Exodus 19:5–6

Here was an immense change taking place in the state of Israel: until then the promise made to them had been unconditional. Look over chapters 15 to 19. You will find that God had given them all things freely, even though they murmured — the manna, water to drink, the sabbath, and so on. He had also sustained them in their fight with Amalek at Rephidim. He recalls all this to their memory. "You have seen," He says to them, "how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself; now therefore, if …" This is the first time, in the relationship between God and Israel, that the little word if appears.

Notice, it is "My voice" and "My covenant." What was the utterance of that "voice"? and what did that "covenant" involve? Had the Lord's voice spoken to lay down the rules of a severe and unbending lawgiver? Not at all. It had spoken to demand freedom for the captives. It had spoken to provide a refuge from the sword of the destroyer, and to make a way for the ransomed to pass over. It had spoken to bring down bread from heaven and to draw water out of the hard rock.

And as to His "covenant," it was one of unmixed grace. It proposed no condition. It made no demands. It put no yoke on the neck, no burden on the shoulder… His word to Abraham was, "I WILL GIVE." The land of Canaan was not to be bought by man's doings. It was given by God's grace.

They could not have forgotten what had already happened. In the short three months since they crossed the Red Sea, they had sinned again and again. Every fresh difficulty had only shown their failure and sin. So if they had gone over their past experience, they would have seen that accepting these new terms would cost them everything. They would surely have said to one another, "We have disobeyed time after time. We fear the same thing might happen again, and then we forfeit everything. No; we must throw ourselves without reserve on that same grace which has saved, led and preserved us." But instead they accepted the condition at once and said, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do." Their past experience counted for nothing… Their own felt helplessness should have made them cling to what God was for them, which is grace. Instead they foolishly offered to make everything depend on what they could be for God, which is the principle of law.

You could translate this expression as "My own possession." God used those very words of His people (see Exodus 19:5), if only they would hear His voice and keep His covenant.

When Abraham's nation appeared, the Lord had chosen them to be His witnesses. He put them in possession of a portion of the earth, to hold it under Him as their Lord. This showed that He, who took whatever portion He pleased, had title to the whole. Israel, established as God's people, should have stayed among the nations yet formally separate from them, reflecting the light of God's glory as King of all the earth.

Because of the people's transgressions under the first covenant, this purpose of God was never realised. That did not cancel it. It still holds good that the Lord "has chosen Jacob for Himself, and Israel for His peculiar treasure" (Ps. 135:4).

Had Israel obeyed the voice of God and kept His covenant, they would have been to God "a peculiar treasure", a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:5-6). They failed. The nation was set aside, and believers are now seen as taking the place of Israel as a witness to God before the world.

Priesthood was what God proposed to Israel. It was what He had in mind in connection with redemption... This was His original thought for them, and He held to it all through, although it could not be carried out then. In Christianity the redeemed are in fact priests, as the apostle to the Jewish people shows. "I brought you to Myself," fully realised, is priesthood in at least one of its essential characters: the ability to draw near to God. "The priests who come near to the LORD" (Ex. 19:22) is one of the earliest titles describing them.

For this, holiness was an absolute requirement. A "kingdom of priests" implies a "holy nation." And so in Israel the official nearness was only outward, because the holiness was so largely outward. God was, as we know, teaching spiritual truths by means of outward representation. In Christianity we have the substance of these shadows.

Here was an immense change taking place in the state of Israel: until then the promise made to them had been unconditional. If you look over chapters 15 to 19, you will find that God had given them all things freely, even despite their murmurings — the manna, water to drink, the sabbath, and so on. He had also sustained them in their fight with Amalek at Rephidim. He recalls all this to their memory, and then adds: "now therefore, if…" This is the first time in the relationship between God and Israel that the little word if appears.

Notice, it is "my voice" and "my covenant." What did that voice say? Had it made itself heard to lay down the rules and regulations of a severe and unbending law-giver? By no means. It had spoken to demand freedom for the captives, and to provide a refuge from the sword of the destroyer. It had spoken to make a way for the ransomed to pass over, to bring down bread from heaven, and to draw water out of the hard rock. These were the gracious, clear words of the LORD's voice, right up to the moment when "Israel camped before the mount."

Israel was not willing to take this blessed position. Instead of rejoicing in God's "holy promise," they made the most presumptuous vow that human lips could utter. All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." This was bold language. They did not even say "we hope to do" or "we will try to do." That would have expressed some measure of self-distrust. But no; they took the most absolute ground.

Israel never became a "kingdom of priests" under the law. The choice of Aaron and his family afterwards shows this fully. The people as a body were shut out of the priesthood. For anyone not of Aaron's line, entering the priestly office meant death.

It is a clear allusion to Exodus 19. It follows the Hebrew idiom in the true reading: not exactly "kings and priests" here, but "a kingdom, priests." There is of course this essential difference. There it was only an offer, conditional on Israel's legal obedience. Here grace has given us the position.

In that day Israel will stand in priestly nearness to God, compared with other nations. At Sinai He said, "If you will obey My voice… you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests" (Ex. 19:6). This has never yet been realised. In Hosea 4:6 we hear the voice of Israel's indignant God: "I reject you from being a priest to me." But in the day of kingdom-glory, "you shall be called the priests of the LORD; they shall speak of you as the ministers of our God" (Isa. 61:6).