Leviticus 8:6

"And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water. And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the skillfully woven band of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith. And he placed the breastplate upon him: and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim. And he set the mitre upon his head; and upon the mitre, in front, did he set the golden plate, the holy crown; as Jehovah commanded Moses."

For the detailed description of all these particular items of which the official dress of the High Priest consisted, see a full discussion under the appropriate verses (Exodus 28; Exodus 29) in my commentary on the Book of Exodus.

It is of the very greatest importance here that the investiture of the High Priest in his sacred office did not begin with robing him in his official robes, as mistakenly thought by Clements,[10] who omitted the teaching of Leviticus 8:6 altogether. The first thing was the "washing" of Aaron (and all other priests of whatever grade). The significance of this initial "washing" is profound. Not even Jesus Christ was anointed as the Messiah by his reception of the Holy Spirit until he had been baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River! The inescapable connection of the "washing" here with the ordinance of Christian baptism, as a symbol and type thereof is certain. "His baptism was part of his installation."[11]

Yes, it was indeed actually a baptism. (See a more complete discussion of this under Exodus 29:4 in my commentary on Exodus.) As Michael Esses, a noted Jewish Christian scholar, wrote:

"Now they are to be baptized. The baptism was to be performed in the court of the tabernacle, and the priest's entire body had to be immersed in water. As Christians we will not have the power to overcome unless we have gone to death with Christ in the waters of baptism."[12]

Some comments one finds amusing, appearing as nothing more than clever little devices by which men seek to excise "baptism" from this passage. Note these: "How do we get that washing? It is by confession that we are forgiven and cleansed."[13] This is simply not true. There is no reference whatever in this whole ordination to confession, and even if the laying of Aaron's hands upon the head of the sacrifice somewhat later, and after the washing, should be considered as a confession, it could not possibly have been a confession of his already being forgiven, but a confession of his sins that yet needed to be forgiven, and for which the bullock was afterward offered. Furthermore, the Biblical confession by a Christian is never a confession of his being ALREADY saved and forgiven, but as a confession of Jesus Christ.

It is of the most astounding interest that the purpose of Aaron's baptism was not typical of the baptism of Christians, but of the baptism of Christ. In the case of Aaron, therefore, his baptism referred primarily to the fact that Jesus Christ would be baptized BEFORE his anointing (the reception of the Holy Spirit), and BEFORE the sacrifice (representing the death of Christ) was offered! Neither the baptism of Aaron nor the baptism of Christ was "for the forgiveness of sins." In the case of Aaron, the bullock was for his forgiveness, and in the case of Christ there were no sins to be forgiven. Now, in the case of lesser priests, which correspond to Christians, their baptism was indeed symbolical of forgiveness, indicated by their anointing which followed it, in their case, the sacrifice (typical of Christ) having already been offered. This is an essential difference between the baptism of Aaron, and that of the suffragen priests.

This is a prize-winner: "The washing, or bathing, took place in the sight of the people. The whole of the person, except so much as was covered by the linen drawers, was washed."[14] This writer has baptized literally thousands of persons, and there was never any trouble whatever baptizing THE WHOLE PERSON no matter what kind of drawers they wore! Modern prejudice against Christian baptism is unsupported by anything in the entire Bible.

"The washing" mentioned in this verse was most surely designed to teach the necessity of Christian baptism as an essential, necessary, and invariable pre-condition of entering the kingdom of God.

The clothing of the priests was also typical of the clothing of Christ our great High Priest in the magnificent robes of holiness, perfection, and glory. And in the case of the lesser priests it symbolized the robes of forgiveness, and righteousness, of which the Lord admonished his people to "buy of me ... white garments, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest" (Revelation 3:18). Christians are to "put on Christ," "put on the whole armour of God," etc.