Leaves From The
Book
CHRIST'S WORK AS PRIEST ON
EARTH.
THE question of the Lord's having been a priest on earth
is one to which, now that the attention of many is being drawn to it, should be
given due and patient consideration. Mistake on this point may easily lead to
further error, as should be plain to us, and there needs no apology for another
review of the subject here, in which especially it is my desire to look at some
things which as yet have had but brief and unsatisfactory notice in these
pages, if any. I shall, however, briefly state the whole argument.
i. The
main ground for the belief that the Lord was not a priest on earth is certainly
Heb. Viii. 4, which however, says nothing of the kind. Speaking of Christ as "a
minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched,
and not man," it says, "If He were on earth, He should not be a priest." And
why? "Seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law;"-
that is, the place is occupied already! Well, but what place? Plainly that of
offering gifts according to the law. But would any of the Lord's work on earth
have interfered with that? The question is idle, of course. So, then, is the
argument which needs to raise the question: for it is this, and only this, from
which the apostle argues, that there are priests already installed in the legal
sanctuary, and doing the legal work. Could the work of the cross come in here?
Nay, if you will observe, with the perfect accuracy of Scripture, while in the
third verse the apostle says that "every high priest is ordained to offer gifts
and sacrifices," when he goes on to the argument of the fourth verse, he drops
the "sacrifices," because in the Lord's present priestly work there is no
sacrifice, and only says, "Seeing that there are priests that offer gifts
according to the law." Backward he does not look: he does not say, "When He was
on earth He was not a priest"- and to change the statement into this is surely
unallowable. Put in its connection, the whole argument is, "If He, the Minister
of the sanctuary, were on earth, He would not even be a priest, seeing that
there are priests of another order fulfilling that office as to the sanctuary
on earth." This is surely clear, and we may pass on.
2. A second objection
to the doctrine of the Lord's having been priest on earth is derived from the
fifth chapter, where it is stated that being ''made perfect". He was "called of
God a high priest after the order of Meichizeclek": thus it is urged. if He
were made perfect through the things which He suffered, as all will allow, then
it must be after His sacrificial work that He became high priest. Two things
need, however, to he considered : first, that the word for "called" in this
case, is not that for calling to an office, - the actual word for which occurs
before, where His calling seems clearly grounded, not upon His work, but upon
His person -"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called
of God, as was Aaron : so also Christ glorified not Himself to be made high
priest : but He that said unto Him. 'Thou art my Son, today have I begotten
Thee' as He saith also in another place. 'Thou art a priest forever after the
order of Melchizedek. Then there can be no just doubt that the call to office
is implied in the acknowledgment of Sonship otherwise these words would be
irrelevant, and the last quotation would be the true and sufficient one.
Secondly : on the other hand, it is really His being the Son of God in humanity
that constitutes His fitness for the priesthood - that is for the mediatorial
office. Aaron's anointing without blood shows that His work was not needed for
this: and the acknowledgement of Sonship would thus be tantamount to the call,
and the two quotations exactly harmonize.
It is after this that His
sufferings are introduced : and then "being made perfect, He became the Author
of eternal salvation saluted of God a high priest after the order of
Melchizedek. "The work is done, and God greets the Victor by the title under
which He has done the work. How suitable this when we know that everything.
with the great High Priest Himself, had been under the cloud from which He has
just emerged! That here there should be the reaffirming of a title which was
before His own need cause no difficulty.
But it is affirmed that
"perfected" means "consecrated." as it is translated in chap. vii. 28.
"consecrated for evermore." if, then, He was only consecrated as priest through
the sufferings He endured, it is plain that He could not have been priest
before His sufferings.
Yes, it is plain, if the basis of the reasoning be
true, but is it true? As to the word "perfected " is truly the sense, as
everyone the least competent will admit the admit, th margin and the Revised
Version have it even in chap. v11 28. As to the application, of course the
force may vary according to this, and abstractly the perfecting of a priest may
be his consecration to office - may be, not must: and the application and the
force are alike open to question here.
The application - for the passage
itself does not say "being made perfect as priest" nor is this connected in
this way by the structure of the chapter and the strictly parallel passage(as
it would appear) chap.2:10, substitutes (if we may speak so) for priest, "the
Captain of salvation": "it became Him to make the Captain of their salvation
perfect through sufferings." Is not this very like "And being made perfect, He
became the Author of eternal salvation"?
But if the connection be admitted,
(and I for one cannot be unwilling to admit that the Priest is as priest the
Author of salvation,) the conclusion does not follow that is supposed. It must
then be asked, In what sense are we to take "perfected"? If as consecrated
through sufferings, was not that at least on earth? and if He were consecrated
through sufferings on earth, is not that inconsistent with the thought of a
consecration by His being saluted as High Priest after death, or perhaps
resurrection? Take it as "perfected,"- the Scripture word,- and you may say as
Priest, and I for one have no question and no difficulty. I believe there was
such a "perfecting" of our blessed High-Priest, and that not seeing this
occasions much of the perplexity that many are in today. For since the apostle
is addressing Christians, (who have their place, as Christians, as the result
of His accomplished work,) it is necessarily a risen and ascended High Priest
with whom we have to do, and whom we need; and thus his words are very simply
applicable to Him as He now is: "Such a High priest became us, who is holy,
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens"
(chap. vii. 26). Yet even such statements show he does not mean to deny that
Christ was High Priest before He was "made higher than the heavens," or "passed
into the heavens" (chap. iv. i 4), but in fact affirm that He was: otherwise
his language would be that He was passed into the heavens, and then became
Priest; but this he never says.
But does not the apostle say that (in
contrast with the Levitical priesthood, in which those who were priests "were
not suffered to continue by reason of death") "this Man, because He continueth
ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood" (chap. vii. 23, 24) and does not this
imply that only after He had passed through death He could become Priest? No:
this is but an inference, and a false one,- derived, no doubt, from too close a
reference to mere earthly priests. Death would remove one of these from his
place of office: could it remove similarly a heavenly priest? It would rather
introduce him to it. And the "endless life" after the power of which Christ was
made Priest could only be that "eternal life," though in man, over which death
could have no power. But this will be supplemented by after-considerations.
4. We must now look at some other statements of the epistle to the Hebrews,
which seem to affirm in the strongest way the fact of the Lord's priesthood
upon earth. In chap. viii. 3 we have already found the apostle saying, "For
every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of
necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." Again: "For such a high
priest became us - who needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up
sacrifices, for this He did once, when He offered up Himself" (chap. vii. 27).
"Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that
He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to
make propitiation (R. V.) for the sins of the people" (chap. ii. 17). "But
Christ being come, a High Priest of good things to come, . . neither by the
blood of bulls and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the
holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (chap. ix. ii, 12).
Now
what is the consistent testimony of these passages? Is it possible to say, in
view of them, that it was not high priestly work to offer sacrifice? Surely
not: they were ordained to do it. Was not this typical of what Christ did as
priest ?- or was it something in which the types failed to represent the
truth,- as shadows, but not the very image? Nay, He was "a merciful and
faithful High Priest to make propitiation "- for that purpose,- and as the high
priests offered daily, so "He offered up Himself." After this, as High Priest
still, by His own blood He entered the heavens.
Surely the texts are plain,
and must be forced, to make them speak otherwise than upon the face of them
they seem to do. Where did the High Priest offer Himself up? In heaven, or on
earth? How did the High Priest enter heaven by His own blood, if He were not
High Priest till He entered heaven? Will the perfection of Scripture allow me
to say that the High Priest did these things, but not as High Priest? and even
where it is asserted that He was High Priest to make propitiation, still that
He did not make it "as" High Priest? No; as believing in the perfection of the
Word of God, we dare not say these things. If we were at liberty to interpolate
Scripture after this fashion, it would soon cease to have authority over us,
because it would cease to have meaning for us. Any body, in this case, could
see how simply such passages could be altered for the better; and if it be the
exigency of what has seemed to us the meaning of some particular verse or
verses which requires this, have we not the very best reason to see if indeed
we have interpreted such passages aright? The apparent contradiction is the
result only of partial views of truth: with the whole, the perplexity clears.
Scripture has not to be perfected by our thoughts, but cleared from the mists
which our thoughts introduce into it.
But, it is said, the priests did not
kill the sacrifices, except where for themselves, and that this shows that
Christ's work on the cross was not a priestly work. But in this way evidence
might be brought against evidence: for the burning on the altar or on the
ground, the sprinkling and pouring out of the blood, were so strictly priestly
functions that no private person dare ever assume them. Yet these are but
different sides of one blessed work. It is not even strictly true that the
priest never killed the victim except where for himself; for he did kill the
burnt-offering of birds (Lev. i. is), and on the day of atonement,- the very
day which is specially referred to in the epistle to the Hebrews,- he killed
also the sin-offering for the people. But in any case the burning upon the
altar or upon the ground was the most strictly sacrificial part, and this
belonged to the priest expressly. On the other hand, it is not difficult to see
that in the death of Christ we have the victim side, as we have the atoning
side in the offering up, and that the death at the offerer's hands may
represent the victim, as the priest's work the atoning side. This, I have no
doubt, is the truth, the offerer for his part marking out thus the penalty of
sin which he had brought upon an innocent sufferer, while the priest offers it
to God as sacrjflce, and so atoning. The slaying of the bird offered for the
healed leper is not by the offerer, and that of the red heifer (between which
and that of the leper there are strong points of resemblance) concurs with it,
I believe, as showing Christ's death at the hands of the world; and this is in
connection with the truth in both cases of the crucifixion to the world implied
in the cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop being in the one case cast into the
fire, in the other stained with the blood of the victim. Both are lessons as to
purification.
The offering, in any case, was exclusively priestly, and this
was surely the representation of the death of Christ in its divine meaning.
6. One thing more in this connection. In Numb. xvii. the true priest for God is
known by the blossoming and fruit-bearing of Aaron's rod - a type unmistakably
of resurrection. But this only marks out the priest, does not make him one, as
in fact Aaron already was in office. Resurrection has the most important
bearing upon priesthood, all the more on this account: for thus it is the
acceptance of the work of Him who offered up Himself, and is by this shown to
be the Author of salvation to those who obey Him.
7. If, then, the
acknowledgment by God of His Son were the call to the priesthood, and if the
anointing of the Spirit, and apart from the blood of sacrifice, marked out the
great High Priest,- if it was the High-Priest who offered up Himself, how
clearly all this was fulfilled when at the baptism of John the Lord came
forward to His public work among men! Then the Father's voice came forth in
testimony, "This is My beloved Son," and the Spirit like a dove descended upon
Him. From that baptism to death which was the shadow of it, the Lord went on to
another baptism, and a Jordan that filled all its banks for Him. Yet so was His
priesthood perfected, and He entered heaven by His own blood.
"BREADTH AND LENGTH AND DEPTH AND HEIGHT."
Home | Links | Literature