whom it should be seen is there.
RA Would you distinguish a little more between the idea of an official priest and what is said of Aaron, “He shall serve me as priest”?
JT I was referring to the history of Aaron in Exodus. God took him up to set out this great thing. He is brought in as a necessary substitute, because Moses was not equal to the important part. It shows what God is. He is not giving persons up. He is making the most of them and if Moses cannot do what Jehovah requires He affords a helper who is his brother. He says to Moses concerning Aaron, “When he seeth thee he will be glad in his heart”, Exodus 4: 14. That would set Moses free in his soul, and then God enhances the whole position in chapter 7 by saying to Moses, “See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh”, not a god, but God. God is to be represented in that man personally, and then speaking of Aaron it says, he “shall be thy prophet” (or spokesman). It is not thy priest but thy spokesman, for that was the thing in which Moses said he was defective, that he could not speak. Afterwards he became a great speaker, a great writer too, but God made him all that. Therefore, the thought is to bring out what the priest is, and so Aaron’s history is given right up to chapter 28 to show what he was and then he is seen as priest. Jehovah says there,
“That he may serve me as priest”, but he is the brother of Moses all the time.
GHP In Luke 10 we have the official priest looking on the man, but passing by on the opposite side, showing that the brotherly feeling was lacking. Over against that we have the Samaritan bringing out the idea of what a person is.
JT Just so; all that was needed was there. He did not pass on after he had done what was necessary, but he took the man to an inn and he stayed there till the next morning, showing that love was there. It will not do to say that we have done all that was possible. That will not always do. We must go the whole way and so the Samaritan went the whole way in love.
EHM Was Elihu in the book of Job a priest?
JT I would say so. His service brought out what Job was. Finally Job is able to say to God, “I know that thou canst do everything” (Job 42:2), and then God constituted him a priest because he was to pray for his friends.
AB Job was greatly enriched after his recovery.
JT I think in all that is being said we see how God would give us examples of priestly energy in men, for that is what is in His mind. It is what is here in the power of the Spirit. Speaking reverently, the Holy Spirit needs the saints that the service may be carried on. In the creation a divine Person operated, but in Christianity, and indeed in all dispensations, we see men available to be used in the service.
CH Whilst it says of Aaron first of all that he can speak well, in chapter 7 he is to speak representatively. Do you think that is important?
JT I do indeed. We have a representation of God because Moses was to be God to Pharaoh. He was to bring out the features of God. How far he went in that it is hard to say. We have to be on [p. 100] our guard as to how we speak of Deity. There are those who are brought near and I believe Moses was especially distinguished in that way for it says, “the form of Jehovah doth he behold”. He was not an ordinary prophet even; he was beyond that.
GHP Referring to what was said about the Samaritan going the whole way, and that it will not do for us to say we have done all possible, because love never fails; sometimes we are not able to gain a person and withdrawal is considered necessary. Is there something wrong if that is the case?
JT Well, of course, that is prescribed for in the Scriptures. Hosea 4: 17 says, “Ephraim is joined to idols: leave him alone”. That must be done sometimes. We have the Lord’s own words, “She hath done what she could” (Mark 14: 8), so that is a formula which you can use. Brethren, perhaps, have gone the whole length according to the Scriptures and even according to love; they have done their best, they have visited the person concerned, and yet nothing has resulted, for it is a question of the state of the person. How many are malformed! What can you do? The malformation is there and it requires an act of power on the part of God to change it, and God is not always pleased to do that.
FB If love were more in evidence there would be more for God.
JT I would think so. The great matter now is to decide how to meet the situation which has arisen on account of lawlessness having come in. We are on the border of the apostasy and the position is a most difficult one, and yet there is a way out. I believe God is dealing in His governmental ways, His sovereign ways, to modify conditions so that our way is not entirely shut up. We can go almost anywhere today and break bread and minister freely, which is a great comfort. God has done that [p. 101] for us, and has used men so that the brethren are free to go on in His service.
Ques In regard of the point raised about persons not being gained, would the thought be that we are constantly to be in the spirit of the bondman and prepared to serve at any time as opportunity offers?
JT The priest is there, which is a point of great encouragement. Numbers is not the priestly book, nor is Deuteronomy; Leviticus is the priestly book, and the priest is always there, showing that God has means of carrying on for He has the priest. You can always find the priest.
Ques The man in Luke 10 is spoken of as being half dead, and is that not the kind of case that tests us most? The official priest passed by in Luke 10, but if the man had been dead he would perhaps have known what to do.
JT I think the true priest, one who could meet a half dead case, is contemplated in Romans 7, and he himself had to reach that point. It was a matter of coming to it in his own soul and no doubt Paul reached it. “I myself with the mind serve God’s law” (verse 25); it is with the mind. If we were to tax our minds more, our pure minds which are contemplated in Romans 12, we might find solutions to some local difficulties, so that, instead of depending on brethren a long distance away, we could look around in the local meeting or the nearby meetings, to get the nearest man and see what he can do. Hence it says, “Ye who are spiritual” (Galatians 6: 1), they are really priests. A word of wisdom would perhaps be the solution of the difficulty, and get to the source of the trouble.
JOS The word in the prophecy of Haggai is, “Ask now the priests concerning the law”, (Haggai 2:11).
JT Just so; and in Malachi also we have, “for the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and at his mouth they seek the law”, Malachi 2:7. That is seen in Aaron.
CH In matters of difficulty we find often that the priestly feelings that do exist are inarticulate. Is that not where a priest like Aaron would come in helpfully?
JT Quite. It says he can speak well. We find illustrations of that throughout Scripture, and I believe 1 Corinthians 13 is the solution, for love never fails.
RMcG What would be the particular point in what it says, “He can speak well”?
JT Because it was what was needed then. It would seem as if Aaron had prayed to God. Moses does not allude to him earlier, but Jehovah knew him. How did He know him? Speaking reverently, God had heard him say something to Himself.
Ques The thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians to which you referred makes much of love, and that chapter follows the reference to the gifts set in the assembly. Are the gifts to be exercised in the priestly way of which you spoke?
JT Yes, we have helps and governments referred to in chapter 12. “Governments” are more defined, but “helps” are indefinite, but still the word is noticeable. Love would go all the way in the exercise of these gifts.
Ques Would the much detail in connection with the priestly service associated with the restoration of the leper show how essential love is?
JT What a lesson there is in all that! It speaks of the leper standing outside his tent door and the number of days he had to do it and all the other details there are. It is, I believe, to show the skill of love. It is important not to bulk things together, but to do them one by one, and we see that in all the detail connected with the case of the leper.
[p. 103] CH It is encouraging to see that in the case of the leper the thing goes on to completion, for the man as cleansed is eventually anointed and thus able to take up things himself.
GHP The word in the prophet Malachi is striking, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge”. We might have thought it should say, “speak knowledge”. Are difficulties sometimes prolonged by wrong speaking and the inability on the part of some to keep things?
JT And then “at his mouth they seek the law”; the thought of the mouth is beautiful. One has often thought that it is God’s masterpiece in human creation. Mark makes much of the power of speech. The Lord groaned when He beheld the man who was defective in his speech; in Mark 7 we read, “And looking up to heaven he groaned, and says to him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. And immediately his ears were opened, and the band of his tongue was loosed and he spoke right”. The man there could henceforth act like the daughters of Zelophehad, of the tribe of the sons of Joseph, who spoke right. It is not simply that we can enunciate our words, but that we can speak right morally.
RMcG Do the friends of Job represent the official side which is often found lacking?
JT I think they had themselves in mind, and how great their fathers were, and so forth, whereas Elihu had none of that. He was a man full of matter received from God, but he waited for his elders to speak. I believe the book of Job brings out the system which we are now in, and the priestly service is in mind in the way he deals with those who had been unbrotherly to him. Then God blesses him. I am sure that is how things would go. God is blessing those who are abiding by the truth.
SM We are told that the daughters of Zelophehad “speak right” and here it says that Aaron “can speak well”. Have you anything further to remark about that?
JT “Who hath made man’s mouth?” Jehovah said. He knew all about Aaron and says, “I know that he can speak well”, and that was not simply because He had made his mouth, but He had heard him speak.
JM Have we special help now in speaking, the Holy Spirit having come? I was thinking of 1 Corinthians 2: 13, “Words ... taught by the Spirit”.
JT That is just what I was thinking. Christianity depends on the Spirit, but it depends also on the saints, and the Lord made a point of that, when He said, “I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever”, John 14: 16. The word Comforter is to be noted. It is a Comforter down here because Christ is up there. That is how the system is set up and that is how it continues and will continue. The Spirit is to stay until the divine will is fulfilled and then the saints will go up, for the Lord is coming for them. The Spirit does not take us up, the Lord is coming Himself, which is a beautiful touch. He comes for us and we join Him up there and so we shall be for ever with the Lord. The system is complete as to its present effectiveness and another system will be taken on presently, but the system of Christianity is the most perfect of all, the longest and the most resultful. Every member of the assembly is to come into it.
SB So that whilst we have the help of the Spirit, we have to fit ourselves into these things. It says of the Spirit, “He shall teach you all things, and will bring to your remembrance all the things which I have said to you”.
JT It shows how the system is perfected here. Colossians tells about the perfecting of every man.
[p. 105] That is what the apostle had in mind and it is what is in mind now; the thought is great and we should be industrious in order to fill our part in it.
SG Is what you are calling attention to seen in Peter and John in Acts 3? Peter said to the lame man, “Look on us”, and further, “What I have, this give I to thee”.
JT Quite so. So Exodus 28 is the great priestly chapter and we have not finished it until we have the sons. The sons are touched on from the very beginning, but Aaron is in view almost throughout. The sons are seen as having caps, which means intelligence, and then the breeches or trousers both for Aaron himself and for the sons. So that there is the power of truth working out in holiness. I believe that is the idea in the clothing. The first part of the clothing is wonderful. It is the unfolding of wonderful things of which we should never tire. The present is a young men’s time and a young women’s time. Holiness and sobriety are so much needed in order that the priestly service should go on. Youths are used in chapter 24, but in chapter 28 it is Aaron’s sons. The dignified thought is the sons of Aaron and they are to serve with their father, but the clothing is remarkable because it tends to produce sobriety and holiness in our service.