Personal Duties of the Priests
“A BISHOP MUST BR BLAMELESS.” 1 Tim. in. 2.
Vers. 1, 2, 8, 4. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people: but for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother, and for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled. But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himsel£”
Thk fourth verse assigns the reason why the priest is not to be allowed, like all other men, to defile himself for every relative or friend that dies. He is “chief man among’ his people”* — guardian, or superintendent of the community at largo; and of course, therefore, could never be out of mourning if he were to mourn for every one in the community that died. Whereas, he is a public character, sustaining important relations to the people in their religious rites and in their approach to God.
He is, however, not to be devoid of sympathy and feeling. Nay, he is fully permitted to pour out his grief
* Not “husband,*” for then idx would have been joined with bsa j but Uke the construction of a bttis. And so Jeremiah iii. 14, has it.
over mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and unmarried sister (who still clung to him with unweakened affection, having no husband); and of course, also, over his own wife, “his own flesh.”* A priest must have feelings of deep emotion; he must resemble Jesus, the Antitype, weeping over his own kindred most of all, and only restrained from weeping over all by express enactment of Jehovah. A priest must have in his soul the yearning of all affection, though he give not vent to all he feels. He must not place his regards too specially on any but near relatives, that so he may feel more generally for all under his care.
Ought not ministers of Christ to be of this same mind? Oh! what tenderness is required of us! What wide compassion! An eye that will look out upon a lost world, and a heart that will feel anguish for what the eye beholds. Oh I for that mind which was in Jesus! Such sympathy and pity — such full tides of loving-kindness that never had an ebb. “The earth was full of the loving-kindness of the Lord.” How, then, did men contrive to escape from its blessed power? Alas! they fled from the advancing tide, and stood far off, and perished. So should our ministry be — men so arrested by the love we bring them, that they can escape salvation only by fleeing from the full tide of love that would have swept away their guilt and bathed their souls in bliss. Lord, keep us from selfish joys and selfish sorrows! Teach us to live for others, and for thee!
Vers. 5, 6.” They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither
* Ezek. xxiv. 16-18, shows this inference to be true; for there we see that it needed an express prohibition, introduced for the occasion, to prevent the prophet’s mourning.
ball they nbave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cattingt in their flesh. They phall be holy unto their God, and not profan« the name of their Ood: for the offerings of the Lord made by Are, and the bread of their Ood, they do offer; therefore they shall be holy.”
Even when they do mourn in the instances specified, they are not to imitate the Heathen, nor conform to the usages of any who express immoderate grief. There must be no baldness, or plucking off the hair (Ezra ix. 6) in such cases; no shaping of the beard into a corner; no cutting of the flesh. Priests are doubly bound to abstain from all appearance of evil: they are his near attendants, offering ‘■’■the bread of their God;” as if they were cupbearers at his table, always seeing his face. And being thus near him, they have access to peculiar joys, and they may be well expected to exhibit in consequence peculiar holiness. If otherwise, they “profane his name;” they leave on other men a bad impression of Jehovah’s perfections, as if such men could live (as they profess) in the radiance of them, and yet be earthly-minfled men.
It is still thus with ministers of Christ.* Paul was directed to charge one such to be “no striker, not a brawler;” that is, not imitating the heathen in revengeful and angry passions; but to be “sober and of good behavior” {awq,Qora, xoofitov). This implies an absence of all worldly conformity; no immoderate grief, like the world’s, in time of calamity; no excessive or extravagant tokens of affliction even under the sorest bereavement; and no unbecoming act even when tempted by a wish to
* Not that ministers of Christ now are priettt at all in the sense of offering sacrifice, or standing as mediators between God and the people. (See Archbishop Whateley on this.) — But they are servts who occupy a station in sight of the people, and ore sent by Gkpd to point others to tht tacrifice already offered.
comply with fashionable usages. The world must see the habit of our spirit and the manner of our actions to be such as might be looked for from men peculiarly set apart to minister the bread of life to others, receiving it from the master’s table.
Vers. *?, 8. “They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane neither shall they take a woman that is put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God. Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he ofFereth the bread of thy God: he shall be holy unto thee: for I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy.”
The priest must not marry one whose character was not publicly known to be blameless. One that had been guilty of uncleanness, or one who has become unhallowed (” joro/awe”) by any other circumstance, such as by being the daughter of such a mother, or a divorced woman, — these are all forbidden him. The priest was typical in all his public acts; he shadows forth our High Priest; therefore, he must shadow him forth in his espousals. The Saviour’s bride is “without spot or wrinkle,” “undefiled,” “the choice one of her that bare her; the daughters saw her and blessed her.” (Song vi. 9.) And as he “hateth putting away” (Mai. ii. 16), therefore the priest must not marry a divorced woman. The Saviour chooses for eternity; there must be nothing even to hint to his espoused that she may again be separated from him.
In a minister there is not the same typical reason foi care in this matter; but there is the same reason that is given ver. 8, viz., his employment before God, and the character of the God with whom he has to do, and foi whom he acts. The argument of ver. 8 is this: “I am holy; and I sanctify you, my people Israel, for mine. Now, the priest is my servant in offering my bread, or sacrifices; therefore, for my sake, since ho serves me sc nearly, let him be holy in your eyes.” 0 man of God, do you hear? Do you observe what the Lord says of you? You are to be holy in the eyes of the people, in consideration of the God whom you serve. If so, oh! how watchful must you be! how circumspect! how unblemished! In regard to the special subject of ver. 7, Paul writes, 1 Tim. iv. 12, “Be an example of the believers in purity.” How awful is your responsibility if you diminish your zeal, love, spirituality, by marrying one who has more of earth and a present world in her person and spirit, than of heaven and a coming eternity. It seems to be a sin in ministers, to do anything whatsoever that might leave an unholy impression on others; how much more, then, is it a sin in them to have their own frame of spirit secularized. Oh! to have the deep solemnity and unfeigned holiness of “word and conversation” (1 Tim. iv. 12) that well become servants of Jehovah who is holy, and who sanctifies us for hisholjt work! “Who can stand before so holy a God?” “Pura than the rays of the sun ought a minister of Christ to be,” said Chrysostom. Lord, baptize us with a full baptism of the holy Ghost!
Ver. 9. “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself bj playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.”
As in the case of New Testament pastors it is written, “having faithful children that are not accused of riot, nor unruly” (Tit. i. 6); so here, in thecace of the priest’s family. For the conduct of the family is noticed by the world, and they lay the blame of their misdeeds at the door of their parents. There is a responsibility connected “with belonging to a godly house; the privileges enjoyed there ought to have had a blessed effect on the children. Woe to them if it be otherwise! Double woe! for thus they hinder the usefulness of their father, who loses influence in the eyes of the world if his counsels and walk have not succeeded in drawing his own family to Grod. This is “profaning their father’s name.” The daughter mentioned here was to be burnt with fire — a type of the flames of wrath, the fire that never shall be quenched. “It is impossible but that offences come; but woe to them by whom they come I”
Vers. 10, 11, 12. “And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was jKJured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father or for his mother; neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the Lord.”
On a typical account the high priest was not to conform to the usages of his brethren in mourning; — “the anointing oil being poured on his head,” he was thereby set apart, beyond all others; nay, ^’■the crown of the anointing oil” i. e., the holy crown on his forehead (Exod. xxix. 6), placed him in a position too conspicuous as a public person to admit of his conformity to the usages of private life. The oil, and the holy crown bound around his anointed head, proclaimed him “hig-h priest” between God and his brethren — an eminent type of Jesus.
The title “high priest” (literally “great priest”) occurs here for the first time. It is given in order to show that the rank of the man i§ the reason for this law being laid down. Now, Jesus exhibited no sign of mourning for himself — never uncovered his head nor rent his
•«, clothes’^ because of personal beroavements; nor did he touch the dead, except to convey life back again; and even when his mother was in all a widows and a mother’s anguish at the cross, ho still acted as High Priebt; and while he exhibited excessive tenderness, he at the same time did so as one fulfilling public responsibilities; for, in the midst of his woes as the smitten Shepherd, he took time to recommend her to John, and then, so to speak, resumed his work of suffering. He truly was the Priest who never went “out of the sanctuary,” and who “never profaned it” by the introduction of personal concerns. He ever felt the streams of the anointing oil on his head; he saved not, but hated and lost, his own life for us; he stood as entirely a substitute and surety.
Vers. 13, 14, 15. “And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall lie profane hia seed amoog his people: for I the Lord do sanctifj him.”
Here is another type of our great High Priest. His Church is espoused to him “as a chaste virgin” (2 Cor. xi. 2); and he says of her, “My undefiled” (Song vi. 9), and she says of him, “My first husband” (Hosea ii. 7). The meaning of the clause, “neither shall he profane his seed” may be to this effect, that he should not allow his sons, who were to be priests after him, to marry in a way forbidden by the law, and especially not allow the son that would be high priest in his room to unqualify himself for the office by marrying any one forbidden by this law, and who was, therefore, “profane.”
Christ is married to his Church in perfect holiness. “She Cometh to the king in robes of needle-work” — all glorious. She was not thus fair when he found her; but she is “all fair,” “undefiled,” “the choice one,” when he marries her. The marriage of the lamb is on the day of his coming out of the holy place to bless his redeemed. It is a holy people he is to rejoice in; holiness becometh his house forever; no spot or wrinkle, no blemish or any such thing, appears on his redeemed when he is their Bridegroom. (Eph. v. 27.) We look for a holy heaven — an eternity wherein we shall never once think an earthly thought, or feel one desire that is less than divinely pure. The blood of the high priest’s sacrifice speaks of such a demand as this; for that blood not only washes clean, but its testimony and demand are loud, and vehement, in behalf of perfect purity for the time to come.
Ver. 16. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying.”
As it is a precept for the line of priests in all ages, “in all their generations” “(ver. 16,) the Lord does not speak to Aaron personally, but to Moses, the lawgiver; especially as these precepts bore so much upon personal capabilities.
Vers. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. “Speak unto Aaron, saying. Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous, or a man that is broken footed, or broken-handed, or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; no man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.”
The sacrifices are the “bread of God” as in other places! Can there be, in this expression, a reference to
God giving us Christ as our bread of life? Can it mean the “bread which is set before God, in order to be handed to us when he has examined and accept-ed it?” And is it to this the Lord Jesus refers, when he says, “The bread which I give is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world?” (John vi. 51.)
These precepts concerning the priests evidently originate in the necessity that, as being a type of Jesus, the officiating priest should be one that exhibited no blemish. The Song of Solomon may cast some light on this passage. In setting forth purity and loveliness, under figurative terms, it uses almost all the references to the bodily qualities that are found here. Here the defects are spoken of; there, the excellencies. (See specially Song V.)
If the priest were “blind,”* then the people would be led to misapprehend the type. He could not represent him whose “eyes are as a flame of fire.” If the priest were “lame,’’’ he could not represent him whose” legs are as pillars of marble.” If “mutilated in the nose” (cin), he could not be the type of him whose Church and Spouse has this said of her, “Thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon.” If “superfluous in any limb” — if one limb was longer than another — he could not be a proper type of him who “cometh leaping on the mountains,” as a roe and young hart. If “broken-footed,’’^ he was unlike him whom his Church celebrates as planting his stately steps so firmly that his feet are “sockets of fine gold,” on which the “pillars of marble” rest. His hands
* At ver. 20, the Septuagint have “im’XXjf rout ()^flaA/io»(” for ■JS’^sa bisPi, on -which the Bcholia of the Vatican edition, as quoted by Iku, has this ■nmewhat quaint remark,” h fiKtara up ro9 ffXntir iartfini’*’»( iyiHt i* recmroitrv oVK ix’- itaioi Ttn{ hair aipirikuv *!o(.
are “as gold rings set with beryl;” and could not, therefore, admit of being represented by one “broken-handed.’’^ He was to stretch out his complete and entire person on the cross; the nails were to pierce his hands and feet, but yet not a bone be broken. If the priest were” crook-backed,^’’ then he would have represented the High Priest of the Church as inferior to the Church herself, “whose stature is like the palm-tree;” her stately figure pre-eminent. If “a dwarf, ‘’^ unable to reach up to the altar’s height,* he would ill suit as a type of him whose” countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.” If in his eye were cataract, or any white spot or “blemish” then he is not any more like him whose “eyes are as doves by rivers of waters, washed in milk and fitly set.” If he be diseased, having the “scurvy,” or itch, or if he have any “scab” or tetter (nsb*^), however unseen by the common eye, still he is not as he “who is all fair,” who has “no spot or wrinkle.” If in the most secret, hidden spot of his frame, there be any blemish or defect, he can no more claim to be type of one whose Church, made like himself, is “all glorious within.”
The priest must be type of Him who is to give forth his own comeliness and perfection to the sinner. 0 how fair is Jesus! His person all perfect; virtue floweth out of it when it is touched by a sinner’s hand, even as fragrance breathes forth from the leaf of the balm-treo when it is pressed by the hand of the passer-by. And this glorious person was the sacrifice, as well as priest; “Ho offere<l up himself” (Heb. vii. 27.)
* Or if pi means “consumptive, lean; in his make indicating decay,” how unlike him who is “white and ruddy,” eternally vigorous in heavenly health.
Vers. 22, 23. “He shall eat the bread of his Ood. both of the most hoi; and of the holy; only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: fur I the Lord do sanctify them.”
Many think that these precepts, forbidding any deformed person to minister as priest, were, to some degree, intended to prevent the people entertaining mean ideas of God’s service. They must see nothing but what would leave the impression of dignity and completeness. On this ground, it may be, as well as on the typical grounds already noticed, these rules must be kept; and any one tran.sgressing, however zealous he might appear — any one insisting upon being allowed to minister, though bearing such defects — did, in reality, profane the sanctuary.
It is said, “my sanctuaries ;^^ meaning the courts of the tabernacle, which are often called “holy” (e. g*., vi. 16), and the two chambers, “the holy” and “the holy of holies.” Or perhaps, as ver. 23 indicates, the outer place where the altar stood, and the inner where the veil was hung, are the sanctuaries. The deformed priest is to be provided for, nevertheless; and, in this provision, he is to have the pledge and type of as full communion and friendship with God as any other priest. For he is to partake of “the holy things,” such as those mentioned Num. xviii. 19; the heave-shoulder, also, and wave-breast, and even the “most holy,” such as the meat-offering, mentioned in chap. ii. 3, and vi. 17. It was only in regard to office that he was to be treated as unfit. He must not presume to enter within the veil, or minister at the altar. Alas! what must they be exposed to who are conscious of being excluded by God from the ministry, and yet enter it for a piece of bread? What do they mean? They are unconverted, they have no call, they are blemished men; yet they venture to stand forth “as though God did beseech” men by them. Alas! they shall yet feel that to be true: “/ the Lord do sanctify my sanctuaries.”
Yer. 24. “And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.”
Thus, all Israel knew what sort of priest to expect. Their eyes were fixed on One who was to be “altogether lovely,” who would come to supersede all type and shadow.