“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).

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)

“Are they (the angels of God) not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?” (Heb 1:14).

These words suggest that there are no morally evil angels; they all seem to be on God’s side.

Then who are the sinful, false adversaries mentioned here and there in the Bible? Very often they are human devils/satans (eg Act 5:3,5; Rev 2:9,13; 3:9; Mat 16:23; Joh 6:70), and it would appear — for that matter — that sin and death in the world are ultimately traceable to the actions of humans, specifically Adam and Eve, from the very beginning (Gen 3, of course, and Rom 5 esp):

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned… Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come… many died through one man’s trespass… For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation… because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man… one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men… by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners… sin reigned in death…”

But strictly human devils/satans do not appear to answer all issues satisfactorily. The problem of evil in the world still poses awkward questions. So we turn to other passages…

“I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things” (Isa 45:7). (This is the RSV; for “woe” NIV has “disaster” and KJV has “evil” — suggesting the various translators were a little uncertain about how to deal with this verse.)

“Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does evil befall a city, unless the LORD has done it?” (Amo 3:6).

Here is a stark truth about the world, with its earthquakes, tornadoes, pestilences, and famines, which people by and large refuse to face up to: that this is God’s world and He is fully in control of what happens in it, the “bad” (“evil”) as well as the good. May I suggest that a well-balanced philosophy or world view will accept this, the bad, as happening not because the Almighty God, the One God, is slumbering or indifferent, but because He and He alone originates and controls all such things for the fulfillment of His purpose and for the ultimate good of the human race. The “evils” are only “evil” because that is how men with limited understanding see them. With God there is no ultimate “evil”. By Divine teaching we see things in their correct perspective, but it still requires personal faith to believe, in opposition to our natural feelings, that a righteous and just and loving God is really responsible for floods, famines, earthquakes, and the like.

But the Bible is full of “evils” brought by the power and wisdom of God:

1. Jonah’s storm and Jonah’s gourd;
2. Egypt’s seven years of plenty and then of famine;

3. Elijah’s drought;
4. The earthquake at Philippi.

So… how does God control all the “evils” which are so much a part of all human experience?

Can God truly be in charge of… can He truly be the Monarch of a universe in which dwells a superhuman Devil/Satan who continues for long ages to be in open rebellion against the authority of God? All human experience seems to declare that this Devil, if he really exists, is winning all along the line; he is more almighty than THE Almighty… but how can this be?

Mark Twain was once asked whom he would most like to meet. He promptly answered, “The Devil… because any person who can absolutely dominate 95% of the world’s population… AND the other 5% about half the time… is surely the most impressive Being in all of the universe.”

As Calvin (of comic strip fame) asked his playmate Hobbes the tiger: “Do you believe in the Devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?” To which a puzzled Hobbes replied: “I’m not sure man needs the help.” (The frustrated Calvin’s last word: “You just can’t talk to animals about these things.”)

A second point, so to speak, is to insist that the overall control of God in the “bad” as well as the good, is committed to the administration of angels, “his hosts, his ministers that do his will” (Psa 103:21).

Consider also:

“For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking” (Heb 2:5)… which implies that the present “world”, with all the evils which it endures — plagues, wars, and a thousand other dire calamities — IS under the control of the angels.

“Let US make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26). This can’t be Jesus as a person… we are surely all agreed on that. Certainly the most satisfying explanation of these words is that in the beginning, man was designed to be physically in the likeness of angels; hence the clear examples in the Bible of angels being mistaken for men (Gen 18:1,2; Jos 5:13; Mark 16:5).

The association of angels with the creation may also be read in such places as Job 38:4-7. Surely in many other places in the Bible which describe God’s control over the natural world, this control is really the hands-on work of the angels, His “elohim” (mighty ones).

The concept of good and “evil” in the world of Nature and human experience leads logically and inevitably to the conclusion that the vast unseen array of God’s ministers (Jesus spoke of 12 “legions”, tens of thousands, of angels!) include both angels of good and angels of “evil”.

Now we shall consider these angels of “evil”.

1. “For the LORD will pass through to slay the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over [the Hebrew means something like “hover over, to protect”: Isa 31:5, sw] the door, and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to slay you” (Exo 12:23). Here, in one verse, there is a protecting angel and a destroying angel, both working God’s will.

2. Evidently this same angel, or another like him, was sent out — by God! — against Israel in the wilderness: “Do not grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer” (1Co 10:10).

3. Psa 78 looks back to the plagues brought on Egypt… blood, lice, flies, frogs, locusts, hail, etc. Then in v 49 we read: “He let loose on them his fierce anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels.” (The KJV has “evil angels”, and the RV “angels of evil”). Notice that it is not possible to read here “wicked or sinful or morally evil angels”, because they were doing God’s work against Pharaoh and the land of Egypt.

4. Acts 12 also has a protecting angel and a destroying angel at work at Passover time again (vv 3,4). Peter, in prison, was freed by an angel (vv 7…), and then Herod his persecutor was struck down by an angel (v 23).

5. At still another Passover, Jerusalem was protected, and the Assyrian army was destroyed (Isa 37:36; 31:5,8).

6. In 1Ki 22:19… the downfall of Ahab is described as the result of angelic influence over the false prophets in whom the king trusted.

7. Perhaps also the “evil spirit FROM THE LORD” which troubled Saul (1Sa 16:14).

8. The angelic destruction in Jerusalem in the time of David was stopped by the command of the LORD (2Sa 24:16).

These passages at least (and there are a number of others) make a case for a dichotomy of sorts in the legions of God’s angels. Some are protecting spirits, guiding and guarding in unseen ways: “angels of good”. Others are destroying spirits, punishing and trying men: “angels of evil”. But ALL are angels who do the will of God. There are no “wicked, sinful angels of God”; wickedness is a trait exclusively the property of man. As Hobbes said, “I’m not sure man needs the help!”

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

[Exact date uncertain; generally assumed to be 5th or 6th century.]

It is proposed, first of all, to consider the main issue: the fitness of animal sacrifice in the millennial kingdom; then, secondly, to outline an alternative view to the traditional interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple vision (Eze 40-48); and, finally, to scan briefly the other Old Testament “sacrificial” prophecies.

A. The Main Issue

1. There should be no need for animal sacrifices after the perfect and once-for-all sacrifice of Christ: Heb 9:9,12,28; 10:4,11,12,14,18; Eph 2:15; Col 2:14; Rom 10:4.

Let us consider one passage from the Letter to the Hebrews:

“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming — not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, “Here I am — it is written about me in the scroll — I have come to do your will, O God.” ‘ [Quotation from Psalm 40:6-8]. First he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them’ (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, ‘Here I am, I have come to do your will.’ He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Heb 10:1-14).

Although this statement was in the first instance about the Law of Moses, it seems clear that certain basic principles about any sacrifice are being articulated here:

1. Once “perfection” comes, then sacrifices should stop being offered!

2. Sacrifices are by their very nature (because they require death, over and over?) a continual reminder of sin (the wages of which is death!), not a true cleansing from that sin. How appropriate will this be in the Kingdom? Will even the more “positive” sacrifices like burnt offerings and peace offerings (which are plainly included in Psa 40/Heb 10, as being fulfilled in Christ) be appropriate there? Would not their repetition still be a reminder of sin (which necessitated them in the first place), when what observers should be reminded of is the ultimate remedy for that sin, the Man who himself is physically present there?

3. Jesus is the One who came to do the will of God, and as such he IS sin offering, burnt offering, and peace offering… all rolled into one!

4. Through Jesus, God “set aside” the first covenant so that he might establish the “second”. The second covenant is “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:2), “the new covenant” (Heb 8:8-13; Jer 31:31-34) — under which the only true sacrifice is the Lord himself, once and for all time and for all men. So we must ask the question: Will there finally be, in the Kingdom Age, a “third” covenant, reinstituting other animal sacrifices (similar to the Law of Moses), which were presumably done away with by the “second” covenant?

5. The one sacrifice of Christ has made faithful men and women “perfect forever”. That perfect sacrifice has been enough for numerous generations of men and women, both Jews and Gentiles, who have lived and died from that day to this. Need there be some other sacrifice for future generations who live (and possibly die) during the Kingdom Age?

The Hebrews passages cited — in fact, the whole of the Letter — seems to be arguing for the imminent cessation of all Temple ritual (which happened in 70 AD) as God’s corroborating proof that the sacrifice of His Son had become, once and for all time, the only true, real, eternal Divine remedy for the human condition. (The same sort of divine proof was provided initially in the tearing of the veil to the Most Holy, from top to bottom, at the time of Christ’s crucifixion: Mat 27:51; Heb 10:20.) And, as Hebrews puts it, having offered that one perfect sacrifice at one time and one time only, Christ “sat down” (Heb 10:12) — ie, he ceased his priestly labors — at least in the particular of offering sacrifice. It seems that, whatever else we make of other passages, the Hebrews passages should be conclusive: all Temple sacrifice, and all animal sacrifice, has ceased to have any efficacy with the death and resurrection of Christ.

2. But perhaps the Kingdom sacrifices will not be effective for sin, but only commemorative? Or merely a “demonstration”?

a.	If so, then they will not be necessary, because Christ will be there, in the Kingdom, bearing in his own body the marks of his crucifixion (Zec 13:6; Joh 20:25-27; Rev 5:6). What better commemoration, what better demonstration, of God’s work of salvation could be imagined?
b.	Bread and wine are a sufficient and proper memorial (remembrance) of the sacrifice of Christ (Luk 22:16-19; 1Co 11:23-25). Surely, also, the “marriage supper of the Lamb” (or something very much like it, kept on an ongoing basis) will be a reasonable approximation of this feast in the Kingdom (Rev 19:7-9; Mat 22:2-4; Luk 14:15,16).
c.	If “commemorative” (ie, “look-back”) sacrifices will be acceptable (or even commanded?) in the Kingdom, then why were they not still the standard for believers in 30-70 AD? And why does the writer to the Hebrews go to such lengths to make his case for a “waxed old/ready to vanish away” Temple (Heb 8:13), along with all its services?
	There is a great incongruity in seeing animal sacrifices in the Kingdom as “demonstrations” of how God deals with “sin”. On the one hand, there will already be all the evidence anyone could wish… in the tangible, physical, visible body of the glorified Lord Jesus Christ… for the one perfect, complete, final “sacrifice-to-end-all-sacrifices”. On the other hand, (it is alleged) there will be a continuous procession of merely “demonstration” animal sacrifices which can never effectively accomplish anything (not even, as in the Law of Moses, to point to the Messiah who is yet to come, because… he is already there!) Secondly, if these Kingdom “sacrifices” are really only “demonstration”, then what we seem to have, in Eze 40-48, is a strange disproportion of emphasis:
	I.	a great deal of detail about buildings, priests, altars, and rituals — with elaborate measurements — all to sustain what is merely “demonstration”, but…
	II.	practically no detail about Christ’s throne or city or administration, about the role the immortal “priests” (as opposed to mortal Jewish priests?) will play in that Kingdom, about the “Marriage supper of the Lamb” — which will all be real, significant, and efficacious for all who participate!
d.	Gal 3:19: “The Law was added (only) until the Seed comes” — implying that, afterward, it would cease. There is a world of difference between words and laws and practices which are anticipatory (like the Law in OT times), and words and laws and practices which are retrospective (like the Breaking of Bread since then). The anticipatory ones are a “schoolmaster” (KJV) to lead to Christ: “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Gal 3:24,25). But is there really such a thing as a “schoolmaster” to lead us, or anyone, BACKWARD to the Law of Moses, and from thence — through that Law — forward to Christ again? If so, why would Paul in Galatians have some rather critical things to say about those who would lead Christian believers backward to the Law again?
	Is there, since we are on the subject, any difference between a “looking-forward” type and a “looking-backward” symbol? It would seem that “looking-forward” types — like the sacrifices and rituals of the Law of Moses — seem to have been designed by God to approximate as closely as possible the actual antitype, or fulfillment, when he/it comes. Also, the sacrifices of the Law were efficacious, in the sense that they were plainly stated to be for “sin” or for “cleansing”. In other words, those who knowledgeably and in faith offered the sacrifices or followed the rituals were expressing their trust in God and their hope in the One He would send, who would then render all such types obsolete. But in the meanwhile the Mosaic sacrifice itself was real, and was the medium through which, in faith, sins might be forgiven. But the “looking-backward” symbol (like the bread and wine of the memorial supper) seems to be designed by God only to recall or remember, but not to look like or imitate the actual deed — i.e., the literal sacrifice of Christ. And the bread and wine are not themselves the means to achieve forgiveness of sins. They merely remind partakers of that means. The reason for this distinction is logical and fairly obvious (in fact, it is the subtext of all the Letter to the Hebrews). Would not the killing of any animal and the pouring out of its blood and the consuming of its flesh — by more closely reproducing what was literally done to and by and with Jesus — appear to be an effective and sufficient substitute for the real thing? So why should the literal animal sacrifices cease with the perfect sacrifice of Christ? Based on the Hebrews letter, continual blood-shedding in the context of approach to God would tend, in the minds of some, to mitigate or even nullify altogether the wondrous and wonderful and unique blessing of the blood of Christ. Why is our commemoration of the body/blood of Christ done with bread/wine and not literal beef (steak, mutton, whatever) with its literal blood? Even if there is no direct Bible proof (is there?), it seems the answer is obvious: Because literal flesh and literal blood (of whatever animal, or human) would only tend to distract from, and lessen the appreciation of, HIS body/blood! Further, it might even look as though salvation were traceable, in whole or in part, to some source other than Christ. We rightly disparage the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation not just because such a “priest” cannot turn literal bread into literal flesh, and literal wine into literal blood… but also because — even if he could — such a “priest” would be offering the body and blood of Christ again and again, and such a practice would undermine the essence of Christ’s sacrifice, and transfer some of its merit to the practitioner/magician instead! Might not the idea of literal animal sacrifice in the Kingdom be open to similar criticisms?
e.	Finally, Ezekiel says — conclusively, it would seem — that the animal sacrifices he describes are in fact “for sin” (Eze 43:19-26; 45:17,22), which would seem — all by itself — to rule out the so-called “looking-back-to-Christ” rationale for such sacrifices in the Kingdom.

B. What about Ezekiel’s Temple?

The theory of animal sacrifice in the Kingdom rests primarily on Henry Sulley’s interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision in Eze 40-48. But, alternatively, it is now suggested that Ezekiel’s Temple was — in its primary fulfillment — actually a plan for a temple to be built by the Jews returning from Babylon to Jerusalem, in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Why is this so?

1.	The “Prince” of Eze 45; 46 was a mortal prince/ruler of Israel. How do we know this? Because (a) he offers sacrifice for his own sins (Eze 45:22; 46:10-12); (b) he is subject to death (Eze 46:17,18); and (c) he has a wife and sons (Eze 46:16), and (d) those sons will succeed him (Eze 45:8; 46:18). None of this may reasonably apply to the glorified Lord!
	As to point (a) above, how could it be that the glorified Messiah will be the “Prince”? This would mean that, in offering sacrifices, Jesus would be serving the altar, which would be a shadow of himself (Heb 13:10). “Shadow” and “substance” meet together, but the substance is made to serve the shadow? Surely this is the wrong way around! And surely the immortal Son of God would no longer need to offer sacrifice of any kind FOR HIMSELF!
2.	The priests of this Temple are mortal because: (a) they sweat (Eze 44:18); (b) they are commanded to drink no wine (Eze 44:21; ct Mat 26:29); (c) they die (Eze 44:22); and (d) they have no inheritance (Eze 44:28).
3.	This Temple has Levites who went/can go astray (Eze 44:10-14).
4.	Ezekiel’s temple vision is interspersed with exhortations to the house of Israel, not to Gentile believers: Eze 40:4; 44:6. In addition, the house of Israel is characterized as rebellious (?!): Eze 40:4; 44:6; 45:9. Contrast with Jer 31:31-34; 32:37-40; Eze 11:17-21; 36:24-28! (Will Israel in the Kingdom be “rebellious”?!)
5.	Eze 43:10-12: The prophecy is conditional: “IF they are ashamed…” So these verses may explain why Ezekiel’s vision was never brought to reality as intended in the days of Ezra. The whole vision of Eze 40-48 may be seen as one more unfulfilled promise of God to Israel — not unfulfilled because God is in any way slack concerning His promises, but unfulfilled because Israel was not capable of receiving its blessing.
6.	No uncircumcised person is allowed there (Eze 44:9). But what about Gentile saints, who are not necessarily circumcised? [If the point is that “circumcision” is that of the heart, and not of the flesh (i.e., not literal circumcision) — then how does this impact the literal reading of the rest of Eze 40-48 in a future, or millennial, context?]
7.	Ezekiel’s vision refers to “strangers” who have settled in the Land (Eze 47:22,23). This is very easy to relate to the time of the return from Babylon, but not so easy to relate to the Kingdom Age — since the land of Israel is supposed to be reserved for the twelve (mortal) tribes of Israel.
8.	Eze 47:18 describes an eastern border at the Jordan River. Eze 47:19 speaks of the “river” on the south, which is wadi El Arish, not Nile. These borders are consistent with the post-exilic Israel of Ezra’s day, but inconsistent with the extent of the Kingdom as described in Gen 15:18.
9.	Is Jerusalem one huge Temple area only — as Ezekiel seems to describe? Or is it a city without walls, and inhabited by children, as in Zec 2:4; 8:4,5?
10.	Ezekiel envisions a large Temple area, but no real city (the people of Israel mostly living elsewhere). Likewise, this is what Nehemiah sought to build (Neh 4:22; 7:4; 12:29). It seems he understood Ezekiel’s vision to be for his own day!
11.	Will the east gate be shut six days out of seven (Eze 46:1), or will it be always open (Isa 60:11; Rev 21:25)?
12.	Then there is the question: What is NOT described here? In this temple of Ezekiel’s vision there is no lavish use of gold and silver. There are no High Priestly garments of glory and beauty. No golden lampstand. No table for Bread of the Presence… etc., etc…
	Splendid and holy as Ezra and Nehemiah’s new Temple would be, its limitations and omissions would only emphasize to the minds of those Jews who saw it the continuing need for a new and better order, with a Messiah who would be both Prince and Priest, and who would offer one sacrifice that would be all-sufficient, and not merely temporary and typical.

So Ezra and Nehemiah saw an initial fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy — while it is possible that a future fulfillment yet awaits us. However, even IF that is so — and given the examples of other latter-day fulfillments of previously-fulfilled prophecies (eg, see under C below)– we may well ask: How much of the detail about animal sacrifices, etc., need be fulfilled literally in a second — or millennial — fulfillment?

It is not contended here that there cannot or will not be a physical temple structure in the Millennium; such a building might serve a useful function as a gathering center and place of worship. But it is suggested that the true “temple” of the Millennium will be the immortal saints of God. Anything else, such as a structure of wood and stone, may be desirable to keep the mortals from getting their heads wet when it rains … but such a structure will never, in the eternal Scriptural sense, be the “temple of the living God” (see Acts 7:48, for example). (Many are the NT passages that show that “WE — the Body of Christ — are God’s true temple”: 1Co 3:16,17; 6:19; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:19-22; Heb 3:6; 10:21,22; 1Pe 2:5; Rev 3:12; 21:22,23.)

C. Other prophecies of animal sacrifices in the Kingdom?

But what about those prophecies, other than Eze 40-48, that appear to describe animal sacrifice in the Kingdom (eg, Isa 19:19-25; 56:6,7; 60:6,7; Mal 3:1-4; Zec 14:16-19; and perhaps a couple of others)? What should we make of them?

1.	First of all (and this is fundamental!), are there any… ANY… NEW TESTAMENT prophecies about animal sacrifice in the Kingdom? If not, then the key point is this: Every such prophecy that even suggests animal sacrifice in the Kingdom was written BEFORE Christ’s sacrifice. Thus it is susceptible to interpretation and reorientation… now… in light of that final, absolute, “be-all-and-end-all” sacrifice. In the future fulfillment, therefore, what is merely ritual will understandably give way to the reality!
2.	Christ is the end (goal, completion) of the Law (Rom 10:4; Gal 3:24) because he is the antitype, or fulfillment (Mat 5:17; 3:15; Rom 8:4), of all the salvational aspects of the Mosaic Law — including the various animal sacrifices (Heb 10:3-12; 9:11-15).
3.	Christ expressly said that his Memorial Feast was the (new) Passover (Luk 22:15). He kept his “Passover” with his disciples in the upper room, where there was no lamb — because he was himself the Lamb (Joh 1:29,36; Act 8:32; 1Pe 1:19). So Paul exhorts NT believers to keep the “Passover” with Christ (“our passover lamb”) and the “unleavened bread” of sincerity and truth (1Co 5:7,8). In summary, after Christ’s crucifixion, Paul gives the OT Passover a NT spiritual application (the breaking of bread, memorializing believers’ deliverance from the “Egypt” of sin and death). This “spiritual allegory” of the Passover, employed by Paul and other NT writers, becomes a pattern for viewing the other OT prophecies about various feasts and animal sacrifices in a NT context.
4.	Moreover, there are other examples of OT prophecies which we easily interpret in a “modern” fashion. Consider, for example…
	(a)	Isa 2:4 / Mic 4:3 / Joel 3:10: Does anyone today actually suppose that these prophecies are literally about 20th (or 21st)-century swords and spears and plowshares and pruning hooks? No, of course not. For a “modern” interpretation, we readily substitute “tanks” and “missiles” and “tractors” and “harvesters”. But if that is what the prophecy is about, why didn’t Isaiah and Micah and Joel use such terms in the first place? Simply because their original audiences/readers would not have understood them. And so we (almost intuitively) learn to “modernize” certain OT language to align with our own changed and changing circumstances.
	Other examples…
	(b)	Zec 14: A kingdom prophecy in a context that suggests actual animal sacrifice (v. 16: the feast of tabernacles). But are those really literal bells on literal horses (v 20)? And will most nations in the future be seriously concerned about plagues coming upon their camels and donkeys and mules (v 15)? Isn’t some “allegorizing” required here?
		Perhaps the seven-day Feast of Tabernacles for all the nations, described in Zec 14, will resemble a grand and glorious and continuous “Bible school” of the Kingdom? One where the sacrifices offered to the Father will no longer be slain animals, but a prayerful and praise-filled participation in the “marriage supper of the Lamb”?
	(c)	Mic 4:4: Will everyone be required or expected to have his or her own vine and fig tree in the Kingdom? How literally should we read this verse?
	(d)	Amo 9:13: Literal treading out of grapes in the Kingdom?
	(e)	Isa 52:1: Will uncircumcised immortal saints be excluded from Zion? (Or do we give “circumcised” and “uncircumcised” symbolic meanings here? And if so, then what else may legitimately be given symbolic meanings?)
	(f)	Zec 9:10: Battle bows? Are these literal?
	The list could go on and on….

So why not see the “animal sacrifices” of Kingdom prophecies as signifying the continuing memorial — through bread and wine, even in the Kingdom age — of the one perfect and final offering for sin, the Lord Jesus Christ? “I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luk 22:18); and then our Lord will celebrate with us, and others, the “marriage supper of the Lamb”!

And why not see the other “offerings” of the Kingdom age as, among other things, the “sacrifice of praise — the fruit of lips that confess his name” (Heb 13:15). The writer to the Hebrews is quoting Hos 14:2, where the phrase is, literally, the “calves of our lips”– an interesting juxtaposition of ideas!

Such, it is suggested, will be — for immortals and mortals alike — the proper “sacrifices” offered to God in the Kingdom age.

“You do not delight (only?) in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings (only?). The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Psa 51:16,17).

D. Who will be the priests of Christ’s Millennial Temple?

Who will be the “priests” of Christ’s Millennial Temple? WE — the immortal saints — will be the priests: Heb 13:15,16; 1Pe 2:5,9; Rev 1:6; 5:10 should be conclusive, and there are many similar passages.

And then there is Rom 15:15,16, which is properly — and pointedly — translated in the NIV: “I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the PRIESTLY DUTY of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an OFFERING acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” So by the New Covenant, Paul — of Benjamin, not Levi! — sees himself as a priest of God! And his “offering”? The Gentiles who believe through his preaching.

Even in OT times, it was always a significant part of the priests’ duty to read and interpret the word of God, and to instruct, teach, and exhort others (Deu 33:10; Ezr 7:10; Neh 8:2-9; 2Ch 15:3; 17:7-9; 35:3; Mal 2:7). This great function will be taken over in the Kingdom by the immortal saints, who under the authority of their Lord will then be God’s true “priests”.

But what about Jer 33:18? “Neither shall the priests the Levites want (or, never shall they fail to have: NIV) a man before me to offer burnt offerings… continually.”

The concept of “burnt offerings” in the Kingdom has been addressed already in section C above. The real question here is: will the Levites always have a man to serve God, on their behalf, even in the Kingdom Age?

To which three responses may be made, each in itself possible but not necessarily mutually exclusive of the others:

(1)	Exactly the same words (in Hebrew) are used in Jos 9:23: “You [the Gibeonites] are now under a curse: You will never cease to serve as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of my God.” Does this mean an eternal curse on the Gibeonites, extending into the Millennium?
(2)	Will there be a “Levitical priesthood” in the future Kingdom, which will have to be composed only of literal descendants of Levi? No, no more than the “seed of Abraham” need be composed only of literal descendants of Abraham! So why not a “spiritual seed” of Levi as well?

And/or…

(3)

How about this? Put as simply as possible, this verse might be paraphrased: ‘The priests the Levites shall never fail to have a man to stand before me as their true mediator and High Priest, and that man is Jesus the son of David!’ He is the Levites’ “man” — no matter from whom he is naturally descended — just like he is our “man”– no matter from whom WE are naturally descended!

Postscript

The writer desires at this point to be a bit more personal…

For me, there is a significant issue here, which has deep roots in my personal feelings and attitudes.

Probably like many of you, I have meditated about what the Kingdom will be like. For me, what makes such meditation real is thinking about actually being in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, in a more tangible way than is possible now. 1Jo 1:1 comes to mind: “That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at, and our hands have touched — the Word of Life!” Will we — like John and the other apostles — actually see, hear, and even touch him then? The prospect of that fellowship makes the Kingdom real to me, real and inexpressibly beautiful.

But alongside this, I am asked to contemplate — right next door, as it were — herds of cattle and sheep and goats being slain, their blood flowing down and staining the ground… priests’ robes soaked in blood… while here, with me, is the great Son of God, himself alone the one true and perfect sacrifice!?

I can picture attending the “Marriage supper of the Lamb”, with candles, music, food and drink, the most exalted of fellowship and communion, conversation on the wonders and glories of God’s recreated “world” all around us with others whose experiences are so much like our own. Even, perhaps, the breaking of bread and drinking of wine in the very presence of Jesus, the presider, our “Lord”, our “Husband”… the actual marks and wounds in his hands and feet testifying who he is and where he came from, and what he has done… for us! “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on UNTIL that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Mat 26:29). That… THAT… is our salvation!

But then, to step right outside the door of the “bridal chamber”, as it were — and to see, always, the processions of more and more animals, to hear the bleatings of more and more lambs, and the bellows of more and more cattle — whose apparently endless streams of blood can never wash away sin — all I can say is, What a jangling of dissonant chords!

Will the world really need “demonstrations” of the slaughter of countless animals at the hands of fallible, mortal Jews (or even immortal saints, for that matter)… when it can SEE the man who rendered such exercises essentially meaningless? The man who laid down his own life for all God’s children — past, present, and future — and who is now alive forevermore, enjoying the company of the great host of redeemed ones, out of all nations, whom he cherishes and who cherish him?

Is that what worship in the Kingdom will really be like? Maybe it is… maybe it will be just like that… and the fault is mine for not understanding and appreciating it as I should. But something inside me keeps whispering, ‘This just doesn’t seem right!’

What do you think?

There are two main words, with their compounds, for “anoint”.

Classically, “chrio” has the idea of “smear” or “daub”. This comes out in the use of “epichrio” for the Lord’s smearing of mud on the eyes of the blind man (Joh 9:6,11). The same idea is there in the exhortation to Laodicea to “anoint thine eyes with eyesalve that thou mayest see” (Rev 3:18), an allusion back to the blind man just mentioned? — only here the word is “enchrio”, suggesting that the ointment be rubbed well in.

However, in the Bible, “chrio” and its highly important derivative “christos” lose the idea of smearing, and take on the notion of anointing for some holy office. In the OT (LXX) it is used often for the anointing of priests especially and the dedication of the equipment of the sanctuary, less often of the anointing of kings (eg Saul, David, Solomon) and on at least one occasion regarding the office of prophet: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek….” (Isa 61:1). Compare also Elisha: 1Ki 19:16.

In all these OT examples the Hebrew original is “mashiach”, from whence is derived “Messiah”.

Out of five passages, “chrio” is four times used of the anointing of Jesus. In each of these the emphasis is on declaring him to be Christ (Luk 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb 1:9).

How daring, then, for Paul to use this word with reference to himself and his fellow-preachers! But he does so only because he recognizes Christ at work and themselves as humble instruments in that work: “He which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God” (2Co 1:21: a link with Luk 4:18 — “anointed to preach” — is not difficult). In the next verse Paul alludes to the gift of the Spirit as the anointing oil (only he changes the figure): “Who hath also sealed us, and given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”

Similarly the apostle John twice refers to the gift of the Spirit as an “anointing” (‘chrisma’: 1Jo 2:20,27). Here the allusion (see context in both places) may be to Spirit gifts of interpretation and “discerning of spirits”, or it may be to the Spirit’s guidance given them through the apostles; it is difficult to be sure.

“Aleipho” is used where the anointing does not signify an appointing to office as prophet, priest or king. Hence it is used of the anointing of Jesus (Luk 7:38,46; Joh 12:3), and of the anointing of the sick by the apostles (Mar 6:13; Jam 5:14).

The more emphatic “exaleipho” is the equivalent of OT “machah”, used of wiping a dish (2Ki 21:13), euphemistically of the appetite of a whore (Pro 30:20) and of the blotting out of a man’s name from remembrance (Exo 17:14; 32:32; cp Rev 3:5). But in the NT there is significant use of this word not with respect to a man’s sins but to the “handwriting of ordinances” (Col 2:14) which makes his sin evident!

Specially important is the use of “exaleipho” with reference to the “anointing out” of the sins of Israel on the Day of Atonement through the splashing of sin-offering blood on the mercy seat: “I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions” (Isa 43:25; 44:22; and cp Jer 18:23; Psa 69:28). This, for certain, is the allusion in Acts 3:19: “Repent ye therefore… that your sins may be blotted out, and that there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord (reference to the high priest returning from the Holy of Holies to bless the people).” There is a long list of reasons why it should be concluded that the healing of the lame man and this ensuing discourse should be regarded as taking place on the Day of Atonement.

That sordid imprecation uttered against David: “Let not the sin of his mother be blotted out” (Psa 109:14), was probably spoken with reference to the trial of jealousy detailed in Num 5: “The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water” (v 23). The suggestion that has been made, that there was some truth in this beastly insinuation regarding the mother of David (and Jesus), does not deserve a moment’s consideration, any more than the other imprecations spoken in that psalm against the Lord’s anointed.

Not only the anointing out of sins is signified, but also of the misery which is the outcome of those sins: “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” The Lord found this worth repeating twice from Isa 25:8 (Rev 7:17; 21:4).

There is just one occurrence of the word “murizo” (from “muron”, myrrh). Whereas John’s records uses “aleipho” (Joh 12:3) for the anointing of Jesus, the Lord himself preferred “murizo” because of its associations with the embalming of a corpse: “She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying” (Mar 14:8).