Note VII: The Priesthood of Christ

The writer of the Hebrews found the truth of the priesthood of the Lord Jesus hard to teach; and the reason is obvious, that with the Jew the idea of atonement was inseparable from it. The fact of the priesthood of Christ thus reacted on the Jewish mind to cast discredit on the sufficiency of the atonement; whereas the teaching of Scripture is unequivocal, that the priesthood of the Son of God is based on atonement perfected. So much confusion of thought exists on this subject, that I may be pardoned perhaps for going into it somewhat closely, even though it involves the repetition of what I have elsewhere said of the nature of sin.?

Sin, as I have already explained, has a relation both to righteousness and to holiness, but, essentially, it is neither guilt nor defilement, but lawlessness: lawlessness and sin are synonymous. The answer to the guilt of sin is righteousness, and to its defilement, sanctification. In virtue of the blood we are both justified and sanctified. But the fact that for the believer guilt is not imputed, and sanctification is inviolable, in no respect changes the essential character of sin.” On the contrary, it intensifies the heinousness of it. This, moreover, is the clew to the true character of Christian life, though it is too often lost sight of. Sin against grace is far more heinous than sin against law. It isa greater outrage upon God, and if, as with the Christian, there be a true desire to avoid it, it is a greater proof of weakness.

Here then is where we learn the power and value of Christ’s priestly work. It is not to justify, nor yet to sanctify. These blessings are secured to us in Him in virtue of Calvary. But if we have right thoughts of God

1 See chap. x.

and of ourselves and of what sin is, we must know that all the blessings grace has crowned us with, would not avail to maintain us one hour in the place they give us before God, were it not for what Christ is to us and for us in heaven now. In regard to our position under God’s moral government, we know Him as a Saviour, — ‘‘ we shall be saved from wrath through Him,” (Rom v. 9). In view of fellowship in the Father’s house we have a Paraclete, (1 John ii. 1); and for the sanctuary and the wilderness journey, we rejoice to own Him as a great High Priest.

It is with sin then only in this its deepest character that priesthood has to do. For the believer, law has no penalties and the glory of the mercy-seat no terrors. The blood has for ever purged his conscience, and there is no question now of guilt; and he stands in indissoluble relationship with God But it would indeed be strange levity to suppose because of this that sin could fail to cause estrangement. Just in proportion to his knowledge of God, and his appreciation of the blessings grace has given him, will be his sense of the moral

distance between himself and God. The truth that his sin is

purged, that he is a child of God, that he is accepted in the Beloved, can only serve to make his sin seem blacker. How then can he approach with confidence, and have a heart at rest? Here it is the word comes home to him, seeing we have such a High Priest as the Son of God is declared to be, ‘‘ Let us come boldly to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy.”

The answer to the guilt of sin is righteousness; the answer to its defilement is sanctification: and both the forensic and the ceremonial depend on the blood; the one on the blood shed, and the other on the blood sprinkled. But the answer to the practical estrangement sin produces is reconciliation, and this is the present work of priesthood, ‘‘ to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” ‘!

*ikdoxeoba, Every effort has been made to force a meaning on this

But this “reconciliation” must not be confounded with the reconciliation I have treated of in the 10th chapter. The latter is a finished work accomplished by the death of Christ, and the sinner enters into the benefit of it by faith: what I am now speaking of is the present work of priesthood. They have this in common, however, that both relate to sin in its essential character as an outrage upon God. Reconciliation for the sinner who believes, is a result of the death of Christ:

reconciliation for the believer who sins, depends upon His

priesthood. It is akin to the twofold aspect of forgiveness.

We have forgiveness as a part of redemption, depending only on

His blood. But again, in another sense, forgiveness depends upon confession. (Compare Eph. 1. 7, and 1 John i. 9.)

And by reason of this it is that, even as sinners, we can come boldly to the throne of grace, confident that we shall find compassion, not as an encouragement to sin again, but allied with grace to help in time of need. The throne of ‘‘ the majesty on high” is a throne of grace, because of Him who is sitting at the right hand.

I will not enter on the consideration of Christ’s priestly functions in relation to worship. Deeply interesting though this be, and urgent the need for unfolding and enforcing it, I must not allow myself to pass so far beyond my subject. But apart from worship, His priestly work, according to the Hebrews, is confined to making reconciliation and intercession. Everything

word, in order to bring in a thought which is wholly opposed to the teaching of the passage. Luke xviii. 13, is the only other place it occurs; but it answers in the Septuagint to the Hebrew to cover, remove from sight, and, as used of sin, to forgive. Why then suppose it to have a different meaning here? If what I have said be just, it will be seen how perfectly it expresses the idea intended. It is precisely the truth of 1 John i. 9, but in the Hebrews aspect of it. And note that confession is not to Christ as Priest. Nor does the priest absolve from sin. Here human priestcraft dares to meddle with what pertains to God alone.

beyond this is mere Judaism or Popery. (Heb. ii. 17; iv. 15; and vii. 25.)

Putting aside special teaching, such as the cleansing of the leper, or the consecration of the priests, the four great types of the passover, the inauguration of the covenant, the sacrifice of the red heifer, and the great day of atonement, may be taken as giving a complete view of what the death of Christ is to us.?.

I have already shown that the two first were not priestly sacrifices. In the third, it was a priest doubtless who led the victim forth, and sprinkled its blood before the tabernacle; but observe, it was not Aaron. The act was typical of the work of Christ, but not of His high-priestly work. A like remark applies to the great day of atonement, when Aaron himself officiated. The ordinance consisted of two distinct parts — first, the sacrifice of sin-offerings, and afterwards of burnt-offerings. Both these were in the highest sense typical of the work of Christ; but mark the difference in Aaron’s position respecting them. For the sin-offering he divested himself of all his high-priestly robes, and, having bathed, put on the holy linen garments, teaching us that though his acts here were typical of what our High-Priest would do for us, this would not be accomplished by Him in His priestly character. The sin-offering concluded in all its parts, Aaron came out in high-priestly splendour, arrayed in his ‘‘ garments of glory and beauty,” and offered the burnt-offerings. This brings us to the 22d verse of Ps. xxil., Christ leading the praises of His people (Lev. xvi. 4, 23, 24).

1 And if we add the burnt-offering, the meat-offering, and the peace-offering (Lev. i. ii. iii.), His work in its highest character as to Godward, we have the whole in its sevenfold perfectness,