THE LAW OF PRIESTLY
HOLINESS
Lev 21:1-24; Lev 22:1-33
THE conception of Israel as a kingdom of priests, a holy nation,
was concretely represented in a threefold division of the people,
-the congregation, the priesthood, and the high priest. This
corresponded to the threefold division of the tabernacle into the
outer court, the holy place, and the holy of holies, each in
succession more sacred than the place preceding. So while all Israel
was called to be a priestly nation, holy to Jehovah in life and
service, this sanctity was to be represented in degrees successively
higher in each of these three divisions of the people, culminating
in the person of the high priest, who, in token of this fact, wore
upon his forehead the inscription, "HOLINESS TO JEHOVAH."
Up to this point the law of holiness has dealt only with such
obligations as bore upon all the priestly nation alike; in these two
chapters we now have the special requirements of this law in its yet
higher demands upon, first, the priests, and, secondly, the high
priest.
Abolished as to the letter, this part of the law still holds good as
to the principle which it expresses, namely that special spiritual
privilege and honour places him to whom it is given under special
obligations to holiness of life. As contrasted with the world
without, it is not then enough that Christians should be equally
correct and moral in life with the best men of the world; though too
many seem to be living under that impression. They must be more than
this; they must be holy: God will wink at things in others which He
will not deal lightly with in them. And, so, again, within the
Church, those who occupy various positions of dignity as teachers
and rulers of God’s flock are just in that degree laid under the
more stringent obligation to holiness of life and walk. This most
momentous lesson confronts us at the very opening of this new
section of the law, addressed specifically to "the priests, the sons
of Aaron." How much it is needed is sufficiently and most sadly
evident from the condition of baptized Christendom today. Who is
there that will heed it?
Priestly holiness was to be manifested, first (Lev 21:1-15), in
regard to earthly relations of kindred and friendship. This is
illustrated under three particulars, namely, in mourning for the
dead (Lev 21:1-6), in marriage (Lev 21:7-8), and (Lev 21:9) in the
maintenance of purity in the priest’s family. With regard to the
first point, it is ordered that there shall be no defilement for the
dead, except in the case of the priest’s own family, -father,
mother, brother, unmarried sister, son, or daughter. That is, with
the exception of these cases, the priest, though he may mourn in his
heart, is to take no part in any of those last offices which others
render to the dead. This were "to profane himself." And while the
above exceptions are allowed in the case of members of his immediate
household, even in these cases he is specially charged (Lev 21:5) to
remember, what was indeed elsewhere forbidden to every Israelite,
that such excessive demonstrations of grief as shaving the head,
cutting the flesh, etc., were most unseemly in a priest. These
restrictions are expressly based upon the fact that he is "a chief
man among his people," that he is holy unto God, appointed to offer
"the bread of God, the offerings made by fire." And inasmuch as the
high priest, in the highest degree of all, represents the priestly
idea, and is thus admitted into a peculiar and exclusive intimacy of
relation with God, having on him "the crown of the anointing oil of
his God," and having been consecrated to put on the "garments for
glory and for beauty," worn by none other in Israel, with him the
prohibition of all public acts of mourning is made absolute (Lev
21:10-12). He may not defile himself, for instance, by even entering
the house where lies the dead body of a father or a mother!
These regulations, at first thought, to many will seem hard and
unnatural. Yet this law of holiness elsewhere magnifies and guards
with most jealous care the family relation, and commands that even
the neighbour we shall love as ourselves. Hence it is certain that
these regulations cannot have been intended to condemn the natural
feelings of grief at the loss of friends, but only to place them
under certain restrictions. They were given, not to depreciate the
earthly relationships of friendship and kindred, but only to magnify
the more the dignity and significance of the priestly relation to
God, as far transcending even the most sacred relations of earth. As
priest, the son of Aaron was the servant of the Eternal God, of God
the Holy and the Living One, appointed to mediate from Him the grace
of pardon and life to those condemned to die. Hence he must never
forget this himself, nor allow others to forget it. Hence he must
maintain a special, visible separation from death, as everywhere the
sign of the presence and operation of sin and unholiness; and while
he is not forbidden to mourn, he must mourn with a visible
moderation; the more so that if his priesthood had any significance,
it meant that death for the believing and obedient Israelite was
death in hope. And then, besides all this, God had declared that He
Himself would be the portion and inheritance of the priests. For the
priest therefore to mourn, as if in losing even those nearest and
dearest on earth he had lost all, were in outward appearance to fail
in witness to the faithfulness of God to His promises, and His
all-sufficiency as his portion.
Standing here, will we but listen, we can now hear the echo of this
same law of priestly holiness from the New Testament, in such words
as these, addressed to the whole priesthood of believers: "He that
loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me"; "Let
those that have wives be as though they had none, and those that
weep as though they wept not"; "Concerning them that fall asleep
sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope." As Christians we
are not forbidden to mourn; but because a royal priesthood to the
God of life, who raised up the Lord Jesus, and ourselves looking
also for the resurrection, ever with moderation and self-restraint.
Extravagant demonstrations of sorrow, whether in dress or in
prolonged separation from the sanctuary and active service of God,
as the manner of many is, are all as contrary to the New Testament
law of holiness as to that of the Old. When bereaved, we are to call
to mind the blessed fact of our priestly relation to God, and in
this we shall find a restraint and a remedy for excessive and
despairing grief. We are to remember that the law for the High
Priest is the law for all His priestly house; like Him, they must
all be perfected for the priesthood by sufferings; so that, in that
they themselves suffer, being tried, they may be able the better to
succour others that are tried in like manner. {2Co 1:4 Heb 2:18} We
are also to remember that as priests to God, this God of eternal
life and love is Himself our satisfying portion, and with holy care
take heed that by no immoderate display of grief we even seem before
men to traduce His faithfulness and belie to unbelievers His
glorious all-sufficiency.
The holiness of the priesthood was also to be represented visibly in
the marriage relation. A priest must marry no woman to whose fair
fame attaches the slightest possibility of suspicion, -no harlot, or
fallen woman, or a woman divorced (Lev 21:7); such an alliance were
manifestly most unseemly in one "holy to his God." As in the former
instance, the high priest is still further restricted; he may not
marry a widow, but only "a virgin of his own people" (Lev 21:14);
for virginity is always in Holy Scripture the peculiar type of
holiness. As a reason it is added that this were to "profane his
seed among his people"; that is, it would be inevitable that by
neglect of this care the people would come to regard his seed with a
diminished reverence as the separated priests of the holy God. From
observing the practice of many who profess to be Christians, one
would naturally infer that they can never have suspected that there
was anything in this part of the law which concerns the New
Testament priesthood of believers. How often we see a young man or a
young woman professing to be a disciple of Christ, a member of
Christ’s royal priesthood, entering into marriage alliance with a
confessed unbeliever in Him. And yet the law is laid down as
explicitly in the New Testament as in the Old, {1Co 7:39} that
marriage shall be only "in the Lord"; so that one principle rules in
both dispensations. The priestly line must, as far as possible, be
kept pure; the holy man must have a holy wife. Many, indeed, feel
this deeply and marry accordingly; but the apparent thoughtlessness
on the matter of many more is truly astonishing, and almost
incomprehensible.
And the household of the priest were to remember the holy standing
of their father. The sin of the child of a priest was to be punished
more severely than that of the children of others; a single
illustration is given (Lev 21:9): "The daughter of any priest, if
she profane herself by playing the harlot, shall be burnt with
fire." And the severity of the penalty is justified by this, that by
her sin "she profaneth her father." From which it appears that, as a
principle of the Divine judgment, if the children of believers sin,
their guilt will be judged more heavy than that of others: and that
justly, because to their sin this is added, over like sin of others,
that they thereby cast dishonour on their believing parents, and in
them soil and defame the honor of God. How little is this remembered
by many in these days of increasing insubordination even in
Christian families!
The priestly holiness was to be manifested, in the second place, in
physical, bodily perfection. It is written (Lev 21:17): "Speak unto
Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their
generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the
bread of his God."
And then follows (Lev 21:18-20) a list of various cases in
illustration of this law, with the proviso (Lev 21:21-23) that while
such a person might not perform any priestly function, he should not
be debarred from the use of the priestly portion, whether of things
"holy" or "most holy," as his daily food. The material and bodily is
ever the type and symbol of the spiritual; hence, in this case, the
spiritual purity and perfection required of him who would draw near
to God in the priests’ office must be visibly signified by his
physical perfection; else the sanctity of the tabernacle were
profaned. Moreover, the reverence due from the people toward
Jehovah’s sanctuary could not well be maintained where a dwarf, for
instance, or a humpback, were ministering at the altar. And yet the
Lord has for such a heart of kindness; in kindly compassion He will
not exclude them from His table. Like Mephibosheth at the table of
David, the deformed priest may still eat at the table of God.
There is a thought here which bears on the administration of the
affairs of God’s house even now. We are reminded that there are
those who, while undoubtedly members of the universal Christian
priesthood, and thus lawfully entitled to come to the table of the
Lord, may yet be properly regarded as disabled and debarred by
various circumstances, for which, in many cases, they may not be
responsible, from any eminent position in the Church.
In the almost unrestrained insistence of many in this day for
"equality," there are indications not a few of a contempt for the
holy offices ordained by Christ for His Church, which would admit an
equal right on the part of almost any who may desire it, to be
allowed to minister in the Church in holy things. But as there were
dwarfed and blinded sons of Aaron, so are there not a few Christians
who-evidently, at least to all but themselves - are spiritually
dwarfs or deformed; subject to ineradicable and obtrusive
constitutional infirmities, such as utterly disqualify, and should
preclude, them from holding any office in the holy Church of Christ.
The presence of such in her ministry can only now, as of old,
profane the sanctuaries of the Lord.
The next section of the law of holiness for the priests {Lev
22:1-16} requires that the priests, as holy unto Jehovah, treat with
most careful reverence all those holy things which are their lawful
portion. If, in any way, any priest have incurred ceremonial
defilement, -as, for instance, by an issue, or by the dead, -he is
not to eat until he is clean (Lev 21:2-7). On no account must he
defile himself by eating of that which is unclean, such as that
which has died of itself, or has been torn by beasts (Lev 21:8),
which indeed was forbidden even to the ordinary Israelite.
Furthermore, the priests are charged that they preserve the sanctity
of God’s house by carefully excluding all from participation in the
priests’ portion who are not of the priestly order. The stranger or
sojourner in the priest’s house, or a hired servant, must not be fed
from this "bread of God"; not even a daughter, when, having married,
she has left the father’s home to form a family of her own, can be
allowed to partake of it (Lev 21:12). If, however (Lev 21:13), she
be parted from her husband by death or divorce, and have no child,
and return to her father’s house, she then becomes again a member of
the priestly family, and resumes the privileges of her virginity.
All this may seem, at first, remote from any present use; and yet it
takes little thought to see that, in principle, the New Testament
law of holiness requires, under a changed form, even the same
reverent use of God’s gifts, and especially of the holy Supper of
the Lord, from every member of the Christian priesthood. It is true
that in some parts of the Church a superstitious dread is felt with
regard to approach to the Lord’s Table, as if only the conscious
attainment of a very high degree of holiness could warrant one in
coming. But, however such a feeling is to be deprecated, it is
certain that it is a less serious wrong, and argues not so ill as to
the spiritual condition of a man as the easy carelessness with which
multitudes partake of the Lord’s Supper, nothing disturbed,
apparently, by the recollection that they are living in the habitual
practice of known sin, unconfessed, unforsaken, and therefore
unforgiven. As it was forbidden to the priest to eat of those holy
things which were his rightful portion, with his defilement or
uncleanness on him, till he should first be cleansed, no less is it
now a violation of the law of holiness for the Christian to come to
the Holy Supper having on his conscience unconfessed and unforgiven
sin. No less truly than the violation of this ancient law is this a
profanation, and who so desecrates the holy food must bear his sin.
And as the sons of Aaron were charged by this law of holiness that
they guard the holy things from the participation of any who were
not of the priestly house, so also is the obligation on every member
of the New Testament Church, and especially on those who are in
official charge of her holy sacraments, that they be careful to
debar from such participation the unholy and profane. It is true
that it is possible to go to an extreme in this matter which is
unwarranted by the Word of God. Although participation in the Holy
Supper is of right only for the regenerate, it does not follow, as
in some sections of the Church has been imagined, that the Church is
therefore required to satisfy herself as to the undoubted
regeneration of those who may apply for membership and fellowship in
this privilege. So to read the heart as to be able to decide
authoritatively on the regeneration of every applicant for Church
membership is beyond the power of any but the Omniscient Lord, and
is not required in the Word. The Apostles received and baptised men
upon their credible profession of faith and repentance, and entered
into no inquisitorial cross-examination as to the details of the
religious experience of the candidate. None the less, however, the
law of holiness requires that the Church, under this limitation,
shall to the uttermost of her power be careful that no one
unconverted and profane shall sit at the Holy Table of the Lord. She
may admit upon profession of faith and repentance, but she certainly
is bound to see to it that such profession shall be credible; that
is, such as may be reasonably believed to be sincere and genuine.
She is bound, therefore, to satisfy herself in such cases, so far as
possible to man, that the life of the applicant, at least
externally, witnesses to the genuineness of the profession. If we
are to beware of imposing false tests of Christian character, as
some have done, for instance, in the use or disuse of things
indifferent, we are, on the other hand, to see to it that we do
apply such tests as the Word warrants, and firmly exclude all such
as insist upon practices which are demonstrably, in themselves
always wrong, according to the law of God.
No man who has any just apprehension of Scriptural truth can well
doubt that we have here a lesson which is of the highest present day
importance. When one goes out into the world and observes the
practices in which many whom we meet at the Lord’s Table habitually
indulge, whether in business or in society, -the crookedness in
commercial dealings and sharp dealing in trade, the utter
dissipation in amusement, of many Church members, -a spiritual man
cannot but ask, Where is the discipline of the Lord’s house? Surely,
this law of holiness applies to a multitude of such cases; and it
must be said that when such eat of the holy things, they "profane
them"; and those who, in responsible charge of the Lord’s Table, are
careless in this matter, "cause them to bear the iniquity that
bringeth guilt, when they eat their holy things" (Lev 21:16). That
word of the Lord Jesus certainly applies in this case: {Mat 18:7}
"It must needs be that occasions of stumbling come; but woe to that
man through whom the occasion cometh!"
The last section of the law concerning priestly holiness {Lev
22:17-33} requires the maintenance of jealous care in the
enforcement of the law of offerings. Inasmuch as, in the nature of
the case, while it rested with the sons of Aaron to enforce this
law, the obligation concerned every offerer, this section (Lev
22:17-25) is addressed also (Lev 22:18) "unto all the children of
Israel." The first requirement concerned the perfection of the
offering; it must be (Lev 22:19-20) "without blemish." Only one
qualification is allowed to this law, namely, in the case of the
free-will offering (Lev 22:23), in which a victim was allowed which,
otherwise perfect, had something "superfluous or lacking in his
parts." Even this relaxation of the law was not allowed in the case
of an offering brought in payment of a vow; hence Malachi, {Mal
1:14} in allusion to this law, sharply denounces the man who "voweth,
and sacrificeth unto the Lord a blemished thing." Lev 22:25 provides
that this law shall be enforced in the case of the foreigner, who
may wish to present an offering to Jehovah, no less than with the
Israelite.
A third requirement (Lev 22:27) sets a minimum limit to the age of a
sacrificial victim; it must not be less than eight days old. The
reason of this law, apart from any mystic or symbolic meaning, is
probably grounded in considerations of humanity, requiring the
avoidance of giving unnecessary suffering to the dam. A similar
intention is probably to be recognised in the additional law (Lev
22:28) that the cow, or ewe, and its young should not both be killed
in one day; though it must be confessed that the matter is somewhat
obscure. Finally, the law closes (Lev 22:29-30) with the repetition
of the command {Lev 7:15} requiring that the flesh of the sacrifice
of thanksgiving be eaten on the same day in which it is offered. The
slightest possibility of beginning corruption is to be precluded in
such cases with peculiar strictness.
This closing section of the law of holiness, which so insists that
the regulations of God’s law in regard to sacrifice shall be
scrupulously observed, in its inner principle forbids all departures
in matter of worship from any express Divine appointment or command.
We fully recognise the fact that, as compared with the old
dispensation, the New Testament allows in the conduct and order of
worship a far larger liberty than then. But, in our age, the
tendency, alike in politics and in religion, is to the con-.
founding of liberty and license. Yet they are not the same, but are
most sharply contrasted. Liberty is freedom of action within the
bounds of Divine law; license recognises no limitation to human
action, apart from enforced necessity, -no law save man’s own will
and pleasure. It is therefore essential lawlessness, and therefore
is sin in its most perfect and consummate expression. But there is
law in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Because the New
Testament lays down but few laws concerning the order of Divine
worship, it does not follow that these few are of no consequence,
and that men may worship in all respects just as they choose and
equally please God.
To illustrate this matter: It does not follow, because the New
Testament allows large liberty as regards the details of worship,
that therefore we may look upon the use of images or pictures in
connection with worship as a matter of indifference. If told that
these are merely used as an aid to devotion, -the very argument
which in all ages has been used by all idolaters, -we reply that, be
that as it may, it is an aid which is expressly prohibited under the
heaviest penal sanctions in both Testaments. We may take another
present day illustration, which, especially in the American Church,
is of special pertinence. One would say that it should be
self-evident that no ordinance of the Church should be more
jealously guarded from human alteration or modification than the
most sacred institution of the sacramental Supper. Surely it should
be allowed that the Lord alone should have the right to designate
the symbols of His own death in this most holy ordinance. That He
chose and appointed for this purpose bread and wine, even the
fermented juice of the grape, has been affirmed by the practically
unanimous consensus of Christendom for almost nineteen hundred
years; and it is not too much to say that this understanding of the
Scripture record is sustained by the no less unanimous judgment of
truly authoritative scholarship even today. Neither can it be denied
that Christ ordained this use of wine in the Holy Supper with the
most perfect knowledge of the terrible evils connected with its
abuse in all ages. All this being so, how can it but contravene this
principle of the law of holiness, which insists upon the exact
observance of the appointments which the Lord has made for His own
worship, when men, in the imagined interest of "moral reform,"
presume to attempt improvements in this holy ordinance of the Lord,
and substitute for the wine which He chose to make the symbol of His
precious blood, something else, of different properties, for the use
of which the whole New Testament affords no warrant? We speak with
full knowledge of the various plausible arguments which are pressed
as reasons why the Church should authorise this nineteenth-century
innovation. No doubt, in many cases, the change is urged through a
misapprehension as to the historical facts, which, however
astonishing to scholars, is at least real and sincere. But whenever
any, admitting the facts as to the original appointment, yet
seriously propose, as so often of late years, to improve on the
Lord’s arrangements for His own Table, we are bold to insist that
the principle which underlies this part of the priestly law of
holiness applies in full force in this case, and cannot therefore be
rightly set aside. Strange, indeed, it is that men should
unthinkingly hope to advance morality by ignoring the primal
principle of all holiness, that Christ, the Son of God, is absolute
and supreme Lord over all His people, and especially in all that
pertains to the ordering of His own house!
We have in these days great need to beseech the Lord that He may
deliver us, in all things, from that malign epidemic of religious
lawlessness which is one of the plagues of our age; and raise up a
generation who shall so understand their priestly calling as
Christians, that, no less in all that pertains to the offices of
public worship, than in their lives as individuals they shall take
heed, above all things, to walk according to the principles of this
law of priestly holiness. For, repealed although it be as to the
outward form of the letter, yet in the nature of the case, as to its
spirit and intention, it abides, and must abide, in force unto the
end. And the great argument also, with which, after the constant
manner of this law, this section closes, is also, as to its spirit,
valid still, and even of greater force in its New Testament form
than of old. For we may now justly read it in this wise: "Ye shall
not profane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among My people: I
am the Lord that hallow you, that have redeemed you by the cross, to
be your God."
|