The Pulpit Commentary — Exodus — Volume 2 — Section 268

Y,•rs. J--'1:1.-Thc prie.•f~ nnd their garmen.ts. From instructions llbout iMnimllte thi11l.'.,. WC' come now hi persons. Aaron and hie four eone were to be eet apart for t h<' , ,fli('c of the priesthood, and garments were to be made for them, "for glory and for h,•:111ty." A:tron was to be high priest (" the priest who is higher than hie brethren UJ•>u whoRe heatl the 11.n0ioting oil WM poured," Lev. xxi. 16); hie sons were to ~ ordinary prielltM. The high priest WllR ll very especiRl tn,e of Christ. I. 'l'HE lY..'l'TrTUTION OF THK ParasTHOOD (ver. 1). Hitherto there had been no dis- tinct clMB investro with the office of the priesthood. The need for e. separate priesthood arose with the giving of the ]Rw, with the entrance of Israel into covenant relationship with God, and with the founding of e. ee.nctuary. 1. With the giving of the law. A distinct revelation had been made of God's holiness. But God's holiness had as ite correlative the unholiness of the people. By the law came the knowledge of sin. A priesthood, specially sanctified to God's service, became necessary to mediate between an llllholy people and a holy God. 2. With the esf,a'/J,ishment of a covenant relation- ship between Jsrael a:nd Jehovah. In virtue of the covenant, Israel became to God" a kingdom of priests and an holy nation" (eh. xix. 5). It wa.s this priestly calling of the nation which found official expression in the priesthood of the house of Aaron. The priests were " vicars," in the sense of the following passage-" A truly vicarious act does not supersede the principw's duty of performance, but rather implies and acknow- ledges it. In the old monastic times, when the revenues of e. cathedral or cure foll to the lot of a monastery, it became the duty of that monastery to perform the religious services of the cure. But inasmuch as the monastery was e. corporate body, they appointed one of their number, whom they denominated their vicar, to discharge those duties for them. His service did not supersede theirs, but was e. perpetual and standing acknowledgment that they, as a whole and individually, were under the obli- gation to perform it" (Robertson of Brighton, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 92). That is to say, the priests stood in a representative relation to the body of the people. They acted i11 the name of the community. 3. With thefwnding of a sancttJ,Q,ry. "The groundwork of this new form of religion stood in the erection of the tabernacle, which God chose for his peculiar dwelling-place, and through which he meant to keep up e. close and lively intercourse with his people. But this intercourse would inevitably have grown on their part into too great familiarity, and would thus have failed to produce proper and salutary impressions upon the minds of the worshippers, unless something of e. counteracti.c.g tendency had been introduced, fitted to beget feelings of profound e.nd reverential awe toward the God who condescended to come so near to them. 'l'his could no otherwise be effectually done than by the institution of e. separate priesthood, whose prerogative alone it should be to enter within the sacred precincts of God's house, and perform the ministrations of his worship" (Fairbairn). 'l'he Aaronic priesthood had thus a twofold function to discharge in relation to the people. 1. Representative. It represented the nation in its priestly standing and vocation. It performed sacerdotal acts in the name of the tribes. The representative character culminated in the person of the high priesL 2. Me,d,iatory. The priesthood mediated between the people and Jehovah. It was the link of communion between the holy and the unholy. Gifts and offer- in"s, which otherwise, on account of the unholiness of the people, would not have been ac~pted, were accepted e.t the hands of the priests. The high priest transacted with God on belw.lf ef his coillltituents as well as in their name. It pertained to him, and to the other priests, " to m.e.k.e reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb, ii. 17). The priesthood, and especially the high priest, thus typifies Christ-(1) in his Divine appointment to hi;; o~ce (Heh. v., 5,_ 6); (2). in hi;; P4:rsonal and offici~ holiness (H~b. i'!'. 15; vii. 26); (3) in his representative relations to his people (Heb. v1. 20); (4) 1n his work of mediation e.nd intercession (Heb. ix.. 11, 12, 24) ; (5) in his heavenly glory (lieb. ii. 9). Note, however, the following point of difference (one among many) between tl,e high priest e.nd Christ. The Jewish high priest embodied priestly rights already w:isti1,,g in the nation. Believers, on the contrary, derive their priestly rights from Christ. They a.re admitted to e. she.re in hu priestly standing. Their priesthood, unlike that of the old covenant, is purely spiritual. 1t includes privileges formerly possessed only by the official cle.sses, e.g., the right of direct access to God (Eph. ii. 18; iii. 12 • llcL. x. Hi). ll. Tw,; l'lllE&:;TLY GAJIJlUTI! (vers. 2--43). Having chosen his priests, God next I'll, llllVIII. 1-43.] THR flOOK Of•' f:XODUS. 285