BROOKLYN, N.Y., APRIL 28TH, 1942

BROOKLYN, N.Y., APRIL 28TH, 1942

Beloved Brother, — I followed all you wrote as to joys and sorrows. I have no doubt that by this time some of the latter have been turned into joy. My prayers have gone up and still go up, and just now more particularly, as bombings, I see, are resumed. We are distressed by the attack on Bath. We think of the dear brethren and those nearby. But I doubt that they can be continued on a large scale. The comfort we have had here because of the respite that God had mercifully granted is disturbed, but as I said, our prayers go up. So far, we have been unmolested, but we have a sense of restfulness under God.

I am quite interested in your further remarks as to priesthood. What you say as to Hebrews 2: 12; Hebrews 5: 1; Hebrews 8: 3 and Hebrews 10: 19, seems good. The subject of priesthood begins in chapter 2: 17, and there Christ as High Priest is said to make propitiation for the sins of the people, as well as to help those who are tempted. Chapter 9 says, He came “by the better and more perfect tabernacle”. This as the note in J.N.D. shows, would characterise His coming into manhood. He came in relation to the heavenly tabernacle, and hence morally, at least, His priesthood was there, and the passage goes on to say that He entered by His own blood into the holy of holies. This follows chapter 8: 3, where it is said, “this one” — High Priest — should have something to offer.

^[p. 263] The work of Christ on the cross could only be by a divine Person, involving more than priesthood, and hence, the comparatively few verbal references to priesthood in the types of the work of atonement, for the Spirit would keep the Victim’s Person in view, rather than an official title. But still essential priesthood was present. Aaron was anointed, as priest, before the victim was slain, also with his sons after.

There was no mention of priesthood in the institution of the passover, although priests are spoken of in Exodus 19: 6, 24; but it has a great place in Leviticus; the tabernacle being set up, and Aaron slays and offers in chapter 9. The same is seen in chapter 16. Although he is not called priest in doing the work, yet in chapter 16, the linen garments show that priesthood was recognised as present.

J.N.D.’s remarks in the Collected Writings, Volume 15, which you sent to me in 1938, also as to Numbers 19 in the Synopsis, are remarkable; and I take them as they are, in the abstract, noting that he was, in the former, refuting error, but what I have said above has to be kept in view. In general, the offerer slays the offering, but the priest — Leviticus 1, etc. — makes all effective before God. In the case of the pigeon, the priest pinches off its head — kills it. The small stature of the offerer, I suppose, accounts for this. That Christ could not be a priest on earth legally, while the Jewish system stood, is clear, but He had come in relation to the heavenly system, which was, in principle, present in Him as anointed, and particularly so as associated with his disciples. Both ran together until the legal system was destroyed.

Love in Christ to you all,
James Taylor.