_THE LAW OF PRIESTLY HOLINESS._
LEV. xxi. 1-xxii. 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 to-day. Who is there that will heed it?
Priestly holiness was to be manifested, first (vv. 1-15), in regard to
earthly relations of kindred and friendship. This is illustrated under
three particulars, namely, in mourning for the dead (vv. 1-6), in
marriage (vv. 7, 8), and (ver. 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.[37] 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 (ver. 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 (vv. 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!
[37] The wife is not mentioned, but that she would also be
included in the exception, in view of her being always regarded
in the law as yet nearer to her husband than father or mother,
may be safely taken for granted.
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 (2 Cor. i. 4; Heb. ii. 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,[38] or a woman divorced (ver. 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" (ver. 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 (1 Cor.
vii. 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.
[38] See margin (R.V.).
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 (ver. 9): "The daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by
playing the harlot, ... shall be burnt with fire."[39] 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 honour of God. How little is this remembered by many
in these days of increasing insubordination even in Christian
families!
[39] That is, not burnt alive, but after execution.
The priestly holiness was to be manifested, in the second place, in
physical, bodily perfection. It is written (ver. 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 (vv. 18-20) a list of various cases in illustration
of this law, with the proviso (vv. 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 (xxii. 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 (vv. 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 (ver. 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
(ver. 12). If, however (ver. 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 baptized 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" (ver. 16). That word of the Lord Jesus
certainly applies in this case (Matt. xviii. 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 (xxii. 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 (vv. 17-25) is addressed also (ver. 18)
"unto all the children of Israel." The first requirement concerned the
perfection of the offering; it must be (vv. 19, 20) "without
blemish." Only one qualification is allowed to this law, namely, in
the case of the free-will offering (ver. 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
(i. 14), in allusion to this law, sharply denounces the man who
"voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a blemished thing." Verse 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 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 (vv. 29, 30) with the repetition of the
command (vii. 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 confounding 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,[40] 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.
[40] See 1 John iii. 4 and 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 7, 8,--passages
which, in view of this most manifest and characteristic tendency
of our times, are pregnant with very solemn warning.
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 to-day.
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."