PRIESTHOOD
[p. 369] PRIESTHOOD
1 Peter 2:4,5; 1 Samuel 23:1 - 12; 2 Samuel 6:13,14
JT The subject of priesthood is of peculiar importance in that the idea has acquired such a place in historical christianity, or, as I might say, theological christianity. The prominence that it has in current christianity, makes our position correspond somewhat with the early chapters of the Acts, where we get the transference of divine thoughts from the typical, legal system, to the spiritual. Terms employed typically are only rightly understood by the Spirit. Such terms may find their place in current religion, but they cannot be used intelligibly, or be rightly employed, or the thing itself be realized, save by the Spirit. I understand that is how we are to regard the expression in Exodus; the direction given to the Israelites is to borrow utensils from the Egyptians, to “spoil” the Egyptians (Exodus 3:22). Spoilation spiritually, means that things held in a merely religious way are taken on spiritually. Their mere religious use becomes null and void as the things are taken on and employed spiritually. So that Peter, being the apostle whom the Lord appointed to open the door to the gentiles, having the keys of the kingdom, becomes, as it were, the vessel of transfer, bringing priesthood formally in among christians, and showing that it, with other things, applied to saints having no earthly centre. They were themselves a holy priesthood; they were themselves, however dispersed, being built up a spiritual house; they could themselves offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God. So that in the presence of the introduction of the gentiles we are told in Acts 9:32 that Peter visited “all quarters”, and He tells Aeneas to rise and make his bed for himself — meaning that he should no longer look to Jerusalem.
[p. 370] but that the saints of God should learn how to look after themselves in their several localities. He also raises up Tabitha and presents her living. The gentiles were not brought into a system centring in Jerusalem, but to an order of things in which the people of God could arise and make their bed for themselves — a living state of things. It is into this the gentiles are introduced; learning that such blessed relations or offices as the priesthood belong to them. They are maintained there on account of the living state of things. David illustrates this in the Old Testament, showing how things were taken over from the regime of Saul in a simple, normal, practical way. David partook of the bread, the food of the priests, and he took the sword that was kept behind the ephod, and then he has the ephod itself. He uses all these things.
EHW Would that show that every movement must be on spiritual lines? that every movement in connection with the service of God can only be maintained in a priestly way?
JT That is what I thought: “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices”. The thought passed on by Peter here is not to be dormant, but active. The relations that we take on, and the terms we apply to ourselves scripturally, and their bearing, are to be manifest; their meaning is to be exemplified; so that if we are a holy priesthood, we are to offer up spiritual sacrifices; as living stones we are being built up a spiritual house. If there is priestly food it is to be used; David earnestly sought it. If there is a sword of Goliath, it is to be employed; it is not to be wrapped up behind the ephod. If there is an ephod, it is to be used. So David used it, but not as something which he made for himself, but as carried over by Abiathar.
JW What would be [p. 371] a spiritual sacrifice?
JT Anything in the way of a spiritual composition that I offer to God, whether it be a hymn, or a song, or giving of thanks; but it would not be a matter of words, but of substance. God being a Spirit, must be worshipped “in spirit and in truth”. The service of God depends upon our recognition of God as a Spirit.
We are speaking now of the priesthood as seen in Exodus 28 and 29 as specially in the hands of Aaron and his sons. In Exodus 6 the genealogy of Jacob is given until we come to Levi, and then it is dropped; then Levi’s genealogy is pursued to Phinehas, who has the everlasting priesthood. That is God’s thought in regard of His service.
Rem God said of Aaron, “that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office”, (Exodus 28:3).
JT That is right. Peter shows that this thought which belonged to Israel, like many other thoughts, is now carried over into christianity, and applies to the saints of God wherever they may be found geographically. There is no longer need of an earthly centre; the saints of God in any place, as recognizing Christ as Head of the assembly, and the Spirit of God as present, may function as priests; and in functioning we are in a moral sense robbing what is merely religious of the right to use these terms, for their use of them becomes null and void, alongside of the thing used rightly in the power of the Spirit.
ET That is set forth in David, for he was not a priest officially — not of the family of Aaron.
JT That is the idea. We see in David how priesthood came about morally. David made no claim officially; it came about with him out of dire necessity. He needed bread, and he got the priests’ bread; he was in need of a sword, and he got it from behind the ephod, and then he got the ephod itself. That is how things come to us; it is practical, and it [p. 372] stands.
WC Will you tell us what these things mean for us?
JT Bread is what we need, for sustenance. The shewbread was to be used by the priests, as the Lord Himself said: “for the priests only” (Matthew 12:4); but He says that David himself ate it. It is Christ as food for the priests. It is the bread of the presence (see note in New Translation, Exodus 25:30). If we look at it as in Exodus, the shewbread is presented as referring to what is under the eye of God, without any reference to the number of cakes; but in Leviticus it is in relation to what is administrative: “twelve cakes ... upon the pure table before Jehovah”, set in order by the priest, by Aaron (Leviticus 24:5,6). It was to be before God for a whole week, and then the priests had it. What is food for God becomes food for us.
Then the sword is the sword of Goliath that David himself had acquired, but it was wrapped up behind the ephod, denoting something held objectively, or as mere doctrine, but not used. Indeed, it does not appear that they were using the shewbread either, but David used both. What is suggested is objective truth which is never put into practice. But David immediately takes them over, and we see how he exercises his priestly function in regard to the Philistines’ attack on Keilah; and then how he used the ephod itself. In each case he prays, and then exercises priestly function, and in each case he gets an answer from God. That is, as the thing is working, we are proving the reality of it. If we pray in the prayer meeting, the next thing is to expect answers. If we do not get answers, our prayers are not effective.
Ques Is there an order in these things, first, the bread?
JT We must be sustained as to what is before God. If we have a prayer meeting we must look for answers, or we are drifting back to the mere routine [p. 373] of accredited religion around. Unless our general procedure is living in character there is no testimony at all. In the section we have referred to (1 Samuel 23), David prayed three times, and he got three answers, and the answers were what were needed. In this way the testimony of God is to be carried on.
HMS Has the fact that Abiathar escaped the massacre of the priests any bearing on 1 Peter 1:1? — the scattering of the saints of God, which is the position today, in weakness and confusion.
JT I think that is good. Abiathar representing a remnant, so that there is a strong link; what we have today is on that principle. From Thyatira onwards, there is the thought of the remnant. All that belongs to the original belongs to the remnant, but it is taken up in a humble way. The occasion of David securing the shewbread and the sword stirred up the enemy, which it always does, and the priests connected with the priesthood which was then becoming merely formal, as the facts show, were destroyed; but there was a remnant in Abiathar, and he carried over the priesthood in the ephod, representing the love side; for priesthood has no value unless the love side is with it as evidenced in praying for others.
EuR Do you mean that we need constantly to keep in mind the two incidents in connection with Aeneas and Dorcas in their bearing on ourselves in our own localities, as to whether we can do things for ourselves, and whether there are living conditions?
JT That is the idea. In such circumstances and surroundings the priesthood shines, because terms are of no value unless they are exemplified. It is very beautiful and instructive to see how true priesthood works out in David.
EuR Is it based on the thought of “living stones” in 1 Peter [p. 374] 2?
JT It is. There is a living state of things connected with the building. Christ Himself is the Living Stone, and we are living stones, and come into the exercise of priesthood as holy — the priesthood is holy.
EHW Would you say a word with regard to the necessity of making our bed as suggested in Aeneas?
JT He had lain on it for eight years. If we have a system of meetings week in, week out, for eight years, and the thoughts of God are not being developed in a practical way, it is time we remade our bed; that is, it is time to look over things and see whether we have not to remake our whole position. As to Aeneas personally, of course, the primary thought was that he should act for himself and not depend on others. The thought lies at the foundation of a local assembly. The scripture reads “Jesus, the Christ, heals thee” (Acts 9:34). It is “the Christ”; the suggestion is that there is one Man qualified to do things, and Peter brings Him into the circumstances; because the idea is that things are being done; local conditions are not to be dormant. A Person has come in who is doing things for God. There is the idea of what Jesus is doing; it is said of Him in Luke 11:14: “he was casting out a demon”; the service was going on. Healing leads to living conditions. The woman in the next incident is presented living. There is something very dignified about that; the Lord presented Himself living as seen in Acts 1. The mind is directed to what is presented. The woman is presented living, as much as to say that the conditions among the Jewish believers were quite equal to what God was going to produce among the gentiles. As the Jews and gentiles are linked up together in life, priesthood is functioning; so that Peter in his epistles fits in with Paul’s doctrine.
WC Does the expression “to whom coming” suggest it having been done once for all time, or is it a constant spiritual movement?
JT I should say it is characteristic. If Peter were referring to something historical he would have said, to whom having come, but he says “to whom coming”, the suggestion being that something is going on; that there are living conditions; that there is movement. We see in Exodus that, as the parts of the tabernacle were made, they were brought to Moses, so that the things function at once; as soon as anything is set up it is functioning. Christianity is never to be regarded as a stationary or stagnant thing; it is living; the terms employed are to be exemplified in the way the things are used.
PL Do the garments which Dorcas had made suggest what was past? Peter puts all the widows out, and manifests a priestly feature: “and kneeling down, prayed” (chapter 9:40).
JT Distinctly so, “kneeling down”, showing that it was a very important matter; it was a matter of deep exercise.
GL Does the answer show that life is the divinely given answer to priestly exercise?
JT Quite so; it shows if priesthood is used rightly, what it brings in. So in Acts 10 Peter goes up to the house-top to pray. Indeed, Cornelius had been engaged in prayer, too. All that shows that the idea of priesthood was there, and it brings in results for God.
David through the exercise of priesthood in prayer, overcomes the Philistines at Keilah; and then the ephod is brought to the city. You notice that where the Philistines are overthrown the ephod is brought in. It is interesting to see that in 1 Samuel 23:6: “And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, he came down with an ephod in his hand”. In the end of chapter 22 we are told that he “escaped, and fled after David.
[p. 376] And Abiathar informed David that Saul had slain Jehovah’s priests”; but now, in this sixth verse of chapter 23, Abiathar comes to Keilah with the ephod. This fits spiritually, for David had much to meet; but he faces his difficulties on the principle of the priesthood, speaking to God in prayer with the ephod.
PL Would you say that according to 1 Corinthians the city was besieged by the enemy, and would 2 Corinthians 6:2, “I have listened to thee in an accepted time, and I have helped thee in a day of salvation: behold, now is the well-accepted time; behold, now the day of salvation”, be the ephod secured in the city?
JT Just so. It is striking how often you find the truth exemplified in the two letters to the Corinthians; they have such a wide bearing. The Philistine element at Corinth was undoubtedly taking the city, as it were, and we can understand how the apostle agonized about them, how he sent Timotheus to them, and how he wrote to them; and, you might say, overthrew the Philistine element. The second epistle brings out the ephod. It is the full thought; the ephod means love exercised intelligently, in the sense of support in regard to what is of God, as in the shoulder pieces. The ephod was the priestly garment par excellence; it represents the priesthood really as a garment. It implies support of the tribes on the shoulders, “according to their birth”: that is the family of God; and then the names on the breastplate “according to the twelve tribes”, having relation to the counsels of God (Exodus 28:10,21). So we can see how far-reaching the thought of the ephod is, and 2 Corinthians brings it out — what a place the Corinthians had in Paul’s heart, and how he supported them in his prayers, agonizing about them. He says, “Our mouth is opened to you, Corinthians, our heart is expanded. Ye are not [p. 377] straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your affections; but for an answering recompense, (I speak as to children,) let your heart also expand itself”, (2 Corinthians 6:11 - 13).
JHL Will you illustrate how the apostle used the sword as priest at Corinth?
JT I think it is the word of God, “the sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17), but I think the sword of Goliath is death; death as wrested out of the hand of the enemy and applied in ministry, of which the first epistle to the Corinthians is a striking example; it is the use Paul makes of the death of Christ, and not only the death of Christ, but also of the cross. I can use it in this sense against myself.
WC He speaks of the word of the cross as God’s power for salvation. Is that how we are practically delivered from the Philistine element?
JT That is how it worked out at Corinth; it is a question of bringing the death of Christ to bear upon us now: death is ours, as Paul says, “all things are yours ... life, or death”, (1 Corinthians 3:21 - 22).
Ques Can we make a wrong use of the ephod? Gideon did.
JT We can indeed; Gideon’s ephod became, alas! an idolatrous snare. We see, on the other hand, David clothed in a linen ephod as he danced before the ark. The priesthood thus became developed in his ministry. In 1 Chronicles 15, the corresponding passage, it is said that he had on a robe of byssus; that would enhance the ephod. Though a king, he acted as a priest. That brought out the opposition of Michal.
Ques Why was it that the family of Levi came into prominence by the sword in connection with the priesthood?
JT You refer to Exodus 32? They qualified there as on the Lord’s side; it is a question of every man taking his sword against his brother, doing violence [p. 378] to nature. No one can rightly exercise priesthood who recognizes natural links in the house of God.
Rem God says of Levi, “My covenant with him was of life and peace, and I gave them to him that he might fear; and he feared me, and trembled before my name”, (Malachi 2:5).
Rem David went to some risk to secure the sword from where it had been hidden.
JT His action illustrates how he obtained things. You do not want that principle wrapped up behind the ephod; you want the sword in action; that is what it is for, it is to be used. The word of God and prayer go together. The former is the sword, the latter, priesthood.
Rem David’s action caused the death of all the priests.
JT It did; that was God’s government; he owns that the priests suffered on his account; but there was a remnant in Abiathar, and he brought the ephod to David. It is to show how the thought of priesthood is transferred. Instead of Abiathar using it, David used it. Abiathar represents the idea in a remnant; but David represents the side of the truth that makes use of the thing, and disregards mere religious limitations. The imposition of religious limitations would prevent the working out of these precious things. David represents that which over-throws all that; though not of the house of Aaron, he prays, and uses the ephod, and shows how effective it is as thus used. It indicates how we get free from religious trammels, that which prevents the actual working out of divine thoughts. The ephod has now come into David’s hands.
EuR Is this a little like the merging of Peter’s ministry with Paul’s in the New Testament?
JT Exactly; the idea of priesthood is right, but it was in wrong hands; the priests at Jerusalem put the Lord Jesus Christ to death; but then that [p. 379] does not show that the idea of priesthood is wrong; it is right; and it comes out in the gentiles. Those who have the Holy Spirit are a holy priesthood.
PL Would “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15), to whom Peter refers, be a priestly appellation?
JT Yes; it shows the breastplate on the ephod is in evidence. The ephod was in evidence both in Peter and Paul, though at one time there was a danger of a serious breach between them. It was overcome in the action of Paul who withstood Peter to the face. That was a priestly feature, something like the action of Phinehas, seen in Numbers 25.
ET The sword had been in the hands of David previously, so it should come back to him.
JT Yes. These things have to be understood spiritually. But there it was, laid up behind the ephod, unused. I think it represents objective truth. Take the Establishment — they have objective truth in the creed to a great extent; but the point is, Is it in use? Of what value is it if it is not in use? David was practical — a spiritual man is always practical — and he breaks away from mere religious trammels in praying himself. He makes use of the shewbread, too. Then Abiathar brings the ephod to make it regular; so that the priesthood is now in David’s possession. Priesthood is in the hands of the spiritual. That is the fact today. It does not belong to mere accredited religion at all. Peter detached it from judaism in saying christians were priests. David in 2 Samuel 2:1, prays to God, asking if he should go up to one of the cities of Judah, suggesting the idea of elevation. Jehovah’s reply is: “Go up”. David asks again, To what city? and he gets the answer: “Unto Hebron”. That is, he gets into a position outside the world system altogether, at Hebron. Then in chapter 6 he is found in the linen ephod, dancing before the ark. You can see how [p. 380] the idea is exemplified; and that is what God is looking for — exemplification of the terms that we use.
PW David said of the sword of Goliath, “There is none like that”.
JT He knew the value of it. Think of what objective truth would be if rightly answered to and used! You apply death to yourself; it is in your hands. That is the idea of the sword of Goliath. What Satan used against us is now in our own hands; so let us apply it to ourselves. “Put to death therefore”. It is the greatest weapon. In David’s dancing before the ark I think we see a man altogether outside of himself, in priestly trim, full of affection, the linen ephod meaning that he was quite sober in what he was doing. It was not mere natural exuberance; he was quite sober. A great military man dancing before the ark might seem out of place: Michal thought it was; it was a shame and a disgrace in her eyes; but David was perfectly sober in what he was doing. It was suitable to the moment; the linen indicates sobriety. The idea of priesthood was so great in his mind, that he uses, we may say, the whole house of Aaron in the twenty-four courses; as if to intimate that not one item of the priesthood was to be unused.
Ques Does Peter praying in Acts 10 suggest that, being faithful in connection with the Jewish setting, he was used in relation to the bringing in of the gentiles?
JT How beautiful it was that while waiting for his meal he should use the time in prayer! It is a reminder to us that the exercise of priesthood is practical and continuous, that every moment available for it should be utilized. While he was waiting for his meal, he was praying, and an ecstasy fell upon him, as if to show how God approved of his action. So in David you see how the thought of priesthood is to spread out into twenty-four courses, to include [p. 381] all the saints, so to speak; it is so valuable that it must all be in action. If the saints were to pray more, brothers and sisters alike, there would be a great deal more power in our meetings and energy in testimony. We should see God coming in for us; we should expect it. He came in each time David asked Him.
HMS Would 1 Samuel 23 help us specially in regard to our prayer meetings, and 2 Samuel 6 in regard to praise? In 1 Samuel, David also prays and gets the answer and the victory without the ephod; it is his own direct intercession. Things may be very weak, but they are acceptable before God?
JT That is very instructive. He gets his answer. We see in 1 Samuel 30 how God answered David when he went to Him with the ephod. Then in 2 Samuel 2:1 as having received answers from Jehovah he goes up to Hebron, as if God would lead him to the world based on resurrection. Then he goes on to Jerusalem; takes the ark there, and in the fulness of priestly vigour he is dancing before it. Then comes the division of the priests into twenty-four courses, as if he would make the very most of the priesthood, suggesting that every christian should be engaged in prayer, and see that that is his calling, seeking to be before God, in the service of prayer.