THE LORD SAID to Moses, 2“Bring Aaron and his sons, their garments, the anointing oil, the bull for the sin offering, the two rams and the basket containing bread made without yeast, 3and gather the entire assembly at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.” 4Moses did as the LORD commanded him, and the assembly gathered at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
5Moses said to the assembly, “This is what the LORD has commanded to be done.” 6Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water. 7He put the tunic on Aaron, tied the sash around him, clothed him with the robe and put the ephod on him. He also tied the ephod to him by its skillfully woven waistband; so it was fastened on him. 8He placed the breastpiece on him and put the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece. 9Then he placed the turban on Aaron’s head and set the gold plate, the sacred diadem, on the front of it, as the LORD commanded Moses.
10Then Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the tabernacle and everything in it, and so consecrated them. 11He sprinkled some of the oil on the altar seven times, anointing the altar and all its utensils and the basin with its stand, to consecrate them. 12He poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and anointed him to consecrate him. 13Then he brought Aaron’s sons forward, put tunics on them, tied sashes around them and put headbands on them, as the LORD commanded Moses.
14He then presented the bull for the sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on its head. 15Moses slaughtered the bull and took some of the blood, and with his finger he put it on all the horns of the altar to purify the altar. He poured out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. So he consecrated it to make atonement for it. 16Moses also took all the fat around the inner parts, the covering of the liver, and both kidneys and their fat, and burned it on the altar. 17But the bull with its hide and its flesh and its offal he burned up outside the camp, as the LORD commanded Moses.
18He then presented the ram for the burnt offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on its head. 19Then Moses slaughtered the ram and sprinkled the blood against the altar on all sides. 20He cut the ram into pieces and burned the head, the pieces and the fat. 21He washed the inner parts and the legs with water and burned the whole ram on the altar as a burnt offering, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire, as the LORD commanded Moses.
22He then presented the other ram, the ram for the ordination, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on its head. 23Moses slaughtered the ram and took some of its blood and put it on the lobe of Aaron’s right ear, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot. 24Moses also brought Aaron’s sons forward and put some of the blood on the lobes of their right ears, on the thumbs of their right hands and on the big toes of their right feet. Then he sprinkled blood against the altar on all sides. 25He took the fat, the fat tail, all the fat around the inner parts, the covering of the liver, both kidneys and their fat and the right thigh. 26Then from the basket of bread made without yeast, which was before the LORD, he took a cake of bread, and one made with oil, and a wafer; he put these on the fat portions and on the right thigh. 27He put all these in the hands of Aaron and his sons and waved them before the LORD as a wave offering. 28Then Moses took them from their hands and burned them on the altar on top of the burnt offering as an ordination offering, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire. 29He also took the breast—Moses’ share of the ordination ram—and waved it before the LORD as a wave offering, as the LORD commanded Moses.
30Then Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood from the altar and sprinkled them on Aaron and his garments and on his sons and their garments. So he consecrated Aaron and his garments and his sons and their garments.
31Moses then said to Aaron and his sons, “Cook the meat at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and eat it there with the bread from the basket of ordination offerings, as I commanded, saying, ‘Aaron and his sons are to eat it.’ 32Then burn up the rest of the meat and the bread. 33Do not leave the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for seven days, until the days of your ordination are completed, for your ordination will last seven days. 34What has been done today was commanded by the LORD to make atonement for you. 35You must stay at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting day and night for seven days and do what the LORD requires, so you will not die; for that is what I have been commanded.” 36So Aaron and his sons did everything the LORD commanded through Moses.
Original Meaning
THE FIRST SEVEN chapters of Leviticus consist of ritual laws placed in a narrative framework as a series of divine speeches.1 The emphasis is on the content of those speeches, which serve as a “how to” manual by providing instructions for ongoing performance of sacrifices. Rather than describing a particular ritual performance, these seven chapters prescribe patterns/paradigms of activity that are designed to govern any number of future performances.2
The language of a ritual text shows whether it is prescriptive or descriptive. For example, Leviticus 4:22–35 is prescriptive because its laws begin with conditional clauses (“When . . .” [v. 22]; “If . . .” [vv. 27, 32]) and continue with clauses governed by perfect consecutive or imperfect verbs that refer to future performances of “outer altar” purification offerings. The description of inauguration ceremonies in 9:8–21, by contrast, employs imperfect consecutive or perfect verbs, referring to a sequence of activities that Aaron and his sons did in the past.3
Beginning of the sanctuary’s ritual function. At the end of Leviticus 7 a summary reminds the reader/listener that the laws regarding the various kinds of sacrifices were given “in the Desert of Sinai” (7:37–38). By bringing the narrative context to the foreground, these verses provide a transition to chapters 8–10, which describe a complex of ritual events carried out on one occasion in accordance with divine directions (8:5; cf. Ex. 29): installment of the Aaronic (not simply “Levitical”) priesthood and commencement of services at the Israelite sanctuary.
The story of special services in Leviticus 8–10 divides itself into three parts, each corresponding to a chapter: consecration (ch. 8), first officiation (ch. 9), and disastrous aftermath (ch. 10). Chapter 8 describes the ceremonies by which the sanctuary and its priesthood were consecrated and the priests ordained. Moses officiated, and the priestly candidates played the role of offerers as they were initiated through “rites of passage” into a new ritual status.4 In Leviticus 9, Aaron & Sons performed their first sacrifices in their official capacity as priests. To show his approval, the Lord himself completed the sacrifices by sending fire to consume them on the altar. Leviticus 10 rudely shattered the glory. Scarcely had theophanic miracle fire flashed forth to accept the inaugural sacrifices when two of the priestly sons of Aaron committed a fatal ritual transgression. The divine fire broke forth again, this time to consume Nadab and Abihu.
Consecration ceremony. The description of consecration in chapter 8 fulfills the detailed prescription in Exodus 29, thereby contributing to the linkage between the two books. By the time other prescriptions in Exodus 25–31 concerning the sanctuary are fulfilled in chapters 35–40, the sanctuary is set up and ready to operate. However, presentation of the consecration is delayed until after Leviticus 1–7, which introduces each major type of sacrifice. This enables the reader/listener to understand the complex consecration service, which involves combination of several kinds of sacrifices.
We can outline Leviticus 8, which describes the consecration service, as follows:
Preliminary
God commands Moses to assemble materials, participants, and congregation (vv. 1–5)
Moses carries out the command to get ready for the service (vv. 4–5)
Anointing
Moses washes Aaron and his sons (v. 6)
Moses dresses Aaron in his high priestly regalia (vv. 7–9)
Moses anoints the tabernacle (v. 10)
Moses anoints the altar (v. 11)
Moses anoints Aaron’s head (v. 12)
Moses dresses Aaron’s sons in their priestly vestments (v. 13)
Sacrifices
Moses officiates a purification offering on behalf of the priests (vv. 14–17)
Moses officiates a burnt offering on behalf of the priests (vv. 18–21)
Moses officiates an ordination sacrifice on behalf of the priests (vv. 22–29)
Anointing
Moses sprinkles anointing oil and blood from the altar on the priests (v. 30)
Moses instructs the priests to eat ordination meat and to remain seven days (vv. 31–35).
Aaron and his sons fulfill Moses’ concluding instructions (v. 36).
Before dressing Aaron’s sons, Moses consecrated (Piel of qdsh) three things by anointing them with the sacred anointing oil:5 the tabernacle, the altar, and Aaron’s head. These represented the three major parts of the sanctuary infrastructure, with Aaron standing for the priesthood. While the other priests also received anointing oil later on (v. 30; see also Ex. 28:41; 30:30; 40:15), Aaron’s anointing on his head was special (see also Ex. 29:7), so that he and each high priest who succeeded him could be called “the anointed priest” (Lev. 4:3; 6:22; cf. 6:20).
Just as there were three anointings, the third of which was applied to Aaron in order to consecrate him (v. 12), at the heart of the ritual complex were three sacrifices on behalf of the priests: purification offering, burnt offering, and ordination offering. The third of these concentrated most directly on ordination of the priests.
The first sacrifice was an “outer altar” purification offering, which was on behalf of the priests, as shown by the fact that Aaron and his sons leaned their hands (presumably one hand each, as elsewhere in sacrifices) on the head of the bull (8:14). However, this ritual was exceptional in that it had the primary goal of purifying (Piel of ḥṭʾ ) and consecrating the outer altar (v. 15). Since the altar was in the process of becoming qualified for its function, it was not ready for expiation of specific sins or ritual impurities of the priests or anyone else.6 So we can assume that as offerers, the priests secondarily benefited from the purification offering in the sense that the altar’s qualification made possible their subsequent officiating on it.
The remainder of the “outer altar” purification offering was incinerated outside the camp rather than eaten by Moses as an “agent’s commission” (8:17). Although he officiated on this occasion, he was not an Aaronic priest qualified to partake of most holy sacrifices.
Ordination sacrifice to authorize priests for their job. While the first two kinds of sacrifices—purification offering and burnt offering—were to be performed on other occasions as well, the third was unique to the ordination event. The label for the ordination sacrifice is milluʾim (8:22, 28, 29, 31, 33), an abstract plural meaning literally “filling.” It derives from the expression for ordination that appears in verse 33: “fill the hand” (Piel of mlʾ + yad, “hand”) for the purpose of serving as a priest (cf. Ex. 28:41; Num. 3:3). This expression literally refers to having one’s hand filled with the tool(s) or insignia of one’s job. By extension it signifies authorization to fulfill an official function. Ordination was not simply a badge of honorable status; it was a commission to do a job for the Lord.
A priest’s job description included worship leadership (Lev. 1–7; 9), mediation between God and his people (Ex. 28:36–38; Lev. 1:17; Num. 16:46–47), teaching and judging in accordance with divine instructions (Lev. 10:10–11; chs. 13–14; Deut. 17:8–12; 21:5), religious administration (e.g., Lev. 27), guarding the boundaries of the sacred domain (Num. 3:10; 18:1–7), and serving as an example of holiness to the community (e.g., Lev. 21). Additionally, the high priest was to obtain divine decisions through the Urim and Thummim kept in his breastpiece (Num. 27:21; cf. Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8).
The ordination sacrifice had strong affinities with the holy (not most holy) well-being offering. Aside from the fact that it was a “pleasing aroma,” a food “gift” (ʾiššeh) to the Lord (Lev. 8:28; cf. 3:5, 16), Moses elevated the breast and kept it as his portion for officiating (8:29; cf. 7:30–31). Furthermore, the offerers ate the remaining meat (8:31–32; cf. 7:15–17), and the sacrifice involved special grain items like the thank offering (8:26; cf. 7:12).
Two major aspects of the ordination offering made it unique. (1) Before dashing the blood of the ordination ram on the sides of the outer altar, Moses put some of the blood on the lobe of Aaron’s right ear, on his right thumb, and on his right big toe. Then he did the same to his sons (8:23–24). In this way he connected Aaron and his sons to the Lord and his altar by a bond in blood, as he had linked the Israelites to the Lord through covenant sacrifices by tossing half of the blood on the people after dashing the other half on an altar (Ex. 24:5–8).7
(2) Before turning the suet portions, right thigh, and grain items into smoke on the altar, Moses linked them together with each other and with the priests by laying the grain items on the suet portions and right thigh, placing these in the hands of Aaron and his sons, and elevating them to the Lord (8:26–28).
Oil and blood had been separately applied to the priests (8:12, 23–24), but then these elements came together when Moses sprinkled anointing oil and some blood from the altar on Aaron and his sons and their garments (v. 30). The anointing oil consecrated them by virtue of its holy nature. The blood from the altar consecrated them because it was taken from the altar that was earlier consecrated (cf. vv. 11, 15).
Completion of the priests’ “rite of passage” required completion of a seven-day period (8:33–35). This element of time—seven days, as in the initial process of creation by God (Gen. 1) and as in other ritual transitions, including purification from severe ritual impurities (e.g., Lev. 12; 14–15; Num. 19)—was essential to elevation of status.8 During the week, a purification offering was to be performed each day to purify the outer altar (Ex. 29:35–37).9 Because the priests were in a transitional/liminal and therefore vulnerable state, they were not to leave the sacred precincts (Lev. 8:33–35).
Bridging Contexts
ANOINTING OR LAYING HANDS TO ORDAIN OR COMMISSION FOR A TASK. In Old Testament times, priests and kings were anointed with oil as a sign that they were chosen and authorized by the Lord to fill special leadership roles.10 The term mašiaḥ (“anointed one”) can apply to the high priest (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22) or to a king (1 Sam. 2:10; 2:35; 12:3, 5; 16:6, etc.), including the ideal Davidic ruler whom we know as the Messiah (mašiaḥ, Ps. 2:2; Dan. 9:25–26) or even a foreign king divinely chosen for a particular purpose (e.g., Cyrus in Isa. 45:1).
When Moses transferred some of his authority to Joshua, a man of spirit, he did not garb him in special vestments and anoint him with oil; rather, he laid hands on him and commissioned (lit., “commanded/charged”) him before Eleazar the high priest and the whole congregation (Num. 27:18–23).11 Deuteronomy 34:9 states the result: “Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him.” Joshua’s commissioning enhanced the spiritual gift of an already spiritual man.
Laying on hands is the same gesture used for other purposes in the Old Testament, including condemnation of a blasphemer (Lev. 24:14), symbolic transfer of moral faults to the so-called “scapegoat” (16:2—two hands), and identifying the owner/offerer of an animal victim (1:4—one hand). The common denominator among these cases is identification of a relationship between the one(s) leaning hand(s) and the one on whose head the hand(s) is/are laid.
There is a sense in which Christians are anointed as “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (1 Peter 2:9). John writes to believers: “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth” (1 John 2:20). For John, “anointing” is a metaphor for a divine gift that provides teaching (2:7), which Jesus said would come through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Paul explicitly connects the spiritual anointing of Christians with the gift of the Holy Spirit: “He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit” (2 Cor. 1:21–22).
In the New Testament, a special anointing for ministry is reserved for the divine Priest-King (Heb. 4:14–16; chs. 7–10), whose title “Christ” (Gk. christos) means “Messiah” (mašiaḥ, “Anointed One”; cf. John 1:41). Near the beginning of his earthly ministry, Jesus quoted Isaiah 61 with reference to himself: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor . . .” (Luke 4:18). Since he meant that the Spirit had already anointed him, he apparently referred to what happened at his baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended on him like a dove and a voice from heaven declared, “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:21–22; cf. John 1:32–33). Notice the parallel between Christ’s baptism and Spirit-anointing and Leviticus 8, where Aaron and his sons were purified with water and then anointed.
Jesus was literally anointed at his burial by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1). Earlier he had said of the woman who anointed him at Simon’s house: “. . . she did it to prepare me for burial” (Matt. 26:12–13; cf. Mark 14:8; Luke 7:38, 46; John 12:3, 7). These anointings for burial are significant because it is precisely the sacrificial death of Christ that qualified him for his unique Melchizedek (“King of Righteousness”) priesthood (Heb. 7; 9:11–12; 10:11–14).
Unlike Moses, who anointed Aaron and his sons as priests, and the prophet Samuel, who anointed Saul and David as kings (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:13), the women who anointed Jesus did not grasp the full import of what they were doing, namely, signifying that he was the “Anointed One,” the Messiah/Christ. These providential circumstances, using the agency of individuals who were socially low but high in the estimation of heaven, allowed only for the conclusion that it was God himself who “anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power” (Acts 10:38; cf. 4:27; Heb. 1:9). No human being could claim any kind of authority or superiority over the One whom he or she had anointed.
In the New Testament, what we tend to think of as “ordination” of church leaders is similar to the commissioning of Joshua, who was not a priest, by laying hands on him (Num. 27:18–23). In Acts 6 the followers of Christ chose seven men who were “known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom” (6:3) to serve as deacons. “They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them” (6:6). Similarly, the church in Antioch followed the guidance of the Holy Spirit by setting Barnabas and Saul apart for special missionary work: “So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off” (13:2–3).
In Acts, as in Numbers 27 and Deuteronomy 34 regarding Joshua, the gesture of laying hands on individuals (1) acknowledges that they are persons of Spirit, (2) commissions them for special work as representatives of God’s people, and (3) invokes God’s Holy Spirit to provide them with ongoing gifts of wisdom and empowerment for their tasks.
Laying on hands for commissioning is related to three other uses of the same gesture in the New Testament: (1) to signify blessing on a child (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; cf. Gen. 48:14–16), (2) to transfer the Holy Spirit to a person (Acts 8:17; 19:6; cf. Num. 11:17, 24–25), and (3) to invoke holy, divine power for physical healing (Mark 6:5; 8:23; Luke 13:13; Acts 28:8). Anointing the sick can function like laying hands on them: to invoke holy power for healing (Mark 6:13; James 5:14). So in a sense the two procedures are functionally equivalent. The difference is that laying hands transfers holiness from one person to another, but anointing bestows holiness by means of a symbolically holy substance, namely, oil (Lev. 8).
When a person is sick, invoking divine power through anointing or laying hands is for healing. When a person is ordained or commissioned, invoking divine power through anointing or laying hands is for ability to serve.
Like the eternal flame on the altar (6:8–13), the holy gift of the Spirit that enables ministry must be maintained. Paul reminded Timothy “to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6), and to “not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you” (1 Tim. 4:14). The Spirit puts the unction in the function!
Part for all. In the process of consecrating Aaron and his sons as priests, Moses put sacrificial blood “on the lobe of Aaron’s right ear, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot” (8:23). Then he did the same thing to his sons (v. 24). Blood only touched extremities, but it affected a whole priest, “part for all” (pars pro toto).12 Why was blood applied to those particular extremities? The text does not say, but it makes sense that as the Lord’s servants, they would be bonded in blood as a life-and-death matter to hear/obey him (cf. Ex. 21:5–6), do his will with their hands, and go with their feet where he would command.
Once the priests were consecrated, they were obliged to wash their hands and feet with water drawn from the sacred basin before entering the sacred tent or officiating sacrifices at the altar (Ex. 30:17–21). Again we see the “part for all” principle: Water on part of a priest purified him as a whole for ritual interaction with the Lord.
“Part for all” worked with animal victims as well. On the Day of Atonement, only purification offering blood was applied to the defiled parts of the sanctuary in order to cleanse it. The bodies of the bull and goat victims never entered the tabernacle. But any assistant who contacted the carcasses by carrying them outside the camp and incinerating them there became impure (16:28). Why? Obviously because he contracted impurity from the carcasses, which were impure. But why were the carcasses impure when they had not been taken to where the sanctuary’s pollution was located? The animals were viewed as units. When their blood was contaminated by contact with the defiled sanctuary, the carcasses outside also became defiled because they belonged to the same animals. An effect on part had an impact on all.
“Part for all” dynamics also affected the tabernacle and its components. For example, the Lord commanded that once a year the high priest should perform purgation (kipper) for the altar of incense on its horns with the blood of the purification offering of purgation (Ex. 10:10). This means that on the Day of Atonement, by daubing blood on part of the altar, that is, its horns, the high priest (Aaron) would purify the whole altar.13 In this way he would reverse the “part for all” process by which the incense altar had become defiled through application of blood to its horns when the high priest or the whole community sinned (Lev. 4:7, 18). Similarly, a sevenfold sprinkling of blood that fell to part of the floor in the outer sanctum on the Day of Atonement (16:16b; cf. v. 14) would remove pollution from that entire area, again reversing an earlier “part for all” process accomplished by corresponding activity (4:6, 17).
Now we can easily recognize other instances of the “part for all” principle. When the high priest sprinkled blood on the ark cover and seven times in front of the ark (16:14–15), he would purge the entire ark and the whole area of the inner sanctum. When he put blood on the horns of the outer altar and sprinkled blood on it seven times, he would cleanse and reconsecrate the entire altar (vv. 18–19), just as it had been sullied by application of purification offering blood to its horns throughout the year (4:25, 30, 34).
Grasping the “part for all” principle can help us to solve some mysteries of the sanctuary. For example, how did physical ritual impurities defile the inner and outer sanctums so that they had to be purged out of those apartments? Sacrifices to remedy such impurities throughout the year (e.g. 12:6–8; 15:13–15) only involved application of blood to the outer altar, never inside the sacred tent. But cleansing the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement included removing physical ritual impurities and sins from the inner and outer sanctums (16:16) as well as from the outer altar (vv. 18–19). Nobody even entered the inner sanctum before the Day of Atonement, so how did impurities and sins manage to get in there? When the outer altar was polluted, the inner sanctum and outer sanctum were automatically contaminated. In an ordinary house, this would be like having a person’s bath make two other bathrooms dirty as well—a housekeeper’s nightmare!
Of course, the sanctuary was not an ordinary house. Here we are in the world of ritual, which is not limited by constraints of physical cause and effect that operate in the mundane domain. In the material realm of Planet Earth, something or someone necessarily moves from point A to point B and then from point B to point C, and so on. Rituals are like miracles in the sense that they are not bound by ordinary limitations.
“Part for all” transcends physical dynamics. Because the sanctuary was a unit, an effect on part of it impacted the entire sanctuary. Although ritual impurity resulted from physical states, it was not a physical substance (see comments on Lev. 12) and did not need to be physically transferred from the outer altar to the outer sanctum and from there to the inner sanctum. Because the outer altar was an integral part of the sanctuary, an effect of sin or ritual impurity on it affected the entire sanctuary.14 So the mystery is solved.
Contemporary Significance
CO-MISSION. WE HAVE FOUND that priestly ordination by anointing as described in Leviticus 8 finds its New Testament fulfillment in Christ. Nevertheless, Christians of the Spirit are chosen and commissioned by the community to receive ongoing divine empowerment for special service. Even though Christian leaders are not priests per se, their responsibility to represent God and his character in every aspect of their lives is an awesome one (see 1 and 2 Tim. and Titus) and is analogous in some ways to the sacred calling of Aaron and his sons.
It is the Spirit who empowers for leadership and the authority that goes with it, just as he distributes all other spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12). The human role is to seek his will. There is no warrant for manipulation and aggression to grasp religious power. As we will find in the story of Korah & Co. (Num. 16), woe to anyone who presumes to usurp a sacred office when God has not called that person!15
If Christians had solved their questions of leadership by following God’s leading and guidelines (including Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus) during the past couple of millennia, imagine how much trouble and bloodshed would have been avoided. By turning sacred offices into positions of political domination rather than humble spiritual leadership, Christianity has suffered disunity, loss of real spiritual power and divine protection, and disenfranchisement of many believers as God’s “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9).
The egalitarian “priesthood of all believers” model in the New Testament is based on God’s call for the entire community of ancient Israelites to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6), as this privilege is now enhanced by direct access to God for every believer through the sacrifice and priestly mediation of Christ (see 1 Peter 2:5). Peter states the nature and purpose of priestly service by all Christians: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9; emphasis supplied). John expresses: “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father” (Rev. 1:5–6; emphasis supplied; cf. 5:9–10).
In essence, human priests are what they always were: servants of God. But rather than house servants and mediators in the Lord’s sanctuary/temple on earth, Christians are called and consecrated to go out into the world to praise God for transformation from darkness to light that has been wrought by Christ. As Jesus said to a man whom he released from demon possession: “Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you” (Mark 5:19). This may sound too simple and unsophisticated, but it is the most powerful testimony in the universe, which not even angels can utter: God healed me!
Even though some Christians are chosen for special positions of religious leadership, in the most basic, crucial sense every member of God’s community is a minister to others:
According to Peter, all Christians belong to the priesthood. In the New Testament, the church does not have a priesthood—it is a priesthood.
. . . ministry is not only the right and privilege of every New Testament believer, it is a natural result of being a Christian. The New Testament church could not even imagine a Christian who was not involved in ministry. It was inherent in the theology of the first Christians. It was their right and privilege because of Christ’s death for them.16
What would happen if every Christian man, woman, and child realized that God has called him or her to a ministry of service empowered by a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12)? A work force of such magnitude, with each individual personally motivated to accomplish God’s mission in the world, would have potential that is staggering to contemplate. Andrew Murray appeals to all Christians: “God needs priests who can draw close to Him, live in His presence, and by their intercession draw down the blessings of His grace on others. And the world needs priests who will bear the burden of the perishing ones and intercede on their behalf.”17
It is important to respect our “ministers” as special agents of God. At the same time, we should affirm the broader sense in which every other believer is also a minister. Otherwise the “lay” members feel that only the “minister” carries the responsibility of ministry. Needless to say, this places a crushing burden on a pastor, particularly when his people assume that by paying their tithes and offerings they are hiring his services to meet their personal needs. A former pastor of a five-thousand-member congregation in southern California told me that the expectations members place on their pastors are “infinite.”
A pastor moved to a new church. Right up front he announced to the members his desire to take the gospel to the three surrounding counties. This meant that he would need to delegate a number of responsibilities, such as visiting. The members were delighted that they had a pastor who was on fire for the Lord and expressed willingness to take over some tasks in order to free him up for wider service. But the first time a member was sick in the hospital and the pastor himself did not personally show up, he was in the “doghouse.” So much for that idea.
The pastor’s plan was not just an idea; it was Christ’s “gospel commission” (Matt. 28:19–20). By assuming that the pastor alone was delegated to do the ministry, the church reduced their gospel work force to one. Then they tied him up with themselves so that they further reduced one to zero! With this paralyzing, selfish attitude, the cause of the gospel could be better served if they did not have a pastor at all! Then at least they would enjoy richer interaction by learning how to serve one another.
If the real case just described were an isolated one, it would be shocking enough, but this relationship between a pastor and the church members is the unchallenged norm for thousands of church congregations. The status quo seems to be perpetuated at least partly by the fact that expectations placed on ministers tend to attract emotionally needy people to enter the ministry as a profession. G. L. Jones illustrates this phenomenon by quoting the assessment of a thirteen-year-old boy to his mother: “You know, Mom, the trouble with our new pastor is that he needs us to love him so much that we can’t see God anymore.”18 The result can be a kind of “corporate codependency,” in which ministers and their congregations feed each other’s self-absorptions without contributing to real spiritual growth.
Eugene H. Peterson hits the nail on the head when he points out implications of the fact that ministry is a profession, not just a job to satisfy a congregation:
With professions the integrity has to do with the invisibles: for physicians it is health (not merely making people feel good); with lawyers, justice (not helping people get their own way); with professors, learning (not cramming cranial cavities with information on tap for examinations). And with pastors it is God (not relieving anxiety or giving comfort, or running a religious establishment).19
Jim Griffith tells of a young man who was allergic to hard work and applied at an employment agency for help finding a new job. So the employment agent phoned his previous employer and asked if he was a steady worker. “Steady?” he replied, “Why, he was not only steady—he was motionless!”20 Griffith goes on to observe that “many laypersons want to exercise little more than their authority. They are happy to do anything for the Lord—so long as it is in an advisory capacity.”21
While paid ministers suffer when lay members neglect to exercise the function and gumption for which their unction is intended, they often perpetuate the problem by failing to train their people to think otherwise. In some cases, sad to say, they even model a motivationally challenged (politically correct for “lazy”) approach to God’s work. For example, there was a pleasant and well-liked pastor whose philosophy of outreach was phlegmatic. When asked how he was making a difference in his community, he replied with satisfaction that his way to meet new people was simply to wait until they showed up at his church. At the time he was occupied with building a new house, but nothing changed when the project was completed, except that he apparently had an excess of time on his hands. He became a bit too close to a woman other than his wife, his ministry ended, and he moved away to start a new career that suited him better.
Christian congregations need biblical reeducation on a massive scale regarding Christ’s gospel commission, spiritual gifts, relationships between sacred callings, and the privileged role of every individual within the “priesthood of all believers.” They also need their pastors to be “generals” who personally lead them out of the comfortable church service environment of padded pews into church service for the world, as Jesus led his disciples all over hot, dusty, oppressed Palestine. Jesus did plenty of advising, but he did it through action.
“Part for all” in interpersonal relations. James points out in James 2:10–12:
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.
Why does James call it “the law that gives freedom”? Isn’t the “part for all” idea that breaking one commandment breaks the whole law the worst form of legalism? No. He is simply drawing attention to the fact that God’s law is relational. The problem with a sin is not simply the evil inherent in that particular fault but the fact that it is an offense against God—the same person who has given every other commandment as well. Disobeying God in any way affects our relationship with him. It is the relationship that is the point. So in this sense the law that protects the relationship is a unit. Obedience to God’s law, by his grace, “gives freedom” to enjoy a healthy relationship with him.
We have found that divine-human interpersonal relations operate according to the “part for all principle.” No wonder enactments of this dynamic in terms of positive or negative effects permeated the ancient Israelite ritual system (see Bridging Contexts section), which was all about divine-human relations!
Relations between human beings also work “part for all.” Affecting part of a relationship by doing one thing, whether positive or negative, can enhance or damage an entire relationship. For example, an affectionate hug, cleaning up the kitchen without being asked, or remembering flowers on an anniversary are good for a marriage. Shouting obscenities, hitting, neglect, and adultery are bad for it. The whole relationship is affected by any one of these because a relationship is a living unit, all parts of which are connected and interactive. We may successfully compartmentalize other aspects of our lives, but not our interpersonal relationships.
“Part for all” impacts interpersonal relations on any number of corporate levels. Something positive or negative that one member of a family, church, community, or nation experiences can have consequences for everyone in that group. In this sense, an attack on the World Trade Center simultaneously assaulted thousands of families of victims, New York City, and the entire United States. Even worse, when a sinister “serpent” enticed one woman to disobey God and her husband followed suit (Gen. 3), “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). But through “the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ” (5:15), who became part of the human race (John 1:14), God reverses the evil for everyone, “part for all.”
As a gift bought by Christ’s sacrifice, “God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us” (Rom. 5:5), thereby countering the deadly power of sin in our lives. By putting love into part of us, that is, our hearts, he transforms our whole lives, “part for all.” Since love is the basic relational principle that unites the whole of God’s revealed will (Matt. 22:36–40), his gift of love enables us to live in harmony with him, whose relational character is love (1 John 4:8).
Just as blood on parts of the Israelite priests showed their total consecration to God (Lev. 8:23–24), so the holiness of God’s end-time people is symbolically represented in the book of Revelation as a seal of divine ownership on their foreheads (Rev. 7:3; 9:4; cf. Ezek. 9:4, 6). According to Ephesians 1:13, the way Christians are sealed is by the Holy Spirit. This makes perfect sense because it is the Spirit who brings believers into harmony with God by pouring love into their hearts.