PRIESTLY SERVICE
PRIESTLY SERVICE
JT The allusion, I suppose, in this chapter is to the old economy; the house, the priesthood and the sacrifices. So that Christianity involves that we have the substance of what was foreshadowed in the types.
WB These three things seem to be mentioned in the same order in Hebrews: the house in chapter 3, the priest in chapter 5, and the sacrifices in chapters 9 and 10.
JT Quite so; that is very good.
Ques Would you say the holy priesthood sets forth the position Godward?
JT Yes; it refers to the priesthood as having to say to God. We have first the spiritual house and then the priesthood.
Ques What about the royal priesthood?
JT That is what we are manward.
Ques What about the calling in connection with the priesthood?
JT It shows that the thought originates with God, and that the priest is chosen by God, is called of God, as was Aaron. I think Aaron typically points to a new order of man, a man taken out from amongst men. “Every high priest taken from amongst men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God”, Hebrews 5:1. So in Exodus we have: “Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons. And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty”, Exodus 28: 1, 2. God was calling out one man and [p. 168] his sons to fulfil a certain function or service, and the clothing or garments for glory and beauty all point to Christ as heavenly in origin and character.
RSS Are we priests by calling in that way?
JT Yes, as associated with Christ, hence the great dignity attached to the position: that in connection with God’s testimony, all that He would unfold under the eyes of men, and under angelic eyes as well, should be maintained by the priests. That in itself indicates what the person was. What a great person he must be to sustain the weight of God’s testimony, and subsequently to bear the whole congregation on his heart and on his shoulders!
RSS I suppose his greatest privilege was that of approach to God?
JT Yes — that he had title to approach God.
RSS Would you say that the prominent thought in priesthood is the right of approaching God?
JT Yes. “That he may minister unto me”. Then what followed on that, as the book of Leviticus shows, was all that with which he and his sons were charged. We have to make a distinction between the sons of Aaron and the family of Aaron. The sons are mentioned in the call, but they are not mentioned as his children; they are mentioned as his sons. His daughters are not mentioned in the call. The sons of Aaron have reference to the saints viewed as formed by the Spirit, intelligently joining Christ in the service.
WJN In their priestly character?
JT Yes. But Aaron’s family was taken account of in a special way; and, as we know, in Leviticus 16, he offered for his house.
RSS Is the assembly of the antitype of the family or of the sons?
JT It is antitype of both, I think. Aaron’s house was a type of the assembly. But the assembly is also viewed as formed by the Spirit and intelligently entering into God’s mind and serving in relation to God. Aaron’s sons typified this side.
Ques Does the call involve intelligence?
JT Those called are qualified, so that in the antitype it is the Son who is called to priesthood.
ARS All believers are priests, but should we not be exercised to see that we are up to our calling?
JT That is the great gain of having the light of our calling brought before us.
ARS The Levites carried the things pertaining to the tabernacle, but priestly service was evidently very much greater, because the priests approached God and offered the sacrifices.
JT We are all called, and it is important that we should take up our calling. It seems as if the levitical service in the wilderness ended when the tabernacle was reared up.. The special work of the Levites was in taking the tabernacle down, carrying it and setting it up; but when it was all in order for divine service the levitical side drops out of view and the priestly service is apparent. Perhaps that is where we are defective: not seeing what has been set up by God for His service, and serving in relation to that. Peter says here: “yourselves also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood”. That is, there is everything for divine service. And he adds: “to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”. .
ARS There are two altars, the brazen and the golden, and different sacrifices offered on those altars.
JT I think the court was properly the place of offering sacrifices. So far as the tabernacle in the wilderness was concerned, the sacrifices were all brought into the court. It does not appear to me that sacrifices go beyond the court now, whereas the golden altar is in the holy place. There the priest also officiated, but not by sacrifice. It was, the place of incense.
[p. 170] RSS What answers to the court now?
JT I think all the sphere in which surrender is made.
RSS The sphere of responsibility?
JT Yes, it is connected with that.
ARS Is it not the same as in Romans 12, where you offer your body as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your intelligent service?
JT There are many sacrifices alluded to in the New Testament. All of these are priestly, but they are not what you may call the highest function of priests.
GWH Do we get the highest function of priests in this chapter?
JT No, I think not. This chapter does not contemplate the holy place, nor the holiest, as far as I understand it; only the priesthood and the house both being spoken of, you can add the rest.
RSS There is the offering of spiritual sacrifices.
JT In contrast to the material sacrifices that were offered in the wilderness. The sacrifices that you make are spiritual in their import.
GWH Would Hebrews 13: 15 correspond with the golden altar: “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually to God; that is, the fruit of the lips confessing his name”. Is that the golden altar?
JT I do not know that it is; I do not know that it takes you beyond the court.
GWH Where do you find the function of priest-hood in its highest character?
JT In its highest character it is in the holiest.
RSS Would it be, “in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”?
JT Yes, and “both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one”, contains the [p. 171] thought.
WB When you speak of sacrifice being surrender you refer to the court?
JT A sacrifice is a sacrifice; it costs you something.
ARS When Mary poured the ointment on the Lord’s feet and the odour filled the house, was not that more the golden altar aspect?
JT Yes.
AFM But the golden altar was in the holy place. Is there any such thing as service in the holy place at the present time?
JT Not according to Hebrews, because Hebrews is contrast; but we must not lose the value of the type; we must not lose the teaching of the tabernacle in the wilderness, as showing the order of divine service, otherwise we should shut out all that is not in the holiest.
WB You refer to the table and the candlestick?
JT Yes, certainly these have some reference to us. Levitical service is not in the holiest, nor in the holy place; it is outside. We must not lose the typical teaching of the tabernacle; but at the same time, if there are those who would reinstate it in a literal way, the apostle shows that it is done away with, and that Christ is now in heaven; that our calling is heavenly, that the holy place and the court have disappeared.
GAT Would you say that in place of the tabernacle we have now got a spiritual house?
JT The thought of the tabernacle is maintained, because it says in Hebrews that Christ has come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle. The tabernacle, as a type, has reference to our position as here in flesh. There was nothing in the way of elegance or stateliness in the external appearance of the tabernacle, whereas such things were in the temple; everything there was calculated to render it imposing; it had an imposing exterior. But the tabernacle was [p. 172] not an imposing thing at all; its appearance was simply a tent covered with skins, enclosed in a court. But there was that which was intrinsically valuable inside of it, and that had to be guarded. Another thing about it that corresponds to us is that it could be taken down and set up, referring to its transitory state, primarily referring to Christ as in flesh; it was not a permanent condition for Him. And our condition is not permanent. Nevertheless, both in Christ and in us, there is that which is infinitely precious, and that has to be guarded. So the tabernacle position in the wilderness has reference properly to the saints viewed here in flesh, but containing by the Spirit the things of God.
RSS Whereas the temple has a more, permanent character and has to do with the “world to come”.
JT So that the saints are said to be growing unto a holy temple in the Lord; that is for the world to come. But Corinthians contemplates us as the assembly of God and that the oracles of God are amongst us.
AFM We have reference to the two thoughts in John’s gospel. In chapter 1 we have “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory”. They saw beyond the exterior “a glory as of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth”. In chapter 2 we have a millennial scene in regard to the marriage. And He says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. Is there not a reference to the two thoughts there?
JT Yes, I think so. It might be thought that the term temple in Scripture always refers to Solomon’s building, but it does not. It does not in the Old Testament. The word appears in 1 Samuel. Samuel and Eli were in the temple. It refers to the place where the light of God is. It is noticeable that during all the days of Joshua and of the Judges God [p. 173] spoke nothing to them as regards the temple, that is, the building. He said that He had travelled and dwelt in a tent with them during all that time; and not until the days of David, until the establishment of the kingdom, do we get the thought of a permanent structure.
WJN Not until then were the staves drawn out of the ark.
JT Quite so. So that in, all the period from Sinai to the reign of Solomon there was a moveable state of things.
GAT Would you say that the precious things of God are among the saints today?
JT Well, I think the ark, for instance, is amongst us. That is the great central thought in the tabernacle. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost involved that the ark was there. The coming of the Spirit was like the glory descending upon the tabernacle and filling it.
RSS Will you define what the oracles are?
JT They are the divine speakings. God speaks. He spoke from off the mercy-seat, and He spoke at the brazen altar. Exodus 25: 22, and Exodus 29: 42.
RSS Is it the Scriptures?
JT Not quite; the oracles of God are preserved by the Spirit among the saints.
GAT I was wondering if the affections of the saints are not what have to be guarded.
JT Well, they have to be guarded. Christ has His place amongst God’s people, and it is a very great matter that, so to speak, the ark is preserved intact.
Rem Absalom would be an example of one taking away the affections of the saints.
JT Yes, Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.
Ques What was the sanctuary in David’s day?
[p. 174] He says that his soul was longing to see God as he had seen Him in the sanctuary.
JT The tabernacle was still there. In Eli’s day the ark had been carried away by the Philistines. David’s first care and thought after he was recognised king by all Israel was to bring the ark back. We know how he failed the first time, but he learned from God through his failure and recognised that the Levites only should carry the ark. He brought it in under curtains. That was the sanctuary to him.
ARS After the ark was taken away in the days of Eli was the tabernacle still there?
JT It would appear that it was. The tabernacle was not carried away. The ark was taken. The tabernacle was there up to Solomon’s time.
Rem But the cloud of glory did not return in David’s time.
JT No, the cloud of glory did not return until the temple was built. God could not sanction by His presence the order of things that had failed. And although the new order of things began with David, the system inaugurated by him was not complete until the temple was built.
RSS So we can see the connection between the kingdom and the temple; it is all a testimony to what will be in the world to come.
JT Quite so. The kingdom must be fully established, and then the house must be built before the system is complete and God sanctions the whole system by His glory filling the temple, just as it had been in the tabernacle in an earlier day. What we see is that a new order of things was instituted in David. Moses’ system, the tabernacle system, extended to David, and the new order of things was inaugurated under David. The tabernacle system refers to our day; but the permanent system is also established [p. 175] for faith.
RSS And it is the tabernacle that is so important for us, more so than the temple, is it not?
JT Yes. The temple system is yet to come properly.
WJN Is that why it is the tabernacle in the epistle to the Hebrews generally?
JT Yes, it is spoken of much in the way of contrast.
Ques Is there any connection between that and the thought in Revelation that God will tabernacle with men?
JT That shows that God has not given up His primary thought, which was that He should dwell with men. That is another testimony which the wilderness position affords. God is the Alpha and the Omega, He is the beginning and the end, and the end always agrees with the beginning, so that you have the tabernacle of God eternally with men. That is the end. But in the main the tabernacle refers to the present time, when the testimony of God is in the presence of contrariety.
JNH Is it a greater thought than that of the temple?
JT It is of wider bearing. When you think of the tabernacle typifying the Lord Jesus here in flesh it is very touching, and then it is continued in our day.
Ques The Holy Spirit indwelling the saints at the present time, I suppose, is a greater thing than what will be on the earth in the millennium, is it not?
JT The present state is greater in that sense.
ARS Do you lay stress upon the tabernacle for us today, because we are in the wilderness, and then when the millennium comes in, the temple will come?
JT Yes; the kingdom first and then the temple. But then, as we said, the kingdom and temple exist now also.
AFM [p. 176] How do you reconcile the thought of the tabernacle with that of the living stones in this chapter?
JT Well, we are alluding to the tabernacle so that we should not lose the teaching of it. Peter is not dealing with the tabernacle at all. He is dealing with the house; he shows that the saints are a spiritual house in contrast to the material house at Jerusalem. In Ephesians 2 we are already a habitation for God, but the temple is connected with the future; we are growing to a holy temple.
ARS What is the difference between this spiritual house and the temple? Is it not the same, but looked at in a different aspect?
JT Yes; Peter contemplates a building of living stones. In another sense the house, in the principle of it, existed even in the wilderness. It was the place where God dwelt.
AFM Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a ministering servant.
JT Yes. David spoke of the house frequently, and we know that the temple did not exist in his day.
WJN Is not the thought of the house continuous even from the days of the tabernacle?
JT I think it is. But we have to distinguish in regard of what Solomon reared up; what marked it was magnificence and stability, and it refers to the millennial state of things.
WB Stephen in his address in Acts 7 says, Solomon built God a house, but that God does not dwell in a house made with hands. Is not the tabernacle in contrast with that?
JT No doubt. There was something in the house itself that Solomon built, in a material way. But we have to take, account of it typically. Solomon’s temple refers to what Christ will establish in the millennial state, of things, the magnificence, stability and grandeur of the building. Peter alludes to what [p. 177] the saints are already, a spiritual house. That is, God has a dwelling-place, and in connection with that there is the priestly company, the priestly family, and the sacrifices.
WJN Why does the Spirit bring out this particular line of truth to these saints through Peter?
JT I think it was to show that they had in a spiritual way the privileges that the people of old had.
WJN Was there a danger in their case of being discouraged by the breaking down of everything connected with Israel after the flesh?
JT Exactly. And so he goes on to say that they were now God’s people. God had said “Lo-ammi” to the people; He had given the people up; but now the believers in Christ from among the Jews had the place of God’s people. Once they were not a people, but now they are the people of God. It was to encourage them. They had lost nothing in becoming Christians; they had all Israel’s privileges.
Ques Did you not say that the holy place does not appear here?
JT No doubt it is in the house, but that is not what the apostle is dwelling upon. I doubt that the Christians to whom Peter wrote were equal to that. What Peter shows in this epistle is that the Jewish Christians came into all that God had in His mind for the nation primarily. He says that He had begotten them again to a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead. They came into already all that God had in His mind for the nation when He took it out of Egypt. That was an immense thing for these persecuted Christians to know. He speaks of their coming to Christ, the rejected One, and that is important. He is the rejected One, because that marked their position. “To whom coming, a living stone, cast [p. 178] 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”. They are viewed as being themselves that which Israel prided itself in; that is, the house of God. Then they have the priesthood.
Ques How do we become living stones?
RSS I suppose it is a reference to Matthew 16, where Peter confesses the Lord as the Son of God, and where in answer the Lord says to him: “Thou art Peter”.
JT That is, he was a stone by his confession.
RSS A living stone is one who knows the Son of God, who has received the revelation of the Son of God, because the Lord says when Peter confesses Him as the Son of God: “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven”.
EJE What is to be understood by the sincere milk of the word?
JT It is the “pure mental milk”. That is, it is that part of the word which feeds your mind. Our minds have to be fed, and our affections have to be fed.
EJE In what part of the Scriptures would you suggest we get the sincere milk of the word?
JT I think that if young believers begin to see something for their minds in Scripture it delivers them from the reading upon which the unconverted feed. The Spirit of God is capable of meeting the mental requirements of God’s people. We have mental requirements. Our minds require to be fed, and the word of God opens up wonderful things to engage our minds. It is a great thing for believers to be interested in the Scriptures. They open up wonderful things for the mind as well as for the heart.
[p. 179] David spoke of his desire to behold wonderful things out of God’s law.
We are apt to think that God has not provided for our minds, but He has, as well as for our affections. We have often alluded to David’s desire to behold the beauty of the Lord. The Scriptures present that. They present the beauty of the Lord; that is for your heart. Then David says, “and to inquire in his temple”. There, I think you get the mind provided for.
Ques Is it that by which you grow?
JT You grow by the pure mental milk of the word.
AFM Do you think the Scriptures are read amongst us so diligently as they used to be?
JT I do not think they are, and especially the Old Testament scriptures which are calculated to instruct you by the Spirit in the things of God, and it is wonderful how much enlightenment can be received from them by the Spirit.
EJE One remarkable word in the epistle of Peter is “diligence”.
AAT But is one to be guided in taking these things up with the mind? We know that it is possible to overdo it and to be very intelligent; to be as clear in mind as an iceberg, but as cold.
JT You have to bring faith in always. The Lord instructed the two disciples, “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”. I believe that faith would apprehend Christ in them and thus you receive an answer to your faith. It is wonderful how one gets help in the understanding of Scripture if one prays to the Lord.
GWH What about the priests’ food? They had a certain kind of food.
JT Yes, they had the shewbread. The thought, I think, is Christ as connected with God’s testimony.
[p. 180] That is the food of the priests. The Lord is seen in many lights in the Scriptures, and amongst them He is seen as related especially to God’s testimony; and in that way He, is food for those who are charged with the testimony, namely, the priests.
GWH It is limited to them, is it not?
JT Yes.
GAT Can you give in a few words what testimony means?
JT Testimony on God’s part is what He sets forth on His own behalf.
Ques In verse 4 is the Lord presented as a “living stone”?
JT Yes, “to whom coming, a living stone”, etc.
Rem And as living stones we take character from Him.
JT Yes, “living stones” are akin to the Living Stone; they are in the light of the Son of the living God, and are in that way proved to be living stones.
Ques In Matthew 16 Christ is presented as the Rock, is He not?
JT Yes, He is the rock. “On this rock I will build my assembly”. But, He says, “thou art Peter”. He does not say, thy name is Peter. That is important to notice. He says, “thou art Peter”. It was what he was, not what his name was. What is in the apostle’s mind is that they were moving. “To whom coming, a living stone”. But then He is disallowed of men. The Living stone speaks of Christ as an immovable Person, One whom nothing can touch; there is stability in Christ. There is that in Christ upon which a structure can be reared.
JNH Is there any element of responsibility in connection with moving toward Christ?
JT The thought is that of a structure. You see in Christ stability, and thus the foundation. It would have been a wonderful thing to David if in his day such a thing could have been said, because the great thought in David’s mind was the structure.
ARS The Lord says, “On this rock I will build my assembly, and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”. It refers to the apprehension in the soul of who Christ was.
JT I am sure of it. It is not that it was his name. I believe it is of all-importance to make that distinction, because in John the Lord gives Peter a name. John’s point being to show the Person of Christ as regulating things here, but in Matthew it is not that. Matthew’s point was to show what Peter was; “thou art Peter”, He says.
AFM Then the Father’s work is important. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven”. It must have been a great delight to Christ to get that confession from Peter. He says that the Father revealed it to him.
JT The Lord regarded it as a sign that the new structure was to be proceeded with. God had begun in Peter’s soul, and the Lord, as it were, alters His course. The disciples were not to tell that He was the Christ, and “from that time forth”, He began to speak about going to Jerusalem and being killed and raised up the third day.
ARS Do you think it was the: apprehension of who Christ was in His own Person? That dawned upon the disciples very slowly. It was only by degrees that they apprehended the greatness of His Person. We see it coming out in Peter in connection with the draught of fishes. It was some time before they recognised that He was the Son of God.
JT Peter would not have known it at all had not the Father revealed it to him. In Matthew Peter says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”; in Mark, “The Christ”; and in Luke, “The Christ of God”.
ARS -Why are there these differences?
JT In Mark it is simply a question [p. 182] of the Vessel
of testimony. In Luke it was the Vessel of grace. He is the Christ of God. But in Matthew it is the Son of the living God, so that He is in that way the foundation of things.
Ques Do you think that Peter was in the good of resurrection until he got the Spirit?
JT No, he was not in the good of it until he got the Spirit, but the Lord identified Peter with the building, because of the confession that he made.
AFM Do we find in this passage (1 Peter 2) the character of the administration connected with the Levites?
JT No, I do not understand it that way. Here we have the priesthood. The chapter shows, on the one hand, that we have access to God as a holy priesthood; and, on the other, that we have the privilege as a royal priesthood, of showing forth the virtues of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvellous light.
Ques Where do you get the marvellous light?
JT It is the revelation of God; the full light of the revelation of God. The Jewish Christians were called out of a world of darkness. Judaism had become that. They had been called into the full light of the revelation of God in Christ, and now they were to show forth the virtues of Him who had called them into that, and in that capacity they would be royal priests.
WB Was the apostle Paul looked at as an offering priest, in Romans 15, offering up the nations to God by the Spirit? He takes the place, not simply as one coming from God, but one who presents something to God; that is, he presented the nations to God, in that way, as a sacrifice.
JT Quite so.
AAT Speaking of the priesthood, was it God’s original thought that all men should have access to [p. 183] Him? But distance having come in. He took up a nation; the nation broke down; then He took up a tribe; then a family in the tribe. It looks like a select thing, but was not that God’s thought for all?
JT Priesthood contemplates the mediatorial state of things. It does not contemplate the final state that God has in His mind. Where it is a question of sonship, the privilege of relationship, these properly belong to heaven. They refer to the family circle. But priesthood has to do with, what you might call a mediatorial state. It refers to what is official and contemplates that others are at a greater distance, that some are privileged more than others.
Rem When God shall tabernacle with men that will not be the case.
JT I do not think it will. It refers properly to the mediatorial kingdom. That is, God is acting through a Mediator, and some are at a greater distance than others, and those in the distance come into touch with God through the Mediator, or through the principle of mediation.
Ques The place of the priest is in the sanctuary, is it not?
JT Their proper service is Godward in the sanctuary. We maintain the service of God now while Israel is abandoned and while the world is alienated from God. Christ and His brethren — Aaron and his sons — maintain the service. They remained in the tabernacle for the seven days to maintain the charge of Jehovah; so that, as far as I see, the priesthood are always under a charge, they are always under responsibility. It may be very blessed to have to say to God, to have access to God, but the very thought of priesthood is official and has to do with obligation. There is a charge resting upon the priesthood.
ARS In the final state of things will that [p. 184] character not still remain, especially in the assembly, I mean worshipping priests?
JT But I do not think there will be any idea of charge there, nor any distance, nor some at a greater distance than others are. All that will have disappeared. At any rate, Scripture connects the priesthood with the mediatorial state of things.
WB Ought we not to turn to the New Testament scriptures to get the detail of the priesthood?
JT You cannot learn Christianity from the Old Testament. You cannot get Christianity in the Old Testament. You must have Christianity in order to understand the Old Testament. The Old Testament helps in the detail, but one must have the thing itself to begin with.
WB It gives the necessary light to understand what the charge of the priesthood is. Do we get that in the Old Testament?
JT I think it helps us greatly as to the detail of the service.
GAT As to the work of the priest, how is it carried out in connection with our daily duties?
JT Viewed as a priest, you have to do with God’s things by the Spirit. It is altogether a question of what you are spiritually. Viewed as a Levite, you are serving in relation to that which you understand as a priest; viewed as a common person, or as a member of the congregation, you are simply a man here in flesh, carrying out, according to God, your daily responsibility. You are, as it were, a man like others outwardly, carrying out your ordinary duties.
WJN But all the while you are set in relation to God’s testimony.
JT Always maintaining in your soul your relation to God’s things, so that the exercises of the common duties of life add to you as a priest. The exercises that are proper to your daily duties increase [p. 185] your spirituality, so that, instead of being weaker through the daily exercises, you are stronger; you are a greater priest the next time you take up divine service than you were before; you have grown in strength through the exercises — the common person ministers to the priest.
GAT So we can thank God for the discipline we get through our business.
JT Yes, I think it tends to increase spiritual power, which is the only thing that counts in the assembly. You may be the very best workman and do your work perfectly as a common person, and you may have a good intellect, and all that, but the only thing that tells in priestly service is spiritual power and intelligence.
Ques Does this chapter tell how to get into the good of priesthood?
JT It is what they were as having come to the Living Stone. It involves spiritual power, because they move toward the Living Stone. They see that Christ was rejected and they move toward Him. That requires power in itself.
JNH There is, then, a measure of responsibility in connection with our taking up our priesthood?
JT It is a very serious consideration that we are charged in that way with the service of God.