THE FAMILY OF GOD IN RELATION TO THE SERVICE OF GOD

^[p. 276] THE FAMILY OF GOD IN RELATION TO THE SERVICE OF GOD

Exodus 3:12; Exodus 3:4:22,23; Exodus 3:28:1-4

JT I thought that in looking at these scriptures we might see the relation which the family of God bears to the service of God. Genesis, I understand, speaking generally, presents the idea of the family; then Exodus takes up and develops the thought in connection with the service of God in the priesthood. Priesthood is connected with a certain family — Levi (chapter 6). Genesis would, therefore, bear the same relation to Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers that John’s gospel would bear to Paul’s ministry. John finishes his gospel in chapter 20, presenting the brethren as receiving the Spirit in the form of the breath of Christ risen; “He breathed into them, and says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20: 22). Thus we have a company — the family of God — introduced in which He develops His service. John does not give us the service of God in a formal way, Paul does that.

DLH Does not John suggest it in chapter 20?

JT I think he brings in the foundation of it in the brethren being recognised as such by the Lord — the ascending One, and in His breathing into them.

DLH “As the Father sent me forth, I also send you” (verse 21).

JT Quite. It does not go beyond that, save that as thus constituted they are entrusted with the remission and retention of sins. But I think the outstanding feature is that they are recognised formally as the Lord’s brethren and as receiving of His Spirit; “my brethren” corresponding to the sons of Aaron.

DLH Then is your ^[p. 277] thought that the family relationship underlies the thought of service and priesthood?

JT That is what I thought. If the service of God be taken up apart from the family relationship, we shall have a hard legal system, more or less perhaps governed by the word of God, but without the substance, without the affections underlying it, that suggest what God is. Christendom, I think, presents that — a service, ostensibly the service of God — without any idea of the family: men are not developed to be ministers apart from the family relationship. In Exodus we find that the great family development of Genesis is carried over under the paternal care of Joseph; he cherishes in a paternal way the thought of the family. So Exodus opens with the attempt of the enemy, seeing evidently what God had in His mind, to destroy that family in the males; but they were kept alive in the sovereignty of God. In Exodus 6 the Spirit of God chronicles the family of Jacob as far as Levi; they are all given earlier (Exodus 1), but the Holy Spirit returns to the family in chapter 6 and gives us the list until we come to Levi, then He stops there because, as is evident, He has in mind the ministerial side of priesthood, which is developed from the house of Levi; the ministers, the priests spring from the house of Levi. The family thought, therefore, ends up with Levi — with the priests in Exodus 6, so the passage closes with, “This is that Moses and Aaron” (verse 27), and you get no more, for that is what God has in His mind in these books. God had previously said to Moses, “this shall be the sign to thee that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain” (Exodus 3: 12) — -that is, at Horeb; it was there that the service of God was opened up and developed, and where He established the priesthood. But you will observe that before the thought of priesthood is developed, the Spirit of ^[p. 278] God speaks of Israel as a son because, whilst the priesthood is developed from the family, it is really based on sonship (see Exodus 4: 22, 23). Hence He says, “Israel is my son, my firstborn ... . Let my son go, that he may serve me”. In moving about in different places one finds sometimes the family thought taken up apart from what is priestly, and then again we may see the priesthood assumed without any idea of the family affections underlying it. God would have us take in both ideas in connection with His service.

Ques Have you any thought why Aaron comes first, in Exodus 6:26, “This is that Aaron and Moses”, and then, in verse 27, “this is that Moses and Aaron”?

JT Just because the priesthood is in view. Moses is essential in the setting up of the system, but the service has to be continued in Aaron — in the priesthood.

Ques Do you mean the sons were priests and we must know that relationship?

JT Yes, we must know the relationship of sons, and Hebrews shows that priesthood is based on sonship. “The word of the swearing of the oath ... a Son perfected for ever” (Hebrews 7: 28).

EJMcB So that priesthood according to God is only carried out in the conscious sense of relationship.

JT If we have only the family idea it might tend to undue looseness, whereas the priests were charged with the law. The priests’ lips keep knowledge, so that there is a balance preserved in which the service of God is maintained — the affection that belongs to the family on the one hand, and the requirements of the law on the other hand. The law would include whatever governs the house of God. The priesthood would be concerned about the light which governed the position.

Rem You refer to holiness, I ^[p. 279] suppose.

JT Well, whatever governs the house of God — as, for instance, 1st and 2nd Corinthians; the priest is concerned about that, there must be nothing of the law omitted; the “commandment of the Lord” must have full place.

DLH Then your remarks, as I understand, have reference to the whole christian company in its priestly character. You are not thinking merely of those engaged in the Lord’s service.

JT Not at all, for the priesthood applies to every member of the family. Every member of the family has his part in it. Peter, in his epistle, speaks of christians as new-born babes, those born of the incorruptible word of God; then he enjoins such to give up certain things and to desire earnestly the sincere milk of the word; they have their part in the family of God. But then they are to grow up to salvation, which is what the priests were clothed with according to Psalm 132: 16 — “I will clothe her priests with salvation”. Then he says, “To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2: 4, 5). Now, that includes every believer, but obviously the little ones require family attention first, those who take up the function of priesthood would be the sons — those grown up to manhood — those who have developed.

Ques In speaking of the little ones there, are you referring to the new-born babes?

JT I was speaking in a more general way. John divides the family under three heads, the little children — the babes, the young men, and the fathers. They are all in the family, and they are all priests, but you can understand that the question of growth enters into the exercise of priestly functions. Whilst the types speak of Aaron’s house, and even his ^[p. 280] daughters are mentioned, yet the priestly service belongs to his sons, whose names are given. Nevertheless the daughters had part in the priestly family, for they all belonged to the house of Aaron.

GN When you speak of the service of God in connection with priesthood, how do you connect it with sonship?

JT The epistle to Hebrews bases it on sonship.

DLH You must be a son to be a priest.

GN But in the actual service, the priest comes first, does he not? Take christianity, does not the priest come before we enter into what stands connected with sonship?

JT Yes, but you are a son before you are a priest, for Galatians shows that all believers are sons. “Ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 26). It is taken up in an objective way, we are marked out “that we might receive sonship” (Galatians 4: 5).

Ques Are the two thoughts involved in the declaration in John 20: 17, “my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”?

JT Yes, I think that is good. “My Father” would involve the family and is an eternal thought; sonship is an eternal thought; and “my God”, the priesthood — we are priests unto God.

NL Is the beginning that we are akin to Christ?

JT That is right. The relationship, I think, is seen in the breathing in John 20 — the intimate relationship in which we stand to Christ.

NL “All of one” it says in Hebrews 2.

JT Quite; priesthood is a matter of very wide bearing, for it covers the whole of christendom at the present time, although, alas! many do not see that the service of God is connected with the family, nor that the family is seen in relation to the service.

Ques Will you say a little more about the breathing, for in John 20 it looks as though ^[p. 281] the breathing is in view of their going into service — manward perhaps.

JT No doubt, and that was part of the priest’s office — his lips were to keep knowledge, they were to hear the law at his mouth; Malachi 2: 7. One great feature of priestly service is grace; not only is it established for things relating to God, but the priest was to exercise compassion on the erring and ignorant; so John begins with remission: “whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20: 23). We have the mandate connected with the assembly at the present time; the mandate to remit is a precious commission of Christ. In Psalm 133 the relationship of brethren dwelling together in unity is likened to the precious oil on the head — there is correspondence in the brethren with their Head. It flowed down upon his beard, and went down to the skirts of his garments. It suggests that the saints seen in the relationship of brethren dwelling together in unity, are qualified by the anointing to take up the service of God; God, as it were, commits it to them, and hence in the next psalm you have priests standing by night in the house of the Lord. They are standing; the idea of brethren is that you sit down and enjoy family relationships, but a priest is under a charge, and he stands and according to Psalm 134: 1 “by night;” he has no easy time of it. He is prepared to sacrifice his bodily ease in view of the service of God.

Rem So that what follows in John 20 is the charge.

JT Exactly. Then in the book of Psalms, following on the Songs of Degrees, you find an increased and continuous outflow of worship to God. Every family is called up to praise God; and at the end of the book the whole creation is called upon to praise Jehovah. That is the principle, that is the order ^[p. 282] of God.

DLH Is there not a connection between the thought of the family and the service in what the Lord said, “As the Father sent me forth, I also send you”? (John 20: 21).

JT Yes. The Son is at the Father’s bidding; He delights to serve His Father. There is a very beautiful family link there. You are sent out in the consciousness of the relationship you enjoy within — the relationship in which you stand to God and to Christ — the family link; but when you look out on the world where you have to carry on your service, it is not then a question of family feeling, but of priestly feeling. In every place you exercise priestly vigilance, for in maintaining the service of God in a corrupt world you have to do with evil, hence the necessity for priestly watchfulness. In the early chapters of Exodus you get the service of God connected with the thought of sonship. “Let my son go”. Then in chapters 28 and 29 you get the instructions which are to govern the priests so that they should be fully qualified; first you get much detail as to their dress, then their separation or consecration by the death of Christ, and then their service. The service is most onerous, and unless we see that and provide against it, we shall be unable to maintain the service of God in the midst of a corrupt world.

Ques Would the family links maintain our souls in divine balance and the priestly links hold our minds in going forth?

JT Yes. The evil we have to contend with requires the greatest vigilance, and the only power than can meet that is the Holy Spirit; so the Lord says, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. It is not merely the family enjoyment, but the element of holiness is ^[p. 283] needed.

DLH Priesthood in the Old Testament had a special class in view; now the application is to the whole christian company.

Ques But God’s original thought was that the whole nation might be priestly; why the difference?

JT That was His thought, but in order to develop it He takes up the family of Aaron, because He has the family in mind. He would take up a special family to show that the thing hinged on the family, not on the nation. Priesthood is not really a national thought; it is a family thought, it develops out of the family. It is most important to see, as has just been remarked, that priesthood applies now to the whole christian company.

Ques Does Peter pursue the thought in his epistle?

JT I think he does, but he develops the thought of priesthood in connection with the kingdom. Peter deals with the government of God, but he brings in the saints as a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, and then as a kingly priesthood, to “set forth the excellencies of him who has called you out of darkness to his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2: 9) — we are in the light.

Ques When he says “obedient children” has he the family thought before him?

JT Quite. “Be ye holy, for I am holy. And if invoke as Father him who, without regard of persons, judges according to the work of each, pass your time of sojourn in fear” (1 Peter 1: 15 - 17). Then he goes on to the thought of their being born again by the word of God, of their being clothed with salvation, and as living stones of their being built up a spiritual house, and then he brings in the thought of the priesthood; all was in view of priesthood, and Peter develops the subject in relation to the kingdom — the government of God.

PW Is not the first thought connected with priesthood a moral thought? “I will hallow Aaron and his sons, that they may serve me as priests” (Exodus 29: 44). That was the first mention of it, before priesthood was instituted.

JT I am quite sure it is.

Ques Would you say that in the vast extent of christendom they are not in the good of priesthood today?

JT Well, we do not want to say much on those lines lest it might appear that we are assuming to be that.

Rem I was thinking of Levi.

JT Yes, the family of Levi was chosen of God. He said “thou shalt separate the Levites ... that the Levites may be mine” (Numbers 8: 14). What the Songs of Degrees, which end in Psalm 134, show in result is “brethren;” that thought is developed in these psalms. That is the first thing, and then following on that the priesthood — not people claiming it, but being it. The priests stand by night in the house of Jehovah; they sacrifice their ease that they may serve God, they give up natural comforts so that the service of God may be maintained in spite of prevailing darkness.

GN Would you say that from the purpose side we are all viewed as belonging to the priesthood, but when it comes to actual service, we have to prove our genealogy?

JT Just so. Then we must have priests’ clothes and there are only certain clothes befitting the priests of Jehovah. If you desire to see the priests, you must look for those who by night stand in the house of Jehovah. These are the ones you want to look for. In the recovery, Nehemiah had so many priests’ garments, showing there was provision then for a certain number.

Rem The outlook is universal in Psalm 134.

JT Quite. If you look through the psalms from ^[p. 285] 133 onwards, you will see what the service of God yields to Jehovah. Much accrues to God from the service of the priesthood. So in Psalm 135 the psalmist calls upon the house of Israel to bless Jehovah; he calls upon the house of Aaron to bless Jehovah; and he calls upon the house of Levi to bless Jehovah. That is the result of priesthood rightly exercised. He is concerned for God now, and he wants every one to bless Jehovah; that is what we are called to. We may know certain who are brethren and who have the Spirit, and whose privilege it is to draw near and to bless God, but people require a lead. One of the greatest things in Scripture is the principle of leading, of giving a lead, and it always means, I think, that you go forward and suffer; we have to be prepared to suffer in the service of God. The great leaders were the apostles, and Paul says, “God has set us the apostles for the last, as appointed to death” (1 Corinthians 4: 9). That is the thing — God has done it; He has set them in the position in the field where they are exposed, and they accept it. If you stand by night in the house of Jehovah to bless Jehovah, you give people a lead — you show that you have Jehovah before you, and you are prepared to suffer to maintain His service.

Ques Is it that the conscious sense of the family relationship is sustained during night?

JT That is what underlies it. You know your eternal place is fixed. The priesthood is a provisional thought, sonship is an eternal thought, and hence the prominence of it in Genesis. But priesthood is a question of maintaining the service of God now whilst evil remains. The thought of priesthood will drop, when there will be no evil to contend against; the service will go on no doubt, but we need the priestly conditions and garments now, because evil is present.

Ques What about John 13, does the Lord give the lead ^[p. 286] there?

JT He certainly does. That is one of the instances in which you get a lead.

GN Will you say a little more as to the force of “by night” in its application to the present moment?

JT It is that you are energetic and prepared to suffer — to suffer the loss of natural comfort and ease. You will remember that Eli, the priest, sat upon the seat by the doorpost of the temple of Jehovah; he was not standing — he sat there, and it appears he slept in the temple, too. Samuel does, too, for that matter; instead of keeping the charge of Jehovah by night in His house, they went to bed there. We read, too, the lamp of God had not yet gone out, suggesting that the light was not being attended to. Eli lived to be an old man; he was fat and heavy and in the end he fell backwards from off the seat and his neck broke. A priest should not develop fatness nor heaviness; he should not be sitting by a doorpost of the house of God, he should be standing; there were no seats provided in the tabernacle; the idea is continual service for God; it goes on all the time. It says, “Samuel among them that call upon his name”.

NL David says, “I will not give sleep to mine eyes, slumber to mine eyelids, Until I find out a place for Jehovah” (Psalm 132: 4, 5).

JT Yes, then it goes on, “Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness” (verse 9). He would have the priests according to God.

NL Is not the education of the Songs of Degrees that we need to develop feelings and instincts that are according to Christ in regard to service manward? We do not feel enough.

JT I am sure that is right. In the first song he says, “Woe is me, that I sojourn in Meshech ... My soul hath long dwelt with them that hate peace. I am for peace; but ... they are for war” (Psalm 120: 5 - 7). Then in the next psalm he lifts up his eyes to the hills and ^[p. 287] his help comes from Jehovah. Then in the third song he speaks of his brethren and his companions; he had an outlook for all of them, and desires peace for them and would have them in Jerusalem.

Ques Are there enough garments for such?

JT Well, I think the few that Nehemiah had is very suggestive. He did not expect a great many priests, but he had the garments — that was the thing. He gave five hundred and thirty. I am afraid we are lacking in the garments; the rest of the people gave three score and seven, which shows that the people were in accord.

Ques In Psalm 132, two things are spoken of in regard of the priests’ clothing — clothing with righteousness and clothing with salvation; then that the people shouted aloud for joy. What is the thought there?

JT It was very becoming that David should ask that the priests should be clothed with righteousness so that the saints should shout for joy. Anyone who understands the first book of Chronicles will see the bearing of this, for David intended the state of things at Jerusalem to be marked by priestly joy; but, before you can have that, you must have the righteousness. In connection with the ark being brought back according to the due order, the service of song was instituted. If you pretend to the joy without the righteousness, it is very poor — “let thy saints shout for joy”. Then God says, “I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her saints shall shout aloud for joy”.

DLH In the latter case it is “shout aloud;” it looks as if God goes, as we may say, one better — He advances. Salvation is a little further on in a sense than righteousness.

Ques Are the garments wrought out individually?

JT I suppose so. If you look at Exodus 28 you will see what we require in the way of garments, and ^[p. 288] the breastplate is the first thing — love is the first feature.

Ques How might we get a garment if we lack one?

JT We have to learn everything from Christ, for priesthood comes out in Christ and John 13: 1 shows what the breastplate means — Jesus “having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end”. The first mark of priesthood is that I know and love the saints, and I am prepared to sacrifice myself to serve them. A priest is entirely free from the world; he is not held by any worldly consideration; he is free, too, of Satan and his power.

Ques Will you say a little as to the material for the priests’ garments?

JT All the material for the tabernacle system really came from the people of God. It was a free-will offering. The material for the garments is wrought as the saints come to love God by the Spirit. It comes from God, of course, but it comes through the affections of the saints. It is a heave-offering, meaning that the saints, having come to love God, provide in a spiritual way all that is necessary for the service of God; but then, the pattern is ever to be before us; whatever you are making, it must be according to the pattern, and the pattern is Christ.

Rem Chronicles speaks of a family who wrought in byssus — the family of Ashbea; 1 Chronicles 4: 21. I was thinking such would make priests’ garments.

JT There were inner and outer garments for the priests. The inner garments were of linen. Those who work in fine linen are those who provide what would keep the saints sober: one of the greatest difficulties amongst us is the want of sobriety. We cannot have priesthood without sobriety, and we cannot be sober apart from the priestly linen garments; we are so apt to allow natural feeling and family considerations to influence us. The priest ^[p. 289] was not to wear woollen garments; he was to wear linen garments next his body, because he was to be preserved in sobriety. It is not priestly to think more of your sister or your brother or your father or your son than of the saints, that is, as in the assembly (see Leviticus 10). The priest, as in the sanctuary, is neither to drink wine nor to wear woollen garments; Leviticus 10: 9; Ezekiel 44: 17.

Rem Mark speaks of the Lord’s raiment in the transfiguration being exceeding white as snow, and he refers also to a young man clothed in a white robe at the sepulchre: is that a similar thought?

JT White suggests purity, but linen suggests sobriety. We are told to “be sober and hope to the end”. To stand by night in the house of the Lord requires that.

PW In Exodus 35, it is the principal men who contribute the onyx stones for the breastplate: I suppose they would represent those who have got most hold of the love of God; they gave also the stones for the ephod.

Ques In the enumeration of the items, the breast-plate comes first; but in the details of construction, the shoulder pieces come first: why is that?

JT I do not know, but I am sure the breastplate is the greatest feature of priestly clothing, because it bore the names of the tribes of Israel. They were engraved there in precious stones; it is a question of the saints known in their intrinsic value. Then the shoulder pieces come next, and the saints are all there, for the names of the twelve tribes were engraven on those stones too; they are in two groups. In the shoulder pieces we have the thought of His power. The first sets forth the love of Christ, seen in His intimate knowledge of the saints; every name is there, and every one is the subject of His love; and the second is the support that goes with the love ^[p. 290] of Christ. We can reckon on both — on His love and on His power.

DLH ‘His love is as great as His power, and knows neither measure nor end’.

JT It is very interesting to see how the family thought is developed in Genesis. It is not spoken of as the family of God exactly, but the household thought is greatly emphasised there. Abraham is called out of his father’s house to become the head and father of a family for God. Jacob, too, at the close blesses his sons as their father: “listen to Israel your father”. Now it was not simply that he was their literal father, but he was representative of God. No father today could speak to his children in the same way, for these patriarchs were representative of God. Jacob was representative of God; he could only bless Pharaoh in that sense. He blesses his sons as their father. The family in that way is secured in blessing because, although there is much to deplore, which Jacob faithfully points out, nevertheless he blesses every one of them. They were blessed of God in a paternal way, Jacob being representative of God; the blessing is secured in the father — it is there in the father.

Ques Is that why you get the “sons of Israel” mentioned in the first verse in Exodus?

JT In Genesis 50: 21 they came under Joseph’s care; that is, the family is under the care of Christ, and the opening verses in Exodus give us the family — the list of names of the sons of Israel; each of them comes with his household. Genesis 46 gives us the full list of the seventy souls that came to Egypt, sons of Israel. The sons of Israel carried Jacob their father. That shows that the family is restored; it is a question of the faithfulness of God; every son is there. Jacob sacrificed we read (chapter 46) to the God of his father Isaac, indicating that he was in the light of Christ risen, and that every thought of ^[p. 291] God is secured in Christ risen. Then you get the list of the names of Jacob’s children, and every one is given, because the whole family is in mind; the wives and children are secured, too. Later they are blessed by their father Jacob, then they come under the care of Joseph, and their number is given in the first few verses in Exodus, but they are “sons of Israel” there. Then Joseph dies and another king arose who knew not Joseph, and that family is attacked. The enemy seeks to obliterate the family; the attack has succeeded in christendom, for they have lost the light of the family, it is not known, and yet there is an attempt to carry on the service without it. But as I said, Joseph dies, and then the family is attacked, but God comes in to secure His thought in the priestly family.

Ques Is that why the Lord in John’s gospel takes up the attitude of a Father to His disciples? He is concerned that the family should be preserved.

JT Quite. The gospel of John opens with the divine thought of the family of God — that as many as received Christ “to them gave he the right to be children of God” (John 1: 12). The family is secured in spite of the attack, for the purpose of God cannot fail. I believe that what God has done for His people at the present time is to bring them back to the divine thought of the family, and, unless we come to that, we shall drift into a hard legal system.

HD'AC So the Lord says in John 20: 21, “As the Father sent me forth, I also send you”. The Lord Jesus was here in the full sense of His relationship with the Father, and He served as none other ever served God.

JT Quite. I thought in that word, “as the Father sent me”, you get the whole thing. The Lord Jesus served as no one ever served — the link with the Father was never broken, He was always in His holy presence, and serving as no one ^[p. 292] could serve, except in that way. It was the Son in service, so that the sanctuary was always there — it was there in Him — He was the sanctuary. “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father” (John 1: 14).

ER Is it not important to remember that the Lord said to the disciples the second time, “Peace be unto you”? They had the value of all that in their service, so that they themselves were undisturbed.

RS Would you say a word as to the bearing of the Melchisedec priesthood? Why it is set down in Genesis?

JT I think to bring out the thought of divine resource as connected with priesthood. He brings forth bread and wine — divine resource. Melchisedec is not said to have had sons, he himself is the prominent thought. It is a question of the personal dignity of Christ as representing divine resource; he was king and priest. Nimrod represents the power of man’s kingdom; Melchisedec represents God’s kingdom. I think it is important to keep before us that God would be served; we can see what was in the mind of God when He said to Moses, “this shall be the sign to thee ... ye shall serve God upon this mountain” (Exodus 3: 12). God would have His service, but He would have it there. It is all under His own control. It is not as men might wish, but what He determines. But then if they are to serve Him it is as sons, “Let my son go, that he may serve me;” and then finally, if the son is to serve, he is to serve as a priest. I think that is the order: where they are to serve; in what family relationship they are to serve — as sons, and in what official status they are to serve — as anointed priests. All that is of divine determination; man is shut out altogether, it is a question of what God orders and provides.

Ques. Why ^[p. 293] Horeb?

JT That was where the burning bush was; it was there God revealed Himself to Moses. It has often been remarked that the approach must be in accord with the revelation, so that Moses and Aaron are brothers; the revelation was made to Moses, but in regard of service, Aaron comes first; in fact he is the elder of the two; he is called “the Levite” — “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?” God says to Moses. There was something behind that; it showed the great place priesthood and the service of God had in the mind of God.

Rem God says, “I know that he can speak well”.

JT Yes. Aaron could speak. It is a great thing to know how to speak to God. “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and at his mouth they seek the law” (Malachi 2: 7).

Ques We have always connected priesthood with speaking to God, but say a little more about the other side — about going out into the world in priestly service.

JT The words of grace that came out of the Lord’s mouth were wondered at; Luke 4: 17. “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge”. The law was under his custody, and in administering it he was to be compassionate, he was to be gracious, and I think that was what marked the Lord in the gospel of Luke. We have to look at Christ to see the perfect carrying out of the priestly functions. He was compassionate in His service — it was priestly service, holy service — and the law was fully maintained in its holiness.

Rem We should have thought that was levitical.

JT It may be, but it is treated as priestly service in Malachi.

Ques Why there particularly?

JT I think because Israel had failed so completely, and the secret was that priesthood was given up. “And now, ye priests, this commandment is for you” (Malachi 2: 1), Jehovah said: then He calls attention to ^[p. 294] Levi — what Levi had been, what he had been with God, he was faithful — “The law of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips” (verse 6). So God’s covenant was with him, so that it was for them to conform to the original thought of God as seen in Levi. We have only to read Malachi to see how far away they had gone from the divine thought, but the return was to be to that. In Deuteronomy the two things are put together — “the priests the Levites”.