It is very strange that in the history of all these judges, some of whose actions are very particularly related, there is not so much as once mention made of the high priest, or any other priest or Levite, appearing either for counsel or action in any public affair, from Phinehas (Jdg. 20:28 ) to Eli, which may well be computed 250 years; only the names of the high priests at that time are preserved, 1 Chr. 6:4-7 ; and Ezra. 7:3-5 . How can this strange obscurity of that priesthood for so long a time, now in the beginning of its days, agree with that mighty splendour with which it was introduced and the figure which the institution of it makes in the law of Moses? Surely it intimates that the institution was chiefly intended to be typical, and that the great benefits that seemed to be promised by it were to be chiefly looked for in its antitype, the everlasting priesthood of our Lord Jesus, in comparison of the superior glory of which that priesthood had no glory, 2 Co. 3:10.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Matthew Henry On Priests
Something Matthew Henry said is pertinent to my book The Covenant of Redemption, on the
chapter on priests. I take this from his commentary on Judges 12:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Heretical Religion of Wokeism
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served tha...
-
I'm Phil. I'm an engineer, a father, and a husband. In my down time I think about theology, such as when I take my dog for a run, or...
-
This is the transcript of the debate between Alistair Begg and R.C. Sproul over infant baptism at the Ligonier conference in Orlando, 1997. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment