As we walked down the garden, the scent of lavender and lime was borne upon the evening breeze. The effect of nature’s perfume upon us was good and pleasant. We were calmed, refreshed and elated.
The Psalmist had a similar experience. The anointing oil, or perfume, whereby Aaron and his sons were sanctified before ministering in the priest’s office, was good and pleasant to him (Ps. 133:2).
This Divine scent, which imparted holiness, was used by the Psalmist as an illustration of the goodness and pleasantness of brethren dwelling together in unity.
The institution of this ritual is recorded in Exodus 30. The various herbs were to be assembled by the apothecary (RV “perfumer”) for the manufacture of “a holy anointing oil, a perfume compounded” (vv.21-25 RV). The pouring of this perfume-oil upon the various items of furniture and implements had the effect of sanctifying them or making them holy (vv. 26-29). This dedicated or devoted them wholly and set them apart to God. Then this scent of God was poured on Aaron and his sons to sanctify them “that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office (RV v.30). They could not approach God, even though His presence dwelt behind a thick curtain, until their fallen state was recognised.
The need for sanctification, or purification, prior to drawing nigh unto God (see Lev. 10:3) is written into the structure of Mosaic law. The state of disgrace into which Adam had fallen through disobedience, brought the sentence of death, banishment from God’s presence and return to the ground.
Aaronic sanctification pointed to sanctification in Christ. Through him we now have “boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19). How was the community of brethren like unto the sanctification of Aaron? We believe that the Psalmist was saying that good relationships between the brethren and sisters of Christ, are part of the process of our sanctification, required by God before we can draw nigh unto him. The following would seem to endorse this. If we have a bad conscience about something we have done, “if your brother has a grievance against you” (NEB), we should leave our gift on the altar while we attempt reconciliation. (Matt. 5:23). Note, it does not say “if you have a grievance against your brother”, for your devotions can proceed by you forgiving him in this case. This means that a condition of our acceptance with God is an earnest desire to live peaceably with those of like precious faith and to take such action as is necessary to achieve peace. Profession of love for God while having animosity for our brother, God’s son in Christ, is a contradiction (1 John 4:20). Our brother and sister are Christ to us, for “inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40).
One must feed the hungry, take strangers into our homes, clothe the poor, visit the sick and those in prison. “Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; and make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed”. The “Hebrews” writer then hits the nail right on the head. “Follow peace with all men, and the sanctification (RV) without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:12-14). The “all men” here is all brethren and sisters. We must try to live peaceably with those who are not in the truth, but that is not the “Hebrews” writer’s subject here. We have, then, peaceful living and sanctification before God integral with each other, endorsing the Psalmist’s Aaronic simile.
This unified activity does not happen naturally. If we do that which comes naturally we have wars and fightings (James 4:1). The making of peace is active, not passive. It requires the utmost resolve and spiritual vigour. One involves oneself in risks to personal image and reputation; but “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9).
It may be surprising to some of our readers to learn, that there are in the body today those who consider that this state of enmity within the household of faith is a perfectly normal condition. Rather than a genuine effort for unity one with the other, we have those who consider themselves “spiritual” going off by themselves and engaging in monastic-type activities. All attempts at repairing breaches by the so-called “fleshly” are spurned and considered to be unnecessary. Such passages as “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34) are wrongly applied to difficulties within the household of faith. It is contended that the turning of children against their parents is bound to happen within the body where some are “spiritual” and some are “fleshly”. These quotations are horribly misused. They are intended to convey the enmity that would exist between Christians and non-Christians, between baptised and unbaptised persons, certainly not an enmity that could exist between those who are Christ’s. An illustration of the attitude that develops out of this reasoning was heard some time ago by the present writer. A brother said that he was told by a senior brother, that if he got down to the works of our pioneers, he would soon find out who his friends were. Differences of interpretation on nonfundamental issues affect relationships in these circumstances. Issues which should remain as subjects for discussion. matters upon which there is insufficient information, are made matters of fellowship. The inability of brethren to be tentative on non-essential matters, has resulted in the estrangement of brethren and ecclesias from each other. When brethren and sisters will not allow their children to play together there is something radically wrong. Instances of this in some areas are not exceptional.
None of us has inspiration for the interpretation of God’s word in these days. It would almost seem though as if some of us believed that we were latter-day Isaiahs or Jeremiahs to the house of “Israel after the spirit”. Words of these men were rightfully prefaced with a “thus saith the Lord”, but we have no such authority. The apostle Peter, in his first letter, brings together the two ideas of sanctification, or purification, and happy relationships in Christ. “Seeing ye have purified yourselves in obeying the truth through the spirit unto the unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently” (I Peter 1:22). Peter is exhorting those who profess truth to act truthfully. The words “unfeigned” and “pure heart” suggest this. He proceeds (Chap. 2:1) to re-emphasise the need for straight dealing between brethren. This requires frankness and openness. He implores us to lay aside malice, guile, hypocrisy etc. and uses the illustration of a newborn babe desiring milk, being fed and nourished thereby. The AV has v.2 “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word”. This has been taken to mean that we must read our Bibles to grow spiritually. While this is true as a principle, the apostle is not discoursing on these lines here. He is telling us how we should live and not how we should learn. The RV brings this out, we are enjoined “long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow”. The NEB is even more emphatic. “You must crave for pure milk (spiritual milk I mean) so that you may thrive upon it to your soul’s health”. Simple, uncomplicated, truthful relationships are the subject of this context. Study may help us to do this, but not necessarily so. Religious fanaticism can result from study. This produces the opposite effect to those conditions that may be described as “good” and “pleasant”. The “means to an end” attitude that can result, will justify guile. It will rationalise on mental cruelty, anguish and divisiveness in God’s household.
Peter exhorts to simplicity in Christ “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious” v.3, or “Because you have tasted the kindness of the Lord” (RSV). A child tastes the kindness of its mother and is nourished. He seems to suggest that we may only act graciously if we have personally experienced the grace of God in Christ, like Paul, who refers to the Son of God as the one “Who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). This tasting of spiritual milk (v.2 RV) is obviously the personal experience of the goodness of God that leads one to repentance (Rom. 2 v.4). It is not referring to some legal arrangement whereby one reads the document and signs it. Those who have purified their souls by the truth (1 Pet. 1:22) and are living accordingly in guileless, truthful relationships — they are the holy priesthood of 1 Pet. 2:5. Sanctification and truthful, wholehearted, sincere relationships are brought together in this context. The Psalmist’s words concerning the unity of brethren and sisters and the likeness to the sanctification of Aaron are further endorsed.
Where there is strife between brethren, there is the opposite of sanctification, rather defilement and uncleanness. Natural Israel behaved like this. They were severely chastised by God for their duplicity. The offering of sacrifices to God while they were ill-treating their brethren and sisters, was repugnant to Him. Their hands were full of blood (Isaiah 1:15). It will be clear what this meant by reference to the remainder of the chapter. There were the haves and the have nots. There was bribery and corruption, Justice had gone out of the window (v.23). The method of cleansing was outlined in vv.16-17, “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” Or, “Pursue justice and champion the cause of the poor” (NEB). The ill-treatment of brethren and sisters in Israel rendered sacrifices ineffectual. Their insincerity was offensive to God. The NEB of Isa. 1:13 is “The reek of sacrifice is abhorrent to me”, in contrast to the pleasant and good effects of sweet-smelling odour rising from the sanctifying perfume, that ran down Aaron’s beard. There must be no respecter of persons (James 2:1). Within the same context James quotes Isa 1:17 in his exhortation to “pure religion and undefiled”. Class distinction within the household of Judah, was a principal reason for their banishment from the land (Amos 2:6-7).
Partiality and respect for persons was the principal cause of disharmony in Corinth (1 Car. 3:4). They walked as men, in the temple of God (v.16), the defilement of which by bad relationships, would bring severe judgement upon them. There have been in the body of Christ, influences in past years that have caused polarity. They have sent brethren in opposite directions. We are not without these extremes today.
The unity of brethren is also likened by the Psalmist to “the dew of Hermon and the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion.” Continuing on from v.14 of Heb. 12, where peace is to be an objective, for the impartation of sanctification, the writer compares the influence of Sinai with that of Zion. (vv.18-22) “You have not come” unto the manifestation of the awful, terrifying power of God. He says in effect you are come unto Mount Zion, the mount of peace, peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ whose blood “speaketh better things than that of Abel” v.24. Let us be sure in our devotions that we are standing at the foot of Zion and not at the foot of Sinai. “For there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore” (Psalm 133:3. And that is the reason why the unity of brethren is like the dew of Zion. Indeed it is “good and pleasant for brethren to dwell together in unity”.
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren