CHRIST PRESENTED AS A DIFFERENT PRIEST

Hebrews 7: 11–16; 1 Peter 2: 4, 5; 1 Corinthians 2: 14, 15; 14: 37; Galatians 6; 1

DAB I read these scriptures to set on an enquiry about the way that priesthood is presented in the New Testament. It might be worth noting first where it is presented. There are several similar references, of which the scripture in Peter is one, which are not developed.

The only part of the New Testament in which the idea is developed is the epistle to the Hebrews, where it relates entirely to the office that Christ fills rather than any development of the priesthood of believers. However it is one of the main themes of this letter, and fits very much with the central message, which draws the reader’s attention to the present glory of Christ. For the Jewish reader, it shows that all the offices he had been familiar with from the Old Testament are now vested in one glorious Man. He is heir of all things. As John says in his gospel, the Father loves the Son and has given all things to be in His hand. That includes every office, of which priesthood is one. I confess to the young people here that when I was young myself I used to find Hebrews very difficult. It must be forty years ago that I sat in a Sunday afternoon reading on chapter 5, and the only thing I really got was that the things were hard to be interpreted. It all seemed to be a complete mystery to me; very difficult teaching about a man with a very long name. I remember coming back two weeks later to a reading on chapter 7 and thinking we were having the very same reading all over again, and it certainly was not more abundantly evident! What has enlightened these chapters in Hebrews for me is the two references we have read to “a different priest”, and I wondered if we might focus our enquiry on that expression.

It shows us first of all that, if we look at the Old Testament teaching about priesthood, we have to remember that priesthood is different now. That relates to the transfer of the office to Christ glorified, which is a position that no Old Testament priest could ever fill. The teaching is developed here that, along with the change in the priesthood, there is a change of law, that is the covenant is changed. The whole basis on which God is in relation to His people is different, and new, and the whole reason for that is that Christ is glorified. That seems to me a very wonderful thing that I would be glad to hear what others have to say about. The whole basis of our relationship with God, and His with us, is found in the place that a Man is filling in the presence of God, and everything takes its character from that. I read the other scriptures to take up what is often said among us, that priesthood in the Old Testament corresponds to spirituality in the new; and the scripture in Peter perhaps serves to prove that. It must be remembered in making that comparison, that the priesthood now is different. One important difference is that priesthood is an office and spirituality is a matter of character derived from the One in whom the office is now vested; spiritual character is derived from the Man that God has been pleased to glorify in His presence. But I wondered if these references to spirituality, which I think are the only three of their kind in the New Testament, might give us some insight into what spiritual character is.

Firstly in 1 Corinthians 2, we have the capacity to discern spiritual and eternal things. It will be immediately noticed that that is not a feature of the Old Testament priest. He had the gift of discernment, but not I think as to spiritual and eternal things. In chapter 14 we have the idea of obedience and subjection, which is a spiritual feature that was found in Christ, but now is manifested in subjection to Him, and to His word. In Galatians we have another gift beyond anything that the Aaronic priesthood had, the power to restore, which is also a feature of spirituality. And finally, I look forward to what the brethren have to say about the spirit of meekness. It is something that has arrested me, partly because I am not marked by it. The power of the spirit of meekness, as it is presented in Scripture, seems a wonderful thing which may be at the very heart of spiritual character. Would that be helpful do you think?

JS The connection between persons being spiritual and priesthood is because the Holy Spirit has been given from Christ glorified, and that is basic to this thought of priesthood in connection with Him. He could not have been a priest officially while He was on earth, but now in His glorified position in heaven He is a priest after a new order, a different order.

DAB That is why I suggested we take the matter up in this order, because I think we need to approach other scriptures with some fresh impression of Him. I look to the brethren to supply that, an impression of what Christ glorified means to them, the One in whom God has been pleased to vest everything. But then, He is presented as the source, the fount, of spiritual character. As you say, the Spirit has come from Christ glorified to impart that character where He is given liberty.

JS So that it is encouraging for us that the One who is in this office of priest, as glorified, is fully qualified to fill it out.

DAB Yes, even though the whole character of it is changed because of the character He brings to it. Hebrews 7: 8 refers, for example, to dying men acting as priests, and then refers to a Man “of whom the witness is that he lives”, and He lives in glory. This provides the basis for a fundamental change in the way in which God now deals with man and with His people.

MGW So, when we consider that this is different, we are remembering affectionately, are we, that His credentials were impeccable?

DAB That is developed at the end of chapter 4. First of all we have His exaltation, a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, but then a High Priest not unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted in all things in like manner. The features of spiritual character that come out in believers are suited to the scene of testimony in which He has been, nevertheless they derive from Him where He is.

RT So has not the Lord Jesus brought deity into priesthood, and that was never before?

DAB You had better say more about that.

RT There was weakness because of the character of the person, but the Lord Jesus has brought all that He is in His Person, a divine Person, into the office, and thus glorified it.

DAB I am glad you say that, and it would explain the emphasis in chapter 4: 14 on His having passed through the heavens. He had the right to do that. It is touching the way that priesthood is as it were defined here—He serves for man in things relating to God. The direction of that service is to sustain man in his place before God, and spiritual character has the same emphasis.

JCG There is no interruption in His service, but He has an access in that service that no one ever had.

DAB Everything has to change if that transfer is made, and I think that is important. We tend perhaps to burrow back into the Old Testament for our impressions of priesthood. What you say about it demonstrates how it must be different, and have a character that it never could have before.

JCG Bearing on that it says earlier in chapter 7, “having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but assimilated to the Son of God, abides a priest continually”. Do you think that what Mr. R. Taylor has introduced bears on the continuing character of Him as High Priest?

DAB I had not thought of it in the terms Mr. Taylor has used, but that may be behind the teaching that the writer is bringing in here as to Melchisedec; there was something foreshadowed in that priest that has been taken up in its fulness in Christ glorified.

JAG Royalty is connected with priesthood; that was never before.

DAB There was always a difference between king and priest. David, at some points in his life, seems to assume a priestly function unofficially, but now the two things are brought together; the King and the Priest are the same Person.

GBG Does our being the brethren of Christ have anything to do with our character, taking character from Him, partaking of His life, having His Spirit?

DAB Yes, that is more the family idea. There is what is kindred to Him among His brethren. There are those whom He is not ashamed to call His brethren. It is in them that His character appears. If we aspire to spiritual formation, then the fount of that formation is the One whom God has glorified.

JAG Would it be right to say that He serves in order that we are maintained in the reign of grace?

DAB Yes, although He is above, those He serves are here where He has been. It is affecting to read the gospels and see how people were disadvantaged by the breakdown in the priesthood. I like to think of the example of the Samaritan leper (Luke 17: 11–19). The Lord says, “Go, shew yourselves to the priests”. Where could he go? The priest in Jerusalem would not even see him, because he was a Samaritan. It says he turned back, giving glory to God. He found in the Lord his priest and, through Him, was able to serve God.

JAG So that the features of Christ come out in the brethren so they serve us in priestly grace.

DAB We need to be more conscious of this service, which means we need to frequent the place where that service is exercised.

JS The need for a different priest arose because there was not perfection connected with the old order of priesthood. There was need that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedec on account of that. Would you say something about that?

DAB It would appear to the Hebrew reader of the epistle that the official priesthood had failed and he would recognise that something needed to be put in its place. This epistle brings out that what is now vested in Christ glorified related to divine purpose, and is now realised. Melchisedec was a type of it. There was something in purpose before the Aaronic priesthood began. God had his priest before the dying priests were inaugurated and began to fail. A system was brought in that served the relationship which God then had with His people, but it brought out at the same time the imperfections of that relationship. I do not mean that there were any failings on God’s side, but there was not the power among His people in the flesh to sustain the relationship that God purposed with them. When that has been demonstrated to the full, God then introduces in His Son. One to whom His purpose could be entrusted; there, then, something is established which suits God because it can never break down.

JS This thought of perfection is what God has reached in Christ glorified, and will be in the saints glorified.

DAB God has allowed man to be tested in responsibility, including testing in office; and once that test has been completed, God brings out what is perfect—not because He has to resort to it but that was His secret all along.

JS That was in His purpose.

DAB Yes, and it is wonderful to see that it was perfect. God did not seem to have an improvement in His mind. What God had kept back in His purpose was what was going to be manifested to be perfect, whether in conditions of testing down here or whether in its suitability for the glory where Christ is.

RT There is a helpful remark in ministry which says that the bondman of Exodus 21

is morally the high priest of Exodus 28—“I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 25: 5).

DAB Chapter 28 is the selection of the priest.

RT The priest is installed with his garments in all his glory, but underlying it is the man who said, “I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go free”.

DAB It is very precious to see that God has chosen One who loves Him so, but He loves us too; and it is a love that expressed itself in such a complete sacrifice. It was a sacrifice that He made for God and He made for us. It is linked with priestly service in this epistle. He offered up Himself and He has gone in in the virtue of His own blood. These are features that foreshadow the conferring of that office following upon His exaltation.

JCG We always consider that what is priestly involves our approach to God, our place before God, but when it comes to Christ as Priest, and High Priest, then life is stressed. That was different from the old, which is spoken about as dead sacrifices and so on, but the stress here is on the witness that He lives, and also, according to the power of indissoluble life. Is that meant to have its effect on us as the saints?

DAB Hezekiah says that death does not celebrate God but “the living, he shall praise thee”, Isaiah 38: 19. God is not suited by the service of death, is He? There must be a basis of life in order for service to be carried on before God. I think you are right, that priestly service is mainly towards God. In the Old Testament, the priest had certain functions in relation to the people, administrative functions, but he took them up as coming from the presence of God. So he carried them as God carried them, he saw them as God saw them; because he would revert to the presence of God. He would not be expected to have to change his view of a matter. Thus his sympathy with infirmity was not only because he had infirmity himself, but because he appreciated how it affected the person’s relationships and ability to function in relation to God. The priestly office was intended to sustain the people as God’s servants.

They had not been called simply to be another political entity in the Middle East, they had been called to be God’s chosen people. The function of the nation was Godward and the priestly service was inaugurated in order to sustain and enable that service. Then the priest had to serve the people to ensure they were at the level that that calling demanded.

MGW Is it significant, therefore, that the last view the disciples had of the Lord Jesus was ascending up to heaven with His hands uplifted in blessing? That would profoundly affect them, and then they were found continually in the temple praising and blessing God.

DAB It is very good you refer to that because the gospel of Luke begins with a failing priest, a priest who was marked by unbelief. We may imagine what it must have meant to the people that the priest who went in on their account was detained in the presence of God. What did it say about their standing before God, that their priest, although a worthy man, was unbelieving? Then at the end of the gospel you see a Priest who is able to go into heaven, but He goes in as the Blesser, the Inaugurator of service among His people.

JS In Peter, we have a holy priesthood able to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God.

DAB Yes, “by Jesus Christ”. It is important that it brings in that connection to the personal side. I do not think we should think of ourselves as filling a priestly office; we offer spiritual sacrifices, but by Jesus Christ. There is an office and He fills it, but He serves us so that we, with Him, might participate in divine service.

DTP I was wondering if it was attractive to see in the Lord’s life and pathway the features of the Urim and Thummim, these two beautiful aspects, perfection and light, it is all in Him.

DAB He was not a priest on earth, officially, but He was in practice. If we read the gospels all we find officially is failing priesthood. When you think how Israel’s whole relationship with God hung on the priesthood, their position was actually very serious. We were looking the other day at where the lamp of God had not yet gone out (1 Samuel 3: 3).

God preserved something, but yet it hung by a thread as what was official finally collapsed.

Priestly features then come to light in two women who carried the thing through. The law and the priesthood were connected—as it says here, the people had the law given to them in connection with the priesthood. If there was no priest there was no practical relationship with God. We were speaking the other day about how the priest had bells on his garments. If he went into the presence of God, the people could tell that he was alive, because their whole relationship with God depended on that, but when we come to the gospels we see how alienated the priests were from God. They did not recognise the One who had come on His account, but people in all their need found in Christ what they needed to restore their relationship with God.

JAG They were never disassociated from the priest,

they were on Aaron’s heart continually family-wise and in the sovereignty of divine love.

DAB That is very fine. Various things in the sanctuary spoke about Christ, and various things spoke about the saints. In example, the table speaks of Christ and the shewbread speaks of His people; but all is in darkness. A godly Israelite might say, This is a wonderful system, but what access do I have there?

RT Would the disciples get some view of it in John 17, “I come to thee, Holy Father, keep them in thy name” (John 17: 11), and then, “I sanctify myself for them” (v.19)?

DAB I think it would have been a comfort to an Israelite that, at least, he was on one of the stones which were taken right in. He was carried as far as the priest was allowed to go, into the very holiest of all.

RT The Lord said, “the glory which thou hast given me I have given them”, John 17: 22.

DAB It is very fine to see the bent of John 17, and how much else might have been discussed in that conversation. The Lord speaks firstly about the way that they would be here in His absence, but He is also carrying them in, that they might appreciate the unity and exaltation of their place before God.

RG I would like you to say something about the peculiar singularity of Christ as Priest according to the order of Melchisedec.

DAB We need an impression of that before we start talking about ourselves, otherwise we will carry over too much from the Old Testament and start thinking of ourselves as filling some kind of office. Brothers say they are acting in a priestly way, but you do not often hear them say they are acting in a spiritual way. I do not think spiritual people talk like that. The office is vested in one Man, “we see Jesus”, Hebrews 2: 9. Priesthood is such an important part of this letter to focus the reader’s attention on the one Person whom God has exalted at His right hand, upon whom He has conferred every office to which the Jewish reader might be accustomed. So that He is King and Priest; in every sense in which there is an office presented in this letter, it is allocated to Him exclusively. He is a Man of a new order, and as far as His place in glory is concerned there is no one like Him. His Person entitles Him to a distinction that He cannot share with others, and it gives character to His manhood.

RG He acted as Melchisedec even in His life down here, is that right? I was thinking of the references to Him, not as of Aaron but as the Melchisedec order. In several places He lifted up His eyes to heaven, showing the liberty and freedom He had in His relations with God.

DAB Melchisedec is the priest that met Abraham and the two features of him are that he blessed God and he blessed Abraham. It says, “he was priest of the Most High God”, Genesis 14: 18. He was not appointed in the same way as Aaron, he had none of the official trappings that would attend Aaron’s priesthood. Nothing is said about his birth or his death.

There is no suggestion that there is a descent or a succession in his priesthood; he never had to pass it on to someone else. Jesus, has taken such an office and He sustains it in the power of indissoluble life.

RG That is the point I was trying to make because Aaron had sons and they wore the high caps and so on, but there is no such position in the Melchisedec order of priesthood.

Jesus stands out unique as the One that fills this office, and therefore can be in the presence of God for the pleasure of God eternally.

DAB Exodus 28 has been referred to, when Aaron was clothed with the garments of beauty and ornament. In type, they do not add anything to our Priest in terms of increasing His worthiness. He adds distinctiveness to them. Reference has also been made to the way that the breastplate and the shoulder pieces were attached to those garments. If these things are now transferred to a different priest, then they go where He goes; and He goes where Aaron could not go. He has entered into heaven itself, “now to appear before the face of God for us”, Hebrews 9: 24. Aaron never had those privileges.

JS When the writer refers to a summary in chapter 8 he simply says, “We have such a one high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens” (Hebrews 8: 1). It all centres in one glorious Person.

DAB We think naturally of the office first, and then the occupant, as if the office adds something; but I like that expression “such a one”. The idea of office in the human sense of the word is hardly there. There are things He is able to carry out for God and for us, but all depends on what He is.

We might look at the other references. We often speak about what spirituality means—and, indeed, what priestliness means—and I was therefore interested to isolate these references to spiritual people. I think I am right that there are not any others. The features that are brought out are not those we would necessarily think of as spiritual. Perhaps the reason for that is that we have not focused as clearly as we have sought to this afternoon on the difference in the priesthood. Perhaps we are looking for features that would belong to an office, whereas the references to spirituality are to things that form character.

JS Do you think there is help for us in how the Lord is referred to as the Living Stone? We come to Him and become living stones, taking on something of His character in a living way?

DAB I think you are right, especially to emphasise “to whom coming” because these are not things that can be assumed without familiarisation with Him. They are not the kind of qualities that can be imitated; the qualities in these scriptures seem to be inimitable. It is one thing to say, I have a good sense of judgment or whatever it might be, but I would be tested about my spirituality if someone sought insight from me in unseen and spiritual things. You cannot imitate someone else’s insight in spiritual things.

MGW It says of Him, “a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious”. It says, “yourselves also, as living stones”. May we take this also to ourselves as cast away by the builders but, like Jesus, with God, chosen, precious; or is that saying too much?

DAB I remember how Mr. James Taylor said, Imagine God’s grace to offer the builders a stone like this one! The reason they rejected Him was that He was a corner stone.

In other words, they would have had to take down their whole structure and build it again round Him. This was not a stone just to be fitted in anywhere; they would have had to dismantle all their tradition, their whole system, in order to begin again where God was going to begin again. They were not willing to do that. This stone had no place in their building.

God would give us a place in His building, but we must give place to Christ. I think that is the thrust of the second reference we read. Paul says that the spiritual recognise the things he writes, that it is the Lord’s commandment. It is not exactly Paul claiming to exercise the Lord’s authority; he is ministering things that have come to him with the force of a commandment. Paul is presenting himself here as a living stone, who had to relate himself to the way God was building. That is what spiritual people do, they relate themselves to the way God is focusing and centring everything in Christ.

RT The word spiritual must bring up something about a link with the Holy Spirit. Would you connect that with the priesthood?

DAB We have had reference to the way that the Spirit has come from Christ glorified and it is something else to note about Aaron’s priesthood; it was not a spiritual office, was it? They were not anointed with the Spirit. There can be nothing produced in a believer that takes its character from Christ unless the Spirit is the author of it. It is not anything that can be refined from what we are naturally, it must come from a wholly new source. It is clear from the teaching of Scripture that everything that comes from that new source is the work of the Spirit.

JAG God is a Spirit and the worshippers are to worship in spirit and truth.

DAB It is important to see, in order to take that up, that there has to be a change of character with us, because nature cannot serve in the Spirit.

JAG So that new birth is vital to the whole situation.

DAB Yes, as Paul said in Corinthians, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom”, 1 Corinthians 15: 50.

TDB I was thinking of the reference the Lord made to the disciples, “Ye know not of what spirit ye are”, Luke 9: 55. How would you fit that into what you say?

DAB I think they were very much looking at the thing naturally. They had an administrative solution to the problem that was quite out of character with Christ, and that is what I find very testing. We cannot help giving our character away. It is then open to others to judge how far that character is the formative work of the Spirit.

RT The word here is “being built up”, it is a process going on in the soul. They were already living stones because of the place they had on the breast of Christ, but they are being built up. It is a process of building up to correspondence with that One.

DAB These references to spirituality are not intended to set some apart from the rest. It is a character that any of us could aspire to develop, if we were willing to give place to the Spirit.

RG At the beginning of his epistle Peter says, “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit”, 1 Peter 1: 2. Right at the outset he is speaking to Jews, but bringing God’s purpose in; then he says, “by sanctification of the Spirit”, so that the Spirit is underlying this whole process.

DAB The presence of the Holy Spirit is sanctifying in itself, but sanctifying has an object, to set apart for holy things—to set apart from common use for holy purposes; therefore the reception of the Spirit is intended to take us out of and away from secular preoccupations to which the natural condition applies. We are called to divine service, just as Israel was in the wilderness.

RG To offer spiritual sacrifices which is your intelligent service.

DAB Yes, and with that, to have the power by the Spirit to discern spiritual things as we have in this first scripture. I do not think Aaron had any insight in spiritual things. He was given certain rights of judgment and administration. He could tell if you were a leper or not, and he could make some decisions in relation to judicial matters; but this is different, the insight which relates to spiritual and eternal things.

JCG Perhaps you could help us more in relation to the spiritual house and a holy priesthood. It appears to be collective, it goes on to speak about “a chosen race, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a people for a possession”. Can you help us about the spiritual house?

DAB If we think about the priesthood in the Old Testament we would see it as a kind of department with certain people who had the right to be a priest, and would succeed to the priesthood; there was the priest and his sons and that was the priesthood. I do not think that is the way Peter uses the expression; he has more in mind an assembly of priests. The spiritual house is the place where you would expect to find people like that, because they are occupied with divine things. God is not now thinking of a temple made with hands, the people themselves and the dwelling-place of God are the same thing. This is foreshadowed in the tabernacle system where the boards represent the saints, what is substantial and developed among God’s people.

NJH You need to have a spiritual house before you have spiritual sacrifices.

DAB The house is the place where God likes to be. It is the place for God to be among His people. That is the focus of God’s purpose, first in the glorification of Christ, which is the centre point, but then established around that is a congenial dwelling-place for God, which is in the saints.

JAG In the idea of the family—we speak of the House of Windsor, for instance—there is tremendous variety; and God sees Christ in every one.

DAB We see some foreshadowing of this in the transfiguration, although Peter, James and John were hardly up to it. No tabernacle was needed but God’s dwelling-place in Christ was seen. In the Old Testament the ark is spoken of first without any tabernacle, “they shall make an ark”. God says (Exodus 25: 10). That is what we see on the mount, but then in Moses and Elias we see boards. They are examples of what God’s sanctuary is going to be.

JAG They are talking with Him intelligently about the situation.

DAB Yes, and about His departure, in other words they are talking about what belonged to another world altogether.

DCB Could you say a little more what a spiritual sacrifice is?

DAB It is over against the sacrifices that Israel brought, because there is no longer need for these sacrifices. They have also all been assimilated into the sacrifice of Christ, so that sacrifice on those lines is no longer required. There is no longer a need for such a sacrifice to restore or bear testimony to my relationship with God. Now the place of such sacrifices is taken by something that celebrates our relationship with God, which is established on this new and exalted level in Christ glorified.

MGW You mean that while much of the sacrifice of the Old Testament was what God required, and was specified, there was also a great deal of room for what was voluntary in the heart, as it were, going up to God just in the enjoyment of all that Christ was to Himself. Is that more the idea here?

DAB I think it is. Sadly, in Israel’s case, they had to occupy themselves so much with offerings that kept their relationship with God in good repair. We might think, for example, of the trespass offering—if it had been carried on dutifully, they never would have had time to do anything else. It was so demanding that in the end the people just dropped it, and so clouded their relationship with God.

RT Would it also be true that there is no spirituality without cost?

DAB That is very fine. The sacrifice that Christ has made underlies the whole thing.

RT We are not born spiritual, nor do we get it by reading, but communion enters into it, does it?—a hidden relationship with the Spirit and with God that develops something of another character entirely, through displacement.

DAB I hope we can come back to that when we speak about meekness because meekness really lies at the heart of spirituality. But perhaps we could just speak first about the power to restore in Galatians. Aaron could confirm, for example in relation to a leper, what God had done. He could look; and if God had granted a remedy for the leper then the priest could bear witness to that, but the priest could not cure a leper. There was no power to restore in that sense; there was no power to make completely whole. But the power to restore is an element of spirituality. We see that distinctively in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, where he refers at the beginning to being united in the same mind and the same opinion (1 Corinthians 1: 10). Spiritual character was being deployed to make the Corinthian saints worthy of their calling.

RT So when falsely accused he did not answer, that is the spiritual sacrifice. He maintains them in the height at what they are in the divine thought.

DAB Paul leaves them with the spirit of meekness (2 Corinthians 10: 1). It is a very fine thing. Meekness seems to be a freedom from any calculation and any thought about what anything might mean for me. It gives to the meek power with others. And it gives ample room to the Spirit, because He finds no impediment for the development of spiritual character.

JS The Lord says, “I am meek and lowly in heart”, Matthew 11: 29. It is interesting He says that in the chapter where His testimony had been rejected—He turns to the Father and says, “I praise thee, Father” (Matthew 11: 25).

DAB I have been thinking about that passage. It shows that meekness is more than lowliness. He says, “I am meek and lowly”. Peter says, “meek and quiet” (1 Peter 3: 4), so it is more than quietness. There is something distinctive about meekness.

JS Do you think it involves that there is no self-assertiveness?

DAB Yes, so the meek shall inherit the earth, why? Because they never asked for it.

RG Being “meek and lowly in heart” suggests that what has come out is because of what is inside. That is the lesson we sometimes find hard to learn, “I am meek and lowly in heart”, Matthew 11: 29. What He was outside was exactly what He was inside, like the burnt-offering, there was no change, no difference. The meekness and lowliness that is inside will manifest itself in our conduct, in relation to one another and in relation to the service of God.

DAB He could never be provoked to be anything different; it was impossible to provoke another side to Jesus. He was always the same. Peter refers to “the incorruptible ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price”, 1 Peter 3: 4.

From the context, it seems that that spirit is marking a sister there, and that she had the power to win an unbeliever without the preaching of the gospel—it was just the presence of that character. There is power in that I do not know much about it, but it prompts enquiry with me as to whether the very lack of any assertiveness has that power. It is easily ignored, but the meek do not mind being ignored.

RG When John said, “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1: 36), that was what affected the two then, they followed Him.

DAB He was willing to share what He had with them. They asked, Where do you live? He said, Come and see. There was a simplicity about it which is very striking. I can think of people who were marked by this spirit, people for whom I had a lot of affection. There was a power about them. It might seem easy to walk over such, and they do not resist, but at the same time you feel there is a power about their character that is not easy to value adequately.

NJH You refer to the “spirit of meekness”. Have you more in mind?

DAB We have had that expression several times. It is related to “meek and lowly in heart”. But it is also a matter of the Spirit.

NJH It seems to imbue the persons who are spiritual. In every way they hold the person that has been taken in a fault according to God and for God without any selfish or personal gain in mind.

DAB That is also in Corinthians, “What will ye? that I come to you with a rod; or in love, and in a spirit of meekness?”, 1 Corinthians 4: 21. I might say that the Corinthians would not know what he was talking about, that this is not a quality that would rate particularly high in Corinth. It is almost put out to the Corinthians as a challenge. In the sight of God it is of great price. I do not think it is often found, like true spirituality.

TDB You were distinguishing between meekness and lowliness?

DAB Lowliness is in contrast to pride. Mr. Raven suggests it is mainly about one’s relationship with God, but it comes out more generally. The lowly does not exalt himself, and does not give way to the first man which would exalt itself. But not to exalt oneself is not by itself spirituality. There are some people who are self-effacing naturally, but meekness goes further than that; it is something of the heart and spirit that must take its character from Christ. That perhaps explains its rarity. It is not a natural trait.

JCG It is spoken of in relation to Moses, is it not? In Numbers 12 it says that “the man Moses was very meek, above all men that were upon the face of the earth” (Numbers 12: 3). That is in the context of Aaron and Miriam speaking against him, asking, “Has Jehovah indeed spoken only to Moses?” The character of the man comes to light and he does not say anything.

DAB We know Moses was not like that naturally, he was impulsive, and quick to involve himself in other people’s causes; so what had made him like that? God says, “Mouth to mouth do I speak to him openly, and not in riddles; and the form of Jehovah doth he behold”, Numbers 12: 8. That character had been developed, and it is a matter of development, over many years of intimate acquaintance with the presence of God. That explains why I lack it—it is the only way in which a rare feature like this will come to light.

JCG He had been up the mountain and he had seen the pattern of the tabernacle, seen the pattern of the ark, does that have a bearing on it?

DAB What is particularly brought out in Numbers 12 is that he had seen God, and that would cause a lot of humility and a lot of self-denial; but it would be more productive than that. It had not simply been the erosion and removal of Moses’ impulsiveness, although no doubt that had happened. Alongside that we see the emergence of something that had no seed in Moses’ natural character at all, but derived entirely from what he had derived in the presence of God.

JS This feature of meekness is mentioned in the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5: 22, so it is a positive result from the place that the Spirit gets with us.

DAB We sow to the Spirit and receive the fruit of the Spirit. It is not that the Spirit enhances or develops, or gives a different aspect to, natural traits or features, but new features come out. Some of them have natural counterparts, but some features come out that do not have a natural counterpart.

JAG Speaking about Moses, and thinking about what the Lord says in Matthew 11 that has been quoted, He speaks about rest there, He gives you rest, and then you will find rest, and that is all coming out in Moses.

DAB I get agitated because things affect me, but the meek is not like that. He leaves his own interests unprotected and commits himself into the hands of Him who judges righteously. It says of Christ, He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and as a lamb is dumb in presence of him that shears him”, Acts 8: 32. They could take His rights away, they could treat Him unjustly and He had nothing to say, until it says, “Pilate marvelled”, Mark 15: 5. There was something there that he had never seen before.

JS Does it show how this can work out in a situation such as is depicted in this verse?

DAB Yes, and it has power. We read in 1 Peter chapter 3, “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, that, even if any are disobedient to the word, they may be gained without the word by the conversation of the wives, having witnessed your pure conversation carried out in fear ... in the incorruptible ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price” (1 Peter 3: 1–4). Is that not a very beautiful thing, to see in someone in greatly disadvantageous circumstances? I can imagine a wife who hears the gospel preached and puts her faith in it; her husband goes on in paganism and is disobedient to the word, he refuses it. Then a spirit comes out in the wife who would be carrying that matter in the presence of God, and without her having to say anything, the disbeliever is reached. That is power!

JS We heard of an incident like that, a daughter and her father.

DAB Very good. Naturally, meekness is easy to despise and make of no account, but in the sight of God it is of great price.

NJH Would the descent of the Spirit not develop what had been breathed into the disciples?

DAB Yes it did, it certainly linked on with it.

NJH It helped Peter eventually to take up the restorative service to Christ’s own.

DAB I think that is right. The first aspect of impartation is from Christ Himself, and it is inward, from Him and into us; and then the descent of the Spirit is to develop that.

KEY TO INITIALS

T. D. Beveridge

R. Gardiner

D. T. Pye

D. C. Brown

G. B. Grant

J. Strachan

D. A. Burr

J. C. Gray

R. Taylor

J. A. Gardiner

N. J. Henry

M. G. Wood

Reading at Dundee
6 December 2003