“And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die’ ” (Gen 2:16,17).

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (Gen 3:6).

What was the “forbidden fruit” in the Garden of Eden? Although the type of fruit is never identified specifically in the Bible, and Jewish traditions refer to the fig and the grape, popular European Christian tradition has held that it was an apple that Eve incited Adam to share with her.

In his “Paradise Lost” (c 1677), John Milton writes of the “apple” as the forbidden fruit — which may have had profound influence on later thought.

It is said that medieval carols quite often referred to the “apple” as the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This tradition was probably solidified by artistic renderings of the fall from Eden, featuring an apple because it was the fruit most readily available to artists.

The influence of pagan mythology was strong also, and its symbolism was always being absorbed into an apostate Christianity. For example, there was supposed to be a golden apple from the garden of the Hesperides, which Paris, prince of Troy, gave to Aphrodite, goddess of love, in preference to Athena and Hera.

There remains a longstanding belief also in the aphrodisiacal qualities, as well as the romantic symbolism, of the apple.

Another reason for the adoption of the apple as a Christian symbol of the fall in Eden is that, in Latin, the words for “apple” and for “evil” are identical (“malum”). This might also explain why the apple is often used to symbolize the fall into sin, or sin itself.

[AH Thorneloe, in Tes 4:178, writes: “The word [‘tappuwach’: ‘apple’ in KJV] is rendered in the Septuagint by [the Greek] ‘melon’, and both this and the equivalent Latin word ‘malum’ were capable of being applied to other fruits besides the apple. The Greek word was originally applied to any kind of large fruit, but became gradually confined to the apple. Today, of course, we give the name melon to an entirely different thing: an illustration of the wandering of the names of plants, which is often almost as extensive as the wanderings of the plants themselves!”]

(We shall return to his point — about the wanderings of the names of plants — in a moment.)

The larynx in the human throat has been called the “Adam’s apple” because of a notion that the forbidden fruit stuck in the throat of Adam.

---

Against all this, what does the Bible have to say about the apple?

The Hebrew “tappuwach” is probably derived from the Hebrew root meaning “scent, breath” which is related to the Arabic root meaning “fragrant scent” (HAL). Hence, the term refers to a fruit with a fragrant scent. The term occurs four times in Song (Song 2:3,5; 7:8; 8:5) and twice outside (Pro 25:11; Joe 1:12). Although the KJV translates this, uniformly, as “apple”, there is no certainty — and a good deal of uncertainty — about this identification.

The word “tappuwach” is “sometimes associated with the ‘apple’ tree, but while domesticated apple trees are now found in Israel, wild specimens are not believed to have grown there in biblical times since it is a tree native to the northern hemisphere. Apricots, however, grow in warmer climes and are native to China; they have long been abundant in Israel and most probably were introduced in Bible times. Apricots in Cyprus are still known as ‘golden apples’ [a possible reference to Pro 25:11?]” (ABD).

There is indeed some question as to which fruit tree is intended here. Older rabbinical writers seem to have used the Hebrew word “tappuwach” to refer to any fragrant, globular fruit.

On the one hand, NETn assumes that it is the apple, adding this comment: “Apple trees were not native to Palestine and had to be imported and cultivated. To find a cultivated apple tree growing in the forest among other wild trees would be quite unusual; the apple tree would stand out and be a delightful surprise. Like a cultivated apple tree, the Lover was unique and stood out among all other men. In ancient Near Eastern love literature, the apple tree was a common symbol for romantic love and sexual fertility. The apple tree motif is used in the song in a similar manner (Song 8:5). Likewise, the motif of apples is used as a symbol of fertility (Joel 1:12) and sexual desire (Song 2:5,7,9).”

But this may be assuming too much. Other authorities suggest that “tappuwach” signifies the apricot (NEB), as well as the quince, the citron (or other citrus trees — such as orange, lemon, grapefruit, or lime), the plum, or the pomegranate — all of which, in contrast to the apple, were and are indigenous to Palestine (cf Xd 56:450).

HB Tristam, in his book “The Land of Israel”, writes: “Everywhere the apricot is common: perhaps it is, with the exception of the fig, the most abundant fruit of the country. In highlands and lowlands alike, by the shores of the Mediterranean and the banks of the Jordan, under the heights of Lebanon, in the recesses of Galilee, and in the glades of Gilead, the apricot flourishes, and yields a crop of prodigious abundance. Its characteristics meet every condition of the ‘tappuach’ of scripture. Near Damascus, and on the banks of the Barada, we have pitched our tents under its shade, and spread our carpets secure from the rays of the sun (Song 2:3). There can scarcely be a more deliciously perfumed fruit than the apricot (Song 7:8), and what fruit can better fit the epithet of Solomon, ‘apples of gold in pictures of silver,’ than this golden fruit as its branches bend under the weight in their setting of bright yet pale foliage.”

Even if we are not sure which fruit tree is intended in these “apple” passages, in any case the symbolism and the lessons involved remain relatively intact.

---

There may be another, even more fundamental, reason for this “mistaken” identification of the “forbidden fruit” as an “apple”:

In “The Adventures of English”, Melvyn Bragg writes that — in the 200 to 300 years after the Norman Conquest (1066) — French words “invaded” the English language in great numbers. But as time went by, many such competing words came to achieve a sort of “peaceful coexistence” with one another, perhaps even developing nuances that differentiated the English from the French ever so slightly: eg, the English “house” and the French “mansion”, the English “start” and the French “commence”, the English “bit” and the French “morsel”, the English “freedom” and the French “liberty”.

This process of elimination / accommodation / modification affected the Old English “appel”, which became the modern “apple”. In earlier times, it was used to mean any kind of fruit, indeed of any other round object. This broader usage survives today in all sorts of words and expressions: pineapple, oak apple, balsam apple, etc; “apple” as describing, colloquially, a baseball; and, to cite a Bible example, “the apple of one’s eye” (which of course has nothing to do with the fruit called an apple, except that the pupil of the eye is round).

“Apple” as a word was not killed off by the French “invasion”; it was wounded, but survived! As the French equivalent, “fruit” (from the Latin “fructus”), began to take over (coming to mean ANY and ALL kinds of fruit), the broader use of “apple” receded until at last it practically disappeared (except for vestiges, as above). Nevertheless, it retained its hold in Modern English principally to designate one particular fruit — the produce of what the dictionary calls “rosaceous trees cultivated in temperate zones, of the genus ‘Malus’ ” (ie, our modern “apple”).

This suggests an interesting point: the identification of the “forbidden fruit” with an apple may not have been so much a wild guess, as — in the beginning, at least — the employment of the older English usage of “apple” to mean “any fruit”. Possible even Milton, as late as the 17th century, affected by the King James Version (c 1610), and using poetic license, used “apple” in “Paradise Lost” in a different sense than we use the MODERN word “apple”. Maybe he even had a good idea the “apple” WAS NOT really an “apple”, so to speak — but perhaps an apricot, a fig, or a plum, or even some other fruit of which we have no knowledge at all today!

Of course, over time, as current usage moves further and further from Old English, and even from King James English, such little confusions proliferate. (They may even have begun practically from the time the KJV was published.) Just such a confusion seems to have developed over the “apple” in the Garden of Eden. It is a cautionary tale, then: do not be misled by archaic language, in the KJV, for example, but check modern versions and dictionaries and concordances.

What is an “abomination” to the LORD? What does the LORD “abhor”…”detest”… “despise”… or “loathe”?

All these are reasonable translations of the Hebrew words “to’ab” (the verb) or “tow’ebah” (the noun).

And we know — don’t we? — what such things are. We’ve been reading the Bible for some time; and it is plain. The LORD “abhors” or “abominates” the vilest, most sickening, and most disgusting of sins: the ones we can hardly mention, or surely don’t want to think about.

And that is true… but it’s only part of the truth.

Here is the whole truth (at least, insofar as an exhaustive Hebrew concordance can yield it):

• Of course, the LORD abhors, or “abominates”:

• Incestuous sexual relations of any sort (Lev 18:6-17; Eze 22:11).

• Committing adultery with your neighbor’s wife (Lev 18:20; Eze 22:11; Eze 23:37; 33:26).

• Sacrificing your children in the fire to Molech (Lev 18:21; Deu 12:31; 18:10; 2Ki 16:13; 2Ch 28:3; Jer 32:35; Eze 23:37; Psa 106:37,38).

• Male homosexual behavior (Lev 18:22; 20:13).

• Sexual relations with an animal (Lev 18:23).

• The images of the false gods of the Canaanite peoples, and even the gold and silver on the images (Deu 7:25; 32:16; Isa 44:19; Eze 11:18,21).

• Encouraging others to worship idols (Deu 13:13,14).

• Worshipping other gods (Deu 17:2-6; Jer 16:18; 44:4,5; Eze 5:9,11; 6:9,11; 7:3-9; 16:36; Eze 23:37; Psa 106:38).

• Anyone who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead (Deu 18:10-12).

• Female prostitutes, and male prostitutes (Deu 23:18; 1Ki 14:24; Eze 16:22).

• Lewdness (Eze 16:43,58).

• Carving an image or casting an idol (Deu 27:15; Eze 7:20; all of Eze 8).

• Building altars to Baal and Asherah poles (2Ki 21:3), to Ashtoreth and Chemosh and Molech (2Ki 23:13), and to “all the starry hosts” of heaven (2Ch 33:3).

• Shedding innocent blood (Pro 6:17).

But the LORD also abhors, and considers “abominable”:

• Taking your wife’s sister as a second or rival wife, while your wife is living (Lev 18:18).

• Having sexual relations during the uncleanness of the woman’s monthly period (Lev 18:19).

• Eating any of the foods on the extended “non-kosher” list, including rabbits, oysters, shellfish of various sorts, and — especially — pigs: bacon, ham, pork, pork sausage, the whole lot! (Deu 14).

• Sacrificing to the LORD any animal with any defect or flaw in it (Deu 17:1).

• A woman wearing men’s clothing, or a man wearing women’s clothing (Deu 22:5).

• A man remarrying a woman whom he has divorced, after she has been married and divorced by a second man (Deu 24:1-4).

• Bringing foreigners into the sanctuary of the LORD (Eze 44:7).

This article is analyzing all the usages of the primary Hebrew words for “abomination”. We realize, of course, that the above seven items are included here for the sake of completeness alone. These seven items especially pertain to the keeping of the Law of Moses by the Jews in Old Testament times. We also realize that, outside of the period when that Law was in force for the LORD’s people, these particular “abominations” do not apply. Most particular in this matter is the prohibition of certain kinds of foods. This prohibition — and hence the “abomination” for violating it — was explicitly put to the side by an angel of the LORD, who told the apostle Peter: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15). And also by the Lord Jesus Christ, who told his disciples: “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean? (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’)” (Mark 7:18,19; cf Rom 14:14; 1Cor 8:8). That is not all. The LORD ALSO detests these “abominations” as well (exactly the same Hebrew words are used in the immediate context, in each case):

• Dishonest business practices (differing weights and measures) (Deu 25:13-16; Pro 11:1; 20:10,23).

• A perverse man, one who is “crooked” (deceptive, dishonest) in his ways (Pro 3:32); 11:26).

• Pride, as well as those who are proud or arrogant (Pro 6:17; 16:5).

• Lying, and those who tell lies (Pro 6:17; 12:22).

• A heart that devises wicked schemes (Pro 6:18).

• A false witness — as in a judicial setting (Pro 6:19).

• Anyone who stirs up dissension among brothers (Pro 6:19).

• Sacrifices offered by wicked, rebellious people (Pro 15:8; 21:27; Isa 1:13 and context).

• All the ways (the lifestyle) of the wicked (Pro 15:9).

• Even the thoughts of the wicked (Pro 15:26).

• Acquitting the guilty, in a judicial setting (Pro 17:15).

• Condemning the innocent, in a judicial setting (Pro 17:15).

• Even the prayers of those who ignore the Law of God (Pro 28:9).

• Deceitful men (Psa 5:6).

• Men who say IN THEIR HEARTS, “There is no God!” (Psa 14:1; 53:1).

• Mingling with the nations and adopting their customs (Psa 106:35).

• Those who are greedy for gain (Jer 6:13,15).

• Religious leaders who practice deceit (Jer 6:13,15).

• The hypocrisy of committing grievous sins, and then running back to the house of the LORD and saying, “Now we are safe!” — in other words, cheap “grace”, or hypocritical “repentance” and “absolution” (Jer 7:9,10).

• Those who turn away from God in their hearts, but still claim to keep His Law (Jer 8:4-12).

• Oppressing the poor and the needy (Eze 18:12).

• Robbery (Eze 18:12).

• Not honoring a pledge (Eze 18:12).

• Taking excessive interest (Eze 18:13). “Will such a man live? He will not!”

• “Marrying the daughter of a foreign god” (Mal 2:11).

• Being “arrogant”, and “not helping the poor and needy” (Eze 16:47,49,52).

Who are the “mixed” people described in Dan 2:41,43?

“Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay… And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.”

The word translated “mixed”, “mixture”, and “mixes” in the above verses is a word which is transliterated into English (according to Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon) as “arab”. In the Old Testament, however, this word is not identical with the other words (also transliterated as “arab” or “ereb”) which are often translated “Arab” or “Arabia” or “Arabian”, as referring to the land or peoples of that name.

Why a different word? Because the Daniel passage was originally written in Aramaic. (Only a very small portion of the OT — basically, parts of Ezra and Daniel — was actually composed in Aramaic: a Semitic language very closely related to Hebrew, which eventually replaced Hebrew as the common language during the latter part of the Old Testament times.)

So, technically, the Aramaic “arab” occurring in Dan 2:41,43 (and nowhere else in the Old Testament) is not identical with the other, Hebrew, “arab” occurring in a number of passages… although Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon states unequivocally that the two words are closely related — as shall be seen.

A brief review of a section of Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon may help to clarify:

6148 (arab)	is a primitive root, meaning “to braid, to intermix”. [6148 occurs 26 times in the OT, and is variously translated “mixing, mingling, etc” as well as “buying, trading, giving surety” and “meddling”.]
6150 (arab)	is “a primitive root” identical with 6148 through the idea of “covering with a texture”; signifying “to grow dusky at sundown — be darkened, (toward) evening.” [6150 occurs 3 times: Jdg 19:9; 1Sa 17:16; Isa 24:11.]
6151 (arab)	is the Aramaic, “corresponding to” 6148 (the Hebrew). [6151 is the word which occurs (only) in Dan 2:41,43.]
6152 (arab)	is derived from 6150, and signifies the land of Arabia. [6152 occurs in 5 verses: 1Ki 10:15; 2Ch 9:14; Isa 21:13; Jer 25:24; Eze 27:21.]
6154 (ereb)	is derived from 6148, and signifies a “web of cloth”, also a mixture (or mongrel race), and especially the people of Arabia, a “mingled people” or “mixed multitude”: This Hebrew word (6154) occurs in 15 verses: Nine of these — in one chapter (Lev 13:48,49,51-53,56-59) — all have to do with fabrics, mixed or woven or braided together. Of the other 6 verses where 6154 occurs,
	(1)	Exo 12:38 is about the “mixed multitude” who accompany Israel out of Egypt. Who these were we cannot know for sure, but it is certainly possible that they were other enslaved, oppressed people who seized the opportunity to escape Egypt along with the Israelites. Of what nations? The other occurrences of the same word (below) certainly give clues!
	(2)	Neh 13:3 refers to the people of “mixed” extraction in the Land at the time of return from captivity in Babylon (the immediate context points to the Ammonites and Moabites: Neh 13:1);
	(3)	Jer 50:37 refers to the “foreigners” amongst the Babylonians (the larger context mentions the allies of Babylon: Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, and Elam: Jer 46-49);
	(4)	Eze 30:5 refers to other “mixed” peoples (actually translated “Arabia” by NIV) alongside Cush, Put, Libya, and Egypt.
	(5) (6)	Especially interesting are the final passages, Jer 25:20 and Jer 25:24, where “ereb” occurs twice, bracketing a list of nations — “all the kings of Uz; all the kings of the Philistines (those of Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the people left at Ashdod); Edom, Moab and Ammon; all the kings of Tyre and Sidon; the kings of the coastlands across the sea; Dedan, Tema, Buz and all who are in distant places; all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the foreign people who live in the desert.” Basically a checklist of all the “Arab” nations!
6163 (arabee)	is derived from 6152, and signifies “an Arab or inhabitant of Arabia”. [6163 occurs in 8 verses: 2Ch 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7; Neh 2:19; 4:7; 6:1; Jer 3:2.]

Each word in this whole cluster may be seen to be related to all the others in the cluster; a “family tree” diagram demonstrates these relationships (not in my words, but in Strong’s words!):

ARAB (6150) is identical with ARAB (6148) # — which corresponds to ARAB (6151) #.

ARAB (6150) is root of: ARAB (6152)*, Which traces to: ARABEE (6163)*

And…

ARAB (6151) Is root of: EREB (6154)*

(The three words marked * are indisputably descriptive of the Arabs. The two words marked # both indisputably mean “mixed”.)

It should be seen at a glance, therefore, that “Arab” and “mixed” are closely related terms; they all belong to the same “family” of words.

In other words — studying the chart above — it may be noted:

1. The primary words for “Arab” and “Arabia” are derived from the root word “arab” (6150).

2. The basic Hebrew word for “mixed, mingled” (6154) is derived from a root word “arab” (6148), which (says Strong’s) is “identical with” the root word for “Arab” (6150).

3. The Aramaic for “mixed, mingled” (6151) “corresponds to” the Hebrew root (6148), from which is derived the basic Hebrew word for “mixed, mingled” (6154).

Now we already know, from Strong’s, that the “arab” (6151) of Dan 2:41,43 is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew “ereb” (6154) in the above passages. Both words — apparently without any doubt — signify “mixed or mingled”, and the second (the Hebrew word, 6154) plainly indicates, in a number of its usages, Arab peoples!

Smith’s Bible Dictionary also states that “Arab” and “mixed” are related terms and ideas:

“Arabia cannot be held to have a more extended signification than the Hebrew equivalents in the Old Testament. (a) ‘erb’ (Exo 12:38; Neh 13:3) and ‘erb’ (1Ki 10:15; Jer 25:20, 50:37; Eze 30:5), rendered in the AV “a mixed multitude” (Exo 12:38), here followed by ‘rb’, ‘the mixed multitude,’ kings of ‘Arabia’ so in Vulgate, and in Hebrew in corresponding passage in 2Ch 9:14, and (in the last two instances) ‘the mingled people,’ have been thought to signify the Arabs.”

---

It should be noted that, even if — somehow — the linguistic connections outlined above are disputed, the same conclusion may easily be drawn from other lines of inquiry.

For example, let us ask the simple question: ‘What peoples in the Old Testament are described as the result of racial mixing?’ And the Bible answer would have to be, primarily… the Arabs!

Why? Because, first of all (and leaving aside the linguistic connections altogether), the last six verses cited above where “ereb” (mixed, mingled) occurs [6154] plainly point to the Arab peoples… which include: Ammon, Moab, Egypt, Philistia, Edom, Damascus (Syria), Kedar (Ishmael), Elam, Philistia, Tyre and Sidon (Lebanon), Dedan, Tema, and Buz (Bedouin, Saudis). (Does this sound something like Psa 83?)

Even if there were absolutely NO linguistic connection between “mixed” and “arab” in Dan 2:41,43… the Bible evidence would still point to the Arabs as the preeminent and predominant “mixed” people of Old Testament times! When Daniel the Jew hears, and writes, about the “mixed” people, of whom would he naturally be thinking?

There is more:

The Book of Genesis describes in some detail how the people of the covenant — the descendants and relatives of Abraham — sinned against the LORD and violated His covenant by intermarrying with those who had no regard for that covenant:

1. Ishmael, the son of Hagar the Egyptian, mocks Isaac, the true “son of the covenant”, and Ishmael’s descendants (the results, of course, of further mixing) have done the same toward Isaac’s descendants ever since. (Abraham, meanwhile, takes careful steps to see that his seed of promise, Isaac, avoids marriage with the daughters of the Land.)

2. Lot, the nephew of Abraham and a righteous man, becomes the father of other “mixed races”, the Ammonites and Moabites, wicked and idolatrous nations who have no regard for the God of their father, and who hate God’s people.

3. Esau marries daughters of the Hittites (Gen 26:34); his family, the Edomites, are another group of “Arab” (mixed) peoples who hate their “cousins” the Jews, who have received the Promises. (Isaac warns his other son, Jacob, not to marry a Canaanite woman: Gen 28:1. Esau later compounds his previous marital errors by marrying a daughter of Ishmael: Gen 28:8,9.)

4. When the Jews were about to enter the Land they were warned by Moses not to make marriages with the people of the Land, lest they turn them away from God toward idols (Deu 7:3-4; cp Jos 23:12-13). Such errors by Solomon eventually turned his heart to idolatry (1Ki 11:1-6; cp 1Co 7:39; 2Co 6:14).

5. Ezra and Nehemiah — at a much later date — also lament that the priests and Levites have “mixed” and “mingled” their seed with the daughters of the land — specifically the women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab (Neh 13:23).

6. More generally, the earlier peoples of the Land — enumerated in Gen 15:19-21: “Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites” — were not all destroyed or driven out of that Land, and they remained as a continual snare to the people of Israel throughout their time there.

Three or four thousand years after the events outlined above, it is now impossible to mark out any individual Arab as an Ammonite or an Edomite or a Philistine… just as it is impossible to point out one who is a Canaanite or a Jebusite. In one sense, all these ancient peoples and nations have “disappeared”; the old national identities are gone. But the fact is (and the Bible is absolutely plain on this) these people were never completely wiped out by the Israelites. Their bloodlines remain, and ever since Bible times have been merging and mingling with one another to create the modern “Arabs”, the quintessential “mixed” people.

As has been pointed out in other studies, these “Arab” peoples bear a strong genetic likeness to, and linkage with, the Jews [see Lesson Jews and Arabs are cousins]. But they are different, they are “mixed”, and they hate their Jewish “cousins” with a fierce passion. Also, they desperately desire the same Land promised to Abraham’s seed… because they are (in part) — or believe themselves to be — Abraham’s “seed” too. Their prevailing religion, Islam, teaches them as well that they, and not the Jews, are Allah’s chosen people! They are the true rivals of Israel… by history, by blood, by proximity, by Old Testament example and type, and by (many) Bible prophecies.

---

Question: ‘But isn’t Dan 2:41-43 all about the “ten toes” of the old Roman empire? How can the Arabs have any part in this?’

However, in fact, the Arabs do have ancient connections with the Roman Empire, and particularly as it related to the Land and People of Israel. For details on this, see Lesson, Ten toes, identity.

---

Finally, TENS EVERYWHERE:

1. Ten nations in the Promised Land at the beginning: Gen 15:19-21.
2. Ten nations, the sworn enemies of Israel, in Psa 83.

3. Ten Gentile nations, neighbors of Judah, upon which God lays “burdens” for their treatment and hatred of His people: Isa 13-23.

4. Ten nations in Jer 25: Arabian enemies of Israel… (or 12 or 14 here, hard to group and enumerate… but a similar number, and a lot of overlapping with other lists).

5. And ten modern nations that came into existence in the same generation (between 1922 and 1971, a 50-year period centered on 1948). Ten Arab nations living on land that once formed part of the old Roman empire. With an 11th nation, Palestine, poised to be “born” after the others… a “little horn” springing up last, ready and eager to be the spearhead to destroy the State of Israel (see Lesson, Beasts, heads, and horns).

Possible connections with the (ten?) toes of Daniel’s image, and the 10 horns and kings of Daniel and Revelation?

---

Also, there is a plain and evident connection between Daniel’s image in Dan 2, and the great image of Goliath, slain by the little stone flung by David (1Sa 17). And that “image” — so very much like the other — was… Philistine, or Palestinian!

Furthermore, Goliath, being Philistine, would probably have been of Greek lineage, as were all the Philistines. Therefore we have added to the “mixture” an element derived from the third portion of Nebuchadnezzar’s “four-part” image, Greece.

Now this gets interesting…

So we might see the Philistines as a Greek element in the decidedly varied “mixture” of Arab peoples in and around the Land today.

So the “mixed” peoples calling themselves “Arabs” (Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Bedouin, etc, etc) are not just the Last Days mixture of Abraham’s (apostate) seed and the Canaanites/Jebusites/et al of Gen 15.

They include a “spoonful” of Greeks too.

Is this surprising? Not really. Think about it. Conquering, ruling minorities always leave something of themselves behind. And one of the ways of controlling ruled-over peoples is to systematically undermine their ethnic uniqueness, their national identity. Thus the Assyrian conquerors of the Northern Kingdom moved all the conquered peoples here and there, with the purpose of mixing them all up with one another (and obscuring/obliterating the strains of national identity, and these people’s connections with their own lands): see the history in 2Ki 17:24ff.

Then of course there is the racial “mixing” that happens more or less “accidentally”. (Reminding us of the slur perpetrated against Jesus by some of the early rabbinical writings: that he was the result of an illicit relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier. How could such a story be told about any specific person, unless similar things had happened generally?)

Just a thought, then: the “Arabs”, in the broadest sense of the modern word, are plainly a very “mixed” peoples… genetic makeup contributed from 50 different ethnic groups — including, no doubt, all of Daniel’s “image parts / beasts” that ruled over their Land for hundreds of years. {This is no particular slur in and of itself: many peoples today are really a genetic mixture of a dozen or a score of earlier races. But… in the Middle East, and in the context of Bible teaching, God always desired that His people be “pure” of outside influences, that they not intermarry with the idolaters around them — not disparaging, of course, the occasional “Ruth” who in faith became a Jew.}

In fact, and naturally speaking, we should expect to see — in the area of Palestine/Israel/Canaan (the extended Holy Land) — even more mixing than is normal elsewhere in the world, because this land is the natural “bridge” connecting the three great continental land masses of the ancient world. Over this “bridge” passed Egyptians on their way to the east, and Babylonians on their way to Africa, and Greeks on their way to India, and countless other generals and armies, explorers and travelers, and traders.

One might ask, “Why would God deliberately put His people in a place where they would be exposed to so many other non-Jewish influences… if He really wanted them to remain pure and undefiled from such peoples?” And the answer — an aside to the main point here — would be: they were SUPPOSED to be a “light to the Gentiles”, a “city set on a hill”; that’s why they were placed at the “crossroads” of the world! In large measure, however, they failed — they did not “conquer” the world with the light of God’s truth, but the world “conquered” them instead! But later… from this same “crossroads” the Gospel message, carried by Jews, went forth in all directions, so that the Hope of Israel will yet “conquer” the world! And God’s purpose did not — and will not — fail after all!

Enough on the “aside”.

So… when we talk of the whole image of Dan 2 being joined together, and acting as one, to trample down the Land of God’s Promises… is it just possible that we can see, in the extended “Arab world” of today, the whole of Daniel’s “image” standing up together? A microcosm of practically the whole “world”, bent on the destruction of God’s people? A great blended “mixture” of Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans… and others besides… whose one unifying feature is their bitter hatred of Israel?

The so-called “archaic” pronouns of the King James Version had a purpose not generally recognized today. They were used to distinguish between singular and plural in the second person:

“Thou” = Singular subject “Thee” = Singular object “Ye” = Plural subject “You” = Plural object

Our modern speech, of course, puts “you” in place of all four, with a consequent loss of clarity; and thereby forces us (esp those of us from Texas!) to resort to such phrases as “you all”.

A significant aspect of the Abrahamic covenant is the promise of a special Land: Gen 13:14,15,17. This Land is specifically defined: Rev 15:18. It was (and this may be of real consequence in the study of Bible prophecy, esp of Rev) a land of ten peoples and therefore ten kings (Rev 15:19-21).

Elsewhere this Land is defined similarly — ie, as basically stretching from the borders of Assyria/Babylon to the border of Egypt (Exo 23:23; Deu 1:7; 11:24; Jos 1:4; Psa 72:8). It was within this extended Land of Promise (the full territory of which the people of Israel have never yet occupied) that much of Bible history has been played out. It is within this same extended Land that much of Bible prophecy has been set: it is a Land, for example, of ten kings and peoples (slightly more or less at different times) who have almost always been the enemies of God’s people.

This same Land — the Middle East in general — is the arena in which the Book of Rev is to be fulfilled; a Land where Israel is today surrounded by approximately ten Arab nations or kingdoms intent on her destruction (cp Rev 12:3; 13:1; 17:12,16; etc). Coincidence? Or something more?

The ten nations of Psa 83 occupy today the same area, generally, as the ten peoples of Gen 15:19-21. Thus, the extended “Land of Promise” (Gen 15:18) is a land, prophetically speaking, peopled by a (reborn) Israel and ten “kings”. (Did Jesus refer to this when he prophesied of the sprouting forth of the “fig tree” “and ALL the trees” in Luk 21:29,30?) Does all this sound familiar?

The ten nations of Psa 83, however, are different peoples than the ten nations of Gen 15. Those of Psa 83 are for the most part relatives and descendants of Abraham; those of Gen 15 were the earlier occupants of Canaan and the Middle East. Is there some continuity or connection between these two different groups, each of ten peoples?

Remember that “Arab” means “mixed”; a very similar word occurs — four times — in Dan 2:41-43, re the (presumably ten) toes of the Great Image: “Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron MIXED [ereb] with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron MIXED [ereb] with baked clay, so the people will be a MIXTURE [ereb] and will not remain united, any more than iron MIXES [ereb] with clay.” [See Lesson, Arab/”mixed”]

What evidently has happened is that, since the beginning, the (Arab) descendants of Abraham have intermarried with the Canaanitish peoples so as to create, over time, a mixed or mingled peoples. There are in fact Biblical cases of this very sort of intermingling:

“While he [Ishmael] was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt” (Gen 21:21).

“He [Esau] married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite [cp Exo 23:23; Jos 1:4], and also Basemath daughter of Elon the HIttite. They were a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah” (Gen 26:34,35).

Other instances of the word “ereb” — signifying “mixed” or “mingled” — related to peoples are:

• 1Ki 10:15: “all the Arabian kings”.

• Jer 25:20,24: “the foreign (or ‘mingled’: AV) peoples… the Philistines… all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the foreign (mingled) peoples… in the desert”.

• Jer 50:37: “all the foreigners (or ‘mingled people’: AV) that are in the midst of her [Babylon]…”

• Eze 30:5: “Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all Arabia (or ‘the mingled people’: AV)”.

• Neh 13:1,3: “Ammonite and Moabite… all who were of foreign descent (or ‘the mixed multitude’: AV)”.

So the “mixed peoples” of the Middle East are the “Arabs” — with blood ties to the original Canaanitish peoples and the corrupted descendants of Abraham. Both these groups of peoples have had, historically, intense hatred for the Jews.

Now, with the admixture of a unifying religion — Islam — these Arabs view the Jews as great “infidels”, who have no real claim to the Land of Palestine.

Certainly the stage is set for a battle between Israel and the ten “kings of the earth (or Land)”! And, as Daniel describes, it is in the days when these mixed/mingled (Arab) peoples trample down Israel (and that may be very soon!) that the God of heaven will set up His everlasting Kingdom (Dan 2:44)!

A brief outline of events in the Arian controversy. Sufficient to show the convolutions and turns and reverses by which the clearly apostate Church of the 4th Century went about deciding its “doctrines”. [For a narrative version of some of the same events, see Lesson, “Homoousios” (of the same substance).]

324 CE:	Egypt — Alexander (bishop of Alexandria) writes a letter to Alexander of Constantinople that is also sent to bishops outside of Egypt. In this letter, Alexander warns his fellow bishops of the danger of the Arian threat. He also names Lucian of Antioch and Paul of Samosata as the true originators of this heresy.
325 CE:	Palestine — Hosius, a representative of the Emperor Constantine, presides over an anti-Arian council in Antioch sometime during the early months of this year. This council condemns Eusebius of Caesarea for being an Arian sympathizer and formulates a doctrinal creed in favor of Alexander’s theology.
325 CE:	Asia Minor — Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (homoousios), thereby taking a decidedly anti-Arian stand. Arius is exiled to Illyria.
327 CE:	Arius and Euzoius write a letter to the Emperor Constantine. This letter includes a creed that attempts to show the orthodoxy of Arius’ position and a petition to be restored to the Church.
328 CE:	Constantine recalls Arius from exile in Illyria.
335 CE:	Palestine — A Pronouncement of the Synod of Tyre and Jerusalem restores Arius and his friends into communion with the Church. Both Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia have leading roles in this synod. Athanasius is deposed and so goes to complain to the Emperor Constantine, whom he encounters mid-road. After Athanasius persists in requesting an audience, Constantine agrees to hear his complaint.
336 CE:	The Emperor agrees with the findings of the council concerning Athanasius, and so in February, he exiles him to Trier.
336 CE:	Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, is deposed by a council at Constantine. He had written a treatise in 335 defending the Nicene theology, but was considered a Sabellian by his opponents.
336 CE:	Greece — Arius dies suddenly in Constantinople on the evening before a formal ceremony was to restore him to his presbyterial rank.
338 CE:	Palestine — A council at Antioch deposes Athanasius and orders a second exile.
339 CE:	Egypt — Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.
340 CE:	Julius I, bishop of Rome, receives Marcellus and Athanasius into communion with the Roman church.
342 CE or 343 CE:	Emperor Constans convenes a council in Sardica in an attempt to restore unity to the Church. The council is a fiasco. The western bishops and eastern bishops separate and denounce each other. The West release a statement claiming to be an attack on Arianism, the East retire to Philippopolis and release a statement, dated from Sardica, which justifies the deposition of Athanasius and Marcellus and condemns Julius I and others. To this is appended the 4th creed of Antioch with additional anathemas directed at Marcellus.
344 CE:	Another Arian council is held in Antioch. Here, the council writes the Fifth Arian Confession (or Macrostich), which is notably longer than the confessions written at Antioch in 341. The Macrostich is the Eastern creed of Sardica plus eight paragraphs addressed to the western bishops.
345 CE:	Italy — A council is held in Milan. Western bishops read the Macrostich.
346 CE:	Egypt — Athanasius is restored to the Alexandrian see.
353 CE:	A council is held at Arles during autumn that is directed against Athanasius.
355 CE:	Italy — A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.
356 CE:	Egypt — Athanasius is deposed on February 8, beginning his third exile.
357 CE:	The third Council of Sirmium is convened during the summer. The Western bishops move as close as they will to finding a compromise with the Arians. Both “homoousios” (of one essence) and “homoiousios” (alike in essence) are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than his subordinate son.
359 CE:	The fourth council of Sirmium is convened on May 22. The Fourth Sirmium Confession (or the Dated Creed?) is written. It proposes a compromise formula, which is not technical, and is designed to please everybody (though it is too watered-down to do any good).
359 CE:	Emperor Constantius summons two councils to finish what Nicaea had started, that is, to develop a unifying creed for Christianity. The Synod of Ariminum (Rimini) is held in the West during May and is attended by more than 400 bishops. The Synod of Seleucia is held in the East during October (or December?) and is attended by about 160 bishops. Here, the Ninth Arian Confession is written, which affirms that Christ is “like the Father” while, at the same time, anathematizing the Anomoeans. (which signifies: “not the same” — ie substance or essence). In the end, both councils agree to this semi-Arian statement of Faith, even though it does not specify how the Son is like the Father.
361 CE:	Palestine — A council is held in Antioch during the installation of Euzonius as bishop of Antioch. (Euzonius had been excommunicated with Arius in 318 and 325 and restored with him in 335.) During this council, the Eleventh Arian Confession is written. This creed is strongly Anomoean, leading Athanasius to remark that the Arians have reverted back to the first doctrines framed by Arius.

In the OT the Heb word is used to denote both the name of the Canaanite goddess, well-known from the Ugaritic texts, and also a wooden cult-object that was her symbol.

The ancient versions failed to recognize that OT Asherah was the name of a goddess, and it was only with the discovery of the Ugaritic texts that scholars as a whole were convinced that this was one of the basic meanings of the word in the OT. The places where the name Asherah seems to denote the goddess rather than her cult object are 1Ki 15:13; 18:19; 2Ki 21:7; 23:4, in addition to Jdg 3:7, where the plural form Asheroth appears. In 2Ki 23:4 the name Asherah is likewise paralleled with that of Baal, as well as with the host of heaven, thereby indicating that Asherah is a deity. Referring to Josiah’s reformation in 621 BC it states, “And the king commanded Hilkiah, the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the priests of the threshold, to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of Heaven.” Both 1Ki 15:13 and 2Ki 21:7 speak of the image of Asherah, passages in which it is natural to suppose that Asherah is the goddess. In the former passage we read of Asa’s removing Maacah, his mother, from the position of queen mother, because of the abominable image for Asherah which she had made. Asa cut down the image and burned it in the Kidron valley. 2Ki 21:7 mentions a graven image of Asherah that Manasseh placed in the temple of Jerusalem.

Jdg 3:7 uses the plural form Asheroth — “And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, forgetting the Lord their God, and serving the Baals and the Asheroth.” Some scholars wish to emend Asheroth to Ashtaroth, which is paralleled with the Baals in Jdg 2:13; 10:6; 1Sa 7:3,4; 12:10. However, the fact that Asheroth is the more difficult reading inclines one to believe that it is the correct reading here. It is not clear whether “Asheroth” refers to different local manifestations of the goddess Asherah or is a way of referring to Canaanite female deities generally. The same uncertainty applies to the precise meaning of the terms “Baals” and “Ashtaroth.”

The LXX usually rendered Asherah by “grove”, which accounts for the translation in the KJV. The Mishnah similarly understood the Asherim to be living trees that were worshiped, eg, grapevines, pomegranates, walnuts, myrtle, and willows. It is quite clear, however, from a number of OT references that the Asherim were man-made objects; verbs used in connection with them include “make” (1Ki 14:15; 16:33; 2Ki 17:16; 21:3, 7; 2Ch 33:3), “build” (1Ki 14:23), and “erect” (2Ki 17:10), which are inappropriate for living trees. It should also be noted that Jer 17:2 speaks of “their Asherim beside every luxuriant tree”, which would be odd if the Asherim were themselves actual trees. This makes it impossible to suppose that the Asherim were living trees. Some claim more moderately that the Asherim were sometimes living trees. Deu 16:21 might suggest this, often rendered as it is: “You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God, which you shall make.” However, the word can mean “wood” as well as “tree”, and since all the other references to the Asherah in the OT indicate that it is a man-made object, including various references elsewhere in Deu, it is more natural to suppose that this is the meaning here.

That the Asherah cult object symbolized the goddess Asherah in some way is clear from the fact that both are mentioned in similar contexts in the OT. Thus, 2Ki 21:3, where we read that Manasseh “erected altars for Baal, and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them”, can be compared with 2Ki 23:4, where we read of “all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven” (ABD).

---

“The Asherah in particular (the word means ‘the way to happiness’) was the phallic symbol of the sex-orientated cults which dominated the pagans of that era to an extent which has not been outmatched in any civilization until twentieth-century decadence really got into its stride” (WHez).

The NT has four words to signify “ask” or one of the synonyms of that verb. All of them are used frequently. It is no easy matter to sort out the different inflexions of meaning which these carry, but the effort is worthwhile because of the finer nuances of meaning which can then be traced in not a few places.

“Aiteo” expresses the idea of petition, asked by an inferior of a superior. This very clear implication of the word puts Trench (“New Testament Synonyms”) in rather a flap because of Martha’s appeal to Jesus: “I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee” (Joh 11:22). Trinitarian Trench does not like the implied notion that Jesus was not of equal status with his Father, and therefore he expresses himself somewhat scornfully about Martha’s lack of spiritual insight. But, indeed, if the apostle John felt equally disapproving, would he have included this in his record uncorrected?

1Jo 5:16 is a very problematical passage using this word “aiteo”. One problem arises from lack of nouns to the verbs. “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask (Jesus), and he (the Father) shall give him (Jesus) life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he (Jesus) should beseech (God) for it.”

“Erotao” seems to have two distinct flavours:

1. It is used as equivalent of the English “enquire”. Thus, “Jesus asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Mat 16:13). And in reply to the Pharisees’ interrogation about his own authority, Jesus replied: “I also will ask you one thing…” (Mat 21:24). Similarly, concerning the disciples’ mystification: “Jesus knew the disciples were desirous to ask him. Do ye enquire (seek) among yourselves of that I said, A little while and ye shall not see me…?” (Joh 16:19), to be followed by the assurance: “In that day ye shall ask me nothing (erotao, question, enquire)… Whatsoever (understanding) ye shall ask (“aiteo”, petition) the Father in my name, he will give it you” (16:23).

2. But this word is also used often as equivalent to “beseech”. It describes importunity: The Syrophoenician woman pleading on behalf of her daughter (Mar 7:26); the rich man begging that his five brothers be warned (Luk 16:27). In this sense, often enough. It is rather surprising, then, to find it used of Jesus “praying Simon” to let him use the fishing boat as a pulpit — a measure perhaps of how hard-pressed Jesus was by the crowd (Luk 5:3,1). And it is equally surprising to find Pharisees more than once beseeching Jesus to accept their hospitality (Luk 7:36; 11:37). Mere Pharisee hypocrisy? And in John 14:16 this supposedly Trinitarian gospel throws a spanner in the Trinitarian works with this word of Jesus: “I will pray (beseech, beg) the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter…”, with reference to what could be expected at his ascension to glory!

“Eperotao” is the same as “erotao” with the intensive prefix “epi” added to it. Accordingly, it means either (a) specially earnest enquiry, (b) an insistent pressing interrogation, or (c) enquiry with a certain legal formality about it — in this respect not markedly different from “punthanomai” below.

1. Women chattering during the service about matters which provoke their interest are bidden pursue this earnest seeking from their husbands at home (1Co 14:35). It is this word which describes the eager thirst for knowledge on the part of the boy Jesus as he heard the learned elders in the temple and “asked them questions” (Luk 2:46). Somewhat remarkably, the same word comes in Mar 8:23 to describe Jesus’ healing of the blind man by stages: “he asked him if he saw aught”. The word implies a special eagerness on the Lord’s part in the performance of this miracle. The symbolism here helps to explain. When a lawyer came “tempting Jesus”, asking the question: “Which is the great commandment in the law?” (Mat 22:35), by using “eperotao” the narrative acquits him of hypocrisy or evil purpose.

2. But there is no good meaning behind the summary phrase at the end of that day of debate in the temple: “No man durst ask him (press upon him) any more questions” (22:46). The same word describes the eagerness of the Pharisees to bring about his discomfiture: “He was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come” (Luk 17:20).

3. Pilate’s questioning of Jesus (Mat 27:11), and the high priest’s interrogation of the apostles (Acts 5:27) both seem to give to “eperotao” a certain flavor of legal procedure. Yet not necessarily (there being another word for this: see below), for in both of these places it may be the intense feeling or strong pressure of these worldly men that is being described.

Lastly, “punthanomai” very clearly describes (a) the question put by a superior to his inferior, and (b) akin to this, the formal legal enquiry.

1. It is the word used of the nobleman enquiring of his servants the precise hour of his son’s recovery (Joh 4:52), of the prodigal’s older brother asking for explanation of the unexpected celebration (Luk 15:26), and of the Roman soldier sent by Cornelius enquiring, as of one of an inferior race, the way to Simon Peter’s house (Acts 10:18) — yet it is also Peter’s word, as from the Lord’s representative, when meeting Cornelius: “I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me” (Acts 10:29).

2. The “legal enquiry” aspect of “punthanomai” is readily discernible: the chief priests cross-questioning Peter (Acts 4:7), the Roman captain and Felix making enquiry about Paul (Acts 21:33; 23:19,34). But it is somewhat startling to find the same word used of Peter’s eagerness to identify the traitor Jesus had spoken about: “Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him (to John), that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake” (Joh 13:24). Peter doubtless wished not only for inquisition but also summary condemnation of the guilty one.

Assyria emerged as a territorial state in the 14th century BC. Its territory covered what is now the northern part of modern Iraq. From the beginning, Assyria was a strong military power bent on conquest and expansion. By the 9th century BC, Assyria had consolidated its control over all of northern Mesopotamia (the land “between the rivers” — ie the Tigris and the Euphrates). Then the Assyrian armies marched beyond their own borders — in brutal and efficient waves — to expand their empire, seeking booty to finance their plans for still more conquest. By about 850 BC, the Assyrian menace posed a direct threat to the small Jewish states to the west and south — Israel and Judah, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of the Old Testament.

During the period from 850 to 700 BC, the Assyrian empire reached its zenith. During part of this time, the kings of Assyria, ruling in Nineveh on the Tigris, also exercised dominion over ancient Babylon on the Euphrates about 200 miles to the south; they were quite pleased to refer to themselves as “kings of Babylon” (much as Queen Victoria of England claimed the additional title “Empress of India”).

It was also during the latter part of this period (approx 720-700 BC) that king Sargon of Assyria conquered and occupied the Northern Kingdom of Israel (2Ki 17:1-6). His successor Sennacherib carried many thousands of captives away to Nineveh and Babylon (Mic 4:10; Psa 137:1-4), defeated 46 fortified cities of the Southern Kingdom of Judah (Isa 8:7,8;10:5,6), and finally threatened even the city of Jerusalem — before meeting a titanic defeat — at the hand of the Angel of the Lord (Isa 37:1-36).

This might seem like so much dry-as-dust history, except for these facts:

1. The modern-day Iraq of Saddam Hussein occupies the same territory as the OT Assyria. Its leader behaves in the same brutal fashion as did the ancient kings of Assyria — his mind ever set on the acquisition of land, wealth, and power. His lack of concern for human life allows him to use threats other world leaders would shrink from — and, when provoked, to carry out such threats. He styles himself the head of the whole Arab world, and he demonstrates an intense hatred for the Arabs’ common enemy Israel. And he is perhaps the greatest threat to the peace of the Middle East and the world.

2. A number of OT prophecies, about the coming and work of the Messiah, were written by prophets (most notably, Isaiah) who lived in Jewish lands under the long shadow of the Assyrian threat at the time of its greatest expansion. It is clear that many of their prophecies had immediate (but incomplete) fulfillments in:

• The deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, through the faith of righteous king Hezekiah;

• The destruction of the Assyrian oppressors by the power of God;

• The return from captivity of many Jews whom Sennacherib and his predecessors had carried into slavery; and

• A new period of peace in a regenerated nation of Judah.

But it is even more clear that a number of such prophecies still await their final (and perfect) realization at the return of Christ.

It is possible that the development of a modern-day “Assyrian”, with avowed designs to expand its territory and, in the process, annihilate the people of Israel, is a precursor to a coming divine deliverance. This last deliverance will be so stupendous as to dwarf all previous revelations of God, for it will be none other than the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in great power and glory to vanquish the “Assyrian” and all his allies, to save his people Israel, and to establish God’s millennial (1,000-year) Kingdom on this earth.

A summary of Bible references to Assyria helps us to develop a fuller picture of the Last Days:

Is all this the fate of an Iraqi coalition led against Israel by that modern-day “Assyrian” Saddam Hussein (or some even-more-powerful successor)?

At the Judgment at Christ’s coming we will be accepted by Christ if we have these attitudes and traits while believing the Truth:	At the Judgment at Christ’s coming we will be rejected by Christ if we have these attitudes and traits even if we believe all the Truth:
Showing a gentle attitude toward all (Phi 4:5).	Hard and austere (Luk 19:21,22).
Being generous in mind, spirit, and pocket, whether others are deserving or not (Luk 6:27-35).	Unforgiving of real or imagined wrongs (Mat 18:34,35).
Genuinely forbearing, forgiving and being easy to live with (Col 3:13).	Unmerciful, harsh and critical (Mat 7:1-5).
Insistent that a place be found every day for prayer and Bible reading whatever the distractions (1Th 5:17,18).	Concerned with routine ecclesial duties, while ignoring immediate needs of the stranger (Luk 10:30-32).
Actively seeking for opportunities to help others less fortunate than ourselves, irrespective of whether they share our faith, or are likely to do so (Gal 6:10).	Making demands of others while offering little help (Mat 23:3,4).
Willing to consider fairly others’ points of view, and assume that their motives are genuine (Jam 1:19).	Lack of fellow-feeling for those who are tempted or fall (Joh 8:1-7).
Ready to delegate authority and duties, to share responsibilities and encourage others, especially the young (2Ti 2:2).	Always trying to be in the spotlight (Jam 3:1).
Providing a stable, warm, loving, home atmosphere to attract others; ready to use home at all times as the greatest place from which to witness (1Ti 3:2-5).	Applying class, racial or group stereotypes to others (Jam 2).
Grieving at condition of “sheep without a shepherd” (Mat 9:36).	Having little time or concern for those “in the world” or who differ from us (Isa 65:5).
Having compassion on the ignorant, and those out of the Way, and in danger of being “lost” (Heb 5:2).	Shunning and condemning those considered to be sinners, and treating some as “beyond the pale” (Mat 23:13).
Joyful in welcoming the returning wayward (Luk 15:32).	Coldly and grudgingly accepting the returning wayward (Luk 15:25-28).
Showing mercy towards those who have doubts (Jud 1:22).	Neglectful of the lonely, aged, and afflicted; concerned only with the “strong” and the “good attendees” (Mat 25:45).
Friend of sinners, “despairing of no man” (Luk 7:34).	Bigoted and unreasonable (Jud 1:16).
Willing to be patient in negotiation, seeing compromise in proper circumstances as strength (1Th 5:13).	Considering any compromise on anything, or any moderation, as weakness (2Co 10:12).
Avoiding controversy wherever and whenever possible, seeking instead to find strength in things that are shared in common (2Ti 2:24).	More concerned with controversial matters than the fostering of harmony and finding common ground (1Ti 6:4,5).
Unflinching in our loyalty to Christ at whatever cost (Mat 10:32-39).	Not prepared to make a clear commitment of faith or loyalty (Mar 8:38).
Willing to accept shame and even suffer cheerfully the “loss of all things” for the Truth (Phi 3:7,8).	Afraid of persecution, loss of prestige, worldly goods, or livelihood because of the Truth (Gal 6:12).
Encouraging our children, chiefly by our example, to accept the Truth (Eph 6:4).	Partial and over-indulgent toward our own children (1Sa 3:12,13).
Treating “fellowship” as a door through which to draw others into the security and warmth of God’s family (Rev 3:20).	Treating “fellowship” as a wall to keep others out of our special clique (3Jo 1:9,10).
Eager to extend the wonderful good news of salvation “everywhere”, worldwide, with no limit of race, language, color or class; optimistic in regard to witnessing (Rom 10:14-18).	Convinced that this is “the day of small things”; therefore doing little or nothing to propagate the Truth in the world; pessimistic as regards witnessing (Mat 25:26,27).

(AE)