The Preparation for The Consecration Of Aaron and His Sons - The Sanctifying of The Tabernacle and Its Contents, The Robing of the Priests, and The Anointing of Aaron (Leviticus 8:6-13).
Aaron and his sons are first robed in the robes of their office. For the full details of these robes, and their manufacture, see Exodus 28. It is a reminder that as Christians who have responded fully to Christ we too have been robed in the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21 compare Isaiah 61:10) so that we may serve Him as priests before God. Without that robe, giving us status and authority in Him, we could not serve a holy God.
‘And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.'
Moses first action with Aaron and his sons was to wash them with water. This was a ceremonial washing and indicated the preliminary removal from Aaron and his sons of the taint of earthiness. They were to be made outwardly as free of earthly taint as when they came into the world (that is, once they had been washed after birth). No earthly stains of life should remain on them. They were coming into the presence of the Holy One, the One Who was not of this earth. Nothing earthy must cling to them.
Like all ceremonial washing this had nothing to do with spiritual ‘cleansing'. Water did not ‘cleanse' (unless mixed with sacrificial ashes as in the water of purification - Numbers 19). It washed off earthiness preparatory to cleansing. The constant refrain after ceremonial washing is ‘and shall not be clean until the evening'. Men were cleansed as they waited on God in their tents, (as Aaron and his sons would wait in the Sanctuary - Leviticus 8:33-35) not by the washing of water. The point being made by the washing in water was that in order even to enter God's presence they needed to leave ‘earthiness' behind.
We too when entering into the presence of God must learn to leave earthiness behind. We should ‘wash' our hearts and our minds clear of earthly things (Isaiah 1:16-18) that in His presence our concentration may be on heavenly things, and on what is pleasing to God. And then we should seek cleansing through the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:7), and washing of water with the word (Ephesians 5:26), a ‘washing' that goes deeper than the mere removal of earthiness. Bold we may be (Hebrews 10:19) but we should not enter God's presence lightly.
Through loose interpretation some equate baptism with this washing in water. But washing is not the idea behind baptism. Baptism is symbolic of the rain, which watered the earth and resulted in the rivers and springs, which was life-giving and fruit-bearing as John the Baptiser's (Matthew 3:7-12; Luke 3:8-9; Luke 3:17) and Jesus' teaching (John 4:10; John 4:14; John 4:23; John 7:37-39) makes clear, and as is described vividly in the prophets (Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 44:1-5). It is not symbolic of a cultic rubdown which symbolises simply the removal of earthiness. Peter in fact specifically points out that baptism is ‘not the removal of the filth of the flesh' (1 Peter 3:21), it is not to be seen as like a cultic washing, but rather it is like the water that lifted up the Ark to bring deliverance and salvation. Paul talks of it as illustrating dying and living again. All speak of life and deliverance.
Note On Washing With Water.
We will come across this cultic washing again and again. We should therefore recognise what is involved. Water was in short supply in the wilderness, except when at large oases, and, apart from the rainy months, it was short in Palestine as well, especially in the hills. In many places in Palestine, in order to survive, rainwater when it came had to be gathered in cysterns, which were holes in the ground, narrowing in at the top and lined with lime-plaster. And while it was carefully guarded, the water soon became soiled as people regularly came to the cystern and drew from it, and it had to be used sparingly. Cities would be built by copious springs, from which water could also be collected and kept in earthenware jars, but even then it was rarely available, except to the rich, in ample quantities. So water, especially in the summer months, had to be preserved and used sparingly. Bathing was a luxury for the rich and for kings. Men and women did not see themselves as dirty. They saw no need to wash for that reason. And for those who could afford it and felt it necessary, the smells, which were for most a normal part of life, were disguised by the use of perfumes.
Thus water was not seen as something by which you kept clean. It was rather seen as intended for drinking and for watering the fields, producing life. However, through the cult, washing in order to remove the worst of dirt was encouraged, and this was undoubtedly hygienically beneficial, but cultically it was in order to remove men's earthiness, the earthiness that inhibited approach to a heavenly God. While it thus had its part in removing cultic uncleanness, it was not because the water was itself seen as symbolising cleansing within. The water was seen as simply removing earthiness so that men could approach God in order to be cleansed. That is why regularly after speaking of washing in water the refrain is added, ‘and shall not be clean until the evening'. Spiritual cleansing took place through spending time before God.
And even cultic washing was not the equivalent of ‘bathing'. Where it was ‘necessary' hands and feet would be washed (Exodus 30:19-21), and water might be applied to the body, but it was perfunctory rather than adequate. Even the High Priest's washing on the Day of Atonement would probably not be a full-scale bath (Leviticus 16:4) in those early days. It was ‘earthiness' that was being removed, not dirt. And it was mainly symbolic. (Even the later proselyte conversion bath had this aim in mind, the removal of cultic ‘uncleanness' resulting from living in the Gentile world, and was not for the removal of dirt or sin as such).
On the whole then the idea that baptism symbolises spiritual ‘cleansing' (as against renewal) does not come from the Scriptures. In fact it is rather remarkable how little suggestion there is of this. The only possible reference to it is in Acts 22:16, and even then it is doubtful if it bears the weight put on it, for Ananias probably had in mind Isaiah 1:16-18, seeing the washing as preliminary, and the baptism rather as following it and related to calling on the name of the Lord resulting in reception of the Spirit. The idea of baptism as washing came from societies who saw washing as necessary in order to be clean. But these were not in Palestine. In Palestine water was rather the symbol of life and hope and growth. John the Baptiser spoke in terms of fruitful fields and trees, not in terms of bathing and being clean, and Jesus spoke in terms of ‘new birth' and of water giving life. Paul saw baptism as symbolising the rising from the dead, and Peter as lifting men up to salvation. It spoke of new life and new hope. Spiritual ‘cleansing' was through the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:7).
Thus this ‘washing with water' should not be equated with baptism. It should rather be seen as denoting the need for us to recognise our earthiness in contrast with the heavenly. To put it in modern terminology we should, when we seek to approach God, put aside our earthly way of thinking and should think in heavenly terms, recognising that we are approaching a heavenly God, with the result that God may then be able to deal with us and bring us to cleansing through His blood.
In fact the wrong interpretation of baptism actually caused great harm in the church, with people refusing to be baptised until their death bed lest they lose its benefit by sinning after being baptised. They saw it as a once for all ‘cleansing from sin'. But this was to totally destroy the true essential significance of baptism which was that when a man became a Christian the ‘drenching' of the Spirit as with life-giving rain, and the springing up of new life, came upon him. There was, of course a sense in which that was cleansing, but not in the sense of washing.
(End of note.)
‘And he put on him the coat, and put round him the sash (or ‘girdle'), and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod on him, and he girded him with the skilfully woven band of the ephod, and bound it to him with it.'
Moses now carried out the process of arraying Aaron with the detailed clothing of The Priest, with all the robes that had been prepared under God's guidance. These priestly garments were to be ‘for glory and for beauty' (Exodus 28:2). They were unique and were to separate him off as holding an office of splendour, as being a reflection of God's beauty, as being distinguished from all others in his being ‘sanctified', which signified that he was ‘set apart as holy', as belonging to God, as being God's supreme representative to His people, as being God's mediator between God and man. They were not intended for his glory. They were in order to reveal to the people a hint of Yahweh's own glory and beauty, and that this one acted before God on their behalf, and that when he came from the tabernacle he came to them from God. He was to be a shadow of the Greater Who was yet to come.
So God was concerned that men should honour ‘the Priest' as His representative and mediator, and through his clothing God intended to reveal some small hint of His own glory and beauty. In comparison with what they all wore in the wilderness he would be beautiful indeed. And the intention was that the outer clothing would also reflect the inner life. To wear the one and not do the other would be hypocritical indeed. Aaron was called on to also reveal ‘the beauty of holiness' (Psalms 29:2; Psalms 96:9; 1 Chronicles 16:29), the beauty of total dedication and separation to God. And in fact his failure to fully do so would sadly lead to his death (Numbers 20:24). But not before two of his sons had died before him for deliberate disobedience with regard to the ritual of the Sanctuary (Leviticus 10:1). Aaron and they were called to a high office. But it was also a demanding one. Those who wore the uniform were called on to live the life. And if they did not do so they would die. As so often through salvation history at the first establishment of something spiritually significant those involved who sinned were punished severely (Leviticus 10:2; Numbers 16:1-50; Joshua 7:1-26; 2 Samuel 6:6-7; Acts 5:1-11).
But at this moment of consecration all that was in the unknown future. On this day no clouds gathered over their heads. Aaron and his sons were proud and content as they approached Moses in order to be arrayed in their priestly garments, as the whole of Israel looked on.
First he put on Aaron the undercoat, which was of patterned work. It was probably of fine linen. This covered him from head to toe and included sleeves that he might not be ‘naked' before God. Then the first ‘belt' or ‘girdle' was put round him, possibly a sash, in order to hold the coat in, and this was then followed by his over-robe. This was an embroidered robe of bluey-purple fine linen (Exodus 28:39) put on over the top. After this the ephod was put on him and belted on with the skilfully woven band of the ephod.
The ephod was made of costly material embroidered in gold, bluey-violet, purpley-red and scarlet. To put it simply it consisted of front and back pieces which reached from below the shoulders to the hips and was held in place by two shoulder bands, and was tied round the waist. Two precious stones were on its shoulder pieces which bore the names of the children of Israel. Attached to it by gold fittings was the breastpouch of judgment.
We may see in the colours a connection with splendour and glory (the gold), Heaven itself (the blue), royalty (purple) and the blood (scarlet). They represented different aspects of the High Priest's position. He was a figure of splendour, was to connect with Heaven, was to be royal in status and was to be the one who made atonement for men. They are a fitting picture of Jesus Christ Who was Himself all this and more.
The High Priest was always intended to be a national leader under God, as Aaron had already proved himself to be, and as Eleazar his son was after him. See Number 26:63; 27:2, 19-22; 31:12-31; Joshua 14:1; Joshua 17:4. Note Eleazar's precedence to Joshua in Numbers 34:17; Joshua 14:1. As spiritual leader he stood alongside the one who acted as war leader and ‘judged' Israel. Phinehas then followed on (Numbers 31:36; Joshua 22:13; Joshua 22:30-32; Judges 20:28). It was partially the failure of the High Priest to fulfil this function properly that resulted in the laxness and weakness of the period of the Judges, and Eli later judged Israel, followed by Samuel.
In Samuel, war leader and High Priest were probably combined. But though the High Priest had royal power he was never king. God was Israel's king (Numbers 23:21; Deuteronomy 33:5; 1 Samuel 8:7), and the High Priest his deputy. It was the people's dissatisfaction with God as king (1 Samuel 8:7) and the failure of the priesthood (1 Samuel 8:5) that led to Saul's appointment. They wanted a charismatic war leader, not to be dependent on a possibly failing and weak High Priest.
Christ was arrayed in His priestly robes through His exemplary life, girded with truth, and ‘wore the ephod' as One Who was spoken to directly from God. On the Mount of Transfiguration the beauty of His garments, so hidden on earth, was revealed (Mark 9:3; Matthew 17:2; Luke 9:29), and He was appointed God's High Priest (Mark 9:7 with Hebrews 5:5-6; Hebrews 5:10, see also Mark 1:11) so that He could offer up Himself as a sacrifice for sin.
We too as Christians need to be clothed properly if we are to be servants of Jesus Christ and are to approach God as His priests. We need the robe of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21), and the belt of truth (Ephesians 6:14), the one provided by the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us, the other by being saturated in His word. Only those can serve Him who have received His covering righteousness and who love the truth.
‘And he placed the breastpouch on him, and in the breastpouch he put the Urim and the Thummim.'
This Breastpouch of Judgment was so-called (Exodus 28:5; Exodus 28:29-30) because it contained within it the Urim and the Thummim by which decisions were reached before Yahweh. It was like a 23 centimetre (nine inch) bag, was foursquare, and also contained on it twelve semiprecious stones on which were inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of Israel whom he represented before God. It would be attached to the ephod when Aaron was preparing to go in to the Holy Place before Yahweh. The Urim and Thummim, contained in the pouch, were probably used in a similar way to how we would toss a coin. Tossed down they probably gave two or three alternatives read from how they fell, possibly ‘yes', ‘no' and ‘no verdict', but all this is highly conjectural on the basis of instances of its usage (in fact there is no specific example in Scripture of a negative answer by them, but that may be because no one was interested in recording details of such an answer).
This meant that when the nation needed to know God's will it was to the High Priest that they looked. Once the men who knew God face to face (Moses and Joshua) had departed, he alone had the means for its discernment (Judges 20:28). Joshua probably looked to the Urim and Thummim in Joshua 7:16-19. David also at first looked to the Urim and Thummim in the ephod (1 Samuel 14:3 with 41-42; compare also 23:9-12; 28:6; 30:7-8; 2 Samuel 2:1-2). They are later mentioned after the Exile as something which might one day return (Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65) when disputed questions could be decided. The meaning of the two words used is unknown.
Jesus Christ had better than the Urim and Thummim, for He received communication directly from the Father and thus knew all the Father's will (John 5:19-20; John 8:28-29; John 8:38; John 8:40; John 17:8).
Today we do not look to the Urim and Thummim. Rather do we look to the Spirit of God to guide us as we come together to seek to determine His will. We are confident that if our hearts are truly open and willing He will direct us in the right way (Genesis 24:27). But as with the Urim and Thummim we may receive no answer. If this be so, and our hearts be truly right, then we can go forward confident that He will go before us to prepare the way. But if our hearts are not right, then like Saul we may be led astray (1 Samuel 28:6). Spiritual discernment is an important gift.
‘And he set the turban on his head; and on the turban, in front, he set the golden plate (literally ‘flower'), the holy crown, as Yahweh commanded Moses.'
It should be noted that the turban is secondary, only worthy of mention because of the plate or flower of gold which had on it HOLY TO YAHWEH which was to be on Aaron's forehead. The turban is not itself anywhere described in any way, except to say that it is of fine linen. All eyes are to be on the golden plate/flower with its powerful declaration.
This plate/flower is remarkable. It sums up why Aaron can come before Yahweh as the representative of the people. It is because he has in his official capacity as ‘the Priest' been made ‘holy to Yahweh', set apart as ‘holy', as belonging to Yahweh, through due process as His ‘set apart one'. He has an aura from God about him. It sums up the significance of his office. It is why he can make atonement for all the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel had ‘set apart to God', and can ‘bear the iniquity of sacred things' (Exodus 28:38). He stands alone, a picture of a Greater yet to come.
He can be this because of God's appointment, the shedding of blood on his behalf, and his various preparations which we have yet to consider. He is God's appointee. But as such he represents all Israel. Thus in him Israel too is holy to Yahweh. The whole of the sacrificial system and the ordinances, and the covenant, are summed up on that plate/flower of gold. They are Yahweh's provision for those who desire to be true to the covenant. The High Priest is ready to function as Yahweh's anointed on their behalf.
The ‘flower' shape may indicate the blossoming forth in new life of the priesthood from God in holiness, or it may be a reminder of mortality, that as the flower of the field he will die. The former seems more probable, but the latter ever a warning. Blossoming forth is often the symbol of new life (Isaiah 35:1; Isaiah 58:11).
And no one was more worthy of that head plate/flower than Jesus Christ. He was God's blossoming forth (see Hebrews 1:2). And His whole life testified to the fact that He was ‘holy to Yahweh'. The High Priest bore it on his head in the temple, but Jesus bore it to the cross (unknowingly Pilate would spell it out on the cross as ‘this is the King of the Jews', that is, the anointed one of God). That was why He suffered ‘outside the camp' (Hebrews 13:12-13). As with the purification for sin offering for the High Priest and the nation, and on the Day of Atonement (see on 4:12, 21; 16:27), He was too holy to be finally committed to God within the camp. On that day Jerusalem ceased to count. It was no longer worthy. The true sacrifice had been offered outside the gates. And from that day it was the true High Priest in Heaven who bore the title ‘holy to Yahweh'. He was the One Who could truly wear gold, and blue, and purple and scarlet, for He was truly the One Who enjoyed the glory of God, was welcome in Heaven, was of full royal status and was the complete sacrifice for sin.
Note that this was all done ‘as Yawheh commanded Moses'. On such a solemn occasion, nothing must be done that Yahweh has not specifically commanded. The emphasis all though is on Moses' total obedience.
‘And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and sanctified them.'
Having clothed Aaron in his splendour before the spellbound crowd, Moses now moved on to the task of ‘making holy' (sanctifying, setting apart to God) the tabernacle and all the furniture in it. This was done by use of the holy anointing oil (see Exodus 30:22-33). All the crowd would probably see was Moses disappearing into the tabernacle with the anointing oil and emerging a short time later. That it is not described in any detail is a sign of authenticity. This record was made by someone standing outside, possibly Joshua. (Alternately we may see it as being intended to be a literal fulfilment of Exodus 40:9 where it is similarly abbreviated, indicating that as Yahweh had commanded, so was done).
The oil, made with God's own unique constituents and never to be used except in relation to the prescribed holy things, signified that this was all set apart to God's holy service. From now on it was His. It was most holy. None must touch it except those whom He had appointed.
Jesus as the tabernacle of God among men (John 1:14-18) was on His appointment also anointed, but in His case with the Holy Spirit Who came down from Heaven (Acts 4:27; Acts 10:38). Here was greater wonder and a better anointing, the real as against the shadow. He was supremely the Anointed One.
‘And he sprinkled of it on the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all its vessels, and the laver and its base, to sanctify them.'
Once Moses came back outside more detail begins to enter the narrative. First he sprinkles the anointing oil on the altar seven times, thus is the altar anointed, then he anoints the vessels, the laver for holding the water for priestly washing, together with its base (even the base is now mentioned. All is detail now that it is visible to the recorder). The purpose again is to make them holy. The sevenfold anointing demonstrates the importance of the altar which needs divinely perfect dedication. But can we doubt that some of the important items inside the sanctuary had similar treatment, possibly the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense? Yet we are not told so because the one who recorded this did not see what happened. A later inventor would have known exactly what happened inside! And he would have been eager to describe the anointing of the sacred items that had by then disappeared, especially the holy Ark and the holy altar of incense.
Even more was that holy place temporarily anointed that bore the cross, where was the spiritual altar on which Christ offered Himself (Hebrews 13:10). It was not in Jerusalem, for that city was not worthy, but at an unknown site ‘outside the gates'. And its holiness was lifted up to Heaven with Him. We should not seek holy places on earth. God is in Heaven, and we live in heavenly places with Christ (Ephesians 2:6; Philippians 3:20; Colossians 3:1-3)
‘And he poured of the anointing oil on Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.'
See Exodus 29:6. The anointing oil was then poured on Aaron's head. The head was probably chosen because it was on the head that the crown would be placed which declared him ‘Holy to Yahweh'. This anointing identified him directly with the tabernacle and its furniture, and made him equally ‘holy', as set apart to God in His service so that his person should be revered (that is why later David will not touch one who is ‘Yahweh's anointed' - 24:10; 26:9, 11, 23; 2 Samuel 1:14; 2 Samuel 1:16). He was brought into a new sphere, the sphere of being God's unique representative. He could now go once a year where no other could go, into the very Holy of Holies. But he was still not greater than Moses, and it did not save him from the criticism of men, nor from judgment. Indeed it made him more open to it.
The anointing on the head separated him off as supreme over the whole priesthood. The other priests would be anointed (Leviticus 8:30), but not on the head.
Such anointing would later also be applied to kings and prospective kings of Israel (1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 16:13 and often) and prophets (1 Kings 19:16), so much so that the coming, expected great King would be called the Messiah, the Anointed One (Daniel 9:25).
In the same way was Jesus anointed with the Holy Spirit at His baptism, as God's great alternative High Priest, King and Prophet (Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; Acts 10:38). He too could go where no other has gone, into Heaven itself (Hebrews 9:24). And He too will anoint His own with the same Holy Spirit. He ‘drenches with the Holy Spirit' (Mark 1:8; Matthew 3:11) all who come to Him.
‘And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and clothed them with coats, and girded them with girdles, and bound caps on them, as Yahweh commanded Moses.'
For fuller detail see Exodus 29:9. The sons of Aaron, while not being clothed in quite the same splendour, were also clothed with their priestly garments, but there is no mention of anointing (although see Leviticus 8:30 which brought them within the anointing). They came, as his assistants, within the anointing of the High Priest. The one who was approved to exercise the office also bore the anointing, which was why they shared his anointing later (Leviticus 8:30).
The robes of Aaron's sons were probably, like Aaron's under-robe (kethoneth), from neck to toe and with sleeves. They were probably also of fine linen. The verb used in Exodus 28 may indicate that they were not patterned like Aaron's, but it may be that the patterning was assumed. They were fastened with a sash, girdle, or belt, and they were to wear caps, probably close-fitting. Such caps were often worn in Egypt, but not by priests. It would consist of a piece of cloth tied with ties. The caps were in order to retain the hair. Man must be totally covered in the presence of God in order to cover his unworthiness. The letting down of the hair was also a symbol of sadness and distress (Leviticus 10:6), and this must not occur in the Sanctuary where all was holy joy. The caps would also have another practical purpose. They would prevent sunstroke through constant service in the courtyard in connection with the altar.
The word used for their robe was used of the provision of robes for Adam and Eve in the Garden. Man in his puniness and his sinfulness must be totally covered before God. He is no longer fit to come before God as he is in himself.
We are given no information about the sash/girdle, except that it was embroidered (Exodus 28:39), but Exodus 39:29 shows it to be of fine linen, and possibly bluey-violet, and purpley-red, and scarlet, unless that is just describing Aaron's. The remainder of their clothes were probably white. They also were to be clothed in purity from head to foot.
Their clothes too were ‘for glory and for beauty'. As priestly garments they covered their wearers, as it were, in the glory and beauty of God, depicting their status. Indeed white robes are regularly elsewhere depicted as the mark of the heavenly and the garb of angels and of the redeemed who have died (Mark 9:3; Matthew 28:3; Mark 16:5; John 20:12; Acts 1:10; Revelation 4:4; Revelation 6:11; Revelation 7:9; Revelation 7:14; Revelation 19:14).
We can see in these priests a picture of ourselves. We too are to be clothed with white, the righteousness of Christ; we too are to be girded with truth ready for service on Christ's behalf. But our heads are to be uncovered because we are no longer under the Law, but share in Christ's headship (1 Corinthians 11:4). And yet we must still wear the ‘cap' of humility.