The Simple Answers… To Life’s Most Important Questions.
Bible Study Course Lesson 10 – 7
Most things in the Bible are simpler than we think. True, there’s a lot of details, and we can be forgiven for missing a needle now and then in the haystack of statutes and he begats and so on; but more often than not, the truth is staring us in the face.
In 1 Peter 2:9 for instance, God says that we are a “a royal priesthood”. Now what does that mean, exactly? Or in Revelation 1:6, John says (as the beasts and elders later say), that God has saved us and made us “kings and priests unto God”.
Are we going to be kings? Or are we going to be priests? Are some of us going to be the one and some going to be the other? Or are we, as Peter literally said, going to be BOTH; a royal priesthood… priests who are kings. But again… what does that even mean? The Hebrew word priest is kohen, which is a common Jewish surname to this day. It does not refer, as is commonly supposed, to Levites in general, to the Kohathites,
Gerarites, and Merarites, but only and exclusively to the sons of Aaron. This is important, so let’s wade through some verses here. Who are the priests? Exodus 28:1, 29:44, 30:30, 40:13-15; it goes on like this a lot, but my point is made. So when it refers to priests elsewhere, to whom is it referring? Leviticus 1:5; having clarified that point, God doesn’t repeat it every time in Leviticus ( Leviticus 1:11-17, etc). See also Leviticus 2:2, 8-9, 16, etc.
So when “the priest” is mentioned, it always and only refers to Aaron’s household; see Leviticus 6:20-29. Who was the priest again? Numbers 3:3-10. So “priest” here clearly excludes all non-Aaronites, particularly the Levites who were not priests. You could be confused by verses like Deuteronomy 17:9, 12, 18, which seem to imply that Levites in general could be considered priests; but remember, only Aaron’s family could “minister there before the Lord”.
Deuteronomy 18:1 makes a division between “the priests the Levites” and “all of the tribe of Levi” who were, therefore, not priests (see also Ezra 3:8). This was the whole reason for the rebellion of Korah (Numbers 16:10), which proves Korah and the other sons of Levi were not priests – because they wanted to be!
There are tons of verses that show the same thing; but except for priests who were not Israelite, like Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18), or pagan priests (Genesis 41:45, 1 Samuel 6:2, Judges 18:30, etc.), if the Bible uses the word priest, it invariably refers to the house of Aaron.
AARON’S ROYAL ATTIRE
Aaron was by far the richest man in Israel. Consider what God gave him in Numbers 18:8-20. This was exclusively given to Aaron, to share with his family; other Levites had their own portion in Numbers 18:21-24. So Aaron was, financially at least, as wealthy as a king and looked the part.
Consider how Aaron dressed (Exodus 28). These clothes were expensive. Setting aside the volume of gold chains and plates, which was never cheap, and the precious stones which were a king’s ransom, the dyes to make blue, purple, and scarlet were extremely expensive at the time – only royalty could dress in this sort of clothes.
But remember: this was Middle Eastern, pre-Christian, hot-arid-climate royalty. It’s easy to forget sometimes that King David dressed nothing like King Henry VIII. That the palace of Solomon looked nothing like Versailles. Culturally, Biblical characters have much more in common with an Ottoman sultan or an Iranian shah than a Hapsburg prince.
With that in mind, the undergarment was of white linen (Exodus 39:27-30), and it was tied together with a girdle of dyed linen woven together with gold (verses 1-5); golden wire was woven with linen strands of blue, red, scarlet, and white, to make a “cloth of gold” to tie the girdle and the breastplate on.
Upon Aaron’s head was a “holy crown” of gold attached to a “high mitre” (verses 30-31, Exodus 28:36-39). The “crown” was made of cloth, so this was not a crown as we understand the term; rather, it would have been a kind of turban around Aaron’s head, with a golden plate across the front that said “holiness unto the Lord”.
The word translated as “plate” in fact means “flower-like”, so it’s likely it was more than a simple nameplate, rather some sort of a flowery or sunburst shape, attached to a tiara-like band and tied on to the turban with blue cloth. A very similar image seems to be shown in Isaiah 28:5, where the Lord wears a “crown” with a “diadem” on it. The Hebrew word for diadem here suggests roundness. You can see this was associated with kingship in Ezekiel 21:25-26; therefore the priest’s crown suggested something the kings of Israel might have worn.
At right, you can see a picture of an Ottoman king from the 18th century, to give you an idea of how Middle Eastern culture wears “crowns” and “diadems”. Aaron’s crown didn’t look like this – but it was much closer to this than to what most people imagine it would look like. Regardless, from the crown on his head, to the clothes he wore, to the jewels he carried, everything about Aaron suggested royalty. Because he was meant to be the leader of a nation of priests! Remember, that was the goal for all of Israel in Exodus 19:5-6; Aaron was merely meant to be the first among them, their king-priest!
Which is what God has planned for us as well – when we become priests of God and REIGN with Christ! (Revelation 20:6). I mean think about it; how can priests reign if they aren’t, you know… also kings? And in that day, we will have the same kind of diadem
(Revelation 22:4). After all, “holiness unto the Lord” on your turban is literally “His name being upon your forehead”! Back to God’s plan for Israel, God had intended for “the law to go forth from Jerusalem” and conquer the world using this holy nation (Isaiah 2:2-4). That plan had to be put on hold after Israel’s rejection of the covenant in Deuteronomy 5:23-30, but this had always been the plan, and God won’t give up until it happens!
Up until that point, the whole nation was “coming near unto God”, and “hearing His voice”. Which is the definition of the job of a priest! And if you read that passage closely in Isaiah 2, it is clear that every Israelite was meant to be an “apostle” to teach other nations the way of God. And those Israelites would exercise power and authority over those nations as a result, being, therefore, their priests and kings!
Instead, those who should have been teachers had need that someone teach them again the basic principles of their religion (Hebrews 5:10-14). Note that this was addressed to these same Hebrews, and that the context is specifically the knowledge of the priesthood of Melchizedek they rejected! (Hosea 4:6).
So the “salt of the Earth” needed someone appointed just to salt them, and those who should have been priests of the Earth needed their own royal priesthood to keep them in line! So God appointed Aaron as a priest who would live and reign with Christ.
Fun fact: the priesthood was established around 1500 B.C. The first temple was destroyed, the one where the Lord dwelt among the sons of Aaron, and the nation was scattered in 585 B.C. After that, the nation was never independent again, always subjected to foreign rulers (except a brief period under the Maccabees, which, depending on how you reckon their independence, tidily fills up the millennium). Thus, Aaron “lived and reigned with Christ for (about) 1,000 years”. Of course… that could be a coincidence.
THE HIGH PRIEST(S)?
Initially, the difference between “priest”, son of Aaron, and “high priest”, Aaron himself, was less. Remember, Aaron and all his sons were anointed; Aaron was the father and thus the elder, but all of them were “the anointed priest” (Exodus 30:30, Exodus 40:13-16). Thus, any of them could have performed any of the necessary sacrificial roles that only the high priest could do, for all of them were “the anointed priest”, therefore a “high priest”, since God uses the anointing oil as the definition of who is, and who is not, the high priest (Numbers 35:25).
During the wilderness, this was eminently practical; for clearly, Aaron and his sons had to enter the vail in order to cover the mercy seat when the tabernacle was moved (Numbers 4:5-6). The vail itself had to be removed and packaged for transit, on a fairly regular basis, and the 120-year-old high priest alone couldn’t have easily handled such a large and heavy fabric.
So having five “high priests”, one of whom was “elder high priest”, was very useful in the wilderness. And we have every reason to believe that God intended to continue anointing all future sons and grandsons of Aaron, as they came of age, to work in the holy and most holy place. So that all would be, effectively, “high priests”.
Yet later, the anointing was only given to the high priest who would succeed Aaron (Leviticus 6:22).
Which seems to mean that all future sons of the high priest and their descendants were only anointed if,
and when, they became the high priest! (Leviticus 16:32). In any case, we have no record of anyone
but the heir of Aaron being anointed, from this point forward.
So we went from anointing all of Aaron’s family to share in the anointing; to only anointing a single
high priest. Which explains why we see Aaron’s sons offering incense before the Lord in Leviticus
10:1-2. Now obviously, they died for this; and yet they didn’t die for offering the incense, which they
were in fact permitted to do (Numbers 18:7, note this includes his sons doing the things within the
vail).
They were killed for offering strange fire before the Lord, not offering incense! But what does that
mean, “strange” fire? One fire is the same as any other, right? No, because the incense was specifically
supposed to be burned with the particular coals from the holy altar (Leviticus 16:12).
A regular campfire coal wouldn’t do. Why did God care so much? Remember what the coals on the
altar represented: true houses of the Ekklesia. And the incense represented the prayers of the saints
(Psalms 141:2).
So the prayers of “saints” from the houses that Nadab and Abihu were bringing pictured other houses,
led by other “flames of fire” who did not obey God and therefore were not part of the coals on His
altar, which were therefore an abomination unto Him! (Proverbs 28:9).
Thus, Nadab and Abihu were, in symbol, bringing the prayers of their own false churches, their own
false houses, into God’s temple! Thinking their own misled people were “true Christians” just the same
as the people Jesus had actually called as His own!
As a direct result of the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, and to minimize the risk to the remaining priests,
God created a new set of statutes for them (Leviticus 16:1-2). Obviously this was news, since God
wouldn’t have had to tell Aaron something he already knew.
This limits Aaron, and Aaron alone, to entering the holy place. I want to stress that this was explicitly
said as a direct consequence of Aaron’s son’s actions (verse 1), and I suspect also as a result of Aaron’s
pouty reaction to it in Leviticus 10:17-20.
This was the first time there was mention of the most holy place being off limits for everyone, except
one day a year (Hebrews 9:6-7). As Paul put it: the law was added because of transgressions
(Galatians 3:19), just as Eve wasn’t told to obey her husband until after she had proved she couldn’t
rule herself (Genesis 3:16).
And so from that point forward, no son of Aaron, except he who was destined to be high priest, would
be anointed to handle the most holy things; and as a purely practical matter, after the wilderness, when
the tabernacle was rarely moved, it was far less important to have several “high-type” priests at the
same time.
THE ANOINTING
Despite originally having five anointed priests, from the entry to the Promised Land onwards there was
only ever one at a time. In fact, the proof that someone is the “high priest” is that he was the “anointed”.
5
Interestingly, with the exception of Aaron and his sons, no one was anointed in the first five books of
the Bible.
This is vital; no one but the high priests were anointed. Not Moses, not Joshua; not Abraham or the
patriarchs. Until Saul in 1 Samuel 9:16, and later David, this honor was saved exclusively and I mean
exclusively, on pain of death, to the high priest (Exodus 30:25-38).
Therefore, being “anointed” means, by definition, that you are the high priest (Numbers 35:25
again). Now that seems to conflict with David and Saul, but in fact it doesn’t; because David ate the
shewbread blamelessly… because it was set aside (made holy) for those who were anointed (Numbers
18:8-13).
Note that this was Aaron’s because of the anointing oil. Which David had also received! (2 Samuel
23:1-5). Making him, in a manner of speaking, a kind of high priest (as I’ve said before in Series 9). Saul,
likewise, was “among the prophets” (1 Samuel 10:10-12).
And the prophets, as I said in that lesson, were effectively of the family of the high priest – as were the
kings, because of the anointing. And like most logic, it works both ways; for if king David was, by the
anointing oil, a kind of the family of the high priest…
…then Aaron was, by the same anointing oil, a kind of king… Because Aaron’s house was a ROYAL
priesthood! Just as Melchizedek was both king of peace AND priest of the Most High God! Just as
Jesus was born to be a king and rule all nations (John 18:37); and also made a priest after the order of
Melchizedek (Hebrews 6:20).
And just as Aaron was both a king and a priest in Israel, in type – if only in that He spoke for the true
King (God) and for the true Priest (Jesus). And by representing Them, acting in Their stead, became,
effectively, a king and a priest to the nation.
KINGS AND PRIESTS
God was meant to be their king (1 Samuel 12:12). And it was the role of the Levite to go to God, and
bring His words to the people (Deuteronomy 5:24-28). First, this was done by Moses, but that was a job
that the priesthood was supposed to take over after his death (Deuteronomy 17:8-11).
The priest’s judgment was meant to be law – which was the exact role of a king (Deuteronomy 21:5 vs.
1 Samuel 8:19-20). So for all practical purposes, the sons of Aaron were the kings of Israel, BUT they
were in fact only messengers of the true King, stewards of the King’s house.
That meant that the people had to trust that the priest was, indeed, speaking for the King; and for a
faithless people, this was too hard. Let them be judged by a man whom they could see, understand, and
criticize; not by a cloud in a dark room in a tent.
And so God gave them visible kings. Since a priest-king who merely spoke for the true King wasn’t
authoritative enough for the stubborn Israelites, God divided the government between an anointed priest
and an anointed king!
He took some of the authority away from Aaron and gave it to Saul, by the anointing he gave him.
Creating two branches of authority – the priest-kings of Aaron who ruled by words, but not by force; and
6
the visible kings like Saul, David, and Jeroboam who ruled by force. Two separate representatives of
two separate parts of the authority of Melchizedek.
Theoretically, the priest-king still had authority over the king; he was a royal priest, after all. Yet in
practice, since the priest didn’t have an army, the king could do whatever he wanted. Because ruling for
God by proxy means you rule by the threat of force from the true King.
But when people no longer fear the threat (Psalms 50:21)… or when the Lord delays His coming (Luke
12:45)… they will start thinking they can do whatever they want without consequences (Ecclesiastes
8:11). Meaning that, in this world, the point of a king’s sword always wins over the threat of hellfire.
But that doesn’t make him the true King. It doesn’t make the civil government a higher authority than the
spiritual government; it simply means the true spiritual government is permitting the civil government to
rebel for its own higher purposes.
Letting a civil king have the powers to unilaterally decide to ignore the priest of the true King, letting him
use his armies to slaughter priests because he can (1 Kings 19:14, Mark 6:24-28, etc.), does not make
the civil king a higher authority; it merely looks that way in the short term (2 Kings 9:6-10, Acts
12:21-23, etc.).
Thus, Aaron never ceased to be the royal priesthood, and priests and prophets never ceased to outrank the
kings of Israel. No matter how little the kings respected the authority of the priesthood at times, the
priesthood was always, technically, in charge.
Because whenever God really wanted them to be respected… well, a little leprosy does wonders
(2 Chronicles 26:18-21). Because the Most High – and by extension, His ministers – rules in the
kingdoms of men (Daniel 4:17).
THE PATTERN SHEWED THEE
Levi had three sons, and so God created three broad divisions among the work in the tabernacle they
would do – the setting up of the tent, the setting up of the outer courts, and the carrying of the holy vessels.
They were holyish, but not holy in the sense that one could call them “saints”.
But no non-Aaronite was ever called a priest; none of them were anointed, none of them dressed in
Aaron’s robes, wore Aaron’s perfume, offered incense in the temple. They existed solely to assist Aaron
at his job, but they did not do his job. Ever.
None of these non-Aaronite Levites were involved in sacrificing of any kind. So fix this firmly in your
mind: there is no such thing as a non-Aaronite priest, because ALL priests were sons of Aaron, and other
Levites were not priests.
I know I’ve said this before, but it bears underlining it because until you know precisely who a priest was,
and the distinction between a priest and a Levite, you wouldn’t be able to learn why God made sure that
Moses made all things, even Aaron’s garments, “according to the pattern shown you in the mount”.
The “mount of God”, which Sinai was frequently called (Exodus 24:13), is a well established symbol of
the kingdom of God, which presently is based in heaven (Hebrews 12:18-28). Which means that Sinai
pictured God’s kingdom in heaven…
7
…and more importantly, the things Moses saw on that mount were symbols of things IN that
heavenly kingdom! And – here is the part people have missed for so long – so were the people who
WORKED with those things! They, too, were symbols of beings in heaven!
Which is why it was so vital that Moses dress Aaron and his sons properly, because Aaron pictured a
particular angel, the high priest of the temple in heaven… and his “sons”. And if Moses hadn’t dressed
them properly, we wouldn’t have recognized their heavenly counterparts in Revelation 15:5-6.
These seven are dressed in linen, with golden girdles; which is how the sons of Aaron dressed. Elsewhere
in Revelation we see the same seven angels coming out of the temple, plus one other one besides
(Revelation 8:2-6).
Remember, no one but “priests, the sons of Aaron” would have ever been in the temple (Numbers
18:1-7). It is these same seven angels who are given seven trumpets to blow. But who was allowed to
blow the trumpets in Israel? (Numbers 10:2-8).
Note that this job was specifically reserved for the sons of Aaron. No one who was not an Aaronite, not a
priest, could blow these trumpets! Furthermore, in what is obviously an apocalyptic symbol, seven
priests with seven trumpets walk around Jericho, before the walls finally fall when the trumpets blow.
This cannot be an accident, when seven angels blow seven trumpets before the kingdom becomes the
Lord’s (Revelation 11:13-19, Joshua 6:12-21). While there are differences – seven angels blowing
consecutively, as opposed to simultaneously, for instance – the similarities outweigh the exceptions.
Consider that the ark is involved in both stories, there are earthquakes, kingdoms being captured – even
ex-harlots being saved. But for now my only point is that we see seven angels blowing seven trumpets
which no one but the priests, the sons of Aaron could have done!
Which means that these seven angels are, beyond all argument, heavenly Aaronites! Priests!
SONS OF ANGELS
The angel we see in Revelation 8:2-3 besides these seven is obviously not one of the seven. So who is he?
Well, he was placing incense on the altar; and only anointed high priests could have offered incense
(Exodus 30:7-9, 1 Chronicles 6:48-49, 2 Chronicles 26:18-21); indeed, anyone else who tried it ended
up as a burnt offering (Numbers 16:18, 35-40).
Furthermore, the altar of incense was inside the vail of the most holy place (Hebrews 9:3-4, Leviticus
16:12). No one but Aaron was ever allowed in there; not even his sons, not until they were anointed as
high priest in his place. Therefore, this can only be the heavenly high priest himself, making the other
seven the priests under him – his “sons”.
But what does it mean for an angel to have a son? We assume, not without reason, that angels can’t
procreate (Matthew 22:30). And yet this verse is hardly ironclad (one need not marry to have children,
just to state one objection).
However, given that the angels are all juvenile Elohim, it stands to reason that like all juveniles, they are
“infertile” until they go through puberty. Yet they are obviously beyond the “egg” stage wherein we
procreate; so it would make sense that they are somewhere in the middle, not yet able to have Elohim
children of their own, yet too old to have beast children like us.
8
But what does it mean to have a son in general? It means a being made out of your spirit, made into
your image or likeness. Thus, it can mean anything from literal children to spiritual children; literal
adoption into a physical house, or spiritual adoption into a spiritual house, as in the ekklesia.
So in this sense, if God said to the angelic Aaron “you are my high priest”, and then created seven other
angels more-or-less like him to assist him – as He put the spirit of Moses upon the 70 elders – then they
would be his sons because they have his spirit in them, which is the clearest definition of a son.
Or if God simply said “here are seven angels to help you”, and they, while working for Aaron, started to
act and think like him, then in that sense, they would become his sons – even if they had begun as mere
servants (Proverbs 29:21).
And yet there’s also another sense, which is the concept of a successor. There are a lot of generations in
the Bible, and if these genealogies do indeed indicate some sort of list of angels, we have to explain why
angels who don’t have children have so many generations of, well, children.
But this isn’t as big a problem as it might seem; for if an angel sins, he would be stripped of his
priesthood and cast out of heaven. Thus, angels who can’t “die” could die – for the purposes of the
priesthood. After all, isn’t that the idea behind sacrificing a bullock for himself? To die, for the purposes
of the priesthood? (Leviticus 16:6).
But the jobs in God’s temple cannot be vacant for long. So whatever bishoprick that angel was managing,
would be given to the eldest angel below him – and that angel who replaced him would be his heir – and
thus, in still another sense, his son.
The other angels then become the new priests’ son, in a sense, as they take his spirit in them for whatever
length of time he rules. If he then sins grievously and gets likewise cast out of heaven, then his “son”
would rule in his stead. And so on.
THE WIFE OF THE PRIEST
So these seven were of Aaron’s house, because no one but Aaron’s family could be inside the temple
itself. Only priests. And yet there were no seven sons of the house of Aaron. If the pattern were true,
we would expect him to have seven sons – not four, of whom two died.
Furthermore, even if we count grandsons and such, at no point in the genealogy are there stated to be
exactly seven heirs of Aaron either (yes, I checked). In fact, the number 7 seems to be completely
absent in Aaron’s house. Seems to be. Because we’re looking in the wrong place.
But in order to show you where the seven are in the pattern of Aaron, we have to first explain
something we know much better – the house of Jesus. We know we are meant to be a royal priesthood,
which is specifically called a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5). We know that a house is another word for
body (2 Corinthians 5:1-2).
We know that the body of Christ is female (Romans 7:4, 2 Corinthians 11:2), and specifically that the
body of Christ, the ekklesia, and the bride of Christ are synonymous (Ephesians 5:25-29). We also
know that the body has many members (1 Corinthians 12:12, 20).
9
No matter how many actual members there are in the ekklesia, it remains a single ekklesia. And no
matter how many children she may have, they are all an innate part of her – for all form a part of the
house of her Husband, and thus His body, and thus… her.
Thus, the bride of Christ is all the members of Christ’s house, for what is your house if not all the
members that come out of your bride? Now if all that is true of GOD’s high priest’s bride… the
bride of Christ…
Then logic says it should also be true of the LORD’s high priest’s bride – thus, of Aaron’s bride as
well! Whose ministry and priesthood was explicitly meant to mirror the priesthood of Jesus! And
whose wife should mirror his wife as well!
Therefore, the bride of Aaron would be ALL the members of Aaron’s house, however many they may
be. For what is his house, if not those beings which came out of the body of his wife? Thus, all of
the children she may have are a part of her.
With that in mind, remember that “every word of God is profitable”, no matter how trivial it may seem.
And it just so happens that we know the name of Aaron’s wife. Nothing is said about her, but she is
one of the very few women mentioned by name – which means it’s important – in Exodus 6:23.
So Mrs. Aaron was called Elisheba. You’re more familiar with this name by its English version,
Elizabeth, as it appears in the NT as John the Baptist’s mom’s name. And it means…
Are you ready for this?
I don’t think you are. Let’s give it one more beat…
It means… “the seven of God”.
And since the bride of Aaron is literally called the seven of God, that means that Aaron’s bride and all
Aaronites in his house were seen as “the seven of God”. The seven angels who we see helping Aaron in
Revelation, therefore, were his bride.
After all… what is a wife’s job, if not to be a “help meet for him”?
OATH OF SEVEN
Most translators say her name means “oath of God”, due to the similarity in the Hebrew words shaba
and sheba for “oath” and “seven”, respectively, but the name is literally “seven of God”. God
regularly uses puns to make His point (remember BLL and BBL from Lesson 3-3? LOL). So it’s not
likely an accident that these two words are so closely associated.
The connection from “seven of God” to “oath of God” can be traced back to Genesis 9:13-14, with the
seven colors/angels witnessing to the oath of God as they also do in the rainbow of Revelation 10:1, 6.
If we connect the names and meanings together, we could conclude that when the seven of God agree
and bear witness, it amounts to an oath of God – meaning that it is as sure as if God Himself, had said
it.
10
With that in mind, we can see in Daniel 4:17 the “watchers”; these would be the seven eyes of
Zechariah 3:9, the “holy ones” of God, which is the same as “saints” of God – and who are they?
Exodus 40:13, Leviticus 6:18, etc. – thus, the royal priests of God.
Remember, Levites aren’t saints. Only Aaron was (Psalms 106:16, Psalms 132:9). And according to
Daniel, when Aaron’s seven made a decree, it was done as if God Himself had said it, for the seven’s
word is as binding as His if they agree.
Their decree was given specifically to prove that the Most High ruled in the kingdoms of men; which
means their agreement was the will of God. Otherwise, it would have simply proven that angels ruled
in the kingdoms of men!
However, you’ll recall that God only requires two of the saints of Christ to agree, only two members of
His bride must agree to similarly bind things on Earth (Matthew 18:18-19). Yet all of the seven must
agree, which must mean He trusts the judgment of individual angelic Aaronites significantly less than
He trusts individual Melchizedekites!
Back to Elisheba, if we take “oath” to mean “covenant” (though it is a distinct Hebrew word, it still
means functionally the same thing), then we could say Elizabeth was the covenant of God for it was
with those seven angels that God made the covenant! (Genesis 9:13-16)
I said they are the covenant because not only were they the witnesses, and the signatories, they were
also the mediators of that covenant! Isn’t that just what Stephen said in Acts 7:53? That they had
“received the law by order of the angels” (Williams)!
It should be noted that, of all the things Stephen said that day – all of the history lesson and Israelite
bashing he did… it was for this final saying that they stoned him (verses 54-60). For telling them that
angels gave them the law.
For saying that angels are priests of God.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Read the story in Matthew 22:23-30. Notice, first of all, that Jesus brought angels into the context for
no good reason – which means He must have considered the question related to angels. And knowing
that there are, indeed, seven priest-angels, that should be enough to get us thinking.
We know that Aaron was the head of the Israelite church, a marriage which did not bear good fruit as
witnessed by Jesus and the fig trees (Matthew 21:19, Luke 13:6-9, etc.). But Aaron died without
entering the Promised Land, leaving no godly seed (Malachi 2:15).
After the death of Aaron and Moses, it fell to the seven in his house to make fruits in the land (in a
possibly unrelated note, there were seven fruits of the land mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:8). But
regardless, it was to these seven that were created by Aaron and his wife to whom it fell to make fruit.
That passage in Malachi bears reading the context – for it’s almost exclusively sent to the Levites
(Malachi 2:7-9, 3:3). In the immediate context, we see them covering the altar with tears (Malachi
2:13), teaching that God loves sinners (verse 17), very priestly things…
11
And it is into the midst of this context that God rebukes them for “wife of their youth”, with whom Levi
was NEVER able to create a Godly seed because of their treachery! The wife, specifically, of their
covenant! For it was the OC which made Aaron head of the ekklesia in Israel!
But if these were each high priests, then they would have been high priests in turn since they were
never contemporary after the Promised Land. And thus, each one would have been husband of the
church in Israel (Acts 7:38). And the same must be true of their angelic counterparts!
And every single one of them failed their wife and dealt treacherously with her, violating their
covenant. So in the resurrection, which of these seven brothers, which of these seven Aaronites, which
of these seven spirits of God shall have the bride?
Due to the repeated failures of successive generations of high priests, all had been married to her, and,
due to the repeated failures of successive generations of high priest angels were ALL unable to give
her Godly seed – which is to say… Seed that bears the name of Elohim! Sons of God!
Because Elizabeth was barren! Luke 1:5-7. And only God could open her womb (verses 13-17). The
original Aaron and Elizabeth had children, it is true; but not Godly seed. Just… seed. Every single one
of them failed to give life to the nation, or to create a SINGLE first-resurrection saint.
The sons of Aaron all tried to get her pregnant, and one by one, every single one failed. And so in the
resurrection, it would be stupid to give her to any of them! Instead, she will go to a husband who can
give her children.
She will be given to a Man who HAS living water in His loins to give her. Something no son of Aaron
ever did. And then the barren will rejoice (Isaiah 54:1-5). And she will forget her widowhood, the
shame of her barren youth.
And so the high-priest-angel-inspired-Sadducee asked, tempting Jesus… whose wife will she be??
“Dumb question”, Jesus responded, “she will be mine”.
And if they had known the scriptures, or understood the power of God, they’d have known that.