The Pulpit Commentary — Numbers — Section 225

moat deeply hie own prieetly calling in Ierael, would most devoutly give thanks for the eeporo.tion of the tribe of Levi and family of Aaron, because he would feel that no one benefited eo much by that separation as himself; far from standing between him nnd the God of Ierael, it enabled him to draw nigh to God in a multitude of ways otherwise imposeible. He would indeed be able to argue from the histories of Gideon, of Samuel, of Elijah, and of others of the chosen race, that the priesthood of the ordinary Israelite, although usually dormant as to outward sacerdotal functions, was always capable of being called into play by Divine permission under etress of ~ircumstances, and he would be prepared to understand the significance of such a. paseage as Rev. vii. 5-8, in which Levi takes his place again (and not at all a fore- most place) among the tribes, the .Holy Ghost thue signifying that in the world to come all such distinctions will be merged for ever in the common priesthood of the- eaved. But in the mean time there was nothing antagonistic, either in doctrine or in practice, between the truth which Korah asserted and that other truth which Korah aseailed: the priesthood of the many was helped, not h,indered, by the special priesthood of the few, It is therefore impossible honestly to use such texts as 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; Rev. i. 6, against the doctrine of a special Christian priesthood, because they only assert of Christians what the texts relied upon by Korab asserted of the- Jews. Ill. Abandoning the false line of argument just mentioned, we may yet so far develop the first position taken up as to maint:un with confidence, THAT NO PRIEST- HOOD CAN HAVE ANY EXISTENCE IN THE CHURCH 01!' CHRIST OTHER THAN THAT or OUR LORD HIMSELF. This is made evident, not only by the exclusive way in which his priesthood is dwelt upon in the New Testament, but (what concerns us more in this place) by the whole analogy of the Old. Aaron alone had the prieathood, and the extreme malediction of God lighted upon all, even of the separated tribe, who dared to meddle with it; but Aaron wo.s certainly the type of Christ Himself. Any priesthood which should claim to have any independent existence, even if it professed to draw its authority from Divine appointment, would be ipso /ado in direct antago- nism to the solitaryprerogo.tive of Jesus Christ. Hence it follows that the upholders, not the impugners, of such a priesthood would be "in the gainsaying of Korah." It follows also that there can be no direct analogy drawn between those who rose up against Moeee and Aaron, and those who rise up against any e!\rthly ministry ; it will be shown that a true resemblance may be traced under certain conditions. IV, Admitting these principles, which ought not to be controverted, we may bring the question to a practical iesue as follows :-While there cannot be set over us any other priesthood than the only, immutable, and incommnnicahle priesthood of the Messiah, yet there is nothing in Holy Scripture to negative a priori the idea THAT OUR Lonn (being withdrawn from sight and sense) MAY CHOOSE TO PERFORM PRIESTLY FUNCTIONS UPON EARTH VISIBLY AND AUDIDLY BY THE HAND AND MOUTH OF CHOSEN MEN; nor is there anything to negative d priori the further contention that those men were and are set apart in some epecinl and exclusive way. Whether this be so is a matter of fact which must be decided upon tho testimony, foirly and conscienti- ously weighed, of Scripture and of history. It depends upon tho two historical questions. 1. Whether our Lord constituted the apostles his representatives for any priestly functions. 2. .Whether the apostles transmitted such representation to others after them. In any case our Lord is the only priest, or rather has the only priesthood, although upon one view of the case he will execute some offices of his priesthood by means of visible human agente, in whom and through whom he himself speaks ancl acts, Without, therefore, entering upon any argument, we can safely conclude as to the Christian application of this passage. 1. That it must be directly referred to the everlaeting priesthood of Christ, and to assaults upon it, or infringements of it. 2. That it may be in a secondary sense referred to a visible Christian priesthood, and to assaults upon it, on the supposition that such priesthood is in fact and in truth only the prieethood of Christ ministered in time and space by his appointment. In point of fact there are many obvious and many subtle resemblances between the gainsaying of Korah and the :popular contention against a Christian priesthood, or even against any Christian mrnistry, which no thoughtful student of Scripture can overlook. In the homiletics, however, which follow these are left to speak  206 THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. [ea. XVI. 1-40.