The Pulpit Commentary — Leviticus — Section 169

eanctiry it," or separate it to God. It was separated to him for the purposes of the ceremonial service. It was also separated, to represent the ")aver of regeneration" under the gospel, or the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus iii. 5). Those who are spiritually baptized into Christ are anointed with the gifts and graces of bis Holy Spirit. III. AARON. 1. Tll8 oi1 wa, poured uprm .Aaron's head. (1) This anointing was profuse. "Poured" (see Ps. cxxxiii. 2). (2) It was "to sanctify him." He was thus separated to accomplish the service of God in the tabernacle. He was also sepa- rated to typify the Great High Priest of the gospel. 2. But when was the true ml 11oured upon Jesus1 (1) We have seen that, as Aaron was washed with water, so was Jesus, viz. at the Jordan (notes on vers. 1-6). But the baptism of Jesus there was not so truly that conferred by John as that which came upon him from heaven (Matt. ill. 16). (2) The second act in the consecration of Christ appears to have been in the mount of transfiguration. There he had the " oil that maketh the face to shine," and was "anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows" (Ps. xiv. 7). This dazzling lustre of the Holy Spirit was so profuse as to stream not only out of the pores of hi9 skin, but to brighten all bis raiment (comp. Ps. cxxxiii. 2; Matt. xvii. 2). (3) As at the Jordan the voice of the Father was heard from the excellent glory approving, eo on Tabor the same voice is heard again (comp. Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5). He that received the Spirit "not by measure" is emphatically THE Messiah, TBE Anointed. One.-J. A. M. Vere. 13-21.-The vesting of the priests and the offerings for them. In the order of the ceremonies at the consecration of the priests, after the anointing of Aaron, we have- I. THE CLOTIIING OF AARON'S SONS. (Ver. 13.) 1. They were types of Christians. (1) The high priest, as we have seen, was a type of Christ. So were the priests in general types also of him, viz. in everythin~ in which they acted as representatives of the high priest. (2) But under usual conditions they should be viewed as emblems of Christians. This is evidently taught in such references as Exod. xix. 6; Heb. x. 9-22; 1 Pet. ii. 9; Rev. i. 6; v. 10. 2. Their holy garments resembled some of .Aaron's. (1) Aaron bad some by which he was distinguished from his sons, and so bas Christ unique qualities. In everything pertaining to his Divinity he stands alone. He claims the deepest reverence. (2) _The coats and girdles which Moses put upon the sons of Aaron were similar to those articles bearing the same name in which Aaron was clothed. In Aaron's case, as we have seen, they denoted purity and truth; and so do they denote these qualities in relation to bis sons (see Eph. vi. 14; Rev. xi.x. 8). (3) This identity suggests that Christians have their righteousness in virtue of their association with Christ (see Jer. xxiii. 6; Rom. iii. 22; 1 Cor. i. 30; Phil. iii. 9). This is otherwise shown in the fact that the claim of the Levitical priests to those holy garments was in virtue of their being sons of Aaron. Only the "seed" of Messiah (Isa. !iii. 10, 11), are clothed in the "white linen which is the righteousness of the saints." 3. Moses also" put bonnets upon them." (1) These, like the coats, were made of white linen, and so, likewise, expressed purity. They were similar to the turban of Aaron, minus the "plate of the holy crown of pure gold," and its fastenings of lace- work of blue (Exod. xxxi.x. 30, 31). (2) These bonnets were "for glory and for beauty" (Exod. :u:viii. 40). For "glory,'' i.e. honour, viz. a11 they served to distinguish the priests as the ministers of God. If a messenger be despised, bis message may be brought into contempt. And for " beauty," viz. as they represented the "beauty of holiness." True Christian honour is evermore the associate of holiness. II. THE OFFERINGS FOB THE PRIESTS. In respect to these we observe: 1. The priests laid their l1ands upon the heads of the animals (vers. 14, 18). (1) This was th, sign of the confession of sin. It was also the sign of the transfer of sin, so constitutin!!. the animal (in type) vicariously a sinner or sin-bearer, liable to suffer its penalty (2) The next thing in order, therefore, was the bleeding of the animal, in considera- tion of which the offerer stands justified or released from the obligation to suffor. (3) The reference in all this to the vicarious sacrifice of Chriijt and our justification through faith in him cannot be mistaken. ( 4) Ilut why did Aaron, the type of Christ, act thus? Christ had no sin of bis own to confess, and needed no sacrifice for himsetf. The answer is that Aaron, in this, acted not as a type of Christ, but for himself as a sinful man, and representatively for the people (sec Hob. v. 1-3). In this Aaron is contrai;ted LEVITICUS. K 130 THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS. [cu. vm. 1-30.