“PRIEST, from presbyter, elder, one who officiated in the public worship of God, especially in making expiation for sin, being ‘ordained for men in things pertaining to God, to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin.’ (Heb. 5:1) The priesthood was not annexed to a certain family till after the promulgation of the law by Moses. Before that time the firstborn of each family, the fathers, the princes, the kings, were priests in their own cities and in their own dwellings. Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Job, Abimelech and Laban, Isaac and Jacob, offered personally their own sacrifices. In the solemnity of the covenant made by the Lord with his people at the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses performed the office of Mediator, and young men were chosen from among Israel to perform the office of priests. (Exod. 24:5) But after the Lord had chosen the tribe of Levi to serve him in his tabernacle, and the priesthood was annexed to the family of Aaron, the right of offering sacrifices and oblations to God was reserved to the priests of this family. (Num. 16:40) The punishment of Uzziah, king of Judah, is well known: having presumed to offer incense to the Lord, he was suddenly smitten with leprosy. (2 Chron. 26:19—see also the case of Saul in 1 Sam. 13:7-14.) How- ever, it seems that on certain occasions the Hebrew prophets offered sacrifices to the Lord, especially before a constant place of worship was fixed at Jerusalem. (See 1 Sam. 7:9 where Samuel, who was not a priest, offered a lamb for a burnt-sacrifice to the Lord. See also 1 Sam. 9:13; 16:5; 1 Kings 18:31,33.)

“The Lord having reserved to himself the firstborn of Israel because he had preserved them from the hand of the destroying angel in Egypt, by way of exchange and compensation he accepted the tribe of Levi for the service of his tabernacle. (Num. 3:41) Thus the whole tribe of Levi was appointed to the sacred ministry, but not all in the same manner; for of the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the heads of the three great families, the Lord chose the family of Kohath, and out of his family the house of Aaron, to exercise the functions of the priesthood. All the rest of the family of Kohath, even the children of Moses and their descendants, remained among the Levites.

“The high-priest, who inherited his office as the eldest son, was at the head of all religious affairs, and was the ordinary judge of all difficulties that belonged thereto, and even of the general justice and judgment of the Hebrew nation, as being at the head of all the priests by whom this was administered. (Deut. 17:8-12; 19:17; 21:5; 33:8,10; Ezek. 44:24) He alone had the privilege of entering the Sanctuary once a year1, on the day of solemn expiation, to make atonement for the sins of the whole people. (Lev. 16:2, etc.) He was to be exempt from corporal defect. In general, no priests who had any such defect could offer sacrifice … But such were to be maintained by the sacrifices offered at the Tabernacle. (Lev. 21:17-22) The priests also received a tithe from the Levites. (Num. 18:28)

¹ This is not an accurate statement. See T91.

“God appropriated to the high-priest the oracle of his truth so that when he was habited in the proper garments of his office, and with the Urim and Thummim, God answered questions proposed to him, and disclosed to him secret and future things. He was to marry only a virgin of his own people (Lev. 21:13,14), not even the widow of a priest. He was forbidden to mourn the death of any of his relations, even for his father or mother, or to enter into any place where a dead body lay, that he might not contract or hazard the contraction of uncleanness. (Lev. 21:10-12) Less stringent rules regulated the mourning of the priests.

“The priests served immediately at the altar. They slew and dressed the public sacrifices, or at least it was done by the Levites under their direction. Private offers slew their own victims, except in the case of turtle-doves or young pigeons. (Lev. 1) But all offerings upon the altar, the sprinkling of the blood included, were made by the priests alone. They kept up a perpetual fire on the altar of burnt-sacrifices, and in the golden lamps in the sanctuary. They were forbidden to drink wine while on duty. (Lev. 10:9) In the time of David a division of the priests was made into 24 courses, which served in turn a week at a time. (1 Chron. 24:1-19; 2 Chron. 23:18) During the captivity, this arrangement seems to have been somewhat disordered. (Ezra 2:36-39; Neh. 7:39-42) Every day, night and morning, a priest appointed by casting of lots at the beginning of the week, brought into the sanctuary a smoking censer of incense, and set it on the golden altar, other- wise called the altar of incense. (Luke 1:9; Exod. 30:7,8)

“The sacred dress of the priests consisted of the following articles: short linen drawers; a close-fitting tunic of fine linen, a girdle of fine linen, inter- woven with blue, purple, and scarlet. (Exod. 28:39) Plain linen ephods are also ascribed to them (1 Sam. 22:18) and a bonnet or turban, also of fine linen, in many folds. The priests always officiated with uncovered feet. The high-priest wore nearly the same dress with the priests, and four articles in addition: an outer tunic, called the robe of the ephod, woven entire, blue, with an ornamental border around the neck, and a fringe at the bottom made of pomegranates and golden bells: an ephod of blue and purple and scarlet and fine linen, with golden threads interwoven, covering the body from the neck to the thighs: having shoulder-pieces joined on the shoulders by clasps of gold in which were set onyx-stones graven with the names of the 12 tribes of Israel; and also a girdle of fine linen, woven with blue, purple, scarlet, and gold: a breastplate, attached at its four corners to the ephod, and likewise bearing the names of the 12 tribes on 12 precious stones: and the mitre, a high and ornamental turban, having on the front a gold plate with the inscription ‘HOLINESS TO THE LORD.’ Neither he nor the priests wore their sacred dress out of the temple, as we infer from Ezek. 42:14, 44:17-19 and Acts 23:5.

“The Lord had given no lands of inheritance to the tribe of Levi in the Land of Promise. He intended that they should be supported by the tithes (Num. 18:26-28; Deut. 3:28; 26:12), the first-fruits, the offerings made in the sanctuary, and by their share of the sin-offerings and thanksgiving offerings sacrificed in the sanctuary, of which certain parts were appropriated to them. In the peace-offerings they had the shoulder and the breast (Lev. 7:33,34), in the sin-offering they burned on the altar the fat that covers the bowels, the liver, and the kidneys; the rest belonged to them. (Lev. 7:6,10) The skin or fleece of every sacrifice also belonged to them. When an Israelite sacrificed any animal for his own use, he was to give the priest the shoulder, the stomach, and the jaws. (Deut. 18:3) The priest had also a share of the wool when sheep were shorn. (Deut. 18:4) Thus, though the descendants of Levi had no lands or inheritances, their temporal wants were moderately supplied. God provided them houses and accommodations by appointing 48 cities for their residence. (Num. 35:1-8) In the precincts of these cities they possessed 1,000 cubits beyond the walls. Of these 48 cities, six were appointed as cities of refuge for those who had committed casual and involuntary manslaughter. The priests had 13 of these cities; the others belonged to the Levites. (Josh. 21:10-19)

“A principle employment of the priests, next to attending on the sacrifices and the temple service, was the instruction of the people and the deciding of controversies, distinguishing the several sorts of leprosy, divorce causes, the water of jealousy, vows, causes relating to the law, and uncleanness, etc. They publicly blessed the people in the name of the Lord. In time of war their duty was to carry the ark of the covenant, to consult the Lord, to sound the holy trumpets. (Num. 10:8,9; Deut. 20:2; 2 Chron. 13:10-12,14).

“After the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam in BC 975, the true Aaronic priests and the Levites left the dominions of Jeroboam—who established an idolatrous priesthood—and settled in the kingdom of Judah. (1 Kings 12:26-32; 13:33; 2 Chron. 11:13-15; 13:9)

“The ‘chief priests’ of the Gospels and the Acts were heads of courses and ex high priests, the high-priesthood at the time being no longer held for life, but obtained by appointment and subject to frequent changes.” (Rand, Dictionary of the Bible)

“Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his name: they called upon the LORD, and he answered them.” (Psa. 99:6)

“He would have them see that Moses’ faithfulness as a servant and Head of a typical priesthood, was inferior to Christ and the Royal Priesthood, of which he is the Head.” (R4510:6)

“All the sons of Aaron formed the order of the priests. They stood between the high-priest on the one hand and the Levites on the other. The ceremony of their consecration is described in Exod. 29 and Lev. 8. The dress which they wore during the ministrations consisted of linen drawers, with a close-fitting cassock, also of linen, white, but with a diamond or chessboard pattern on it. This came merely to the feet, and was to be worn in its garment shape. (comp. John 19:23) The white cassock was gathered round the body with a girdle of needlework, into which, as in the most gorgeous belt of the high-priest, blue, purple, and scarlet, were intermingled with white, and worked in the form of flowers. Upon their heads they were to wear caps or bonnets in the form of a cup-shaped flower, also of fine linen. In all their acts of ministration they were to be barefooted.

“Before they entered the Tabernacle they were to wash their hands and their feet. During the time of their ministrations they were to drink no wine or strong drink. Except in the case of the nearest relationships, they were to make no mourning for the dead. They were not to shave their heads. They were to go through their ministrations with the serenity of a reverential awe, not with the orgiastic wildness which led the priests of Baal in their despair to make cuttings in their flesh. They were forbidden to marry an unchaste woman, or one who had been divorced, or the widow of any but a priest.

“Their chief duties were to watch over the fire on the altar of burnt-offerings, and to keep it burning evermore both by day and night, to feed the golden lamp outside the vail with oil, to offer the morning and evening sacrifices, each accompanied with a meat-offering and a drink-offering, at the door of the Tabernacle. They were also to teach the children of Israel the statutes of the Lord. During the journeys in the wilderness it belonged to them to cover the ark and all the vessels of the sanctuary with a purple or scarlet cloth before the Levites might approach them. As the people started on each day’s march they were to blow ‘an alarm’ with long silver trumpets. Other instruments of music might be used by the more highly-trained Levites and the schools of the prophets, but the trumpets belonged only to the priests.

“Functions such as these were clearly incompatible with the common activities of men. On these grounds therefore a distinct provision was made for them. This consisted:

“(1) of one tenth of the tithes which the people paid to the Levites, i.e., one percent on the whole produce of the country. (Num. 18:26-28)
“(2) of a special tithe every third year. (Deut. 14:28; 26:12
“(3) of the redemption-money, paid at the fixed rate of five shekels a head, for the firstborn of man or beast. (Num. 18:14-19)
“(4) of the redemption-money paid in like manner for men or things specially dedicated to the Lord. (Lev. 27)
“(5) of spoil, captives, cattle, and the like taken in war. (Num. 31:25-47)
“(6) of the shewbread, the flesh of the burnt-offerings¹, peace offerings, trespass-offerings, and in particular, the heave-shoulder and the wave-breast. (Lev. 10:12-15)
“(7) of an undefined amount of the first-fruits of corn, wine, oil. (Exod. 23:19; Lev. 2:14; Deut. 26:1-10) Of some of these, as ‘most holy,’ none but the priests were to partake. (Lev. 6:29) It was lawful for their sons and daughters (Lev. 10:14); and even in some cases for their home-born slaves to eat of others. (Lev. 22:11) The stranger and the hired servant were in all cases excluded. (Lev. 22:10)
“(8) on their retirement in Canaan the priestly families had 13 cities assigned them, with ‘suburbs’ or pasture-grounds for their flocks. (Josh. 21:13- 19)

“These provisions were obviously intended to secure the religion of Israel against the dangers of a caste of pauper-priests, needy and dependent, and unable to bear their witness to the true faith. They were on the other hand, as far as possible removed from the condition of a wealthy order. The standard of a priest’s income, even in the earliest days after the settlement in Canaan, was miserably low.” (Judg. 17:10) (Smith, Old Testament History, ppg. 238, 239. Parenthetical scriptural citations added.)

¹ Dr. Smith evidently uses the term “burnt-offerings” here, categorically; more correctly he might have used the term “sin-offerings.”

Priest as Mediator

“A priest, in the only true sense, is a mediator between God and fallen creatures, the object of such mediation being to restore and establish harmony on a legal basis.

“The office of the priest or mediator between God and man is to restore to perfection and consequent harmony with God a race of human beings condemned to death or already dead or dying. Hence the priest of necessity must be ‘mighty to save.’ (Psa. 89:19) He must have both the right and the power to recall the dead to life, and ability to instruct and discipline, and thus to lead every willing subject back to the perfect estate from which Adam and the race in him fell.” (R3951:2)

“Your attention is called to our use of the word Mediator in the seventh line of the article, ‘Homing the Ark’ page 308, Oct. 15th issue. We there speak of the ‘officiating priest who acted as the mediator between God and the nation.’ It would have been better had we used a different word on this occasion; for instance, advocate. Strictly speaking, the Law Covenant constituted the bond of union between God and natural Israel, and Moses was the Mediator of that covenant. The priest, strictly speaking, was not the mediator, but under the terms of the Law Covenant, which Moses mediated, the officiating priest was the advocate, friend and representative of the Israelites before the bar of divine justice.

“This well illustrates the too careless manner in which we, and nearly all Christians, have been accustomed to use this word mediator. For instance, repeatedly in Dawn Studies, Vol. 5, we refer to our Lord as the ‘Mediator of the Atonement.’ This is entirely correct, if judged by the ordinary standards of our language as generally used by us all. Of late, however, this Journal has endeavored to draw the attention of the Lord’s people to the fact that the Bible uses the word Mediator in a restricted sense and has urged that all Bible Students endeavor to take the Bible viewpoint only and to use the word mediator from that standpoint alone.

“The correction above made shows how difficult it is for any of us to rid himself of a habit. The use of the word mediator is restricted in the Scriptures to the mediating of covenants between God and man. The assumption is that God, being holy and unwilling to sanction sin in any degree, not only condemned it in father Adam and his race, but cut off all fellowship with the sinners, whom justice had condemned to death. Nevertheless, God in mercy had already purposed a reconciliation between himself and such of the human race as might desire fellowship with him on a basis of righteousness.” (R4309:1,2)

“Your difficulty is that you think of a mediator as acting between God and sinners as individuals. This is the wrong thought. Lay hold of the Scriptural proposition that a mediator had to do only with a covenant and that the covenant deals with a nation or people and not with its individuals.” (R4555:1)

“It need scarcely be said, that everything connected with the priesthood was intended to be symbolical and typical—the office itself, its functions, even its dress and outward support. The fundamental design of Israel itself was to be unto Jehovah ‘a kingdom of priests and an holy nation.’ (Exod. 19:5,6) This, however, could only be realized in ‘the fullness of time.’ At the very outset there was the barrier of sin; and in order to gain admittance to the ranks of Israel when ‘the sum of the children of Israel was taken after their number,’ every man had to give the half-shekel, which in after times became the regular Temple contribution, as ‘a ransom (covering) for his soul unto Jehovah.’ (Exod. 30:12,13) But even so Israel was sinful, and could only approach Jehovah in the way which Himself opened, and in the manner which He appointed. Direct choice and appointment by God were the conditions alike of the priesthood, of sacrifices, feasts, and of every detail of service. The fundamental ideas which underlay all and connected it into a harmonious whole, were reconciliation and mediation: the one expressed by typically atoning sacrifices, the other by a typical intervening priesthood. Even the Hebrew term for priest (cohen) denotes in its root-meaning ‘one who stands up for another, and mediates his cause.’ For this purpose God chose the tribe of Levi, and out of it again the family of Aaron, on whom He bestowed the ‘priest’s office as a gift.’ (Num. 18:7) But the whole characteristics and the functions of the priesthood centered in the person of the high-priest. In accordance with their Divine ‘calling’ (Heb. 5:4) was the special and exceptional provision made for the support of the priesthood. Its principle was thus expressed: ‘I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.’

“But there was yet another idea to be expressed by the priesthood. The object of reconciliation was holiness. Israel was to be ‘a holy nation’ reconciled through the ‘sprinkling of blood’; brought near to, and kept in fellowship with God by that means. The priesthood, as the representative offerers of that blood and mediators of the people, were also to show forth the ‘holiness’ of Israel. Everyone knows how this was symbolized by the gold-plate which the high-priest wore on his forehead, and which bore the words: ‘Holiness unto Jehovah.’ But though the high-priest in this, as in every other respect, was the fullest embodiment of the functions and the object of the priesthood, the same truth was also otherwise shown forth. The bodily qualifications required in the priesthood, the kind of defilements which would temporarily or wholly interrupt their functions, their mode of ordination, and even every portion, material, and color of their distinctive dress were all intended to express in a symbolical manner this characteristic of holiness. In all these respects there was a difference between Israel and the tribe of Levi; between the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron; and, finally, between an ordinary priest and the high-priest, who most fully typified our Great High-Priest, in whom all these symbols have found their reality.” (Edersheim, The Temple, ppg. 60-62)

Priestly Qualifications

“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 any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, 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. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he pro- fane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.” (Lev. 21:17-23)

The expression “seed of Aaron,” of course, has reference to the typical priesthood. It is quite clear, therefore, that no priest with a blemish was to approach the altar of God to offer sacrifices, “The bread of his God.” (See also Deut. 23:1.) There are a number of very good reasons for these restrictions:

“As visible things exert a strong influence on the minds of men, any physical infirmity or malformation of the body in the ministers of religion, which disturbs the associations or excites ridicule, tends to detract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. Priests laboring under any personal defect were not allowed to officiate in the public service.” (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Critical and Explanatory Commentary)

But the most important reasons are those involving the antitypical priest- hood, and its sacrifices. Thus, in a sense, the Aaronic priesthood was typical of the Church in its present sacrificing condition—whose sacrifices involve its walk, its service, its testimony, its thanksgiving, its praises, etc., and surely, it is upon these sacrifices that God may be said to “feed.”

None with a blemish was to serve at the altar of the Lord; and since there has been but one who was born “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26), the Lord Jesus Christ, he is the only one, the only unblemished priest who could offer acceptable sacrifices at the altar of the Lord. But here, let us note the grace of our God, and Father, for the rest of us, “blemished priests” though we be, we are nevertheless permitted to “eat” of the “food” of our God!

It is interesting to note also that these restrictions seem to govern only the cases of what might be termed “constitutional infirmities” such as those over which the individual priest had no control. Blindness, lameness, hunchbackedness, dwarfishness, etc., could be congenital. It is in itself not sin to be born thus; and perhaps this is the only reason for the gracious provision which denied these not the privilege of partaking of the shew- bread, etc. It was different though, with the sins for which the priest was responsible, and for which he could bring a sin-or trespass-offering for atonement; but if the sin was presumptuous in its nature, he was completely cut off from the priesthood. (See Lev. 10:1,2.) How significant!

Thus the fact that we were born in sin, “shapen in iniquity,” does not pre- vent us as “priests” of the Most High, from feeding upon the spiritual food provided at His table. But our offerings and sacrifices become acceptable “food” for God, only when offered by our own unblemished High Priest— Christ Jesus, who offers them as “his own!”

As a result of Adam’s transgression, we were all born blemished (“the fathers have eaten the sour grape and the children’s teeth were set on edge”—Jer. 31:29). Thus, “congenitally” we are:

BLIND Not necessarily totally so for this would have disqualified even the typical priest altogether. But our “vision” is considerably impaired: we are more able to “see” the shortcomings of others, but with much difficulty and reluctance, our own. Quite naturally, then, this does affect our ability to serve acceptably at the altar of God.

LAME We are unable to “walk” as we would like, and this may sometimes trace to the faulty “vision” which causes us to stumble; but more often, our “lameness” results from that inherited unbalance which causes us to “limp.” We are biased, and rarely in anyone else’s favor, but always our own!

FLATNOSED Our sense of appreciation is very much impaired. We are often entirely unable to sense the “savoriness” of another’s sacrifice; imputing, as we often do, evil motives to those whose sacrifices before God may be more acceptable than our own!

SUPERFLUOUS MEMBERS There is often far too much of “us” with the result that we get into our own way; thus interfering with our own spiritual progress along “the way.”

BROKEN-FOOTED We are handicapped because of a faulty “understanding”—an imperfect comprehension of the Will of God concerning us. With this poor “understanding” it is very difficult to overcome the “hardness” of the path over which we must trod.

BROKEN-HANDED We are handicapped in the matter of our service to God and to others because of the weaknesses of our fallen nature and imperfect flesh which ever rebels at sacrifice; especially when we are not feeling well, are sick, or tired. We become fretful and impatient with others, when kindness and mercy ought to be our willing service as unto the Lord.

CROOKBACKED (HUNCHBACKED) We are “deformed” and unable to “stand” perfectly erect: the weight of inherited sin has left a terribly telling effect upon us.

DWARFED Because we are but leaky vessels, and receive the Spirit only “with measure,” our growth at best, leaves us somewhat “stunted.”

EYE BLEMISHES Figuratively speaking, many of us are afflicted with “crossed eyes” and “cataracts” resulting in the lack of clearness of insight and clearness of “vision” generally, respecting spiritual things. Then, too, some of us suffer from “near-sightedness,” being unable to properly focus our eyes upon the things which are “afar” and yet affect our eternal destiny. On the other hand, some of us are so “far-sighted” that we live almost completely in the other world, failing entirely to appreciate the little things, and opportunities immediately before us; and their value in the matter of our spiritual growth and development. All these “ailments” are a natural result of the curse; they represent an inherited state which is never entirely removed from us so long as we sojourn in the flesh.

SCURVY (SCABBED) Scurvy is a disease caused by lack of fresh vegetables in the diet, and is marked by great weakness and thinness of the body, bleeding gums, etc. Figuratively perhaps, our spiritual anatomy may not suffer too much from the lack of proper “foods” in our diet, but rather because, as children of Adam, we have inherited a constitutional weakness by which we are unable to appropriate all the “nourishment” in our “food.” We “itch” for foods not good for us; we “scratch” and “bleed” losing ofttimes, the “blood” so essential to our spiritual life.

BROKEN STONES (testicles—Moffatt) We are unable to “beget life” in others. But Jesus, who was born not of the accursed race, and because he had “life” in himself, was instrumental in bringing life to us. Our powers to pass on life to subsequent generations was broken, when over 6,000 years ago, Adam sinned against God.

Thus, on practically all of these counts, we find ourselves disqualified from serving directly at the “altar.” We cry, as did Paul of old, for deliverance from this body of death (corruption—Rom. 7:24); and while there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, nevertheless, we do await the time when “our vile body” shall “be fashioned like unto his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21), when that which is perfect shall have come, and that which is now but “in part” shall be done away. (1 Cor. 13:10)

In another sense, the antitypical significance of this passage may be referred to the Millennial age and The Christ in glory: perfect and complete.

“It is significant also that any member of the priesthood that had a blemish of eye, hand, nose, foot, or of any part, could not fill the office of Priest (High Priest); neither any man having any superfluity, such as an extra finger or toe.

“This teaches that every member of the Body of Christ glorified will be complete—lacking nothing; and also that there will be in that ‘little flock’ neither one too many nor one too few, but exactly the foreknown and foreordained number. When once the Body of Christ is complete, there will be no further additions—no superfluity. All, therefore, who have been ‘called’ with this ‘high calling’ to become members in particular of the Body of Christ, and have accepted it, should earnestly seek to make their calling and election (as members of that ‘little flock’) sure, by so running as to obtain the prize. If any such be careless, and miss the prize, some one else will win in his place, for the Body will be complete; not one member will be lacking, and not one superfluous. Take heed, ‘let no man take thy crown.’ (Rev. 3:11)” (T126,127)

And still in another sense it has application to public service to be rendered here and now by Elders and Bishops whom the holy Spirit hath made overseers. We read:

“All the members of the Aaronic family were eligible to the service of the priesthood; nevertheless, there were certain limitations, barriers, and disqualifications for service in this connection. And so it is amongst the antitypical ‘Royal Priesthood’—all are priests, all are members of the anointed body, and the anointing signifies to each a full authority to preach and to teach the good tidings, as it is written: ‘The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the good tidings to the meek, to bind up the brokenhearted,’ etc. While these words applied specially to the Head of the Christ, the New Creation, the Royal Priesthood, they apply also to all the members—hence, in a general sense, every consecrated child of God has in his anointing of the holy Spirit, a full authorization or commission to preach the Word—‘to show forth the praises of him who has called us out of darkness into his marvelous light.’ (1 Pet. 2:9)

“But as it was required of the typical priests that they should be free from certain blemishes and should have attained a certain age, so amongst members of the Royal Priesthood there are some who lack qualifications for public service which others possess. Each is soberly (Rom. 12:3,6) to seek to determine for himself the measure of God’s gifts possessed and, hence, the measure of his stewardship and responsibility. And likewise all the members are to take cognizance of one another’s natural, as well as spiritual, qualifications and attainments, and to judge of the divine will accordingly. In the type, age was a factor; but this with the antitypical priests would signify experience, character-development; the blemish of crossed eyes in the type would signify in the antitypical priesthood a lack of clearness of insight and clearness of vision respecting spiritual things, which would properly be a hindrance to public service in the Church. Likewise also all the various blemishes which hindered the typical priesthood would represent various moral and physical or intellectual disabilities amongst the antitypical Royal Priesthood.

Nevertheless, as the deformed priests in the type exercised all the privileges of the others in respect to their own sustenance, eating of the shewbread, sacrifices, etc., so with us in the antitype—those deformities which might hinder a member of the body of Christ from being a public servant of the Church and of the Truth need not hinder his spiritual development and his recognition, as possessing full rights with all the others at the spiritual table of the Lord and at the throne of grace. As none could exercise the High Priest’s office except he were faultless physically and of full age, so those who would serve as ministers of the Truth in ‘word and doctrine’ should not be novices, but members of the body, whose ripeness in character and knowledge and fruits of the Spirit would qualify them for such a service. Such were to be recognized as elders—not necessarily elders in years of natural life, but elders, or seniors, or ripe ones in respect to the Truth, and fitness to counsel and admonish the brethren along the lines of the Lord’s Word.” (F242, 243)

“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 himself. They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy. They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman 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. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, 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. 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 he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.” (Lev. 21:1-15)

“He [a Nazarite] shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head.” (Num. 6:7)

“This … brings before us the holiness proper to ‘the priests, the sons of Aaron.’ The nearer one comes to God, the more essential it is to maintain holiness. A degree of separation that might suffice for the congregation would not be suitable for the priests. There has to be greater care as to natural influences, though they are not wholly excluded save in the case of ‘the priest who is greater than his brethren.’¹ He is not to uncover his head, nor rend his garments, nor make himself unclean even for his father or mother. But the priest in general might ‘make himself unclean’ for ‘his immediate relation, who is near to him.’

“This suggests that a priest’s natural feelings are to be under restraint, and there must be exercise as to how far they allow themselves to be affected thereby. There is that which is legitimate, but the priest has to consider how far what is natural has a claim according to God. ‘They shall be holy unto their God … for they present Jehovah’s offerings by fire, the bread of their God; therefore shall they be holy.’ (verse 6) The fat of the peace-offering is called ‘the bread of the offering by fire to Jehovah’ (Lev. 3:11,16) … He must ever remember that he is a priest, and that he is called to minister to God that which God can feed upon, and his natural feelings have to be controlled in view of that. When it was a question of the service of God the Lord said to His mother, ‘What have I to do with thee, woman? mine hour has not yet come’ (John 2:4). He did not own the natural in His service. His mother and His brethren were those who did the will of God.

“The priest was to keep his affections from going out to that which had a moral stain upon it—that which was marked by unfaithfulness or impurity (verse 7). There are many things in the Christian profession which bear the marks of unfaithfulness. We must recognize that it is unsuitable for priests to come into association with them. It is a question here of the moral dignity of those who minister to God.

“There is a further thought in verses 10-15. We come here to ‘the priest who is greater than his brethren.’ This is a type of Christ—the anointed and consecrated One—who never leaves the sanctuary; who is apart from all natural influences; but who gets a companion of virgin character in the faithful remnant of His people, or—at the present time—in the assembly.

“We have to see that we are identified with the ‘virgin’ character—not with that which speaks of unfaithfulness, or of affections that have had another object. No other but Christ was ever entitled to the assembly. The Spirit’s work is to produce holy affections in the assembly—affections that never had, and never could have, any other object but Christ. We have to see to it that such affections are maintained in freshness and fervor … We are to be presented ‘a chaste virgin to Christ.’

“The ‘virgin’ character is in contrast to Thyatira which develops into Babylon, the great harlot, who corrupts herself with all that is great and grand in the world. And bridal affection would come in as a bright and blessed contrast to the indifference of Laodicea. All saints are called to have ‘chaste virgin’ characters.” (Coats, An Outline of the book of Leviticus [21:1-15])

¹ All Scripture quotations in the C.A. Coates comments are from the New Testament translation by J.N. Darby. The term “assembly” of course, refers to the Church.

Priestly Functions

According to the Apostle Paul, one of the chief functions of Israel’s ancient priesthood was the offering of gifts and sacrifices for sin:

“For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin.” (Heb. 5:1)

The former (gifts) were voluntary, i.e., free-will offerings representing the dedication of the individual to Jehovah God in which, therefore, he delighted; whereas, the latter (sacrifices for sin), being mandatory, and required because of sin, were no pleasure unto him. This is undoubtedly what Jesus meant when at the time of his presentation of himself to the Father, he said:

Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; . . . Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. (Heb. 10:8,9)

Even so, it is ours also to present unto God a justified humanity as a burnt (free-will) offering, as an evidence that we delight in his law—our meditation, day and night; and it is God’s to accept it, if he will, as a part of Jesus’ sin-offering, on behalf of the whole world of mankind:

“The burning of the [burnt] offering on the altar shows how God accepts the sacrifice, as a sweet smelling savour.” (T45)

“From the Scriptures it is evident that during the Millennial age the world of mankind will be privileged to offer themselves to God as gifts, but not as sacrifices. Hence, during the Millennial age, part of the work of the great High Priest will be to accept these gifts and to make them acceptable to God through his own merit and rights as the Melchizedek Priest. We can, however, apply this text [‘For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer’ (Heb. 8:3)] very properly to the present time. The Apostle puts the word gifts first. We may, therefore, look to see whether there is not some way in which the High Priest offers gifts now. Surely our Lord’s consecration of his own life was a gift on His part. The Father accepted that gift and ultimately permitted our Lord’s gift to constitute a sin-offering for others. Likewise, throughout this Gospel age, the ‘brethren’ are invited to present their bodies living sacrifices—to give themselves to God.—Rom. 12:1,2

“When we thus make a present of ourselves to God, we are not making a sin-offering to God; for this we could not do. But the divine arrangement for accepting our gift is that each gift will be acceptable through the merit of Christ; and that then, later on, these gifts will, according to the same divine arrangement, constitute the great sin-offering which the High Priest gives for the world. Thus the High Priest is ordained to make the ultimate offering of that gift as the sin-offering for the world.

“Amongst those who served in the office of typical high priest, says the Apostle, the uniform custom was that they should offer both gifts and sacrifices to God. Hence, he proceeds to point out that Jesus, as the Antitype of those priests, must have something to offer. He also must offer both gifts and sacrifices, in order to fulfil his priesthood. He presented himself without spot unto God; and, by virtue of that presentation, he is a sin-offering unto God; and, through his merit, he makes the same true of his church, who voluntarily give themselves to God.” (R4915:1,2,4)

“The Apostle reasons (Heb. 5:1) that all the Jewish priests were taken from amongst their fellows and especially ordained, or set apart, for their work, to represent their people before God, offering for them both their gifts and their sacrifices for sins. In this arrangement the priests were able to sympathize with the people, because they were subject to the same weaknesses, and also had need of the forgiveness of their own sins. But even amongst these imperfect, blemished, sinful priests, who needed to make offerings for their own sins, none was allowed to take this office of himself. God must call him to the office. Thus it was with Aaron. God called him to be the head priest.” (R5472:2)

Priestly Garments

“And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty. And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” (Exod. 28:2-4) (See also Exod. 39:1- 31)

Clothes do not make the man, but they are often the badge or symbol by way of which the man, or his office, may be recognized. In our day, it is not difficult to know to what branch of the Government’s military or armed forces a man belongs by the clothes or uniform he wears. Policemen, firemen, postmen, etc., wear clothes which indicate their particular service. Often there isn’t much about these clothes that is really symbolic of the work they do. Their clothes are merely uniforms which have been approved and authorized for them to wear. On the other hand, a nurse is arrayed in garments of spotless white, which conveys the thought that she is clean and sterile—and this is important for one who is to care for the sick and afflicted.

There are also garments worn by professional people and some members of fraternal organizations where each and every piece of the apparel is intended to be a symbol of something quite specific. So was it with Israel’s ancient priesthood; and in some respects with the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church of today. The latter, at ordinary times wear a black cassock, buttoning down in front; yet this, like the reversed collar worn by most clergymen, merely identifies them as such. However, when these priests officiate at the Mass, they wear what is known as ceremonial garments, each one of which is intended to be a symbolism of what he stands for:

Probably only the priests recognize this symbolism; for the average communicant sees them only as “sacred garments” not discerning the symbolism the Roman Catholic Church intends.

Israel’s ancient priesthood also wore garments which were highly symbolic. Yet not even they knew their significance, save perhaps that the white linen represented what should be characteristic of this priesthood— purity! It is possible too, that the golden plate attached to the white linen mitre might for them have been the symbol of a priestly kingship in matters pertaining to Jehovah God, in line with Exodus 19:6. However, they could not have known that their garments were symbols of the character and office of the great antitypical “priesthood” of Christ and his church, viz., that:

• Linen garments (sacrificial garments): in general, represents the righteousness of the saints. (T29,37)
• Linen girdle: represents that the Christ and his church are servants of righteousness, or righteous servants. (T30)
• Upper robe: represents the faithfulness of the saints. (T30)
• Ephod: represents the two great Covenants—the Abrahamic and the New Covenant, the burden of fulfillment of which God has laid upon the shoulders of this World’s High Priest. (T30,33,34,36) The materials and colors used indicated the conditions of these Covenants, as follows:

• Breastplate: represents the Law in its twofold aspect—the letter and the spirit. That part of the breastplate representing the spirit of the Law bore jewels indicating that the true “jewels”—the “little flock”— though unable to keep the Law, would, by the grace of God have its righteousness fulfilled in them. (T34,35)
• Curious girdle: represents this “Priest” to be the servant of the Covenant(s). (T33)
• Other garments: in general, represent the glory, honor, immortality and authority with which this “Priest” will be vested, after his passing beyond the “Second Vail.” (T36,38)

White Linen Breeches

“And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.” (Exod. 28:42,43)

Perhaps in our consideration of the priestly garments we shall do well to take the most basic unit, the linen breeches, first. These were worn at all times by high priest and underpriests alike. Indeed, these breeches had a most important purpose: to hide, i.e., to cover, their nakedness. (Exod. 28:42,43) It is easy to see how nakedness could be exposed, as for example when the high priest stooped over to pick up the sacrifice, or reached upward in placing it upon the altar. As an added precaution against such exposure, it was specifically forbidden of God to have any steps leading to his altars. (Exod. 20:26)

Evidently nakedness must have a very deep antitypical significance! This we do know: it was the consciousness of nakedness that caused Adam to desire a covering (Gen. 3:7), and it was (Adamic) sin, that brought this consciousness to him. (Gen. 3:11) Ever since, nakedness has been a most apt symbol of inbred sin—inherited sin. Nor is there anything that can remove it from fallen man. It is a stain which no amount of washing at the “laver” can take away; it is, therefore, something that must needs be covered. The Apostle Paul recognized the true nature of inbred sin. Hear him as he says:

“I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not … it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me [that is, in my flesh], dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me … evil is [ever] present with me … I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” (Rom. 7:14-21,23; see also Gal. 5:17.)

Hear the apostle again as he cries, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death [corruption]?” (Rom. 7:24) But note also his gratefulness for the covering supplied in the merit of the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus (Rom. 7:25), for he knew that with such a covering upon him there was no longer any condemnation against him despite all the inbred sin. (Rom. 8:1,4)

We believe, then, that the “linen breeches” might well represent the ransom merit, i.e., the righteousness of Jesus, imputed to us, who as the anti-typical priesthood of God are called upon to walk not according to the law of the flesh, but according to that which is of the spirit.

It is easy enough to make this application insofar as the underpriesthood is concerned, for surely, the church does require, so long as she is in the flesh, this covering of the “linen breeches.” But there were times when the typical high priest represented Jesus, and Jesus alone; yet, the account quite specifically tells us that Aaron was to wear the linen breeches at all times, whether donned in the “sacrificial” or the “glorious” garments. Here we must keep in mind the fact that Aaron who typified Christ Jesus, and sometimes the Christ beyond the vail, was an imperfect man, born in sin and “shapen in iniquity.” In order, then, for him to fitly typify Him who was born “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners” Aaron needed to be washed (T29); and for the same reason, needed also to wear the linen breeches at all times. So too, when Aaron in the “glorious” garments typified the Christ beyond the vail, the absolute purity and righteousness of the Melchisedec Priest could not better be represented by the imperfect Aaron than when after taking off his “linen” garments he first washed ere donning the other garments. (Lev. 16:23,24)

Linen Coat

It is possible to view this High Priest as representing the entire Christ, head and body, (T29) since it is sometimes necessary to consider the Church, not as an underpriesthood, but as members of his “body.” Viewed in this light, this white linen coat represents not the High Priest Jesus’ righteousness, but rather the imputed righteousness of the Church.

“The High Priest all through this Gospel age is carrying on the work of sacrifice; it was not only when he offered up himself, but during all this age he continues to be the sacrificing Priest, and although he has passed beyond the vail, he is still, so to speak, in the linen garments of sacrifice; and his secondary offering, that of the antitypical goat, will be accomplished in the linen garments, when he will enter in beyond the vail and present the blood of his body, which is the church, at the close of this antitypical Atonement Day, when the church shall have filled up its share of the sacrifice of Christ. Our Lord, the High Priest, will then, the second time, sprinkle the blood, the merit, upon the mercy seat, thereby sealing the New Covenant and applying his merit on ‘behalf of all the people.’

“Having done this he will come forth to bless the people; but he will not again appear in the linen garments of sacrifice. The change will be made unseen to the world. The last they will see will be the going in of the priests after the sacrificial work of the present time, the Gospel age, and the first they will see in the New Dispensation will be the appearance of the great Priest in glory and beauty—in ‘the glorious garments.’ Not that they will see these with their natural eye; but his glory shall be revealed through the ministration of the New Covenant blessings to Israel and the world, and this revelation of all the glorious things represented in the various garments of the High Priest will be a manifestation that will last all through the Millennial age—the various robes, the ephod, etc., will all have their fulfillment then in the glorious work of the Anointed One.

“The beginning of this manifestation in glory will be in the time of trouble, of which time we read: ‘All shall wail because of him.’ It is his manifestation in power, the breaking in pieces of things of this present order of affairs, that will cause the great time of trouble that the Scriptures announce will be the conclusion of this Age and the inauguration of the Millennial age. Thus the appearing in glory will have various stages, but all will be on the glorious plane; none will be again on the sacrificial plane of the present age.

“In this picture of the robes of the Priest we understand that the High Priest typified the entire Priesthood, the Underpriests as well as the Head; that the Head did not need the covering, but that the covering of the linen garments represented the merit of Christ imputed to us, the members of his body, whom the Father accepts and justifies and whose imperfections are covered through him. We understand that the white robe represents especially our share in the picture; that the High Priest going forth in glory typifies in large measure the glory of the church in connection with her Head, as we read: ‘It doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.’ Another Scripture declares that we shall be his glorious body, or his body in glory, and that ‘we shall be glorified together with him.’ ” (R4602:1,2)

“Aaron was clothed for the service of the ‘Day of Atonement,’ not in his usual ‘garments of glory and beauty,’ but in garments of sacrifice, the ‘linen garments,’ emblems of purity—the righteousness of saints. The robe of linen was an earnest of the glorious robe to follow; the ‘linen girdle’ represented him as a servant, though not so powerful as when, at the close of the ‘Day of Atonement,’ he would be girdled with the ‘curious girdle’ of the ephod; the mitre of linen, being the same as that belonging to the glorious apparel, proclaims the perfect righteousness of our head during the sacrifice, as well as after it. So the antitypical High Priest, the divine-minded, spirit-begotten one, though not yet born of the Spirit, was ready and able to accomplish the sacrifice of the atonement at the first advent, and proceeded to do it, as typified in Aaron.” (T55)

“And these are the garments which they shall make; a broidered¹ coat.” (Exod. 28:4)

“And thou shall embroider the coat of fine linen.” (Exod. 28:39)

“And they made coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons.” (Exod. 39:27)

¹ Hebrew: tashbets defined as “chequer work, tessellated stuff” by Young, “checkered stuff” by Strong, and “woven stuff” by Berry

“In Exod. 28:4 occurs the word tashbec which is translated ‘broider’ in AV and ‘checker work’ in RV. If this kind of work is what it is supposed to be, it is more truly ‘needlework’ than the embroidery. This work is still done in some of the Syrian cities and towns, esp. in Damascus. Small caps for men to wear under their ordinary headdress and loose outer garments or dressing gowns are the forms in which it is commonly seen. The checker-work effect is obtained by sewing in a cotton string between two pieces of cloth, so as to form designs. The patterns usually run to straight lines such as zig-zags or squares. The effect is striking, and we can well imagine would have made an impressive priest’s robe, especially if costly materials were used.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

“The tunic of the priest was not only without seam, but so woven as to exhibit checks like the pattern called damask; for such is the meaning of the descriptive adjective which the English translators incorrectly regarded as equivalent to broidered. The coat was therefore covered throughout with four-sided figures of small size.” (Atwater, The Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, p. 329)

“The white linen ‘coat’ represented the High Priest’s purity, while its embroidery showed the outgrowth of that pure character in works of grace.” (T29)

“Look again at the Queen and her glorious apparel [Psa. 45:13,14]. Notice the pure linen, clean and white, representative of her purity and righteousness. Remember that she was once of the world, her members ‘children of wrath, even as others.’ Remember that by faith she accepted the merit of her Redeemer’s sacrifice and thus she was reckonedly covered with his robe of righteousness, which the world saw not, but which the heavenly father regarded. Remember, that it was because of that robe covering her natural blemishes that she was permitted to consecrate herself and to become the espoused virgin of her Anointed Redeemer and prospectively his join their in the Kingdom. How wonderful these steps of grace! Looking but a little way into the future, we behold her clothed, not with an imputed robe of righteousness, but with her own robe of righteousness. The imputed one was hers to wear up to the time of her change from earthly to spiritual nature in the First Resurrection. Then and there perfected, it became actual. On the spirit plane she became righteous without spot, without blemish, a suitable companion and joint-heir for the great King of Glory.

“But look more closely. Note that the robe of fine linen is beautifully embroidered—‘fine needlework.’ This, too, must have significance. The embroidered figures represent the graces of the Spirit: meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, brotherly kindness, love. Ah, yes, the Queen indeed is all-glorious within and without. The power of the Lord will accomplish this.

She is his workmanship, though not without her own willingness and cooperation. The Lord’s operation upon her will be through his Word and by his Spirit; and in proportion as she yields herself thereto she is now being ‘changed from glory to glory,’ and, by the final change, will be perfected, glorified.

“We noted a difference between the imputed robe which the betrothed wears now and the one which she will possess when changed—that the present one is Christ’s imputed robe covering her blemishes, and that the glorious one of the future will be her own righteousness, ‘the righteousness of the saints.’ Let us notice also that there is an embroidery connected with them both. The robe that is now imputed to us has stamped upon it the gracious designs or patterns which our Lord would inculcate and which he assures us will be advantageous to us, pleasing to him and necessary to our future glory.

“Our appreciation of our high calling, our faith in it, and our love for the heavenly Bridegroom and desire to be pleasing to him are the incentives to us, urging us to spend every hour, every moment possible, in the working out of the glorious embroidery designs stamped upon our robe. Each stitch must be taken carefully—painstakingly. Each feature of the outline must be carefully studied. The robe itself must be kept clean, spotless. Who is sufficient for these things? Surely only those truly betrothed to the heavenly King, and who love him with all their hearts, and who are waiting in faith and patience for his promised Second Coming to receive the Bride unto himself and to establish his kingdom for the blessing and uplifting of the world!” (The Bible Students Monthly, Vol. 2, No. 4)

“Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it. And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.” (Lev. 6:9- 11)

“Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.” (Lev. 16:3,4)

“And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there: And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.” (Lev. 16:23,24)

The White Linen Garments included besides the linen breeches, a coat, a girdle, and a head-covering. For the underpriests, this covering was a bonnet; for the high priest it was a mitre (most likely the same one worn with the “glorious” garments), with the golden plate or crown attached to it. (See T55 and Exod. 28:38) Except as heretofore set forth, the linen garments worn by Aaron represented in a general way the righteousness and purity of Jesus. The mitre, more particularly, showed forth his headship over the underpriesthood—the Church; and the linen girdle, the fact that he was the servant of righteousness. (See Lev. 6:10; 16:3,4,23.)

The linen garments worn by the underpriests represented in a general way that same righteousness and purity of Jesus, but here as imputed to the Church. Their girdles too, represented the Church as servants of righteousness; but their bonnets indicated that the Church in recognizing Christ Jesus to be the Apostle and High Priest of its profession (confession—Heb. 3:1) would thus be constituted the true antitypical priesthood of God. (See Exod. 28:40-43; 39:27,28.)

“We see the Body, or members of the High Priest, again individually typified by the under-priests, who each wore a ‘bonnet’ covering his head, to indicate that he was not the head of the Priesthood, but merely a member of the Body. God gave Jesus ‘to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is his Body.’ (Eph. 1:22,23) It is for this reason that Paul insists that a woman’s head should be covered, as indicating that she is not the head, the husband and wife being typical of Jesus and his Bride—the Church of the First-born.

“The under-priests were robed in linen garments and wore girdles. Their robes represented the righteousness of Jesus, imputed to them, and their girdles represent them as servants of righteousness.” (T36)

“But in Exodus 28:42 and Leviticus 6:10 the drawers of the priests and their flowing robes are said to be of LINEN (bad, a Hebrew word meaning a certain quality of linen); and the tunic of the high priest, his girdle and mitre, which he wore on the day of atonement, were made of the same material. (Lev. 16:4) From a comparison of Exodus 28:42 with 39:28, it seems clear that bad and shesh were synonymous; or, if there be any difference between them, the latter probably denotes the spun threads while the former is the linen woven from them … In no case is bad used for other than a dress worn in religious ceremonies, though the other terms rendered ‘linen’ are applied to the ordinary dress of women and persons in high rank.” (Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, “Linen”)

There were really eight pieces that constituted Aaron’s garments “for glory and for beauty.” (Exod. 28:2,40) This term, “for glory and for beauty” applies not merely to those garments which Aaron wore at the close of the Day of Atonement when he came forth to bless the people, but to those also which he wore in carrying on the work of sacrifice. Sometimes, to distinguish more particularly between the two, we designate the former as “The garments of glory and beauty” and the latter as the “Sacrificial garments.” Perhaps the fact that there were just eight pieces was intended to signify that, antitypically, both were identified with the “resurrection life.” (See Exod. 28:2,4,42,43; Exod. 39:1-31.)

Upper Blue Robe

“And thou shalt make the robe of the ephod all of blue. And there shall be an hole in the top of it, in the midst thereof: it shall have a binding of woven work round about the hole of it, as it were the hole of an habergeon¹, that it be not rent. And beneath upon the hem of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the hem thereof; and bells of gold between them round about: A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem of the robe round about. And it shall be upon Aaron to minister: and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he did no.” Exod. 28:31-35)

¹ “A coat of metal covering the neck and shoulders” according to the Winston Dictionary.

“The Robe of Blue of one piece shows his heavenly nature (blue is the color of the peaceful heavens).” (R72:3—original 1880 thought)

“The ‘Upper Robe’ of blue, represented his faithfulness. The fringe of it was made of golden bells and pomegranates. The pomegranate, being a choice fruit, showed that the faithful performance of the Redeemer’s work of sacrifice had borne rich fruit—the redemption of the forfeited life of the human race. The golden bells signified that when our High Priest appears in glory and beauty, the fruit of sacrificial work will be made manifest to all—proclaimed to all the world, as in the type the bells proclaimed it to all Israel. This is indicated by the close proximity: the bells drawing attention to the fruit.” (T30)

“Of all the fruits and flowers we have … described, no one is more ancient and more beautiful than the pomegranate. At the same time, it is the most frequently praised and referred to by ancient and classic writers. Some suppose, with good reason, that the most ancient temple of Hercules was at Tyre, and was in existence before the city was built, or soon after the flood. With Hercules is associated the pomegranate: and he is represented as coming forth from Hades with a pomegranate in his hand after visiting Proserpine, to whom this fruit was specially dedicated. Hence it was at a very early period a favorite fruit. Many of the Greek deities, with Jupiter, Juno, and Venus, are often represented holding the pomegranate … The fruit is the size of an orange: some which we have seen, however, are much larger. The rind is bitter, and contains the principle called tannin, and hence has been used in some countries, where the plant grows plentifully, for tanning leather. The pomegranate can scarcely be considered anything more than a bush, and often bears abundantly when it is no higher than a man’s head. Occasionally, in very favorable situations, it grows to the height of twenty feet; but this is rare. The trunk is of unequal form, but has numerous branches. It sometimes bears thorns; and the fruit is always crowned with the calyx of the flower, presenting a peculiar appearance. When the fruit is cut through, it is found to contain numerous wine-colored or red globules, each enclosing a seed surrounded by a delicate and tender skin, which bursts on a slight pressure, liberating a cool and refreshing juice … No plant seems to thrive and reward so well a careful cultivation as the pomegranate, especially in moderately warm climates. Farther north it fails to bear fruit, but the flowers increase in brilliance of the scarlet, especially where the plant receives proper attention.

“This shrub is most cheering and refreshing in the rich and shaded green of the leaves, the luscious and cooling juice of the fruit, and the intense brilliance of the flowers. The ‘spiced wine’ of Solomon’s Song (Cant. 8:2) said to have been made from the pomegranate, may be understood literally as the product of the juice; for wine is still made from it in Persia, as was the case formerly, when great quantities were produced both for exportation and for use at home.

“Several places in Scripture seem to have been called Rimmon, or the ‘pomegranate’; and in one place En-Rimmon (Neh. 11:29) is spoken of—which means the ‘spring of the pomegranates,’ and in another Gath-Rimmon (Josh. 19:45) or ‘pomegranate of Gath.’ The beautiful form of the fruit was early copied by architects in the execution of ornamental work, as we see in 1 Kings 7, where it appears that the decorations of the capitals of the temple-columns were of carved pomegranates.

“The mention of the plant is most poetical and appropriate wherever it occurs in the Song of Solomon; and, from passages therein, it seems that the time of flowering was not distant from the blossoming of the grape-vines, so that the beauty of the pomegranate flower, which has no special fragrance, was made more agreeable by the perfume of the vine-blossoms.” (Osborn, Plants of the Holy Land, ppg. 131-134)

“There are some pomegranate bushes … which may even be called trees by way of courtesy, but in reality these large and delicious ‘apples’ grow on a stout thorny bush. They are ripe about the middle of October, and remain in good condition all winter.

“The flower of the pomegranate is bell or tulip shaped, and is of a beautiful orange-red, deepening into crimson on some bushes. There is a kind very large and double, but this bears no fruit, and is cultivated for its brilliant blossoms, which are put forth profusely during the whole summer.

“This fruit was greatly esteemed in ancient times, and is mentioned by Moses as one of the excellences of the promised land (Deut. 8:8); and, by Divine command, he was to make pomegranates on the hem of the ephod—a golden bell (the blossom) and a pomegranate alternately round about the hem of the robe (Exod. 28:33); and they were reproduced in the Temple, upon the network that covered the chapiters on the top of ‘jachin and Boaz’—those noble pillars of brass—two hundred pomegranates, in rows, round about. Solomon, of course, adorns his Song of Songs with allusions to this beautiful and pleasant fruit; and, while admiring it, we may enter more readily into the glorious chamber of imagery where that poetic monarch delighted to dwell and to revel.” (Thomson, The Land and the Book, ppg. 585-586)

“Pomegranate, a lovely tree—evergreen in warm countries—bearing large orange-scarlet flowers, and large apple-like fruits. The bright pink seeds are beautifully arranged within the rind of the fruit. This fruit was cultivated from early days in Egypt. The spies brought from Eschol grapes, figs, and pomegranates. (See Exod. 28:33.)” (The Bible Reader’s Encyclopedia and Concordance)

It will have been noted that when this calyx-crowned fruit is cut through “it is found to contain numerous wine-colored, or red globules, each enclosing a seed surrounded by a delicate and refreshing juice.” This seed might well represent “another generation”—the world of mankind that comes into being as a result of the redemptive work of the “High Priest!” The wine- colored, or red, juice in which these seeds are bathed, might well represent the blood of his sacrifice—the life laid down by him, so that they might live.

Since the calyx most beautifully represents “THE CUP,” at this stage of the flower’s development it becomes the fruit’s crowning glory. How beautifully this seems to show forth the fact that the world will be called upon to recognize the relationship between Jesus’ “cup” and their redemption!

Ephod

“And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work. It shall have the two shoulderpieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof; and so it shall be joined together.” (Exod. 28:5-7)

“The ‘Ephod’ was made of cloth of purple, blue, scarlet, white, and gold threads, skillfully and beautifully interwoven. It was of two parts, one hanging in front and the other over the back. These two parts were fastened together by two gold clasps which rested on the shoulders. The ephod typified the two great covenants—the Abrahamic Covenant represented by the front part, and the New Covenant represented by the back, both of which are thus shown to be dependent on our High Priest. Both of these covenants are laid on him: if he fails to support them, fails to carry out their terms and conditions, they fall to the ground—fail. But, thank God, these covenants are united and firmly clasped on him by the gold clasps (divine power), as well as bound to him by the ‘curious girdle’—a cord made of the same material as the ephod.” (T30)

“One part of the Ephod which represents the New Covenant was guaranteed at Calvary: for was not our Lord’s death ‘the blood of the New Covenant’ in which his members share? (Matt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 10:16)

“The other part is incomplete as yet except as the heavenly Father sees its fulfillment in the future: for the Abrahamic Covenant promised the development of the Seed of Abraham through whom the New Covenant will bless all the people, and this Seed is not yet complete. True, our Lord Jesus is the Seed, yet God foresaw and has foretold the larger seed, spiritual, which will include the body, the Church with the Head. (Gal. 3:16,29) And the Apostle points out that an earthly seed of Abraham will also share the work of blessing the world, yet spiritual Israel is the true seed: as it is written, ‘The son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.’ (Gal. 4:22-31)

“Concerning the natural seed of Abraham, and as proving that they will not be members of the priest who will do the blessing, the Apostle says, ‘As concerning the Gospel [the spiritual part of the covenant] they [the literal seed] are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election they are [still] beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and callings of God are not things he will repent of. For this is my covenant TO THEM—There shall come out of Zion [the spiritual Church] the deliverer [this great High Priest, the servant of the Covenant—Jesus, the Head, and the ‘little flock,’ his body], and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.’ They are to be first blessed by the spiritual or true Seed and may later become associate laborers. (Rom. 11:26-29)

“So, then, after the Body of Christ completes the spiritual ‘Seed,’ that additional promise to Abraham respecting an earthly seed must have a fulfillment: the fleshly seed must become great ‘as the sand by the sea shore,’— the heavenly Seed being likened to ‘the stars of heaven.’ (Gen. 22:17) They must first be turned to righteousness and truth; they will then become an agency through which the spiritual seed will operate in the promised blessing of all mankind with truth and grace.

“The scarlet, blue, purple, etc., which composed the ephod, indicated the conditions of the two covenants. The scarlet shows how God provides redemption from the Adamic curse through the blood of the ransom. The white linen indicates the restoration of man to his original purity. The blue vouchsafes to him the aid, the ability, faithfully to maintain his righteous character. The purple proclaims the royal power of the Kingdom cooperating. All of these blessings woven together are made sure by the divine power of the anointed Priest, represented in the interwoven thread of gold. Thus Jehovah has laid both of these covenants, as they relate to men, upon one who is both mighty and willing to execute these glorious covenanted blessings—‘in due time.’ ” (T33,34)

“The Ephod, made of two separate pieces, suspended the one before and the other behind him by two golden clasps which rested upon his shoulders, represented, we think, the two great covenants, the front one the Abrahamic and the back one the ‘new’ covenant. These, though separate and distinct, are both seen to be dependent on him for their support and accomplishment. (It should be remembered that we are in him heirs of glory, not under the ‘new covenant,’ which is still future, but in the ‘Abrahamic covenant’). They were made of ‘gold, blue, purple, scarlet and fine twined linen,’ representing the blessings contained in those covenants: gold—spiritual blessings; blue— heavenly peace; purple—royalty of earth; scarlet was regarded as the most enduring of all colors—the unchangeable character of the covenant; and linen—that righteousness was one of the conditions.” (R72:3)

Breastplate

“And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen, shalt thou make it. Foursquare it shall be being doubled; a span shall be the length thereof, and a span shall be the breadth thereof. And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their inclosings. And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes. And thou shalt make upon the breastplate chains at the ends of wreathen work of pure gold. And thou shalt make upon the breastplate two rings of gold, and shalt put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate. And thou shalt put the two wreathen chains of gold in the two rings which are on the ends of the breastplate. And the other two ends of the two wreathen chains thou shalt fasten in the two ouches, and put them on the shoulderpieces of the ephod before it. And thou shalt make two rings of gold, and thou shalt put them upon the two ends of the breastplate in the border thereof, which is in the side of the ephod inward. And two other rings of gold thou shalt make, and shalt put them on the two sides of the ephod underneath, toward the forepart thereof, over against the other coupling thereof, above the curious girdle of the ephod. And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it may be above the curious girdle of the ephod, and that the breastplate be not loosed from the ephod. And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the LORD continually.” (Exod. 28:15- 29)

“ ‘The Breastplate of Judgment’—was placed on the front of the ephod. It was suspended by a gold chain from the clasps on the shoulder, and was fastened to the ephod by the lacer, through golden rings—this fastening being so concealed underneath that to the casual observer it might appear to be a part of the ephod. (Exod. 28:26-28) This breastplate beautifully represented the Law: It was not a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (ephod), but ‘it was added’ to it. (Gal. 3:19) As the Israelite regarded them (not seeing the hidden connection), the Covenant to Abraham and ‘the law, which was 430 years after,’ were all one. But Paul shows us that there are two seeds that God had in mind, the spiritual and the natural, and that the Covenant and the Law were distinct, ‘to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the Faith.’ (Rom. 4:16)

This Law emblem (the breastplate) was one of the most beautiful of the High Priest’s garments. It was made of the same materials as the ephod. It had in it, set in gold, twelve precious jewels, in which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes. It was bound on his heart indicating that it was precious to him. As a ‘breastplate of righteousness’ it covered his heart. That which condemned all imperfection was his pleasure—‘I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy Law is within my heart.’ (Psa. 40:8)

“This breastplate was two spans long and one span wide, folded in the middle, i.e., a span long and a span wide when doubled. The size, a span, indicated that the law of God is the full measure of a perfect man’s ability. The man Christ Jesus, being perfect, was the only one who ever kept the perfect Law of God inviolate, while those who compose the ‘little flock,’ his body, have his righteousness imputed to them, and hence may truly say, ‘The righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us.’

“The fact that it was double and that the parts were of the same size represented the letter and the spirit of the Law. The front part contained the jewels, and was hung by the gold chain to the gold clasps of the ephod. The underpart was fastened to the ephod. This under half, tied to the ephod (covenant), seems to represent the law in letter, as presented to fleshly Israel. The front part seems to illustrate the spirit of the law fulfilled in us, ‘who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.’ (Rom. 8:4) The two are really one when rightly seen, yet the front part, only, bears the precious jewels.

“Pure gold being a symbol of divine things, the dependence of this part of the Law by a gold chain, from the gold clasps, seems to teach that the Law is divine; and we know, also, that it is by divine aid that we are enabled to walk—not after the flesh but after the spirit. It is this phase of the Law which bears the ‘jewels,’ set in gold, representative of the true Israel, the Lord’s ‘little flock.’ ‘They shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels.’ (Mal. 3:17) Thus embedded in gold (the divine nature) and upheld by the golden chain of divine promises, what wonder that ‘the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us!’ (Rom. 8:1,4)” (T34-36)

Since the breastplate which represented the Law (T34) was made of the same materials and colors (Exod. 28:15; 39:8) as the ephod, we wonder if these were not also intended to indicate the same or similar conditions appertaining to the Law Covenant.

This much we do know, that the Law promised to Israel—(“the man” who would keep it: Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12)—human life and life rights, virtually the same as that guaranteed by God under the terms of the Abrahamic and New Covenants respectively. But Israel did not, yea, could not obtain that for which it sought; in fact, for them, “The commandment which was ordained to life” they “found to be unto death.” (Rom. 7:10) So the old Law Covenant did not, nor could it, bless Israel as a nation with life; and because of this, God promised to enter into a New Covenant with them. (Jer. 31:31,32) Then he would “Take away their sins.” (Rom. 11:27)

There was only one man who could keep God’s perfect Law and that was the man Christ Jesus (see F354); and he will give the life which the old Law promised to Israel, but only by way of the New Covenant. This is undoubtedly the reason why in the type the high priest bore upon his shoulders both the ephod and the breastplate. It showed that the antitypical “High Priest” would exercise such power and authority as would enable him to fulfil all of Jehovah’s covenants. (T34,36) Of course, the antitypical High Priest includes the Church as well as Jesus; and thus the question arises, What has the Church to do with fulfilling the covenants? It will be remembered that scarlet was used in the ancient high priest’s ephod and breastplate, and this could represent nothing other than the redemption accomplished through the blood of Jesus! No, the church had nothing to do with supplying this merit; but by the grace of God she is to be privileged to become the channel by way of which this merit will be transmitted to Israel and the world. PRIMARILY, the blood which seals the New Covenant is the blood of Jesus; and that blood which he shed at Calvary is that by way of which Israel’s ancient Law was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14), making possible the blessing of Israel (yes, and the whole world of mankind) by way of the New Covenant. This, we believe, accounts for the scarlet used in the breastplate: it showed that the Jew would be redeemed by the Savior.

The remaining materials and colors have then the same significance here in this garment as they have in the ephod. The white linen represents Israel’s restoration to the purity which once marked Father Adam; the blue bespeaks the aid that Israel will receive to then maintain a righteous character; the purple says that the “royal priesthood” will co-operate with them; and the gold indicates the divine power vested in the “High Priest” by Jehovah God, will bring all these blessings to pass. Bro. Russell suggests that the front part of this breastplate which bore the jewels represented the “spirit of the Law” and that the jewels represent “the true Israel” of God—the “little flock” of this Gospel dispensation. (T35)

The most important feature of the Law Covenant into which Jehovah God entered with Israel at Mt. Sinai was the Law itself; for without this, it could not have been the Law Covenant. But the Law of God is more than first appears in the reading of the Decalog, for the Law of God is Love. The “Ten commandments” of Mt. Sinai, expressed this law, but negatively— “thou shalt not—.” If obeyed, there never would have been any need for sin-offerings or trespass-offerings, for every man would have loved the

Lord God supremely, and his neighbor as himself. (Matt. 22:37,39) This, of course, means the Law of God is spiritual. (Rom. 7:14) However, Israel did not discern that aspect of the Law, for it saw only its letter. The letter in itself was lifeless: it could not give what it didn’t have to give; and life is of the spirit. There were undoubtedly many of Israel of old who could conscientiously declare, “I have kept the Law.” But merely refraining from doing harm to another falls far short of the spirit of the Law which requires one to do good to his neighbor if it is possible.

It will be recalled that one came to Jesus asking how he might obtain life. Jesus directed him to the Law, which promised life to the man who would keep it. (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12) But the young man replied, “All these things have I kept from my youth” (Matt. 19:20); and it is interesting to note that Jesus did not contradict him. In response to the man’s inquiry, “What lack I yet?” Jesus clearly set forth that while the man had been keeping the letter of the Law, he had missed its spirit completely; and that this was equivalent to failure. He said to him, “Sell that thou hast and give to the poor.” (Matt. 19:21)

“God’s commands are so comprehensive, so searching, so dividing between the joints and the marrow, that they cannot be fulfilled in the complete, absolute sense except by Love. If we could suppose every item of the Law performed strictly, and yet the spirit of loving devotion to God absent, the divine Law would not be satisfied. On the contrary, Love is the fulfilling of the Law, and where Love reigns every item and every feature of the divine arrangement will be sought after and heartily obeyed to the best of the ability of the creature; not of constraint, but of joy, of love.” (F367)

Thus, does the spirit transcend the mere letter! We, the antitypical Israel of God, were never under that old Law Covenant; yet, the Law, though negatively expressed in the Decalog, is love; and to this we are amenable. It was Jesus’ delight (Psa. 1:2; Psa. 40:8; John 8:29; Heb. 10:7,9), and it should be ours too.

“Such love for God and his righteousness the New Creation professed at consecration; and Love there became its Law, and it is firmly bound by that Law of Love—even unto death.” (F367)

In the light of the foregoing, we can readily see why the front part of the breastplate represented the spirit of the Law and bore the jewels. Surely, the Church, like Israel of old, would find it impossible while in the fallen flesh to keep God’s perfect Law. Yet we are able to transcend its letter by faith and to walk in its spirit. Paul did indeed declare that such as these, though imperfect in the flesh and unable to keep it, might have the righteousness of the Law fulfilled in them. (Rom. 8:1,4)

It was this front part of the breastplate that had an additional support by way of golden chains to the shoulderpieces of the high priest’s garments. (Exod. 28:22-25; 39:15-18) It is also significant that the breastplate is identified with the front part of the ephod which represented the Abrahamic Covenant. For the Israelite who saw only the letter of the Law, hope for life and blessing lies in “The seed of Abraham” that will make the New Covenant possible; and for those who walk according to the spirit, they owe much to that Abrahamic Covenant, but even more to that divine power which upholds and sustains them (the wreathen chains fastened to the shoulderpieces) in their walk of faith. Yes, there is divine power in those precious promises—they are spirit and they are life. (John 6:63)

There were three pieces of the High Priest’s “garments of glory and beauty” which were made of an identical material—fine twined linen with interwoven threads of blue, purple and scarlet, and gold. These were the Ephod (Exod. 28:5,6), the Curious girdle of the Ephod (Exod. 28:8), and the Breastplate (Exod. 28:15).

Insofar as the Ephod was concerned, the color scheme represented the conditions of the two great Covenants—the Abrahamic and the New, both of which are comprehended under the designation “The Everlasting Covenant.” (See R4321:2) The scarlet showed how God provided redemption for the Adamic curse through the blood of the ransom. The white linen indicated the restoration of man to his original purity. The blue vouchsafes to him the aid and ability faithfully to maintain a righteous character. The purple proclaims that the royal power of the Kingdom will cooperate. The golden thread shows that all these blessings are made possible by the divine power which the anointed priest will exercise. (See T34.)

Let it be carefully noted that while the selfsame colors were used in the Breastplate as in the Ephod, they did not here represent the conditions of the Old Law Covenant as a means whereby the world of mankind would be blessed. That Covenant was unable to bless even Israel! It promised life to “The man” who would keep it (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5); and no Israelite did (Ezek. 20:11,13,21) save one—Christ Jesus. Accordingly, we find that the colors of the Breastplate could represent conditions only as they appertain to Jesus. The white linen thus represented his basic righteousness and purity; the blue his faithfulness in maintaining that righteous character; the scarlet his covenant of sacrifice by way of which he supplied the blood of redemption; the purple, indicated his hope for the royalty of the kingdom; and the gold, the divine nature to which, by virtue of his covenant of sacrifice, he was begotten.

Since Jesus was faithful in keeping the Law until the very moment when in obedience to his covenant of sacrifice he laid down life itself, he became the heir to what the Law promised, so that the Law now has nothing more to offer. Thus did he make an end of it, virtually nailing it to the cross (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14). As far as Israel is concerned, the blessing of life will now have to come by way of a new covenant (Jer. 31:27-34), which unlike the old one, will never pass away. It will be an “everlasting” covenant, and is destined not only to bless them, but through them, all the world of man- kind as well. We are not to forget, however, the relationship which subsists between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant. Basically, it is the old “oath-bound” Abrahamic Covenant which blesses all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; Gal. 3:8); yet, it will do this by way of furnishing the “Seed” of Abraham—the “Heir” of the promise—The CHRIST, head and body (Gal. 3:29), which in turn through the New Covenant will accomplish the blessing.

The Abrahamic Covenant might itself have been sufficient for the purpose; but it was for Israel’s sake the Law was added because of transgressions (Gal. 3:19), and Israel’s inability to keep the Law, which they had promised to keep (Exod. 19:8), produced the effect of bringing them under a double condemnation: (1) the original Adamic condemnation which now could not be waived; (2) the Law’s condemnation because of failure to do what they had covenanted to do. Since God had ordained that the blessing was to be to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile (Rom. 1:16; 2:10), it stands to reason that none can be blessed save by way of the New Covenant which first brings the Jew out from under these two condemnations; and then through the Jew, reaches out in blessing all the families of the earth.

Thus, while the Breastplate is attached to the Ephod and represents the Law Covenant, it does not signify that the Old Law Covenant will share with the other two great Covenants—the Abrahamic and the New represented by the Ephod—in bringing a direct and everlasting blessing to the world.

The two shoulderpieces, the clasps which served to hold the two parts of the Ephod together upon the shoulders of the high priest, were made of onyx stones (Exod. 28:9-12), each of which bore the names of six of the tribes of Israel. These names were the identical ones which appeared on the twelve stones of the Breastplate. Antitypically, these twelve tribal names can represent none other than those who shall eventually constitute the true Israel of God—twelve thousand of each of the twelve tribes. (Rev. 7:4-8) The original purpose of God was to have his elect selected from each and every tribe of Abraham’s natural seed; but not sufficient having proved themselves worthy by the time that the seventieth week of special favor ended (Dan. 9:27), the remainder of the “Seed” of Abraham was then sought out from amongst the Gentiles—from among those who originally were strangers from the commonwealth of Israel, but who have manifested a faith like unto Abraham’s, and thus have become Israelites in- deed. (See John 8:37-40; Acts 13:46,47; 18:4-6.) These latter are now making up the deficiencies of each of the original tribes.

“Inasmuch as this left many of the designated number yet to be provided for, God arranged, as had been shown through the prophets would be done, that the deficiency should be supplied from amongst the Gentiles. So then, the work of this Gospel age has been to fill up those twelve tribes with Gentiles to take the places of the Jews who were broken off from that special place or plane of privilege. And we, if we make our calling and election sure, shall be of these twelve tribes, though we may not know to which tribe we shall be assigned.

“The Lord in his providence fills up these tribes of Israel, the whole number being stipulated to be 12,000 for each tribe, or 144,000 altogether. It might make no particular difference to us to which tribe we belong, and yet there is a bare possibility that since our Lord is ‘the Lion of the Tribe of Judah,’ there may be some special gradation suggested in this tribe; so this royal priesthood may be divided into twelve different classes.

“There is no revelation on this subject, and it behooves us ‘not to be wise above that which is written’; but since these tribes had different standings, as shown in the prophecies made respecting them, so there is seemingly quite a possibility that there will be twelve different stations or ranks among the saints.” (R4654:2,3)

Shoulderpieces and Onyx Stones

“It shall have the two shoulderpieces. … And thou shalt take two onyx stones, and grave on them the names of the children of Israel: Six of their names on one stone, and the other six names of the rest on the other stone, according to their birth. With the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shalt thou engrave the two stones with the names of the children of Israel: thou shalt make them to be set in ouches of gold. And thou shalt put the two stones upon the shoulders of the ephod for stones of memorial unto the children of Israel: and Aaron shall bear their names before the LORD upon his two shoulders for a memorial. And thou shalt make ouches of gold; And two chains of pure gold at the ends; of wreathen work shalt thou make them, and fasten the wreathen chains to the ouches.” (Exod. 28:7,9-14)

The “breastplate” and the “shoulderpieces” are suggestive of a number of things, among them is the fact that the wave and heave offerings taken from the peace-offerings of Israel were made from the breast and the shoulder, which in their symbolic bearing have reference to love and strength respectively. Israel of old, because of its covenant relationship unto God, was itself a wave-offering and an heave-offering unto him. Their love and strength were ever to be used to the honor and glory of God. This, surely, is implied in the Law which Jesus epitomized as follows: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . and with all thy strength.” (Mark 13:30) No wonder, then, that the high priest bore their names upon the breastplate—the place nearest his heart; and upon his shoulders, as if upholding them before God. In other words, the high priest’s own love and strength were ever exercised toward the redeemed, the beloved Israel of God, in maintaining them in a position of honor and favor before God. How beautiful is the antitype of all this! And though in one respect the high priest in his garments “of glory and beauty” represents The Christ in full glory beyond the vail, yet there were times when Aaron so arrayed represented Christ Jesus, and Christ Jesus alone, as our high priest. It is in this sense that Christ has exercised himself in love and power in maintaining us, the antitypical Israel in the position of favor before God. (See Heb. 7:26-28; 8:1-3; Jude 24,25)

Bezaleel, the artisan whom Jehovah himself raised up for the specific purpose of building the Tabernacle, was a type also of Christ Jesus, for Bezaleel means “The shadow of God.” But he had an assistant whose name was Aholiab, who in turn was the son of Ahisamach, which latter means, “My brother has supported!” And is this not true of our elder brother, our faithful high priest? Has he not, is he not now supporting us, presenting us as a wave-offering and an heave-offering unto Jehovah God, our Father? Truly, we are the Israel of God, and our names are dear to our High Priest’s heart; and he who thus loves us, and bears us up before God, will have us associated with him in dispensing the blessings of the Covenants. The “shoulderpieces” while on the High Priest’s shoulder were at the same time attached to the two parts of the Ephod.

“In the Jewish Tabernacle, the high priest always bore the names of the tribes of Israel upon his shoulders and upon his breastplate. The shoulders or arms are symbolic of strength, and the breastplate is symbolic of the heart and the affections. Whenever he went in and appeared before Jehovah, his shoulders and his breast were adorned with precious stones, upon which were engraven the names of the tribes of Israel. This was a symbol of our High Priest who bears us upon His heart and upholds us by His strength as He stands before God; for ‘Christ has entered into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us.’ ” (MacIlravy, Christ and His Bride, p. 517)

“As Aaron stood there clothed in those beautiful robes so typically significant, and was anointed with the holy oil, his head represented Jesus, the Head of the Priesthood, while his body represented the Church, complete in Christ. How impressive and significant a type of the world’s High Priest, undefiled, and clothed with power and authority to fulfil Jehovah’s covenants!” (T36)

In the type, it will be recalled, the high priest, at the close of Israel’s national Atonement Day, changed from his linen garments of service (sacrifice) to those of special “glory and beauty,” and in these latter came forth and blessed the people. (Lev. 16:23; 9:23)

From one viewpoint we are privileged to see the high priest arrayed in these garments as representing the World’s High Priest, i.e., the Christ, Head and Body. (T36,38) From a slightly different viewpoint, however, we may see Jesus alone as this great World’s High Priest, and the Church represented in the engraved and precious stones of the “breastplate” (T36) and “shoulderpieces” of his “garments of glory and beauty.” One can, of course, appreciate the fact that the stones themselves were very precious to the ancient priest; but perhaps doubly so because they represented the 12 tribes of Israel, with whose names they were engraved. So, do we believe, the antitypical “jewels” (the Church) will in themselves be very precious to the World’s High Priest (Jesus), but especially so, because they will stand for, or represent, the whole world of mankind (the antitypical Israel of God—see F458) for whom they (the Church) have been baptized.

“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:29)

“The Apostle’s argument is that the whole Christian position stands or falls together. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then those who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished, as well as the remainder of the world; and if such be the case, and there is no future hope either for the Church, or for the world through the Church, why should we consecrate our lives unto death? We are baptized into death with Christ, baptized for the dead, to the intent that we may by and by be associated with him as the Life-giver of the world—the Seed of Abraham.” (F456)

“Jewels”

These “jewels” are now in the course of preparation for their future positions on the shoulderpieces, and in the breastplate of the World’s High Priest. (Mal. 3:17) Perhaps, therefore, God intended us to learn certain lessons by way of those ancient stones. Unfortunately, we are not able to identify precisely all the stones that were used in Aaron’s breastplate.

“Great difficulty is met in any attempt to translate the Greek and Hebrew names mentioned in the Bible into names that would be used for the same minerals in a particular country at the present day. It is only within the last century, through the development of the sciences of chemistry and crystallography, that it has become possible to define mineral species with any considerable approach to precision. In ancient times minerals were regarded as belonging to a single kind, and indicated by a single name, that are now distributed into different kinds and mentioned under different names.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.)

“It is not easy to identify the stones mentioned … the meaning of the He- brew words being doubtful.” (Dummelow, One Volume Bible Commentary)

“The identification of the stones of the high priest’s breastplate is a problem of great difficulty. In modern times stones are classified according to chemical composition and method of crystallization, while in ancient times they were classified merely by general appearance. Some of the ancient names indicate color, but a red stone might be any one of four or five gems. Such stones as the diamond, ruby, sapphire and topaz must be excluded at once because they were too hard to be engraved by any methods known to the ancients, even if the stones themselves had been familiar, which is doubtful in some cases.” (Jacobus, Mourse, Zenos, New Standard Bible Dictionary)

Not knowing, then, the precise modern names of many (perhaps any) of these stones and being thus in almost complete ignorance concerning their individual and peculiar crystallography, it seems to us a bit presumptuous to build on such meager facts, any system of interpretation involving these features.

What we are reasonably sure about is that they were uncommon, i.e., rare stones; though the Hebrew text does not in itself imply that they were “precious” in the precise and accurate sense of that word. But they were stones whose color and beauty were due to small amounts of mineral salts present when the crystals were being formed as molten rock was allowed to cool and solidify.

“With the exception of diamond, which is crystallized carbon, the gems are composed of alumina or silica or a combination of them in varying proportions with or without other molecules.” (Encyclopedia Britannica [1942], v. 10, p. 95a)

Thus, for example, the agate, amethyst, beryl, chalcedony, chrysolite, emerald, garnet, jasper, onyx, opal, sardonyx and topaz contain silica as a basic ingredient. The ruby, sardius, sapphire (lapis lazuli), and topaz contain alumina as a basic ingredient.

The three most common elements in the earth’s crust—constituting more than 82% thereof—are oxygen (a gas), silicon (a non-metal) and aluminum (a metal). It is these three in the form of silica and alumina compounds that, as already suggested, are the basic ingredients of most of our beautiful gems. Yet, despite the predominance of these elements in the earth’s crust, gems are comparatively rare! Perhaps this is due to the extraordinary conditions and circumstances under which gems are formed. Among these are:

• the intense heat, such as prevails within the bowels of the earth, and which keeps rocks in a molten state.
• pressure so great that it forces this liquid rock through fissures and crevices of the earth’s surface.
• the slow cooling processes which enable crystals to be formed.

The color of these stones is sometimes augmented by the accidental presence at the time of formation of such other elements as chromium, iron, lithium, magnesium, manganese, titanium, etc.

We are suggesting, since gems are made of the commonest elements of the earth’s crust, that the Lord’s “jewels” (Mal. 3:17), generally speaking, are also “made” of the commonest elements of human society—the poor. Surely, no one will deny the fact that there are many, many more poor people in this world than there are rich. But “richness” is not necessarily a matter of what is commonly called “wealth,” for it can be also of wisdom, education, ambition, and even of nobility. “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (Matt. 5:3) And though the rich are not excluded (Matt. 19:26), there will be comparatively few of them to enter the spiritual phase of the Kingdom. (Mark 10:23)

On the other hand, as we have already seen, that despite the preponderance of the elements necessary to form gems in the earth’s crust, there are comparatively few gems actually formed, and these few are the result of excessive heat, high pressure, and a slow cooling process. This, dear friends, finds a most beautiful counterpart in the fact that, though there are many, many poor, only an infinitesimally small number of them ever become “gems” and these only as the result of:

• Fiery trials.
• Untoward pressure of circumstances.
• Being rightly exercised in and by these.

Thus they are being crystallized into “gems”—characters worthy of being enshrined (enclasped) in the “golden ouches” (Exod. 39:13) of the divine nature.

The color of the natural gems, as we have seen, was sometimes inherent in the original silica or alumina compound, but was sometimes augmented by the accidental presence of other chemical elements at the time when the gems were being formed. Just so it is with the “gems” which will adorn the antitypical “breastplate.” There is a natural beauty of character in all of God’s saints—the result of the ordinary trials of life; but there is some- times an added luster, enhancing this beauty, coming by graciously bearing with the accidental (providential) presence in these trials of such other elements as misunderstandings, reproaches, etc.

Thus far we have considered what was more or less common to all the stones—their origin, their constituent elements, etc. The stones of the ancient breastplate evidently did not merely differ in color, tint and luster, but in the engravings made upon them. Both the shoulderpieces and the stones of the breastplate were engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. In Exod. 28:10 we are told that the names on the shoulderpieces were engraved upon them according to the birth of the 12 patriarchs. But we cannot be too sure as to whether or not this was the order in which the names also appeared on the stones of the breastplate for it is nowhere definitely stated. We have three listings in the Book of Genesis: the first of these in Gen. 29:32 to 30:24; the second is in Gen. 35:23-26 in which the two wives, Leah and Rachel, are given precedence over their handmaids, Bilhah (Rachel’s maid) and Zilpah (Leah’s maid); the third is in Gen. 49:3- 27 in which the order of the blessing from Jacob’s death bed is given. Figure 41 shows the names of the stones as they appear in the Hebrew text of Exod. 28:17-20 together with the names of the 12 tribes as they would appear according to the three listings already mentioned.

The matter is further complicated when we consider the tribes as enumerated in the Revelation, for undoubtedly, this would be the order of the “engravings” upon the “stones” of the antitypical “breastplate.” This is the order given there:

Antitypically, at least, Dan has lost his place among the twelve tribes! But, why? Jacob’s death-bed prophecy, and the subsequent history of the ancient tribe, are quite revealing.

“Jacob prophesied that it would be Dan ‘that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.’ (Gen. 49:17) Horses are symbols of doctrines. Dan evidently represents a class tampering with doctrines, resulting in the overthrow of the New Creature. A study of the history of the tribe of Dan confirms this. Originally Dan was given one of the choicest parts of Palestine, one of the most fertile and the most secure. It was completely embraced by its two brother tribes—Ephraim and Benjamin—while on the southeast and south it joined Judah, and was thus surrounded by the three most powerful states of the whole confederacy. The Danites, however, failed to conquer the land originally assigned them (representing the failure of the New Creature to gain the victory over the mind of the flesh) and chose another inheritance to the far north. (Judg. 18:1-31) This selection of the farthest north resembles Satan’s similar choice (Isa. 14:13) and suggests that the Danite New Creatures were led away from their original inheritance by ambition. The context shows an unreasonably high valuation of their own judgment and a willful interference with the priestly office, and this we may judge has been a frequent offence of those who commit the great sin that lies just beyond the sin of presumption. (Psa. 19:13; 2 Sam. 6:6,7)” (The Finished Mystery, p. 133)

Ephraim is frequently a type of nominal Christendom. But we believe here he may be a type of the Great Company, who though “called” in the one hope of their calling (Eph. 4:4), and having been “accepted” in the beloved (Eph. 1:6), fail to make their “election” sure (1 Thes. 1:4; 2 Pet. 1:10). In many respects they are like the worldly church, with whom they are frequently identified. They “mix” with the people of the land (Hosea 7:8) and imbibe of a spirit which soon intoxicates them (Isa. 28:1). The result is that even though they love righteousness, they do not hate iniquity sufficiently to separate themselves completely unto the Lord. Their “vision” is soon blurred and they stumble because of errors in judgment. (Isa. 28:7) What good is a cake that is only half baked? Well, the Prophet likens Ephraim unto a cake that is not turned. (Hosea 7:8)

Thus Dan represents those of the consecrated who sin the “sin unto death”—the Second Death Class—and Ephraim those who will be called upon to go through the great tribulation (Rev. 7:14) for the destruction of the flesh so that their spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor. 5:5) Both classes lose their places amongst the very elect (tribes)—engraved “stones” on the shoulderpieces and in the breastplate of the great World’s High Priest.

“In a certain sense, then, God has been making up his jewels for more than eighteen hundred years—in the sense of preparing them. But there is still a final gathering, or assembling, of this class, which has not yet been completed. The gathering of these jewels must include the resurrection, not merely of those who have been sleeping as members of the body of Christ, but also of those who are alive and remain to the end of the age. These all experience a change from animal to spirit conditions—‘changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.’ (1 Cor. 15:51,52) In the assembling of this class—the mounting of the jewels, as it were—the Lord will show his own workmanship, what he has selected out of the filth and mire of the sinful race of mankind, and what he has made of them.” (R5119:2)

“The call to the kingdom has been generally rejected by those who had a considerable measure of this world’s blessings and advantages—those who are rich, either in honor of men or social position or talents or reputation or money, have found it difficult to leave these all to follow Jesus in the narrow way; and consequently, the Scriptural assurance is not only that those elected in the end of the Jewish age were chiefly the poor and lowly, but that the same has been true amongst the Gentiles, and is true today; ‘Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;’ but chiefly the poor of this world, rich in faith.—1 Cor. 1:26; James 2:5” (R2702:5)

Jesus, as the Church’s High Priest, completed the atonement “for himself and for his house” (Lev. 16:11) when 1900 years ago he ascended up on high and appeared in the presence of God, there presenting on our behalf (Heb. 9:24) the merit of his own blood. This work, in a sense, was accomplished in the “linen garments of sacrifice,” and covered every member of the Church all the way down to the very consummation of the age.

In another sense, Jesus is now already in the “other garments” (R5472:3) insofar as his own personal glory and beauty are concerned (R5060:3). In these latter “garments” he is, so to speak, still the Church’s High Priest, but now, as its Advocate (1 John 2:1), carrying it as a “breastplate” of precious “jewels” upon his heart.

It should not be difficult to perceive that those, who though unable to keep God’s perfect Law inviolate, but nevertheless have its righteousness fulfilled in them (Rom. 8:1,4), are even now—before all the sacrificial features of the antitypical Day of Atonement are ended, and the blessing of Israel and the world are due to begin—the precious “jewels” of our High Priest’s “breastplate.” (T36)

“How encouraging and consolatory it is for the tried, tempted, buffeted, and self-abased children of God to remember that God only sees them on the heart of Jesus! In His view, they ever shine in all the effulgence of Christ; they are arrayed in divine comeliness. The world cannot see them thus; but God does, and this makes all the difference.” (C.H.M, Notes on the Book of Exodus, p. 309)

In Exod. 28:15,29 it is called the “breastplate of judgment” probably because it was to be used in connection with the Urim and Thummim to determine the Will or Judgment of Jehovah God, in any matter, as in Num. 27:21 (R5042:4); and because the High Priest was to bear the judgment of Israel upon his heart. (Exod. 28:30) Bro. Russell, in commenting on it, called it a “breastplate of righteousness” (T35), an expression he undoubtedly borrowed from Isa. 59:17, or perhaps even from Eph. 6:14. If the breastplate represented the Law (T34) which is righteousness—“holy, just and good” (Rom. 8:12), then the judgment of one doing righteously is that he is righteous. The standard by which the character of any man is judged, must ever be, The Law of God itself. Thus, that ancient garment was evidently both a “breastplate of judgment” and a “breastplate of righteous- ness.”

Urim and Thummim

“And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.” (Exod. 28:30)

“And he put the breastplate upon him; also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.” (Lev. 8:8)

“URIM AND THUMMIM (‘Lights and Perfections’). These were the sacred symbols (worn upon the breastplate of the high priest, ‘Upon his heart’) by which God gave oracular responses for the guidance of His people in temporal matters. What they were is unknown; they are introduced in Exodus 28:30 without explanation, as if familiar to Israelites of that day. The LXX translates Urim and Thummim by ‘manifestation and truth.’ Some scholars suppose that they were the twelve stones of the breastplate; others that they were two additional stones concealed in its fold. Josephus adds to these the two sardonyx buttons worn on the shoulders which, he says emitted luminous rays when the response was favorable; but the precise mode in which the oracles were given is lost in obscurity.” (Oxford Bible Helps; see also Sanford, Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge)

“There is nothing specific known on this subject. In some manner or other, it is supposed, the breastplate that was worn by the High Priest was used as the Urim and Thummim—that is, to give definite answer, Yes or No, to the question that was propounded. For instance, if the question were asked, Shall Israel go out to war with this nation? or, Shall Israel enter into alliance with that nation? the Lord’s answer was indicated by the breastplate. How these questions were answered, we are not informed. Nothing in the Scriptures tells us, and we have no tradition even that gives any very clear answer. We know that they had the Urim and Thummim and that the answer was indicated in some way with the precious stones of the breast- plate, but just how, nobody knows.” (R5042:4)

“Nobody knows exactly how this was done. The breastplate of the High Priest, which bore twelve precious stones, the name of each tribe on a stone, it is supposed, was taken by the High Priest into the Most Holy when some question was to be asked … It is supposed that something in the Most Holy indicated the answer on this breastplate, either by making certain of the stones to shine with special brilliancy, or something of the kind; but it is all guesswork, nobody knows anything about it.” (Q728)

Ostensibly, this Urim and Thummim were the means employed by Jehovah God, for the communicating of his glory—“lights and perfections” of his divine will, through the High Priest, to his ancient people, Israel.

We like to think that the character of Jesus our High Priest is, in a sense, just such a Urim and Thummim for us, the spiritual Israel of God. Since he did always those things that pleased the Father (John 8:29; 5:19; 14:24; 17:4), is it not through him that the character—the “lights and perfections”—of the divine will concerning us, is revealed, communicated? (John 14:9, 10; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18)

“The breastplate was made of the same materials as the ephod: and it was doubled or folded, so as to form a bag, into which the Urim and the Thummim were put. As to the Urim and the Thummim, whether they were precious stones bearing those significant names, or what they were, no one is able at present to decide. Urim means Lights, being the plural of the word very commonly used for Light; Thummim, Perfections. In the Septuagint these two words are translated by delosis and aletheia (Manifestation and Truth). These mysterious contents of the breastplate seem to direct our thoughts to the heart of the Lord Jesus, as containing all lights and perfections, all grace and truth, all mercies and righteousness. In him was light; and he manifested forth that light; he declared the Father. He is the light of the glory of God; all fulness of light dwells in him. The Septuagint translation, Manifestation, is not an inappropriate expression, though it is rather a paraphrase than a translation.” (Soltau, An Exposition of the Tabernacle, p. 251)

We are not specifically told as to what constituted the Urim and Thummim though we do know that it was used by Israel’s High Priest when coming into the Most Holy of the Tabernacle, into the presence of Jehovah God (represented by the Shekinah Glory), to determine the divine will concerning Israel.

From Leviticus 8:8 it might be inferred that the Urim and Thummim were something separate and apart from the stones of the Breastplate; to be worn, nevertheless, in the Breastplate so as to be upon Aaron’s heart “when he goeth in before the LORD.” (Exod. 28:30) Should this inference be correct, the pocket formed by the folding of the Breastplate may have afforded the place in which it was to be carried. Yet, we cannot be positive about this, for it is possible that two of the stones of the Breastplate may have served, not only to represent two particular tribes of Israel, but also as the Urim and Thummim of the High Priest.

Nor can we know precisely just how this ancient device functioned. We are inclined to the thought that in all probability two stones (crystal gems), either separate and apart from the stones of the Breastplate or identical with them, may have served as the Urim and Thummim. But how? Scholars, Hebrew and otherwise, seem unable to help us here. Nor are we wiser than they. Yet we will hazard a guess, without being in the least dogmatic.

The Shekinah, which represented God’s presence between the cherubim (Exod. 25:33), was a supernatural light, presumably rich in ultraviolet rays. And we know that certain substances when exposed to such rays will fluoresce—will change from their normal appearance. Is it not possible, yea, perhaps even probable, that the stones constituting the Urim and Thummim were of the kind that could fluoresce? If so, could not this in some way, under divine direction, have been understood by Aaron to signify the answer to the question he submitted unto Jehovah?

“Sometimes clear quartz crystals bombarded with radioactive rays turn to amethyst color, and at other times to a smoky hue.” (Wright and Chadbourne, Gems and Minerals of the Bible, p. 11)

“Most commonly seen is photoluminescence, where the material emits visible light when illuminated with higher-energy light (usually ultraviolet). Photoluminescence is divided further into fluorescence, if it stops when the stimulating rays stop, and phosphorescence, if it continues for a certain time after. There are certain minerals which produce photoluminescence only by means of short ultraviolet wave-lengths, others by longer wave-lengths, and still others by both, in which case the color may remain the same or change.” (Guide to Rocks & Crystals, p. 45)

In 1903 Bro Russell had this to say about the matter of choosing the first king of Israel:

“It was the custom at the time to have the high-priest’s ephod in use on such occasions, and a pocket in the ephod was made the receptacle for slips of paper, or sometimes for the precious stone representing the different tribes and families … when the lot was cast, when the hand pulled forth from the ephod pocket the stone representing the tribe of Benjamin, the matter was decided, and in general the people bowed to the Lord’s decision.” (R3218:2)

But notice what he said in 1912:

“We know that they had the Urim and Thummim, and that the answer was indicated in some way with the precious stones of the breastplate, but just how, nobody knows.” (R5042:4)

“1 Samuel xiv, 41, in which the Septuagint has preserved the correct text, to be rendered: ‘O Yahweh, God of Israel! Why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If to me or to my son Jonathan falls the blame, give Urim; if to the people, give Thummim.’ To this reading the Vulgate gives testimony (cf. S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. 89, Oxford, 1890). Granting the correctness of the Septuagint reading, this pas- sage shows that by the use of these objects an alternative was presented, that the issuing of one of them indicated an affirmative, of the other a negative; if neither came out, that indicated divine unwillingness to answer. The context (verses 36ff) implies the presence of a priest, though the passage does not show that the management was exclusively in priestly hands.” (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, v. 12, p. 108)

Here is how 1 Sam. 14:41 is rendered in Bagster’s The Septuagint Greek and English:

“And Saul said O LORD God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? Is the iniquity in me, or in Jonathan my son? LORD God of Israel, give clear manifestations; and if the lot should declare this, give, I pray thee, to thy people Israel, give, I pray, holiness.”

Bagster has evidently rendered the Greek words which Driver declares are Urim and Thummim as manifestations and holiness. Here is Ronald Knox’s translation from the Latin Vulgate:

“And Saul prayed to the LORD God of Israel, send us right guidance; tell us why it is thou wilt give me thy servant no answer this day. If the guilt lies with me, or with my son Jonathan, let the sign be Revelation; if with thy people, let the sign be Holiness.”

The Revised Standard Version, however, renders the text:

“Therefore Saul said, O LORD God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O LORD God of Israel, give Urim; but if this guilt is in thy people Israel, give Thummim.”

According to Young’s Concordance Urim means Lights, Thummim means Perfection.

“[It was] called the Tabernacle of the congregation, or more properly the tent of meeting, not because the Israelites met there as a congregation, not because it was their meeting house, but because they were a holy, separate house or people of God, and in this tent in the center of their camp God made his dwelling place, and it was here that he met the children of Israel by receiving and communicating with their representatives of the tribe of Levi, through whom, by the Urim and Thummim, the divine will was communicated.” (R4029:6)

“It was into the ‘Most Holy’ that the High Priest went whenever he inquired of Jehovah for Israel’s welfare, etc., using the breastplate of judgment, the Urim and Thummim.” (T91)

“So … after the present ‘Day of Atonement’ is over the ‘Royal Priesthood’ will be in the ‘Most Holy’ or perfect spiritual condition … In that perfect spiritual condition, the priesthood will instruct in every matter, as represented in the decisions and answers given to Israel by the Urim and Thummim.” (T92)

Girdles

“And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen.” (Exod. 28:8)

“This ‘Curious Girdle’ seems to say, This is a servant, and as this is the girdle of the Ephod it tells us that this one is ‘The Messenger (servant) of the Covenant whom ye delight in.’ (Mal. 3:1)” (T33)

“… and thou shalt make the girdle of needlework.” (Exod. 28:39)

This evidently refers to another girdle—not the “curious girdle” of the Ephod (Exod. 28:8). This girdle is, however, in many respects like that “curious girdle” for according to Exod. 39:29 it was also made of linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet. But unlike the “curious girdle” it had no gold in it; and it also had “needlework” upon it. (cf. Exod. 28:8; 39:5 and Exod. 28:39; 39:29)

There are two Hebrew words (abnet and chesheb) which in Exodus and Leviticus of the KJV have been rendered “girdle” and “curious girdle” respectively. Modern translators, noting the difference between the two words, have endeavored to reflect this in their translations, but with little unanimity of thought. Consequently, we find in them such words as: band, belt, ribbon, and sash; and here again, not always consistently. Here are some examples:

This has caused us to wonder if the difference to be considered is really as great as the translators would have us believe, to warrant the use of other terms than girdle and curious girdle. Tie and cravat are indeed different terms for a man’s necktie, and though they may differ in style and in price, they serve but one and the same purpose. Just so, a band, a belt, a ribbon, and a sash, basically serve one and the same purpose; they bind or engirdle. It is true, a sash may be more decorative than a belt; and methinks this is the only difference intended in the use of these two Hebrew words. This we do know, the linen girdle (abnet) was worn with the simple linen garments of sacrifice whereas the curious girdle was worn with the more pretentious garments—those “of glory and beauty.”

The girdle is a symbol of servitude. Thus the linen girdle indicated that the sacrificing “priest” was to be a servant of righteousness—“a righteous servant.” (T30) The curious girdle, bearing an especial relationship to the Ephod (which latter represented the Covenants—T30) indicated that this “High Priest” would be a servant or “messenger of the Covenant.” (Mal. 3:1) (T33)

If we accept the reading of Exodus 39, both girdles were alike to the extent that both were made of fine twined linen with interwoven threads of blue, purple and scarlet (cf. Exod. 39:5 and Exod. 39:29). This bespeaks the fact that the antitypical “High Priest”—the “righteous servant”—will in due course also be the “priest” of blessing. The four materials common to both girdles and the corresponding symbolism were:

In the linen girdle, these had this to say: The sacrificing “priest” would be endeavoring to maintain his imputed righteousness, faithfully unto death, in the hope of attaining a place in the “royal priesthood” of blessing.

The curious girdle, in these materials, had this to say: The “Priest” would by way of a consecration unto death, faithfully maintain this righteous- ness, and thus become the “royal priest” of blessing.

There were, however, two differences between these girdles: 1) the linen girdle was adorned in some special way with needlework (Exod. 39:29) whereas the curious girdle was not; 2) the curious girdle contained a golden thread (Exod. 39:5) which the linen girdle did not. These differences are significant.

The needlework (embroidery) on the linen girdle suggested those endeavors being made by the sacrificing “priest” to have such a purity of heart and mind, as could readily be manifested in works of grace. The lack of the golden thread is merely to remind us that so long as we are yet sacrificing, i.e., while we are still in the “in part” condition, the divine nature had not yet been actually attained.

The golden thread in the curious girdle suggested that this “priest” when wearing the “garments of glory and beauty” will be the possessor in verity, and in truth, of the divine nature. The fact that this girdle was not adorned with special needlework seems to say the endeavors to attain the absolute purity of heart and mind, wherein each and every word and act should manifest this beautiful grace, would be in the past—ended. Righteousness and purity would then no longer involve an imputation (T36)— these shall then be the “priesthood’s” very own, as reflected in Rev. 19:8. (See particularly the RSV.)

Notice that both the KJV and the English Revised Versions have a marginal note at Exod. 28:8 to the effect that the curious girdle was embroidered. Since embroidery is a form of needlework, this would mean that both the linen and the curious girdles were embellished with needlework. Evidently the translators of the American Revised (Standard) Version did not concur in this view, for they consistently render the term “skillfully woven band,” with no marginal reading. This is also true of the Revised Standard Version. The New Catholic Version, the Confraternity Edition, how- ever, instead of making it a marginal reading, puts “embroidered” right into the text.

The term needlework in Exod. 39:29, stems from an entirely different Hebrew word (maaseh) and evidently has reference to a work upon the girdle; whereas curious (as most translators have considered it) had reference to the girdle itself, and not to any embellishment.

“Let your loins be girded about.” (Luke 12:35)
“Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.” (Luke 12:37)
“And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.” (Rev. 1:13)
“The Son of man is seen ‘clothed down to the foot’—a long, full flowing robe such as was worn by kings and priests; not the dress of the common people. And he was girded about the paps (not about the loins as one about to toil or run, but about the paps as of one in the repose and dignity of sovereignty) with a golden girdle.” (R1599:2)

“During the Lord’s absence his people were to be continually on the alert: their loins girded would represent that they were to be ready for service all the time—actively engaged in promoting the interests of the kingdom. According to the custom of that time, loose, flowing garments were used, and the girdle at the waist drew these into proper place so as to permit the ordinary services of life. When rest was sought the girdle was loosed. Consequently the lesson of the figure is constant activity on the part of the Lord’s people during his absence from us. We are not to become charged with the cares of this world and slumber and sleep, and thus refrain from attending to the duties properly devolving upon us.

“What will be the special reward of these servants? The parable states it: their Master will ‘gird himself [he will become their servant] and will make them to sit down to meat and will come forth and serve them.’ This implies that at our Lord’s second coming he will be present before any of his servants know of his arrival. He will knock or cause announcement of his presence to be made. Those who will hear the knock will be such only as are awake and ready, expecting him and on the alert for the knock. These will receive a special spiritual feast. It will be special because it is on a special occasion and intended as a special reward for their manifestation of interest and devotion. It will be special also, because the Master of the household, turned to be its servant, would have all the keys to all the riches of grace and blessing, and, as elsewhere explained, will bring forth from his treasuries—his pantries—things new and old, substantials and delicacies. The faithful ones will surely have a royal feast, such as never before was granted them.” (R3354:2; R3355:1)

“Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, faithfulness the girdle of his hips.” (Isa. 11:5—Leeser)

“The girdle figuratively represents mercy, diligence, service, and the proclamation here is that the Messiah shall be a faithful, a diligent servant of Jehovah, in accomplishing all the work entrusted to his care.” (R2374:4)

Seemingly, since with the exception of the golden thread in the curious girdle (Exod. 39:5), and the needlework in the linen girdle (Exod. 39:29) the two girdles were much alike (Exod. 39:5,29), it may be reasoned that the “curious” girdle was so named because of its identification with the ephod; and that the “linen” girdle was so named because of its identification with the Linen Coat. (See and compare Exod. 28:8; 39:5; and Exod. 39:27,29.)

“After being washed, Aaron was clothed with the holy garments of ‘glory and beauty’ (Exod. 28), and lastly the anointing oil was poured on his head (Exod. 29:7). Each article of this glorious apparel was typical of qualities and powers of the Great Deliverer—Head and Body—as Jehovah discerned them looking down into the future to the time for ‘the manifestation of the Sons of God,’ and the fulfillment in them of his promises.” (T29)

On the other hand, the fact that Aaron was arrayed in the “garments of glory and beauty” during the seven days of his consecration (Lev. 8, but see also Exod. 29:5,6,35,37) and before he had offered a single sacrifice on his own behalf, suggests still another thought. The earnest of our inheritance is virtually the title to its full possession after we have faithfully discharged our consecration vows. At the time of our consecration, and on the basis of the vows we then made, God accounted to us a right to the full glory, honor and immortality, of the divine nature. This was evidenced by our begettal of the holy Spirit, and may well be represented in the “glorious” robes worn by Aaron, before he had fully earned them.

It will be remembered that Aaron was during the initial period of his consecration (Lev. 8) dressed by Moses in these “glorious” garments; yet after Aaron, on the 10th day of the 7th month (the Day of Atonement) had died (figuratively, in the bullock) for the people, he had won for himself the right to put them on (see Lev. 16:23). They were then fully his own. So, too, it is with the earnest of our inheritance: it is an anointing unto a royal priesthood, which priesthood becomes our full possession only after we through faithfulness in sacrifice during the antitypical Atonement Day, have made our “calling and election” sure.

Golden Plate and Mitre

“And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his fore- head, that they may be accepted before the LORD. And thou shalt embroider the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre of fine linen …” (Exod. 28:36-39)

“The golden plate on Aaron’s forehead was a type of the essential holiness of the Lord Jesus Christ. ‘It shall be ALWAYS upon HIS forehead, that THEY may be accepted before the Lord.’ What rest for the heart amid all the fluctuations of one’s experience! Our High Priest is ‘always’ in the presence of God for us. We are represented by, and accepted in, him. His holiness is ours. The more deeply we become acquainted with our own personal vile- ness and infirmity, the more we enter into the humiliating truth that in us dwelleth no good thing, the more fervently shall we bless the God of all grace for the soul sustaining truth contained in these words; ‘it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.’ ” (C.H.M., Notes on the Book of Exodus, p. 313.)

While the most beautiful of the High Priest’s garments was the golden, gem-bestudded breastplate, the noblest was the white linen mitre with its golden plate attached. On this plate were engraved the words, “HOLINESS

TO THE LORD [יהוה (YHWH) pronounced Yahweh].” (Exod. 28:36; 39:30)

“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” (Exod. 6:3, KJV)

“I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.” (RSV)

“I appeared, therefore, unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty—though by my name Yahweh was I not made known to them.” (Rotherham)

“JEHOVAH: An erroneous form of the divine name of the covenant God of Israel which appears first about 1520 A.D. The error arose from the fact that the utterance of the divine name, in the original quadrilateral form (the tetragrammaton) YHWH, became unlawful in Jewish usage as early as the third Christian century and probably earlier, at least outside the sacred precincts (cf. Exod. 20:7; Lev. 24:16), the Septuagint of which reads ‘name the name’ for ‘blaspheme the name.’ Consequently in reading the sacred text, ‘Adonai’ (Heb. Adhonai, ‘my lord’) was pronounced instead of it, (or ‘Elohim’ in case the collocation Adhonai YHWY occurred) and the consonants of Adhonai were often written in the margin of the manuscripts. When the vowel punctuation was added, the vowels of Adhonai were written in the text with the tetragrammaton, which thus appeared to read Yehovah (rarely Yehovih), or, according to an older system of transliteration, Jehovah. This form, with anglicized pronunciation, entered the English Bible and so came into general use in worship and theology as one of the names of God, connoting especially his majesty and greatness.” (The New Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, v. 6, p. 166)

“The reading Jehovah is a comparatively recent INVENTION. Jehovah is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo the 10th’s Confessor, Peter Galatin (De Arcanis Catholic Veritas 1518, Folio XLIII) who was followed by Pagius Drisius. Van Driesche, who lived between 1550 and 1616 was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of Jehovah, and this view has been taken since his days.” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, v. 7, p. 88)

“However, the form JEHOVAH is proven to be a monstrosity. Although widely known for about four hundred years, nevertheless, it originated as a corruption by the scribes who introduced foreign vowel points and attached them to the Tetragrammaton. The vowel points selected were those of the word Adonai. By adding these foreign vowel points to the Tetragrammaton, the Sacred Name cannot be pronounced. The English hybrid monstrosity ‘Jehovah’ resulted when Galatin in 1520 published this form. He did not under- stand what the scribes had done in applying these vowel points so that the reader would pronounce ‘Adonai’ instead of Yahweh. The Talmud (Sanhed- rim 10:1) explains that the name of the Almighty is written Yah, but pronounced Adonai.” (Meyer, Sacred Scriptures (Bethel Edition), Preface, p. iv)

“From this we may gather that the Jewish scribes are not responsible for the ‘hybrid’ combination. They intentionally wrote alien vowels—not for combination with the sacred consonants, but for the purpose of cautioning the Jewish reader to enunciate a totally different word, viz., some other familiar name of the Most High.” (Rotherham, The Emphasised Bible, “The Incommunicable Name,” p. 25)

As the so-called “hybrid” term Jehovah has come into such common usage in many of our Bibles, so well as in our theology, and since the word is the result of merely superimposing the vowel sounds of Adonai (meaning Lord or Master), what serious harm can there be in continuing its use if it be remembered that it signifies “Jahweh”?

“It is suggested that when it is recorded that Jehovah appeared to Abraham (Gen. 18:1) and again to Moses (Exod. 3:3-15), it must have been Christ Jesus in his prehuman condition, and hence that the name would be his. We answer that such reasoning is unwarranted: that if the name were applied to another it would merely indicate that such servant was highly esteemed of Jehovah and really treated for the occasion as a steward or representative—commissioned to exercise divine power as well. In Exod. 3:2 we are distinctly informed that the one representing Jehovah and using his most distinguished name, ‘I am,’ was ‘the angel (messenger) of Jehovah.’ That this honored messenger was ‘the Word’ of John 1:1, our Lord Jesus in his prehuman estate, we do not for a moment question, but the highest and most honored messenger should not be confounded with the one whom he represents and in whose name he speaks and whose power he exercised and bestowed upon Moses.” (E43)

Being made of gold, this “crown” might well also be a symbol for the “crown of life”—the divine nature, immortality, to which both Jesus (Psa. 21:1-4) and his overcoming Church, have become heirs. (Phil. 2:9; 2 Pet. 1:4; Rev. 2:10)

“The ‘mitre,’ a strip of fine white linen (typical of righteousness) worn around the forehead, to which the golden plate or ‘crown’ was fastened with a blue lacer, showed that the crown was righteously his.” (T29)

“Upon the golden plate was inscribed ‘Holiness to the Lord,’ thus proclaiming: This High Priest is entirely devoted to the accomplishment of Jehovah’s purposes. The golden crown also proclaimed his royalty: Christ is to be ‘a priest upon his throne’—‘a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.’— Zech. 6:13; Psa. 110:4; Heb. 7:17.” (T30)

The Hebrew word mitsnepheth, has been rendered “mitre” in the KJV, Leeser, and the Jewish Publication Society, and “turban” in the Revised Standard, An American Translation, Moffatt, and Rotherham.

“Mitsnepheth: As this word comes from the root tsnaph, to roll or wrap around, it evidently means that covering of the head so universal in the eastern countries which we call turban or turband.” (Clarke, Commentary)

“The High Priest who typified Christ, the High Priest of our profession, alone went with uncovered head when in priestly attire; … the under- priests, who typified the Church, ‘the Royal Priesthood,’ wore head coverings called ‘bonnets.’ ” (F271)

In view of the fact that Exod. 28:36-38 seems to suggest that the mitre with the golden plate was to be worn at all times, perhaps we are to understand that what Bro. Russell meant was that the mitre and the golden plate did not constitute a head covering in the same sense as did the bonnets which the underpriests wore. It was rather an accessory to his garments, and proclaimed, as it were, his headship over the under priest- hood. Since the mitre was never worn without the golden plate attached, the two together—mitre and plate—constituted “The Crown,” the symbol of his office.

And though from Exod. 29:6,7, and Lev. 8:9,12 we might assume that the “crown” was on Aaron’s head at the time of his anointing, we believe that such an assumption would be erroneous, for under such conditions probably most of the oil would be absorbed by the mitre (turban), leaving very little, if any, of it to flow down over his beard to the hem of his garments. (Psa. 133:2) Of this we can be sure, the antitypical “High Priest” is “anointed” before the “crown” is placed upon his head!

“The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD; and in thy salvation how greatly shall he rejoice! Thou hast given him his heart’s desire, and hast not withholden the request of his lips. For thou preventest him with the blessings of goodness: thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head. He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever. His glory is great in thy salvation: honour and majesty hast thou laid upon him. For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance. For the king trusteth in the LORD, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved.” Psa. 21:1-7

No Sandals

It seems from the silence of the Scriptures on the subject, that the priests, when serving the Tabernacle or its altar, were barefooted; i.e., they wore no sandals. The very ground upon which they walked whether it was in the holy place (court), the Holy, or the Most Holy, was “holy ground.” He who walked thereon need not fear that it would contaminate him; but there was the danger that he might contaminate it. It was for this reason, undoubtedly, that they were instructed to wash their feet as well as their hands at such times. (See Exod. 30:18-21.)

As we walk through this world in our everyday living, we do need to be shod with the “preparation of the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15) as protection against defilement; but there is no such danger of becoming thus defiled in the precincts of God:

“An Oriental does not wear a shoe or sandal for protection from cold, but from filth; and lays aside at least the outermost covering of his feet when he enters a house because he will not need such protection in such a place, and because his shoe might bring filth into the house … We are to understand, therefore, that the Hebrew priests were required to be barefooted when they were in the tabernacle, because any covering of the feet would have suggested that one might have brought in defilement from without, or was liable to acquire it while occupied in the holy place.” (Atwater, The Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, p. 333)

Underpriests’ Coats, Girdles, Bonnets

“And for Aaron’s sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.” (Exod. 28:40—see also verses 41-43, Exod. 39:27,28.)

“Goodly bonnets of fine linen.” (Exod. 29:28—See also Exod. 29:9; Lev. 8:13.)

Exod. 39:27,28 indicates that these coats and “goodly bonnets” were made of fine twined linen, but no specific reference is made there to the girdles. Exod. 39:29 has reference to Aaron’s girdle [singular]—the “linen girdle” peculiar to Aaron’s garments of sacrifice. (See Lev. 16:4)

The Hebrew Word migbaoth rendered “bonnets” in the KJV and in Leeser is rendered “head-tires” in Jewish Publication Society and “caps” in RSV, Moffatt, Rotherham, and an American Translation.

All the garments—linen and otherwise—worn by the priesthood were “for glory and for beauty.” (Exod. 28:2,40) The High Priest at all times, save when engaged in the sacrificial duties devolving upon him, wore the garments often particularly designated as those “of glory and of beauty.” The underpriests were at all times attired in the white linen garments peculiar to sacrifice.

Evidently, all the garments mentioned in Exodus 28 were for the glory and beauty of the priesthood, whether they were those we commonly designate as “the garments of glory and beauty” worn by Aaron at the close of the Atonement Day, or the so-called “sacrificial” garments worn by him while serving the altar, or commonly worn by the underpriesthood. (Exod. 28:2, 40)

Aaron’s garments consisted of the eight items shown in the above table. Of these, four seemingly were worn when Aaron was engaged in the sacrificial work of the altar:

At the end of the Atonement Day, Aaron was told to change his garments, putting off those he had worn while carrying on the work of sacrifice at the altar. (Lev. 16:23) Since according to Exod. 28:43, the linen breeches should be upon Aaron and his sons “when they come into the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy,” and according to Exod. 28:38 the linen mitre and its golden crown “should be always upon his forehead,” we conclude that the only garments removed at this time were the broidered coat and the linen girdle!

The High Priest’s linen coat was embroidered (Exod. 28:39); but the coats of the underpriests were not (Exod. 28:40). Thus Aaron’s “white linen ‘coat’ represented the High Priest’s purity, while its embroidery showed the outgrowth of that pure character in works of grace.” (T29)

The Expression “High Priest” here has reference to Jesus, and to Jesus alone; for while as underpriests we too wear white linen “coats” these represent the “righteousness of Jesus, imputed to us” for the time being. (T29)

Perhaps there is a sense in which the glorified Church will still be “under-priests”; if so, their white linen robes will no longer represent an imputed righteousness, but as the Scriptures declare “and to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the white linen is the righteousness of the saints.” (Rev. 19:8) Thus …

“The glorified church is represented, not as taking off the robe of righteousness, but continuing to walk in white raiment. It will no longer be an imputed robe of righteousness, however; our righteousness will be our own. To be clothed in white garments then will be to be recognized as one of the pure ones—not as now, in a robe of reckoned righteousness, but in a robe of actual righteousness. ‘It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.’ ” (R5377:3; see also R5669:2)

In another sense we do remove the garments which were identified with the sacrificial work of this antitypical Atonement Day, to don those in which we shall be identified with the World’s High Priest—‘the garments of glory and beauty.’ The white linen coat which we have thus far worn, and which represented for us the imputed righteousness of Jesus (T36) will be no part of those “glorious garments” which will then testify to the fact that the righteousness then possessed will be our own.

On reading Lev. 8:7 a bit more carefully and critically, it seems that both the linen garments and those for glory and beauty were worn by Aaron on the occasion of the initial consecration of the priesthood. It reads:

“And he put upon him the [linen] coat, and girded him with the [linen] girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod.”

If this be a correct deduction, we have here another beautiful lesson, to the effect that we (the antitypical priesthood) must first be “clothed” with the garments of sacrifice, ere we can be “robed” with the garments of special glory and beauty; and that both are accounted ours at the time of our consecration.

“And thou shalt embroider the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre of fine linen, and thou shalt make the girdle of needlework. And for Aaron’s sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty. And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office. And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.” (Exod. 28:39-43)

If our understanding of these verses is correct, the linen garments were THE garments of sacrifice for both the High Priest and the underpriest-hood. (Lev. 6:8-10; 16:4,32, etc.)

“The underpriests were robed in linen garments and wore girdles. Their robes represented the righteousness of Jesus, imputed to them, and their girdles represent us as servants of righteousness. The High Priest wore very similar garments during the time of sacrificing (the Day of Atonement) and put on the glorious garments after making atonement.” (T36)

“Aaron was clothed for the service of the ‘Day of Atonement,’ not in his usual ‘garments of glory and beauty,’ but in the garments of sacrifice, the ‘linen garments,’ emblems of purity—the righteousness of saints.” (T55)

Not all the functions in connection with the altar were performed by the High Priest; in fact, he was sometimes assisted by the Underpriests (Lev. 9:9,12,18); and it is probable that most of the sacrificing subsequent to the Day of Atonement was performed by the underpriesthood. (Lev. 1:5,7,8,11; 2:2,9,16; 3:2,5,8,11,13,16 etc.) On the other hand, the High Priest, it seems, was arrayed in his “other garments” (of glory and beauty) when on the Atonement Day he offered the burnt-offerings. (Lev. 16:23,24)

“ ‘And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation (the ‘Holy’) and shall put off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place (the ‘Most Holy’) and he shall leave them there; and he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place (the ‘Court’) and put on his (usual) garments (the garments of glory and beauty) and come forth and offer his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself (the body—the ‘little flock’) and for the people’ (Lev. 16:23,24), the same atonement illustrated … from another standpoint.”(T72)

“As the sin-offerings illustrated the sacrificial death of the Redeemer, so the burnt-offering following illustrated God’s manifested acceptance of the same sacrifice. Let us not forget that God thus indicates that he will not manifest his acceptance of the ‘better sacrifices’ than bulls and goats, until the sacrifices for sins are complete, and the true High Priest is robed in the honor and glory of his office, represented in the change of garments.” (T73)

The daily burnt-offerings (Lev. 6:9-12) were evidently offered by the High Priest in his “linen garments” of sacrifice (Lev. 6:10) ere he changed to his other garments (Lev. 6:11) in which he carried the ashes away to the clean place.

On the Atonement Day, the sacrificing of the sin-offering, the general reconciliation of the court, holy and the most holy with the blood, and the turning over of the scape-goat to the “fit” man (Lev. 16:4-22) were all accomplished by Aaron while in his garments of sacrifice—the linen garments.

“Afterward, (and usually) he wore the glorious garments illustrative of the honor and glory conferred upon him. During the Gospel age the sin-offerings progress and no honor is bestowed upon the priests, but at its close comes the outward manifestation of God’s approval and acceptance of them in the putting of glory and honor upon the priests who made the sacrifices, and in the blessing of the people for whose sins they atoned.” (T73)

In the ritual of the “8th day” consecration of the priesthood (Lev. 9) nothing is said about a change of garments. Some (and we believe, erroneously) have assumed because of this, that Aaron was robed in his glorious garments, and that therefore no change was necessary. It is true, however, and it is very clearly stated that “Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people.” (Lev. 9:23)

For what purpose did they enter the tabernacle of the congregation, if not for Aaron to effect a change of his garments? We are told that the sin-offerings of this 8th day ritual were burned with fire “without the camp” (Lev. 9:11,15), yet nothing is said about the blood having been brought into the sanctuary. (Heb. 13:11; Lev. 6:30) Definitely it does tell us that some of the blood was put upon the horns of the altar (of burnt-offering) and the remainder of it was poured out at its base (Lev. 9:9,15). This, together with the fact that in Lev. 16:23,24 the entry into the tabernacle of the congregation is specifically identified with the changing of Aaron’s garments, leads us to conclude that the sacrificing feature of this “secondary” consecration of Aaron (Lev. 9) were carried on in his linen garments; and the blessing of the people in his garments of glory and beauty. The antitype also, seems to require it to have been so.

“And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” (Rev. 19:8, KJV)

“It was granted to her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure—for the linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.” (RSV)

“She has been allowed to robe herself in fine linen of dazzling purity—the fine linen being the righteous actions of the saints.” (Weymouth)

“The Scriptures give us to understand that at the very beginning of our Christian experience, we figuratively are clothed in white raiment. This white raiment represents justification—we are justified freely from all things. It is a robe without spot. It is sometimes spoken of as Christ’s robe of righteousness, because it comes to us through Christ. It is to be had only through him. He is able to impute to us, to loan to us, grant to us temporarily, this robe. It is spoken of as the wedding garment. At an oriental wed- ding, a wedding garment of white linen was used to cover over the clothing worn by each guest. It was loaned to the guest at the wedding by the host, when he appeared at the wedding feast.

“White linen signifies purity. So when Christ gives us the use of his merit, it is as a white garment to cover our imperfections. We are exhorted to keep our garments unspotted from the world. The imputation of righteousness given us, we are to preserve, to maintain. But we can not fully maintain it of ourselves. Our tongues may sometimes say things that we wish they had not said, and our hands may sometimes do things we would not desire. Hence, God has provided a way by which our blemishes or transgressions may be eradicated—those not willful. This way is our daily application for the cleansing of these unwilling transgressions, through the precious blood. Thus we keep our garments unspotted from the world. Thus our justification, our white robe is maintained.

“But it is not sufficient that we have the imputation of our Saviour’s righteousness. This imputation is only a temporary arrangement. We need to come to the place where we shall have a righteousness of our own. Our flesh is imperfect; as St. Paul says, we cannot do the things which we would. In spite of our best endeavors things are bound to go more or less wrong. But we are to prove ourselves overcomers—‘more than conquerors.’ The Lord has arranged that at the conclusion of our trial, at the end of the present life, all the overcomers shall receive the new body. This new body will be a body of actual purity. Thus, the Apostle says, we shall ‘be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.’ So our raiment will be changed from a garment of imputed perfection, our justification by faith, to that which represents actual perfection. At the resurrection we shall receive that body of inherent purity, without blemish, without spot, which is here pictured as ‘white raiment.’ ” (R5669:1,2; See also T36,29.)

“Under the symbol of white raiment the Lord throughout His Word represents the righteousness of those whom he accepts as his people. Their righteousness in the future state will be personal righteousness or holiness; and the guarantee of this is the promise that all who are accounted worthy, as ‘overcomers’ of the world to be joint-heirs with Christ in the heavenly kingdom, will in the resurrection be granted new, perfect, spiritual bodies, free from sin and impurity of every kind, and fully in harmony with their new wills or characters developed during the trial-time of this present life. That will be the time of which the Apostle speaks, saying: ‘When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.’ Those who attain to that glorious condition are symbolically represented as being clothed in white linen, representing their personal purity, completeness and perfection at that time: as it is written, ‘to her (the bride, the victorious church) was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.’ (Rev. 19:8)” (R2159:3)

Wool and Linen

Among the ordinances given to Israel of old was one which to some extent governed their apparel. We read:

“Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.” (Lev. 19:19)

“Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” (Deut. 22:11)

We are interested here in this ordinance of God because it applied also to every member of the priesthood; thus it is not strange that none of their garments were made of wool or contained any wool.

Evidently, this ordinance was intended of God to have some important significance for the antitypical priesthood! But what? Could it be that God here intended to show the great difference to be recognized between the flesh and the spirit! Or, more particularly, the lesson for those, who as an underpriesthood, have put on the Lord Jesus, and who are therefore to make no provision for the flesh (Rom. 13:14); for in sowing unto the flesh, they would of the flesh reap corruption; but in sowing unto the spirit, they would reap everlasting life. (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8)

Wool comes from an animal—let us say, a lamb; linen is made from the fibre of the flax plant. In a sense, we consider that an animal lives to die, but death marks its end: there is for it no resurrection. But the flax plant seems to die to live! What is true of a grain of wheat, is also true of the seed of any other plant. Jesus put it this way: “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (John 12:24) Here, we believe, we have a symbolism of the “resurrection life.” At this point, it may be well to recall that the barley sheaf which was waved before the LORD on the 16th of Nisan—the 3rd day after the slaying of the Passover Lamb (Lev. 23:10,11)—represented the resurrection of Jesus as the firstfruit of the firstfruits, inasmuch as he, by way of death, became the life-giver—life sustainer, to all the world of man- kind. He came to die, that others might have life. (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6. See also R2271:1.)

There is also a sense in which wool might represent the humanity which we, in consecration, lay down, and which is accounted dead—our old man (the justified humanity) was crucified with Christ, in a very strange baptism and burial.

“ ‘Know ye not that so many of us as are baptized (immersed) into Christ (as members of his body) are immersed into his death?’ It is by consecrating ourselves entirely to him (after being cleansed from sin by his blood) reckoning ourselves dead to the world and alive in God’s service even unto death, as he did, that we gain a place in his ‘body’ and become joint-heirs with him. And in thus becoming dead with him, we trust the Father’s promise of also having a share in his resurrection (see Phil. 3:8-15); a resurrection not to human nature, such as others will enjoy, but to the fulness of the divine nature, ‘like him’ and ‘with him.’

“Realizing the matter thus, that our former selves as justified human beings are delivered up to die (be crucified) with Christ, as the condition upon which we may be associated with him, in the great work of utterly rooting out and destroying Sin, the great Monarch, at present ruling the world, we must see that we can no longer, in any sense, serve sin, the Destroyer, whom we are pledged to help overthrow. (Rom. 6:6)” (R930:4,5. See also R3067:1.)

Yea, we are baptized into his death, so that we might also share his resurrection (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12); this is thus a baptism “for the dead.” (1 Cor. 15:29; see also F456.) And as the man Christ Jesus remains forever dead, so shall it also be with our justified humanity; it will never again be raised up; for our identification is now, and will forever be, with the risen Lord. (Col. 3:1-4) As new creatures, it shall be ours, in association with him, to bless with life and sustenance all the families of the earth. Indeed, we shall be a part of the “Everlasting Father” to the race. (See T102) And this is the reason for the “Seed” of Abraham, having to fall into the ground and die so that it might in turn become the blesser with life unto all the world of mankind. It is this, we believe, that is also symbolized by the linen; and those called to become the “Righteousness of Jehovah.” (Jer. 23:6; 33:16) God has decreed that none of his people shall share two “worlds”!

WOOL could also be considered a symbolism for the lamb—the fleshly animal from whence it came. By extension, we suggest it might also symbolize the human life and mortal nature to which the race of mankind—by virtue of the death of the man Christ Jesus, the Lamb of God—will become heirs. The world will be clothed in the righteousness of the flesh; and with mortality. (Isa. 1:18)

LINEN might thus correspondingly be considered an apt symbolism for the flax plant from which it is derived. By extension we suggest it might also symbolize the spirit existence and divine life to which the Church—by virtue of its identification with the “seed” that falls into the ground and dies so that it might bring forth much fruit—becomes heir. The Church will be clothed with the righteousness of the spiritual; and with immortality. (Rev. 3:4,5; 19:8)

Washing

“And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.” (Lev. 8:6)

“Aaron, the typical High Priest, represented Jesus, the Head and the Church as members of the body, the great antitypical High Priest. Being but a sinful man, like others, Aaron had to be washed in order fitly to represent the purity of the antitype, Jesus, who knew no sin, and his Church, cleansed through his precious blood, and the washing of water by the Word. (Eph. 5:26)” (T29)

“He [Aaron] shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.” (Lev. 16:4)

“Aaron was washed, in order fitly to represent the purity, the sinlessness, of the ‘new creature’—the Head and his body members.” (T54)

“And he [Aaron] shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place [the Court], and put on his garments [of glory and beauty], and come forth.” (Lev. 16:24)

“As the white robes worn throughout the work of sacrifice covered the body and represented the justification of the body, their purity in God’s sight through Christ, so the ‘garments of glory and beauty,’ put on subsequently, represent the glories of the Church’s position and work in the future, after the new creatures have been perfected, after they have gone beyond the ‘vail.’ The washing with water at this time signifies that, though the white garments (imputed righteousness of the ‘body’) are now removed, it does not signify the reimputation of sin, but the completion of the cleansing, making the ‘body’ perfect in resurrection completeness; the garments of glory and beauty representing the glory, honor and immortality of the First Resurrection to the divine nature. The washing further shows that the sins of the people for which atonement had been made do not attach to or contaminate the purity of the priest.” (T74)

“Thou shalt make a laver . . . For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat. When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD. So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not.” (Exod. 30:18-21)

“The Laver which stood in the Court, full of water, at which the priests washed their hands and feet … that is a symbol of the cleansing effect of the truth upon the outward conduct of believers in general. It symbolizes the putting aside of filthy practices—lying, stealing, etc., and the putting away of filthy communication out of our mouths—slanders, envy, strife, back- biting, etc., a cleansing as proper for the natural man as for the consecrated saint.” (R1543:6)

“Levites as well as priests should practice ‘circumcision of the heart’—‘putting away the filth (sins) of the flesh.’ All this is symbolized in the Laver of water in the ‘Court,’ at which both priests and Levites washed.” (T119)

“The laver taught in type a cleansing of the flesh, and a putting away, so far as possible, of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit on the part of those in the justified condition as preparatory to their entering the Tabernacle itself.” (R3054:1)

“To us who live since Pentecost—and who may, therefore, have a clear conception of the deep things of God under the guidance and instruction of the holy Spirit—our Lord’s mention of water may have a still further significance. We see that symbolical water represents truth, and that our beget- ting of the holy Spirit is said by the Apostle to be also a begetting ‘through the Word of truth.’ (Jas. 1:18) We remember also that the same thought is expressed by the apostle Paul, who declares (Titus 3:3-5), ‘his mercy saved us through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the holy Spirit.’ Putting these matters together we have the thought that our regeneration or begetting again of the holy Spirit and our renewing by it come to us in conjunction with the washing or cleansing which is effected in us by the operation of the truth—the divine message. This is beautifully symbolized in Israel’s Tabernacle service, in which the priests, before entering the Holy and thus typically becoming new creatures, first washed at the laver which represented the Word of God, the truth, the water of regeneration, by which we come into that condition of consecration to the Lord in which he is pleased to accept us, to grant us the spirit of adoption into his heavenly or spiritual family.” (R4124:6)

“In our studies of the ‘Tabernacle Shadows of the Better Sacrifices,’ we saw that every one who took part in the priesthood was required to wash his hands and feet at the laver. We saw that the laver represented the Word, or message of God, and that the water thereof represented the truth; and thus it is the truth which is to cleanse the royal priesthood from the defilements of the flesh. As a whole we are clean, being covered with the robe of Christ’s righteousness; but in our contact with the world we are to seek to put away the defilements of earth which come to us in connection with our daily walk and service, represented by our feet and our hands.” (R3267:1)

“ ‘They shall wash with water, that they die not.’ [Exod. 30:20] This was certainly an emblematical washing; and as the hands and the feet are particularly mentioned, it must refer to the purity of their whole conduct. Their hands, all their works, their feet, all their goings, must be washed—must be holiness unto the Lord. And this washing must be repeated, or when they came near to the altar to minister. This washing was needful because the priests all ministered barefoot; but it was equally so because of the guilt they might have contracted, for the washing was emblematical of the putting away of sin.” (Clarke, Commentary)

The Aaronic vs. the Melchisedec Priesthood

“For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Heb. 2:10)

“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 reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.” (Heb. 2:17,18)

“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:8,9)

“Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, [to be] Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him.” (Heb. 3:1,2)

“All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Rom. 8:28,29)

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience.” (1 Pet. 1:2)

“Melchizedek … represents our Lord, the head, and the church, his body, the Royal Priest of the future. On the contrary, Aaron represents the same great Priest from a different standpoint, because his typical work related to Christ, and the church in the present life only—as a sacrificing priesthood— up to the end of the sacrificial work, the sprinkling of the blood of atonement in the Most Holy on the Mercy Seat and the inauguration of the new dispensation of glory and blessing. His service, also, in some degree, shows the Millennial work of cleansing humanity from sin and that both the High Priest and the under-priests, his members, will be associated in that work.” (R4504:1)

There is no office which more gloriously reflects the graciousness of God, than that of the priesthood. That God himself purposed it so becomes evident from a mere cursory examination of the Scriptures. In Gen. 14:18 we have the first mention of a priest—Melchisedec, there called “The priest of the Most High God.” In Rev. 20:6 we have the last reference to the priest (priests) who constituting the antitypical Melchisedec will reign as a king- ly priest—a “royal priesthood”—to bless all the families of the earth.

It is the Apostle Paul, however, who brings to our attention the fact that the ultimate priesthood is of the Melchisedec order. He says, “after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest … for he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Heb. 7:15-17) The Aaronic priests were not able to give a faithful interpretation of God’s eternal grace, for they themselves “were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man [priest] because he continueth forever, hath an un- changeable priesthood, wherefore he is able also to save them to the utter- most that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Heb. 7:23,25)

The Scriptures also suggest that this High Priest of blessing of the Melchisedec order, is to be a composite one of which Jesus Christ himself is the “Head” or chief priest; and the Church, his “Body” is the under-priest. Are we not asked to “consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession [to be] Christ Jesus”? (Heb. 3:1) And does not the Apostle Peter declare. “Ye … are … an holy priesthood … a royal priesthood, an holy nation”? (1 Pet. 2:5,9)

And yet we must not forget that the “royal priesthood” is really one of the future—a reigning priesthood—ordained of God for the blessing of all mankind during the Millennial age. Nor would it be an easy matter for this priesthood to deal with the world of mankind who during that Millennial age, will still, so to speak, be sinners, needing an intercessory priest- hood. So as to be fitted for that work, this priesthood is now being pre- pared—perfected by way of sufferings. It is the Aaronic priesthood that pictures this development of a merciful and faithful high priest in matters pertaining to God.

Perhaps there was no duty devolving upon Israel’s Aaronic priesthood which more gloriously reflected Jehovah’s grace toward his redeemed people, than that of blessing them. Nor do we have reference merely to that benediction which with uplifted hands was pronounced at the close of their “day of Atonement”; but rather, we have reference to their dealings in general, as, when as teachers they taught the people (Lev. 9:11); or when on behalf of Jehovah they accepted from the people their sin-offerings, etc., and gave them in return the assurance of sins forgiven. (Lev. 4:27-35) This indeed is the nature of the future work of this “royal priesthood,” a work for which it is being consecrated by way of sacrifice. (T39)

Yet it was in the latter function (wherein the priesthood of old was given the most enviable privilege of interpreting Jehovah’s grace, favor, mercy and compassion)—in forgetting that their own ambassadorship was itself but unmerited grace and favor; or not remembering their own often need of mercy and divine compassion—that the priesthood could fail so miserably, proving unfaithful in its ministrations before God. Should the priest arbitrarily have taken it upon himself to refuse to accept the sacrifice of some poor sinner, merely because in his judgment the latter had come too often for the same sin or trespass, he might not only have done grave in- justice to the penitent, but also have grossly misrepresented Jehovah. The priest was to be merciful toward the people (see Matt. 18:21,22) if he would be faithful in his interpretation of the grace of God.

This, of course, implied that the priest needed not only to be touched with the people’s infirmities, but moved also to be sympathetic, kind, compassionate, merciful, forbearing and forgiving. In all these, he was but a type of the great High Priest whom God was one day to raise up for us, yea, and for all mankind, for all the people!

Accordingly, we find that Christ Jesus, our High Priest, was made a partaker of flesh and blood, made “like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17) being thus afforded the opportunity of learning obedience (or rather what it meant to be obedient) under most adverse circumstances and conditions. (Heb. 5:8) God, the Father, would take no chance at being misrepresented or misinterpreted by that future priesthood, so he saw to it that those who would share in it would be perfected for it in advance, yea, Jesus himself, needed to be tested and tried so as to be properly disposed toward those whom he in due time was to succor, and thus was he made a merciful and faithful High Priest, able to reflect at all times the grace and favor of God toward them. As for Israel’s typical High Priest, so too for Jesus, it became necessary first of all to die for the people, i.e., for their sins. The typical priest died in the animal which represented him; but Jesus offered his own perfect humanity for the sins of the people. (Lev. 16) And so the Prophet declared:

“He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows … he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed for the transgressions of my people was he stricken his soul [was made] an offering for sin . . . my righteous servant [shall] justify many, for he shall bear their (Isa. 53:4,5,8,10,11)

But the fact that Jesus’ development unto this foreordained and prerequisite priestly character is evidenced in yet other ways, in all of which he was called upon to deny himself that the glory and grace of God might be manifested toward the children of men. As already suggested, this involved his being touched with the feeling of their infirmities. Though Jesus was born “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26), he was called upon to suffer much for, and because of, sin. Let it be remembered that sickness is the result of Adamic sin.

“From the record of the Scriptures, we understand that the healing of the sick, as performed by our Lord, was not by the superhuman power at his command, but that on the contrary, in healing the sick he expended upon them a part of his own vitality: and consequently, the greater the number healed, the greater was our Lord’s loss of vitality, strength. In proof that this was so, call to mind the record of the poor woman who ‘for twelve years had an issue of blood, and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather worse,’ etc. Remember how with faith she pressed close to the Lord, and touched the hem of his garment, saying within herself, ‘If I may touch but his clothes I shall be whole.’ The record is that ‘straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. And Jesus, immediately knowing within himself that virtue (vitality) had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? And the disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing, and he said unto her, daughter thy faith hath made thee whole, go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.’ (Mark 5:25- 34)

“Notice also Luke’s account (6:19) which declares, ‘And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue [vitality] out of him, and healed them all.’ This, then was the sense in which our dear Redeemer took the infirmities of humanity, bearing our sicknesses. And the result of thus day by day giving his own vitality for the healing of others, could be no other than debilitating in its effect upon his own strength, his own vitality. And we are to remember that this work of healing, lavishly expending his vitality, was in connection with his preaching and travels, our Lord’s almost continuous work during the three and a half years of his ministry.” (E124,125)

“There must have been a great strain continually upon the Great Teacher and Healer, for he was continually expending his vitality in both directions at once. In healing the sick, virtue, or vitality, went out from him and he healed them all, we read. And all his public teaching cost considerable vital- ity, especially when he addressed large multitudes. Thus was fulfilled in part the saying of the Prophet respecting him, ‘Himself took our sickness and bore our infirmities.’ ” (R5096:4)

“True, our Lord had no sicknesses of his own, because he was perfect; but it is written, nevertheless, that ‘he was touched with a feeling of our (man’s) infirmities’ and ‘himself took our infirmities’—the weaknesses going to him as ‘there went virtue out of him and healed’ the multitude. (Heb. 4:15; Matt. 8:17; Luke 6:19)” (F632)

See him again, our loving High Priest, touched to tears, as he stands beside the grave of Lazarus. (John 11:1-36) He weeps, but not for himself, nor because of any lack of assurance that for Mary and Martha’s sake, Lazarus would live again (John 11:23), but because he felt in that moment how cruel the hand of death had been in breaking up those sweet and ten- der ties which had bound together the members of that little family in Bethany. Nor was it merely for these that he was touched, but for all who since the day of Adam’s transgression have been, and still will be called upon to suffer sorrow and crying because of death. For this reason too, had he come and been made partaker of flesh and blood, that he might destroy him who had the power of death, the devil. (Heb. 2:14)

Then, too, consider our gracious High Priest when he bore patiently, and without retaliation, the “contradiction of sinners against himself” (Heb. 12:3) thus bringing his own heart and mind, more and more into subjection to his Heavenly Father’s will. Truly, there were times when his perfect mind might have expressed itself in righteous indignation and withering judgment against evil doers. Surely, no one was ever justified in reviling the Master, calling him a “wine-bibber” (Matt. 11:19), or a “blasphemer” against God. (Matt. 9:3) Let it also be remembered that false wit- nesses raised their voices against him (Matt. 26:60), and that he was spat upon—and this right in his face; that he was buffeted, and smitten with the palms of their hands (Matt. 26:67), and was cruelly scourged (Matt. 27:26). Now, under such unjust treatment, to hold one’s peace in obedience to him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” (Rom. 12:19), is not the easiest thing to do; no, nor was it for the perfect man Christ Jesus. And yet, “as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” (Isa. 53:7) “When he was reviled, [he] reviled not again; when he suffered [at the hands of sinners] he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” (1 Pet. 2:23)

Then there was the cold indifference and ingratitude of the people toward Jehovah God, his Father. This surely must have been a severe trial for Jesus. One day he healed ten lepers; yet only one returned to render thanks. (Luke 17:12-19) Did he then pronounce a curse or malediction upon the ungrateful nine? No, not Jesus!

Was Jesus aware of the fact that Judas would betray him? Yes, for at least some little time before the “supper.” Did Jesus then and there denounce him—ostracize him from the little group of disciples? No, not Jesus, but on the contrary, he stooped down before him and washed his feet as he did those of the other disciples. (John 13:5,21) O what wondrous grace! Amazing grace! As a priest of the Most High God he exercised compassion toward the ignorant and those who were out of the way. (Heb. 5:2) Jesus also knew that his beloved Peter would deny him thrice (Mark 14:30), yet he did not berate him, nor call him even vile for this! Thus, did our High Priest, ever and always keep his mind in fullest subjection to the Heavenly Father’s and thus was he perfected through sufferings, for his high-priestly office of the Melchisedec order of priests.

“One of the chief battles of those who walk this narrow way is against self- will; to bring their wills into fullest subjection to the Heavenly Father’s will, and to keep them there; to rule their own hearts, crushing out the rising ambitions which are natural even to a perfect manhood; quenching these kindling fires, and presenting their bodies and all earthly interests living sacrifices in the service of the Lord and his cause. These were the trials in which our Captain gained his victory and its laurels.” (E112)

And it was so, that …
“All of these experiences through which the Heavenly Father caused his Beloved Son to pass before exalting him to his own right hand of majesty and committing to his charge the great work of blessing all the families of the earth, were not merely tests of the fidelity of the Only Begotten, the Logos: the Scriptures assure us that they were necessary also to fit our Lord to sympathize with those whom he thus redeemed, that he might be able to sympathize with and ‘succor’ such as would return to full fellowship with God through him—the Church during this age, the world during the Millennial age: ‘That he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God;’ ‘in all points tempted like as we are;’ one who can have compassion on the ignorant and them that are out of the way; for that he himself also was compassed with infirmities. ‘Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.’ Verily, ‘Such an High Priest was suitable for us,—one holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted higher than the heavens.’ (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16; Heb. 5:2; 7:25,26.)” (E128)

Thus, the One in whom God purposed the divine plan of the ages (Eph. 3:11) was himself perfected by the things he suffered (Heb. 2:10) so as to be a merciful and faithful High Priest unto those other sons also foreknown of God and predestinated (Rom. 8:28,29) to become sharers with him of His glory, honor and immortality. Though selected from among the redeemed of the sinful race, these nevertheless were to become copies of the Captain of their Salvation (Heb. 2:10), having in them that mind, will, disposition which was also in him (Phil. 2:5) who sought always to please the Heavenly Father. (John 8:29)

“[The consecration of the ancient priesthood (Lev. 8 and 9)] was typical of the consecration of the human nature of the Lord Jesus and his body, the Church, to the will of Jehovah—the obedience of Jesus even unto death, and the obedience of the members of his body suffering for righteousness’ sake ‘even unto death’ with him. The whole body, represented by Aaron’s sons (as well as the Head, represented personally by Aaron himself), is, by the antitypical sacrifices, being made during the Gospel age, consecrated for their future work as kings and priests, to restore and rule over and bless man- kind.” (T39)

“The antitypical consecrating of the antitypical priests is confined to the present [Gospel] age. It has progressed steadily since our Lord and Forerunner ‘offered up himself ’—and will be complete before this age has fully ended. And if we fail to be among the priests now, during the time of consecration, we cannot be of them when they begin their service for the people in the Kingdom, when these same priests (now despised of men, but a ‘sweet savor to God’) will have the title of King added, and will, with their Head, Jesus, rule and bless all nations. (Rev. 20:6) Do we earnestly desire to be among those who will sing to the praise of our great High Priest, ‘Thou hast made us unto our God, Kings and Priests, and we shall reign on the earth’? If so we will be fully consecrated now, for it is only ‘If we suffer with him’ that ‘we shall also reign with him.’ (2 Tim. 2:12)” (T47)

What, therefore, has already been said concerning the development of the High Priest, will in a very large measure be true also of the underpriesthood—the Body members, for their perfection too, will be by way of sufferings. (1 Pet. 5:10) However, because of a most intimate relationship which subsists between Christ and “his members” (1 Cor. 12:27) their sufferings are really not their own, but his; and, their flesh is no longer their own, but the expression still (so to speak) of his humanity among men. (See Eph. 5:30.) O, could we but realize this yet more fully!

Surely, it was this blessed relationship that the Apostle Paul had in mind when he declared, “For to me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21), and again, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20—RSV) And Jesus, realizing that such a unity of many in one “Body” was purposed of God, prayed for them showing his own desire to see fulfilled the eternal purpose.

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: … that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” (John 17:20-23)

During Jesus’ ministry, two of his disciples through their mother requested the blessed privilege of sitting, the one to the right of him, and the other to the left of him, in the Kingdom. Addressing himself to them he asked, “Are ye able [willing] to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” (Matt. 20:22) After they had declared their willingness in the matter, he said unto them, “Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.” (Matt. 20:23) Now what did this “cup” and this baptism imply? Surely, nothing more nor less than an identification with Christ Jesus in his life and his death! A fellowship in his life would mean a fellowship in his death also.

“The word baptism signifies immersion. St. Paul explains that we are all baptized, or immersed, or anointed, by the one Spirit into one Body. The anointing, or baptism, of the Spirit came first to our Lord Jesus, extended down to the Church at Pentecost, and has been with the Church as an anointing ever since. All of us who come to God, by Christ, confessing our sins and asking forgiveness through his merit, and who yield ourselves to be dead with him, by baptism into his death, are immersed into membership in his Body, thus coming under the anointing. The result … is two-fold: we become first of all, members of Christ in the flesh, and he accepts us … as such. We are first baptized, or immersed, into death—his death, his baptism. Then the figure changes; and we are raised up out of this baptism into death, as new creatures. Thereafter, our flesh is counted as his flesh. So our relationship to Christ is two-fold; one appertaining to the flesh, the other to the spirit.” (R5394:1)

Thus, for the underpriesthood, development of the requisite character is contingent upon identification with their chief or High Priest, Christ Jesus, i.e., in knowing him intimately, in experiencing the power of his resurrection (see Col. 3:1), having a fellowship in his sufferings, and being made conformable unto his death by a daily dying (1 Cor. 15:31); this, and this alone, will merit for them the “prize of the high-calling”—a part in the first resurrection in joint-heirship with Jesus. (Phil. 3:10-14)

Such an identification with Jesus will mean for them too, as it did for him, a “suffering”—the “just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18), and an enduring of the “contradiction of sinners” against themselves (Heb. 12:3), and the bearing of “reproaches”—the reproaches which are for righteousness’ sake (1 Pet. 4:14). Accordingly, these underpriests find that their baptism, too, is “for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29, see also F445) and in their preparation for their future work they are “troubled on every side, yet not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest” in their body. For while they live, they are “always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.” (2 Cor. 4:8- 11)

As for the reproaches which they are called upon to bear as a part of the fiery trial which purifies them and makes them meet for the inheritance of the saints in light, the Apostle Peter has this to say:

“Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you; but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part [those who reproach you] he [Christ] is evil spoken of, but on your part he [Christ] is glorified.” (1 Pet. 4:12-14)

And so are these “called” ones—the underpriesthood—privileged as “body” members to “suffer” the afflictions of Christ, which were by the grace of God, purposely left behind for their sakes. (Col. 1:24)

It is interesting to note that Melchisedec, the type of that “royal priest- hood” ordained of Jehovah to represent him, and as a “priest of the Most High God” (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1) to bless “all the people” was “first by interpretation King of Righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of Peace.” (Heb. 7:2) Surely, this implies that the glorified Melchisedec priesthood will first of all establish righteousness as the Law of the Kingdom, bringing all mankind into obedience unto the divine Law, and then, as a result of this there will be “peace on earth”; and the “good will” proclaimed by the angels at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:14) will be manifest among all men! Thus will this priesthood be “first by interpretation”—as the interpreters of the Most High God—“King of Righteous- ness” and after that also “King of Salem”—bringing peace—the peace of God unto all mankind—thus, the “King of Peace.”

“How wise is the Divine arrangement that those who are to be associated with the Lord Jesus during his Millennial reign in the work of uplifting and helping mankind over their difficulties and out of their various degradations are to be the same ones who gain practise in this matter now by binding up the broken hearts of the comparatively few, and who have the ear to hear and the desire to respond to the grace of God during this Gospel Age. Thus we see illustrated the statement elsewhere given us in the Scriptures that we are in the School of Christ, in preparation for future usefulness. Thus we see that, as physicians and nurses are given a training for their future work, so those whom the Lord has called to the glorious ‘Royal Priesthood’ of the future for the blessing of mankind are now given a practice-work in their own hearts, in their own families, amongst their own kin and in the House- hold of Faith.” (SM267)

“We have seen that our Lord was made a High Priest after the Melchizedek Order in His resurrection from the dead, a Spirit Being, far above angels, principalities and powers, and every name that is named. We have seen that the elect Church, the Royal Priesthood, are to enter upon their priestly office after sharing with Christ in His resurrection (Phil. 3:10), and be made ‘partakers of the Divine nature,’ glory, honor, immortality. (2 Pet. 1:4) Thus we see that the Melchizedek Priesthood is merely prepared during this Gospel Age and is to do its work subsequently—during the Millennial Age. Then, as a Priest upon His Throne, our Lord shall be King of kings and Lord of lords to rule, to subdue, to put down all sin and insubordination, and as Priest to lift up and bless the whole world and heal it of its sicknesses, mental, moral and physical. Furthermore, we call to memory our Lord’s promise that His faithful will sit with Him in His Throne—share His Kingdom honors and glorious work of uplifting humanity. (Rev. 3:21)

“This beautiful picture of the Melchizedek Priesthood therefore grandly confirms the whole teaching of the Bible, to the effect that God is now gathering out of the world a Little Flock, the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, which, in association with the Lord, shall bring to pass ‘Times of Restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all the holy Prophets since the world began.’ ” (SM143)

“Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.” (Heb. 3:1)

“The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (Psa. 110:4—See Heb. 5:6.)

“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteous- ness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now con- sider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.” (Heb. 7:1-7)

The Priesthood God has ordained for the blessing of the whole world of mankind, is not of the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedec. Yet the Aaronic priesthood was a type of the suffering and sacrifice by which they who are called to be members of that higher order would be developed. Melchisedec was a kingly priest—a priest upon his throne. Not so Aaron and, for reasons then best known to God, the office of priest and king were kept separate and apart from each other insofar as typical Israel was concerned. An attempt was once made by a king of Judah to usurp the office of priest, i.e., to combine in himself both offices; but Uzziah was smitten with leprosy until his death. (See 2 Chron. 26:16-21.) There was to be but one type of the “royal priesthood” and that was Melchisedec!

“The Priesthood, one body under one chief or High Priest, was typical of the ‘little flock,’ which, with its ‘Head’ or High Priest, is a royal priesthood, the members of which, after the present time of sacrificing, are to be kings and priests unto God, and to reign on the earth. (Rev. 5:10) Thus viewed, we see Jesus the High Priest, not a priest of the Aaronic order, which was but the type of a greater and grander profession or order—the Head of the real priesthood of which others were but figures. (Heb. 3:1; 4:14) The Aaronic priesthood typified chiefly the humiliation and sufferings of Christ, less his future glory—Melchisedec being the type of the Christ as a kingly or royal priesthood.

“But before the under-priests, the members of the body of Christ, the royal priesthood, will be united to their Head, and begin their reign, they must ‘suffer with him,’ sharing in the antitypical sacrifices … (2 Tim. 2:12)

“The Apostle Peter shows who were typified by the Aaronic priests, when addressing those who were sanctified, he says: ‘Ye are … an holy priesthood to offer up sacrifices acceptable to God by Christ Jesus.’ ‘Ye are … a royal priesthood.’ (1 Pet. 2:5,9)” (T26)

“Melchizedek was not a priest who offered sacrifices in a linen robe; he was a priest who was at the same time a king—‘A priest upon his throne.’ As such his position was higher in the type than the position of Aaron; for Aaron was the son of Abraham, and Abraham, great as he was, paid tithes to Melchizedek and received a blessing at his hands, typifying, as the Apostle explains, that the under priesthood of sacrifice represents a lower plane, or condition, than the higher priesthood of kingship, glory and honor. These New Creatures then, in the glorious work of the Millennial Kingdom (Christ, their Head, and they reckoned as members of his body), were typified by Melchizedek. With these the sacrificing features of the work will all be at an end, the reigning, the ruling, the blessing, the assisting will all have begun and they will be entirely competent to accomplish the divine promise; namely, that ‘all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ through these, God’s agents, through whom ‘whosoever will’ may come back into full harmony with the Creator and his laws. (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16,29)” (F72)

“Two priesthoods are set before us in the Scriptures, the Aaronic and the Melchisedec. Both typify The Christ—Head and body. The Aaronic pictures the sufferings of Christ, but shows nothing of the glory and reign, except as these were symbolized in the garments of glory and beauty. The Melchisedec Priest represents merely the future of The Christ, after the sacrificing shall have been finished and all the members of the body completed.

“The work of the Priest may be viewed from these two standpoints. His sacrificing work is the most important in one sense, because all of his future work is based upon these sacrifices. But in another sense the sacrificings are merely a preparation for the great work which will follow. The Priest must first offer sacrifice, in order to become worthy of his own exaltation to the priestly office and glory; and, secondly, he must have the merit of that sacrifice wherewith to satisfy justice on behalf of the sins of the world, in order that, as the glorified Priest, he may have the full right to stand as Mediator between God and mankind—to bless the latter and uplift them during the thousand years of his reign as the Melchisedec Priest—a priest upon his throne.” (R4759:3,5)

“Answering their objections that Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, and therefore not entitled to the priesthood, he shows them that God had already foreshown that there would be a new priesthood of a different kind: that Melchizedek was a type of that new priesthood. He gives the intimation that while Jesus and his church in the flesh in their sacrificing work were typified by Aaron and his sons, nevertheless the real work of this higher priesthood is a future one of glory, when Jesus, the great Priest, and the church, his body associated with him, will be installed in a kingly, as well as a priestly office, and in ruling, as well as teaching authority. These glories of the Christ in the royal priesthood of the Millennial age were not at all represented in Aaron, but were quite well represented in Melchizedek, who was a king at the same time that he was a priest.” (R4511:1)

That the suffering phase must precede the glorious, is not only evident from Jesus’ own words to his disciples on the Emmaus road—“Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and [then] to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:26), but also from the type of Leviticus 9, where the “working out” of the priestly consecration is clearly set forth in the sacrifices which preceded his coming forth to bless the people, a feature not shown in Leviticus 16; and rightly so, for is not the blessing of all mankind by the Mel- chisedec priesthood contingent upon the faithfulness of those called to be its members, in the matter of their consecration? (See particularly Lev. 9:22-24.)

“Christ was not constituted a priest of the Aaronic order: that priesthood was only the type or figure. The Aaronic priesthood sprang from the tribe of Levi, while ‘our Lord [according to the flesh] sprang from the tribe of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood’; and the members of his body, the church, are chosen chiefly from among the Gentiles. As a man, Jesus was not a priest; neither as men are the saints, members of the royal priesthood; but as ‘new creatures’ they hold and execute their office. Jesus as a ‘new creature’ ‘partaker of the divine nature’ (to which he was begotten at the time of his baptism), was the priest, and as a priest he offered up his perfect human nature as acceptable sacrifice to God. He consecrated or offered himself in sacrifice on becoming the priest, and he received a special anointing for the office which was necessary to enable him to accomplish the sacrifice as well as to apply its benefits to men. His human nature when sacrificed, could do nothing more—it must remain a sacrifice forever; but the new nature, fully developed in the resurrection, has ‘all power in heaven and in earth.’ (Matt. 28:18)

“The priestly office of the new nature is not of the Aaronic order; it does not trace its lineage to any human source. This fact is strictly typified in the priesthood of Melchisedec, whose lineage and death are not recorded. He was a priest without having inherited the office from his father or his mother—thus typifying Christ’s priesthood, which came not of the lineage of the flesh, as did the Aaronic priesthood, which Israel thought to be the real. Neither was Melchisedec’s death recorded nor a successor named (Heb. 7:3, Diaglott), that thus might be typified the continuity of Christ’s priesthood. In this type the work of sacrifice is not shown, as Melchisedec represents the Christ glorified, and reigning after the work of sacrifice has been completed, and the divine nature fully perfected.” (R3951:5,6)

“And God fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Acts 13:33)

“But he said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee … Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Heb. 5:5,6)

“Although Messiah had long existed as the archangel, nevertheless the prophet David, speaking for God, said concerning him: ‘Thou are my son, this day have I begotten [literally borne or delivered] thee.’ The Apostle would have his hearers note that this birth mentioned referred to our Lord’s resurrection, as it is written, he was the ‘first born from the dead,’ ‘the first born among many brethren.’ If Messiah was to be thus born from the dead, it implies that he must first die, and hence the Apostle gives this as a prophetic prediction fulfilled in our Lord’s experiences.” (R2149:6)

“Our Lord entered upon his Melchisedec priesthood individually, personally, at the time of his resurrection, when, as the Apostle declared, God announced, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him.’ In this individual sense he became the Melchisedec Priest, although only the ‘Head’ was yet formed. Since the intelligence is in the head, we can see how the head might stand for the body, as could no other member of the body. A hand stretched forth might represent the body, but it could not have the intelligence of the head, and we could not say that the presence was there, but as soon as the Head was born from the dead, as soon as the Head was accepted as the Melchisedec Priest, that soon the whole matter would have a standing with God, the intelligence residing in the Head. We agree, however, that we shall not exercise our full office as a Melchisedec priest until the whole church shall be with their Head in glory, members of his body. A Melchisedec priest is a blessing priest, a priest who has the power to bless. Melchisedec was able to bless Abraham. Far superior, therefore, to the Aaronic priesthood is the Melchisedec priesthood.

“Our Lord could not have been this Melchisedec priest until his resurrect ion, evidently, because he had nothing with which to bless. Before he could do any blessing he must himself lay down his life, and by laying down his human life in obedience to the Father, he would thus receive or have to his credit the merit which he could draw upon in the blessing of us, and ultimately all the families of the earth.” (R4668:5)

“On this broad foundation of the divine call the Apostle declared that Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron—a Jewish priest, an earthly priest; but, although typified by Aaron in respect to an earthly sacrifice, he is really a glorified priest, not after the order of Aaron, who was never glorified, never a king, but after the order of Melchizedek, who was a king and a priest at the same time—not a sacrificing priest, but a reigning priest.

“So Christ in glory is not a man, not an earthly being, not the sacrificing one, as before. He is the glorified kingly priest, in power and great glory now as the king of saints, able and willing to succor them in all their trials and difficulties. And by and by, after he shall have accepted all of his under- priests—after he shall have changed them to his own glorious likeness in the first resurrection, beyond the veil—then he will become the king and priest in glory to the world, and for a thousand years will reign to bless and to uplift all the willing and obedient who, under the enlightenment then af- forded, will draw nigh unto God.” (R5472:3)

“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem … first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace.” (Heb. 7:1,2)

“And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, qui- etness and assurance for ever.” (Isa. 32:17)

“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him.” (Gen. 14:18,19)

“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; … Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. … And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.” (Heb. 7:1,4,7)

“In Heb. 7:4-10 Melchisedec is declared to be greater than Abraham, thus showing that the divine Christ will be greater, and therefore able to bless every ‘friend of God’ on the human plane.” (R3951:6)

Thus, during the Millennial age, when God’s holy Spirit will be being poured out (like oil) upon all flesh (Joel 2:28) to “glorify every radiant countenance,” “Melchisedec,” the glorified Christ, will be bringing forth to every “friend of God” on the human plane, “bread” (the life-sustainer) and “wine” (the joys, which will then prevail in the earthly phase of the Kingdom).

“And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.” (Psa. 104:15