PRIESTHOOD IN 1 PETER AND EXODUS
[p. 108] PRIESTHOOD IN 1 PETER AND EXODUS
1 Peter. 2: 5; Exodus 4: 22, 23; Exodus 28:1 - 4; Exodus 28:40 - 43
JT It will be observed in Exodus that the primary and consequently the final thought of God in service is in sonship — “Let my son go, that he may serve me”. So that priesthood is a provision only, not an abiding or eternal thought — a provision in view of conditions here in the world, extending on to the millennium, as we see in Ezekiel. Sonship is the primary and abiding thought of God, and so when He reaches Sinai with the wilderness journey in view, this thought of serving as priests comes into mind with many other things. It says, “serve me as priests” — that is, in the office of priesthood. The phrase expressed is found six times or more in Exodus 28 and 29, which treat of this subject — “they may serve me as priests”, not sons. It does not say “sons”, but “as priests”, meaning that the exigencies of the wilderness were in view, as also evil in the people of God themselves, brought out in the contrariety of the wilderness. So the idea of priests instead of sonship is stressed. That would preclude any having part in a fleshly way, taking licence, assuming sonship without priestly state; hence God stresses throughout these chapters “that they may serve me as priests”.
The time would come, in Solomon’s day, when the priests were unable to serve because of the glory, meaning that there is no need of this provisional requirement; but that in the eternal state of things, they may serve as sons. Another thing to be remarked is that the idea of priesthood was recognised in Israel before the formal appointment of Aaron and his sons, without any reference to what qualities they had or ability to serve. That is alluded to in chapter 19, and they are enjoined to certain [p. 109] action, and not only so, but in that chapter God proposed that the whole nation should be priests; that the thought should spread to the saints universally, and mark them. Then another thing that comes out is that the office of priest is occupied, in chapter 24, by youths who offered up burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, when the covenant was inaugurated. So we have a group of facts in Exodus that are intended to help us greatly as christians. For the meaning of all we find there has its application to ourselves, the anti-type. These things were written for us, and they apply to us. When Peter says, as he does, “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”, he alludes to us in all these phases, particularly of course in chapters 28 and 29 of Exodus. Another thing is that Romans develops priesthood informally, but as a great feature of the truth of the gospel, and in doing so brings in the idea of bondmanship — bondmanship to God — which also is essential to priesthood, corresponding with what we get in Exodus 21, the idea of bondmanship introduced as underlying all service. That is, the bondmanship which love accepts and prefers, as it were, serving in love the master and wife and children.
EBMcC Is your thought that priesthood will not go on in the eternal state, that it is sons there entirely?
JT The primary thought is sonship. Sonship manifestly is introduced in Exodus — “Let my son go, that he may serve me”. So that the priestly thought is provisional, to meet conditions in which the service should be carried on in the wilderness, and in the land, too, that is, the land as entered now and also in millennial conditions. I suppose it is a question first of obedience, bondmanship, and having our fruit unto holiness; that is what is meant, the Spirit being the power according to Romans 8 [p. 110] to maintain us in these qualities in intelligence; for the priesthood was to be marked by intelligence — “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and at his mouth they seek the law” (Malachi 2: 7).
JCS Is sonship the basis of priesthood?
JT That is the way Scripture presents it. Hebrews works it out in that way. The Son is Priest.
JCS It has taken the form of priesthood because of the existence of unholy conditions here?
JT Yes, having in view holy conditions for God’s service, in spite of unholiness around; in spite of will in us, and all that we are conscious of in the flesh. When out of the flesh and out of fleshly conditions, there will be no need for that; there will be nothing to restrain at all.
AW Service will continue through eternity.
JT Quite so, but the primary thought is sonship — “Let my son go”, so that in Ephesians we are said to be predestinated unto sonship by Jesus Christ to God Himself.
AW Then the priestly idea will cease?
JT It is just an added thought to enable the service to go on in spite of adverse conditions; the priest is the guarantee for that, that is, the priestly state. Even if it be a question of recovery in an erring saint, that is the sort of thing that is needed, “ye who are spiritual restore such a one” (Galatians 6: 1). Paul treats of it under a different name, but it is the same thing; it is a question of spirituality.
AW It is a relative idea as over against unspirituality. What do you set over against priesthood, it being a relative thought?
JT Spiritual is a relative thought over against what is unspiritual; spirituality will remain, but it has a relative bearing here. Priesthood is over against unrighteousness, unholiness, and ignorance. The priest is to be clothed with righteousness, and [p. 111] have compassion on the ignorant and erring. Intelligence also goes with priesthood.
SHB What is spontaneous will abide and go on.
JT Love springing out of known relationship with God, the relationship into which we are brought, answering to His counsel; sonship is in His mind. One of the divine Persons took on sonship, so that the thought should be presented, and that we should be brought into it.
SHB With priesthood is there a measure of responsibility?
JT Clearly. They were to abide in the sanctuary, (Leviticus 8), seven days; meaning the whole period of testimony here, to “keep the charge of the Lord”. Peter confines the thought to the offering of “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”, but John in Revelation 1: 6 says that Christ has “made us a kingdom, priests to his God”. We shall be priests in the millennium, according to Revelation 20: 6, but priests “of God”, not ‘to God’.
CAI Does priesthood apply as long as recovery from the evil that has come in is in view — the resolution of the moral question?
JT That is how it stands in Scripture. As I was remarking, God uses the formula “that they may serve me as priests”, some six times in these chapters. It is not as sons, although that is God’s thought underlying priesthood, but He says, “as priests”. It is because of the conditions we have to contend with, lest we may forget in our service the fleshly elements we have to encounter.
JC Would priesthood emphasise the fact that God is light, whereas sonship emphasises the holy nature of God?
JT Yes; what He is as against evil is seen in [p. 112] priesthood. Sonship involves the relationship of Father into which He has come. We are to be sons of God, as well as sons of the Father, but the relationship and affections are expressed in the term “Father;” a term intelligible to every parent and well known from Adam onward. God is pleased to come into that relationship so as to effect His counsels. Man, in Christ, is now before Him capable of yielding fully the affections which He sought. He found His delight in Christ, and we, as sons, come into this.
EWC Does it involve that the sphere of relationship is separated from the sphere of service?
JT Well, the Son serves. It is a family thought. The Lord says, “my Father and your Father” — that is a family thought, and the service enters into that, but then there is added to that, “my God and your God”, and service enters into that, too. The family side is more intelligible to us; it is easier to enter into, but the great end that God has in mind is God Himself. He is to be served by sons.
Ques Does priesthood imply distance, but sonship the nearer circle?
JT Priesthood is an office. It is like a garment which a son wears in a certain setting; it is the token of his position in office. The word ‘office’ will be hardly in force at all in eternal relations, but it is in force now. Hence the great variety seen in the habiliments of the high priest and the sons of the high priest. These all refer to characteristics put on in the power of the Spirit, bearing on adverse conditions. All these habiliments allude to that; expressive of love, in care and vigilance. Every item of the habiliments has some meaning; it is put on, it is a feature put on in view of conditions, as certain animals have furs or growths to meet certain conditions which would not exist if the conditions did [p. 113] not exist.
JCS If I understand you aright, the idea of priestly service runs along with the covenant and the family idea.
JT The idea of service runs along, but priesthood is more properly connected with the covenant, I think. While we are in the flesh we need the priestly thought, and even in the millennium, although Satan is bound, and death annulled in the main, yet the priesthood runs on — the need for it is there.
JCS The covenant and the family idea run on concurrently now.
JT Yes. If our service is to come up to the thought of God it must include both the covenant thought and the family thought, but the covenant is on lower ground.
CFI For us to approach the thought of priesthood we must be conscious of sonship?
JT That is the idea. There can be no service acceptable to God save in sonship, its spring is there. You will find in the most spiritual of our hymns, that is how it stands; the relation in which we are set with God is the basic thought of all.
CHH Would sonship imply the dignity in which priesthood is taken up?
JT Sonship gives it the dignity, but priesthood protects us. As I was saying, if you take the land animals or the fowls as they were created, I suppose just what they were physically was indicated by their growth, their forms and characteristics. Then as they spread abroad on the earth they had to do with the elements; if they went north, then in view of cold, the growth would be to meet it. I am speaking only illustratively. What we get in priesthood is not of course what develops in us naturally, but only in the sense of spiritual development, but God orders it — it is imperative, it must be [p. 114] so.
PL His priests are clothed with salvation, is that the idea?
JT Just so, that is one most important feature. It means that I am saved characteristically from the influences of the world. And the priests are to be clothed with righteousness, too. That was David’s desire in view of the divine dwelling — that the priests of God should be clothed with righteousness. God acknowledges that and says, “clothed with salvation” too. Righteousness is one thought, and salvation another. Both are represented in the priests’ clothes. You could hardly conceive of anything more important, if we are to take part the service of God, than that we are not only accounted righteous by the death of Christ, but we are to be practically righteous also, otherwise we can have no part in the service. For we must serve as priests, reminding us that we are not only sons through believing the gospel, but the priestly state must be there.
PL So that when the writer of Hebrews is clothing our Aaron, so to speak, in the light of the scripture in Exodus, he adds, He also loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.
JCS Is the necessity for holiness borne out by the fact that the sphere of service was the sanctuary or the holy place?
JT The word “sanctuary” meant that it was a holy enclosure. It is the enclosure in which the service is carried on, and the priesthood corresponds to it as having these clothes. I think if the brethren would notice the formula, “serve me as priests” over against serving as sons, we would see what is meant. There is not a word about sonship in the two chapters that speak of priesthood in Exodus, whereas the introductory thought of service is in the son.
EBMcC The thought in Hebrews, too, is that [p. 115] priesthood is for the ignorant and those out of the way, and beset with infirmities.
JT That is one thing, the ignorant and erring; and the law of divine requirements governing the service and governing the whole economy is to be kept by the priests. They are custodians of the law. So that in Leviticus, where we have the subject taken up in actual application, we have seven chapters devoted to the law, the law governing the offerings, as Peter says, “spiritual sacrifices”, before we have the installation of the priests. That is, they are seen as exercising their office as each man brought his offering, and then they are installed in chapter 8 — “Aaron and his sons”.
Ques “For such a high priest became us” (Hebrews 7: 26). Would that have any bearing?
JT Well, it has, only it is not in evidence in our chapters. The basis of that remark is “us”, that is, the greatness of the persons to be represented in the priest. It is not ‘became God’ there. In Hebrews 2: 10 it is that it became God. “It became him ... in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”. That became God. In chapter 7 it is “such a high priest became us”, because of the greatness of the saints in view of the heavenly calling. We need such a high priest as that, and then it says, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens”. Wonderful that we need such an One! It lifts us from all the littleness of what we are in the flesh to “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling”.
EBMcC Would the youths in Exodus 24 who offered, have on something akin to these garments? They would be morally qualified before Moses could send them to offer.
JT That has to be assumed. They are not said to be priests, although serving as priests; but when [p. 116] we come to chapter 28 God is asserting what is required by Him: “that they may serve me as priests”. As has been remarked, sonship is the basis of priesthood, and that shows the terrible character of the uprising in christendom, in men who are not converted at all assuming to be priests. The whole clerical system you may say is responsible and is involved in that; the idea of priesthood is assumed aside from sonship.
PL Is that why the Lord as the “Son of God” joins issue with Thyatira?
JT Just so. That is where you see the idea of priesthood especially set up in man in the flesh. I suppose you see it in the Romish system more fully than anywhere else; although Anglicans also use the term, and the idea attaches to everyone in the clerical office. It makes the assumption to be priests aside from being sons a serious matter.
JC Would you say a little in connection with Nadab and Abihu, and strange fire?
JT That shows that even the real priesthood may fail and has failed, but the more serious thing is in Numbers 16, where the Levites assumed to be priests, because they were Levites; not sons of Aaron. Meaning that persons who have gift and who are serving in the gospel and the like are assuming to be priests. That is pretty much what the clerical system means. It does not attach to the laity, who are shut out from the priesthood in the general thought.
JCS Do you not think there is a danger of the saints being invaded by that idea, that everyone feels he has a right to say something?
JT Yes. In the assembly we must speak as priests, that is, as in the service of God. That means we are spiritual, and not only so, but intelligent and holy in our thoughts, practically righteous publicly. If I am not clothed with righteousness, I have no [p. 117] right to speak nor to be in the fellowship, and if I am not able to judge the world and refuse it, I am not fit for the service of God. Added to that is the idea of holiness.
JCS These are the conditions that are necessary for ascending to the hill of the Lord.
AW According to Exodus the priests had to be suitably dressed for going into the presence of Jehovah.
JT That is exactly what we are trying to stress. It is “serve me as priests”, not as sons. God will not say that by-and-by when there is no evil around us, but now in the presence of evil He is speaking; at Sinai in the wilderness, where the evil is, He is taking account of conditions, so He stresses priesthood.
JCS It is a very great triumph morally that God has a company of priests in the world.
JT It is a wonderful thing that there are such garments as priests’ clothes, and it is remarkable that in remnant times — and ours are remnant times — Nehemiah makes so much of priests’ garments. Coming back from Babylon we are apt to carry Babylonish garments with us, hence the need of priestly garments to replace them.
CHH The high priest’s garments were for glory and ornament. All the moral features in the saints would be anticipated in that way.
JT Well, quite so. The priestly system seen typically in our chapter of course includes Christ as now in heaven. The principal habiliments refer to the high priest; what Christ wears — the ephod, the breast-plate, the chequered vest, the cloak, and the turban, and all that. All this refers to the high priest only; so we have to grasp the thought of Christ first, in order to see what is meant. Then in verse 40 to the end, we have the application to all of us, the sons of Aaron, but in both cases we are associated [p. 118] with Him and He with us, and we have the formula, “they may serve me as priests”. “That he may serve me” would refer to Christ. Christ takes up the service first as we see in the gospels, particularly in Luke, and then He is ascended into heaven in Acts and the saints are associated with Him. The coming down of the Spirit is the inauguration of the priestly family on earth, so that the service should go on.
PL The coming of the Spirit according to Luke is connected with clothing.
JT That is important — “till ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24: 49) — not ‘heaven’ it is moral dignity.
CAI Would the idea be that the clothing is available thus?
JT It is, only that it includes your own exercises; that you have the clothing, and in order to see the moral side working out, bondmanship I think has to be noted in Exodus 21, and seen there typically in Christ. Romans works it out in every saint. We begin with the idea of yielding ourselves bondmen to God, and our members instruments of righteousness to God, and on that line we have our “fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life”.
Ques Is service to mark the saints throughout eternity?
JT Clearly. God intends that. He says, “Let my son go, that he may serve me”, and in Revelation we are told that “his servants shall serve him”.
SHB What a sense of dignity these garments give! The Lord would help us to touch the matters of every-day life on a higher level.
JT These garments are to be seen, they are practical righteousness and salvation, and then the helmet or turban, with the plate in it, “Holiness to the Lord”, is to prevent natural ability, mental ability. In no way are we more exposed in the [p. 119] allowance of our minds than in the holy things of God, treating them merely in a mental way.
JCS You have specifically before you the assembly in function, so to speak.
JT Yes, the full thought of God is when we are together “in assembly”. These holy garments are seen, from Christ down to ourselves, they are all there.
SHB Would the thought of serving God refer to the whole of our time here, or only to such time as convened?
JT It is when we are convened we get the full thought; we are for God. Romans helps us — we should “be to another”, entirely abstracted that we might serve in newness of spirit. But our attitude is that of service all the time; service Godward and service manward. Priesthood is attached to both sides. We have the two thoughts in Peter’s epistle. The first is a holy priesthood, that is the inward attitude or bearing of our service, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Then the royal priesthood is mentioned later by Peter to show forth — that is external — the virtues of Christ “who has called you out of darkness to his wonderful light”. So that priesthood is attached to both positions.
JCS Do you think a priest in his service would resent any intrusion of nature, and his part would not only be intelligent, but there would be a spiritual flavour with it?
JT Quite so. Spiritual flavour is good. Intelligence, too, is a great part of priesthood. Of course we say a simple person, a young brother speaking simply is very good. You may have a young brother taking part for the first time, he may speak brokenly, but that would be like chapter 24 of Exodus, where the work is done without any reference to garments. God accepted that. It was Moses’ suggestion that the youths should offer and no doubt they did the best they could. The point is it was done, and done in youthfulness. We have all felt that a young brother standing up for the first time in fulness of affection imparts a certain flavour. But the next time he stands up you look for the garments, and they should appear, because after that chapter, God imposes what is required for His service in the tabernacle, and particularly here in these two chapters. He has great regard for what is suitable to Him. So that the next time I take part I should certainly have respect for the garments, and thus I am progressive, advancing in the thought of garments. Paul says, “I will sing with the spirit”, that is, with feeling, and not merely because I want to say something my spirit has indited; “I will sing also with the understanding” — that is the priestly garment.
Romans gives us the basic features of priesthood. It is well for young christians especially to study Romans. At the outset the Lord is declared to be the “Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead” — the Spirit of holiness. I believe that is introduced at the beginning of Romans to notify us that in receiving the gospel we receive it in that way. The element of everything is received in the gospel and has to be worked out in us; so when we come to chapter 5 we are seen as enriched. We have substance by the love of God being “shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit”. Then in chapter 6 we begin to look towards the position “in Christ”. We are to regard ourselves as “in Christ”, and to regard ourselves as bondmen to God and our members as instruments of righteousness to God, and so have our fruit unto holiness. We must have holiness. Then in chapter 7 we are said to serve “in newness of spirit”. In chapter 6 it is “newness of life”, and in chapter 7 it is newness of spirit. In chapter 12 we have the renewing of our mind — newness of mind. In understanding these statements you get to see what God requires worked out in our beings. Then the Spirit in chapter 8 is the great power for it all; even as to prayer, we are told He makes intercession with groanings; He intercedes for the saints according to God. We get the sense in ourselves in speaking to God of what is in the groaning of the Spirit; and not only so, but we cry, “Abba, Father”. According to Galatians, the Spirit cries, “Abba, Father” first, and we say it by the spirit of adoption; that is chapter 8 of Romans; so that the Holy Spirit leads us on in that way.
JCS The features observed in Romans are the priestly tendencies that are to be developed in us.
JT That is right. They are woven into our very beings as the outcome of the gospel presented to us; Christ declared to be Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection of the dead.
PL Is that seen as the fruit of the gospel as presented in Luke — you have a priestly company praising in the temple? They were the fruit of the presentation of what is developed in Romans in doctrine, but presented in Luke as praising God.
JT That is the end in view. They returned to Jerusalem with great joy — they had substance. They are blessed — the Lord blessed them. They “were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God”. The epistle to the Romans should have produced in Rome, in the very capital of the empire, a priestly company — that is what is in mind — a priestly company in newness of life. First enrichment in chapter 5; newness of life and holiness in chapter 6; newness of spirit in chapter 7; the Spirit itself interceding with groanings which cannot be uttered; the spirit of adoption crying,
“Abba, Father;” the sons of God led by the Spirit of God in chapter 8; and then the renewing of the mind and knowing how to present a sacrifice — your bodies — in chapter 12. The sacrifice is to be “holy, acceptable to God, which is your intelligent service. And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind”. All that was to be developed in the saints in Rome. Luke would confirm that; his gospel would confirm Paul’s ministry. He continues the subject in his second treatise until he shows you the apostle Paul himself in Rome, the testimony is there, he is a prisoner, but still he is there. The Spirit presented in Romans 8 is the power for all the things we meet with. The chapter is wonderful from this point of view; it contemplates the end of the wilderness. Chapter 6 is the beginning of the journey, but chapter 8 contemplates we are in the plains of Moab, safely carried through, equal to the service of God — sons -led by the Spirit, by the Spirit of adoption; crying, “Abba, Father;” God’s Spirit witnessing with our spirit that we are children of God. Then the Spirit is interceding for us “with groanings which cannot be uttered. But he who searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because he intercedes for saints according to God”. Following on that we are seen victorious in the power of the Spirit.
JCS The garments generally are ornamental, but what about the linen breeches, which were very plain? What do they represent?
JT They represent sobriety where the flesh is strongest, fleshly feelings — they represent that side. We have the head taken account of, and the breast and the girdle of the loins, the linen breeches. Linen is the covering downwards. I believe the idea is of our being sober, balanced in the part we take in the things of God; we are not to be governed by natural [p. 123] feelings in any way. Sobriety is the thought in linen, I think.
PL The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet.
JT Quite so. Paul says, I keep under my body, which would mean he never allowed it to govern him. Whether it be a sick body, or an athletic body — whatever it be — he never allowed it to control him; he was always in control of it. Self-control is the fruit of the Spirit.
JC Would the thought of consecration begin by our being bondmen to God as in Romans?
JT That is the way it would work out with any one of us. Take a young believer presenting his body; that means he has control of it, but it is not a dead body. In chapter 8 it says, the body is dead on account of sin, if Christ be in you, but the Spirit is life on account of righteousness. The Spirit is in the christian, and that is now the only power of life in him. Physical life is not in mind; it is the moral side. The body once actuated by sinful motions is dead, if Christ be in you, but the Spirit is life in view of righteousness; henceforth I am righteous practically. Chapters 9 - 11 are parenthetical, then in chapter 12 the christian path is resumed. There the believer is besought by the compassions of God to present his body a living sacrifice. That alludes to chapter 8, where the Spirit is owned: “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your intelligent service”.
EBMcC We need Colossians and Ephesians as well, to reach the last chapter of Luke — in the temple praising God?
JT Quite so. There is the power from on high.
CHH Are the garments progressive in our spiritual history, or are they characteristic?
JT The idea is progressive. It is to be noticed that John does not admit of any faith being valid [p. 124] which is not progressive. If it is stationary, it has ceased to be faith characteristically. He tells us that the Lord took small cords and drove out from the temple the sheep and oxen; and that the disciples remembered that it is written, “The zeal of thy house devours me”. They remembered that; they were not appalled at such drastic action as the Lord took. There are those who say that you are too severe, and are demanding too much; that you must be broad-minded and take in every christian, and that sort of thing; but that will not do. The disciples, when the Lord made the whip of small cords, did not make any objection to what He did, but remembered rather what the Scripture said about that very thing. They were with Him in what He did, which required faith. Then the Lord proceeded to speak about the temple of His body, that He should raise it up; and it says, His disciples remembered what He had said, after He was raised, and they believed the scripture and the words of Jesus. They carried the thoughts through. Their faith was progressive. That is what is so needed amongst us.
CHH Absolute perfection is seen in the Lord and progression in the disciples. I was thinking of the voice from heaven saying, “Thou art my beloved Son”.
JT God begins with that, the highest thought at the Jordan, and everything that follows is to lead us up to that. The company at the end of Luke is the great result: “praising and blessing God” in the temple. They are amenable to His leading; another great feature in Luke. Having instructed them, opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written. He spoke of the law, the prophets, and the Psalms — the whole Bible — and then He led them out as far as to Bethany. They are amenable to His leading, and He went up from them there. He was received up into heaven; thus heaven [p. 125] is expressing its corresponding delight in Him, as at the beginning, at the Jordan. He is received up, “And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem”. They knew what to do, they are like sons of God, led of the Spirit of God, add are “continually in the temple, praising and blessing God”.