The Righteous Offering of the Sons of Levi–2000 Years Ago

Note: The following essay was authored by Scott S. Mitchell, a regular contributor to this website.

Mormons believe that on May 15, 1829, John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and conferred the Aaronic Priesthood.  According to Joseph Smith, the angel declared that this priesthood, which Mormons teach is the authority to act in God’s name to do such things as baptize, “shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.”  (See Doctrine and Covenants 13.)  The words allegedly spoken by John the Baptist allude to a prophecy concerning the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus, spoken by the last prophet in the Old Testament, Malachi.  Biblical scholars believe the Malachi was written  sometime after 515 B.C.:1

1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth?  for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:

3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver:  and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.” 

(Emphasis added.  See Malachi 3: 1-3. )  This essay hypothesizes that New Testament and Book of Mormon scriptures demonstrate that the above-quoted prophecy was fulfilled some 2,000 years ago during the First Century A.D., and was not a prophecy applicable to the last days in which we live.  If this hypothesis is correct, it casts considerable doubt on the proposition that John the Baptist indicated to Joseph Smith in 1829 that the event was still in the future.  This essay is limited to a discussion of the authenticity of “the sons of Levi” prophecy contained within the purported words of John the Baptist contained in Doctrine and Covenants 13.  Current essays on this website addresses the authority to baptize generally, and a future essay will address the historical evidence relating to whether John the Baptist  indeed appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and restored the Aaronic Priesthood.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke leave no doubt that the person described in Malachi 1:1 as “my messenger,” who during his mortal life would go before the Lord to prepare his way (to be distinguished from the “messenger of the covenant,” who was Christ), referred to John the Baptist.  Jesus said so.  See Matt. 11:10 and Luke 7:27; see also Mark 1:1-8.  Also, Zacharias, filled with the Holy Ghost, said this about his infant son John on the day the latter was named and circumcised:  “And thou, child, shall be called the prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins . . .” (See Luke 1: 76-77.)  John the Baptist’s then went on to spend his life preparing the Jews to hear and accept Jesus by preaching repentance and baptizing.  The prophecies about his mission in life were not describing a one-minute appearance to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to pass along the authority to baptize; they were describing John’s momentous mortal life and mission.  As John awaited his impending beheading in prison, Jesus said of him, “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater prophet than John the Baptist . . .” (See Matt. 11: 11 and Luke 7: 28)

In the same prophecy about the coming of John and Jesus, however, words are found about the sons of Levi being purified and offering an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.  The sons of Levi prophecy is therefore placed in the same time frame as John the Baptist’s and Jesus’s earthly missions.  Since the New Testament writers were always careful to show how Malachi’s prophecies were being fulfilled in their time,2 we should look to the New Testament to see what it has to say with respect to the sons of Levi being purified and offering an offering in righteousness.

In order to know where to look for this information in the New Testament, one must first understand who the sons of Levi were and what they did.  The male descendants of the Israelite tribe of Levi were the only people who could become priests or high priests, if descended from Aaron, or assisted those priests in the worship system of the nation of Israel.  They had originally been the only tribe who voluntarily rallied to the Lord’s cause when Moses return from talking with the Lord on Mount Sinai.  (See Exodus 32: 26-28.) In the Mosaic Law that was given to Israel, the Lord selected the tribe of Levi, from which the brothers Moses and Aaron were descended, to thereafter be the intermediaries between Israel and their God, the only tribe from whom priests and their helpers would be set apart.  The priests officiated in the temple rituals wherein atonement was made for the Israelite’s sins, while the rest of the Levite men not descended from Aaron were assigned duties to act as judges, scribes and musicians, and to keep the tabernacle, and later the temple, continuously operating.  The sanctuary-related duties included tabernacle or temple upkeep, gathering tithes and all materials connected with the offering of sacrifices, baking shewbread, hauling wood and water, and working as gatekeepers.  All priests and Levites began their service with elaborate purification and sanctification rituals, and being set apart by the laying on of hands.  In short, under the Law of Moses, the men of the tribe of Levi were the religious leaders of the Israelites, and those of whom purity and righteousness were most expected.3

Whereas tithes were collected by the sons of Levi from the Jews to support the priests and Levites (see Numbers 18:21-32 and Hebrews 7:5, 9),  those same tithes were also meant for the material support of the stranger (foreigner), the fatherless and the widow.  Deut. 26: 12-13.  The sons of Levi were not to merely look out for their own welfare, but were to affirmatively take care of the less fortunate among them.  That they were not doing so in Jesus’s time is  suggested by his parable of the Good Samaritan, wherein a priest and a Levite, who would be most expected to help the beaten man on the road, showed no concern for him and passed him by.  (See Luke 10: 31-32.)  According to Malachi, the failure of the religious leaders to exemplify true devotion to God and man is the problem Jesus would come to rectify.  In the Lord’s words quoted by Malachi,

I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.

(See Mal. 3: 5.)

The New Testament tells of three sons of Levi who were contemporaries of Jesus, who appear to have offered extremely righteous offerings to the Lord’s cause.  The first was the aforementioned Zacharias, a priest in the temple and the father of John the Baptist.  According to Luke 1: 6, he and his wife Elizabeth, arguably a prophetess in her own right who was also of the tribe of Levi, “were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”  Zacharias’s natural spirituality and concern for his people are shown by Luke’s account of his prophetic utterance wherein he recognized his people’s calling to serve God without fear  “[i]n holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.”  (See Luke 1: 74-75.)

It is also possible  that Zacharias was martyred in the temple for his devotion to the Lord’s cause.  In Matthew 23: 35 and Luke 11: 51, Jesus refers to the death of Zacharias, who was slain between the altar and the temple.  Many biblical scholars, indeed, the apparent majority, have speculated that this refers to the slaying of Zechariah (the Hebrew form of Zacharias), who many centuries earlier was indeed stoned to death within the temple courtyard, between the outdoor altar of sacrifice and the inner sanctum Holy of Holies, as described in II Chronicles 24: 20-22.  The physical description of that event fits perfectly the Jesus’s description.  The problem with this interpretation is that this earlier Zechariah was the son of Jehoida, (see II Chr. 24: 20), not the son of Barachias that Jesus mentioned in Matt. 23: 35.  There is another Zechariah in the Old Testament, whose father’s name “Berechiah” would be Barachias in Greek, and he is the prophet after whom the Book of Zechariah is named.  However, the Bible contains no record of him having been martyred, and indeed, as a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah, he lived in a time when the Jewish religious leaders were rebuilding the temple under foreign protection and not endangered by anyone from without or within.

The majority of biblical scholars who have written about this issue maintain that the best explanation is that the text in Matthew is in error, and that Jesus did not actually say “son of Barachias” when identifying the Zacharias to whom he was referring.  Rather, the thinking goes, Matthew mistakenly inserted the name Barachias for the accurate name of Jehoida because he confused one previous Zechariah from centuries earlier for another more famous and more recent Zechariah from centuries earlier.  Indeed, this view is bolstered by the fact that Luke’s version of Jesus’s words about Zacharias’s martyrdom inside the temple perimeter in Luke 11:51 contains no reference to Zacharias’s father’s name, and by the obvious fact that no New Testament writer recorded such a noteworthy event.

The evidence that the New Testament Zacharias was the martyr Jesus was referring to consists of three different arguments:  First, Zacharias’ father is not named in scripture, and therefore no reason exists to discount the possibility that he was the Barachias to whom Jesus was referring.  To repeat a father-son name combination was as common among the Jews as it is now.  For example, Jesus’ stepfather Joseph was the son of Jacob, see Matt. 1: 16, repeating an ancient pattern of Jacob/Israel and his son Joseph.  And, the name Berechiah (Barachias in Greek) was popular among the Jews, being the name of seven different men in the Old Testament.4

Second, the context of Jesus referring to Zacharias’s martyrdom is Jesus imputing to the unrighteous scribes and Pharisees all slayings of righteous men from start to finish.  He says, “. . .That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.”  (Emphasis added, see Matt. 23: 35.)  Thus his first example is Abel, Adam’s son, and his next, and last, example is Zacharias.  Perhaps this  wouldn’t make sense if he was referring to a Zacharias that had lived over seven centuries earlier, like Zechariah son of Jehoida, or five centuries earlier, like Zechariah son of Berechiah, unless the last notable religious martyrdom was seven centuries earlier.

Third, the perception that Zacharias the father of John the Baptist had been slain in the temple for failing to disclose the location of his son John during King Herod’s massacre of infant males, described in Matt. 2: 16-18, was a common notion in early Christianity.  The account is found in the  Protevangelium of James, an apocryphal book deemed by most modern scholars to have been written during the mid-2nd Century A.D.  This account was so popular that 150 separate Greek manuscripts containing it have survived to this day.  The earliest of these is a papyrus document dating to approximately 300 A.D.,5  but the story was discussed by the early Christian scholar Origen, who lived between from 184/185 to 253/254 A.D., thus demonstrating its early emergence.  Early Christian scholars who believed Jesus was referring to John the Baptist’s father as slain martyr included Origen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Theophylact.6  Joseph Smith appears to have agreed with this view, as an unsigned editorial appearing in the Times and Seasons when he was editor teaches it as established fact, and now appears on page 261 of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.7  Whatever conclusion the reader reaches on this complicated subject, it seems indisputable that Zacharias the father of the John the Baptist was indeed a righteous son of Levi who contributed much to the Christian cause in Jesus’s time.

A second righteous son of Levi was John the Baptist himself.  He spent his life alone in the desert wilderness eating coarse food and wearing uncomfortable clothing.  He never drank wine or participated in celebrations.  He never married.  He urged moral integrity and freedom from materialism. He preached of the coming Messiah, and urged all to be baptized for the remission of sins to prepare themselves for his coming.  His message was not well received by the scribes and Pharisees, who rejected his baptism and questioned his authority.  He publicly denounced the adultery of King Herod, an act of enormous courage, and as a result, he was imprisoned and eventually beheaded.  (See Matt. 3:1, 7-12, 4:17, 11:13-14; Mark 1:3, 6:14-29, 9:12-13, Luke 3: 2, 11-14.)  As mentioned above, Jesus’s tribute to him attested to his stature among the sons of Levi.

The third righteous Levite of Jesus’s time was Joses (the Greek form of Joseph) Barnabas, who receives much less attention than he should.  Acts 4:36-37 introduces him to us in this manner, after relating that the early Christians in Jerusalem had all things in common:

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.  (Emphasis added.)

This Levite was so highly thought of  by the apostles that they gave him a special surname by which he was known throughout the rest of the New Testament.  His name thereafter appears 28 times, and he becomes one of early Christianity’s towering figures, recognized as a great church leader, prophet and teacher.  This author believes he receives special mention in Acts 4, among those who were sharing their property in common with the other early Christians precisely because he was a Levite.  He thus appears to be the first man after Christ’s resurrection descended from the line of religious leadership among the Jews, with temple duties of his own, to not only convert to Christianity, but give himself and his possessions to it with all his heart.  Since the apostles concentrated so heavily on trying to convert the Jewish religious leadership to Christ, it must have been particularly gratifying and encouraging to see Malachi’s prophecy being fulfilled so spectacularly before their eyes.

Mormon apologists are likely to respond to the points above by arguing that just because some sons of Levi offered righteous offerings in Jesus’ time, doesn’t mean they won’t do so again in our own latter days, and therefore, the words reportedly spoken to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist remain unimpeached.  This response ignores two enormously important facts, however.  First, the role of the sons of Levi was strictly a creation of the Law of Moses, and had no existence in Christ’s church.  For this reason, in Christ’s church in the Old World and in the New, there were no burnt offerings, or animal sacrifices, or temples, or hereditary priesthood of Aaron, or Levites.   Second, Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses, and pointedly ended its existence. (See III Nephi 15:2-8.  The descendants of Levi had no more importance in Christ’s church than anyone else.  And Jesus never indicated in the Book of Mormon, which contains the fulness of his gospel, see III Nephi 20: 28, 30, or in the Bible that the sons of Levi, or the hereditary priesthood of Aaron, would play in role whatsoever in his church.

Thus the reported words of John the Baptist to Joseph Smith regarding the sons of Levi contemplate the future fulfillment of a prophecy that had already been fulfilled, and which could have no future fulfillment.  The Law of Moses had ended, and was never to be restored.  And with its end, the converted sons of Levi would only be known as Christians, like everybody else.


1. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Michael D. Coogan, ed. (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 1351.

2. In addition to the previously cited scriptures in Matthew 11, Mark 1 and Luke 7, other New Testament writings demonstrating the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy of the coming of Elijah in Mal. 4: 5-6 are found in Matt. 17: 10-12, Mark 9: 11-13 and Luke 9: 19.

3. New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Ronald F. Youngblood, Gen. Ed. (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), pp 761-62, 1026-30, 1257-58.

4. Ibid., p. 174.

5. See Wikipedia article “Gospel of James.”

6.  See, e.g, excerpt from Meyer’s New Testament Commentary on Matthew 23: 35 at the online website.

7. Lynne Hilton Wilson, “The Confusing Case of Zacharias” in Religious Educator 14, no. 2 (2013) 107-123, available online.  Though Wilson attaches great weight to the fact that the authorship of the Times and Seasons article cannot be determined, and thus should not be attributed to Joseph Smith, this author does not consider the question of authorship to be dispositive of the issue even if Smith did write it.  Joseph Smith was often in error, as the rest of us are when we devote insufficient time to studying and researching complicated questions of scriptural exegesis.

4 thoughts on “The Righteous Offering of the Sons of Levi–2000 Years Ago

  1. A thoughtful and scholarly person named Murray left this comment:

    As you know, I respect you and your best and sincere efforts to propagate what you believe to be the truth and to live in accordance with it, even when I disagree. I am surprised though, that given the Book of Mormon student and devotee that you are that you would not have felt inclined to discuss Christ’s repetition of this prophecy to the Nephites after his resurrection. When he is instructing them about prophecies both fulfulled and pertaining to the second coming that they should have in their records but don’t, he recites to them the last two chapters of Malachi (which would most likely have been given after they left Jerusalem and thus otherwise unavailable to them) including the prophecy that “he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.” 3 Nephi 24:3. We are told that He expounded the meaning of all of these prophecies to the Nephites, 3 Nephi 24:1. It apparently, but not necessarily or exclusively, had to do with the second coming. But, the explanation, given by Christ although not the prophecy, was explicitly withheld by Mormon at the instruction of the Lord. see 3 Nephi 26. Certainly your article’s suggestion that New Testament figures presents the only fulfillment of the prophecy may be correct. But, the fact that Christ read to and explained to the Nephites the last two chapters of Malachi containing the very prophecy the articles states was fulfilled in the New Testament world by that time, suggests that the articles’ conclusion is at least far from categorically demonstrated. The reading of the prophecy to the Nephites by Christ is also not inconsistent with D&C 13 and all that it suggests. (You might also take a look at how Jews interpret the prophecy just for fun.) All the best. Murray


  2. Our initial response to Murray’s comment:


    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have previously written an essay on the points you raised, and I think I’ll now append that essay to the one above, since as you point out, it quite naturally arises out of the subject under discussion. But as just a short preview, here are the salient points of my reply: First and foremost, you haven’t addressed Jesus’s other words in 3 Nephi to the effect that the Law of Moses was brought to an end. Nor have you addressed the fact that the Levites have no post-Mosaic Law existence or purpose. For your perception that the “sons of Levi” portion of Malachi’s prophecy will have a latter-day fulfillment, you have to believe that the Law of Moses will be re-instituted by Jesus. Given Jesus’s definitive words to the contrary in 3 Nephi, that is virtually impossible. The whole spirit of what Jesus taught the Nephites, and the Jews in Palestine, was that they were each individually responsible for their religious observances within Christianity, instead of having the sons of Levi do it for them. Also, since the duties of the sons of Levi, whether priests or Levites, were so heavily wrapped up in running the temples and their attendant sacrifices, and Jesus made no mention to the Jews or to the Nephites of temple rituals existing in his religion going forward, this further erodes the possibility of latter-day iterations of Levites or Aaronic Priesthood. (Note that Jesus’s Nephite church had priests, but no Aaronic Priesthood.)

    Second, taken fully in context, Jesus’ recitation of the last two chapters of Malachi appears to have had the purpose of showing the Nephites that they had just been part of the prophecy’s spectacular fulfillment. In fact, the Lord had just purged the Nephites by fire, with the unrighteous destroyed from among them. The Lord had come suddenly to his temple (the future ritual use of which he expressly ended by ending the law of Moses), leaving them speechless as he descended out of heaven to introduce himself. The first words he’d spoken to them had been that he was the fulfillment of ancient prophecies, and now, as he recited Malachi’s words to them, he was showing them another famous prophecy which had been fulfilled with recent events, even though they hadn’t been aware of the prophecy until he recited it to them. But this was part of his overall effort to show the inhabitants of this hemisphere what a huge part Nephite history played in God’s economy, even if the Jews had been chronically disinterested in knowing about the Nephites.

    The things taught the Nephites in 3 Ne. 26, which remain hidden from us until the Millennium, are clearly the same “complete history of the world” things that were shown the brother of Jared, but which we are not to know until we’ve proven ourselves. Given the arguments above, I’m confident that when we finally learn what the now-secret part of Jesus’ words consisted of, we’ll read nothing about the future re-institution of religious ordinances being exclusively performed by the sons of Levi, as had existed for the 1400+ years preceding Jesus’s birth.

    I have already read the Jewish interpretations of the Malachi prophecy, and I agree, it was fun. I myself recommend the best article on the Book of Mormon I ever read: “Saving Christianity: The Nephite Fulfillment of Jesus’ Eschatological Prophecies” by Heather Hardy, if you haven’t read it already.

    M.S. Brothers


  3. Murray responded to my reply as follows:

    Of course you may be right about all of this. But part of my point is what you are doing is arguing from a text –the Book of Mormon– that does not support your view better than it supports the view of mainstream Mormonism. Your arguments are precisely that, and they are possibly correct, but I don’t think they are better supported by the text of the Book of Mormon. For example, by way of my own argument, which is only my understanding and very prone to error, the BOM and the biblical text itself, seems to fit at least as well with Christ’s second coming as his first. It may be that the Aaronic Priesthood is only as an outgrowth of the law of Moses that did not survive the law’s fulfillment in Christ, but that is not and never has been the very fundamental thrust of Mormonism. And Christ never says, or even implicates in the Book of Mormon that his fulfillment of the Law of Moses vitiates the Priesthood, which, as you note, is itself evident among Book of Mormon peoples even after his departure. I realize that you know this and do not agree with it. And, again, I respect your views. But in my view Christ’s utterances in the Book of Mormon are more consistent with Mormon doctrine than what might be characterized as the more mainstream Protestant view which seems closer to your own. The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, of course, have their own nuanced views on the Priesthood. Always fun to talk. An article of mine that I discussed with you earlier is coming out shortly in a BYU publication I believe you receive. I am sure you will disagree and can rightly take me to task. I look forward to it. All the best to you. I hope to see you soon.


  4. My reply to Murray’s second response was as follows:

    There are some points of agreement between us. For one, I do believe that certain parts of the Malachi prophecy are clearly meant to have multiple fulfillments. Therefore, I believe that as Malachi implies, the Lord’s second coming will be preceded by a refining period including much purging of the wicked, as is straightforwardly prophesied in 2 Ne. 6:14-18, and as happened among the Nephites preceding Christ’s appearance. And, believe it or not, I accept your portrayal of my interpretations as more Protestant-like than mainstream-Mormon-like. I actually do think several Protestant denominations are closer to Book of Mormon sensibilities than Mormonism is. Regarding whether the Bible and Book of Mormon fit as well with the second coming as with the first, we probably agree on several points and disagree on several points. We may also have differing views of what will unfold before and during the Millennium.

    It has also occurred to me that even if the “sons of Levi” words in Malachi do portend a latter-day fulfillment, it could be something as simple as the modern Jewish Cohens embracing Christianity and living righteously, like Barnabas did. But my point was much narrower in my essay; I only theorized that what are implied in D&C 13 as future events are actually past events whose ancient fulfillment was chronicled in the New Testament.

    But as you correctly anticipate, I do disagree with several of your points. I don’t think that the Book of Mormon supports the views of mainstream Mormonism anywhere near as much as it refutes them, and I think this particular “sons of Levi” issue is another one of many examples. The BoM only appears to support Mormon orthodoxy, in this case, if you begin your analysis with a presumption favoring the authenticity of D&C 13. But a Christian scholar who’s unfamiliar with D&C 13, and thus feels no apologetic urge to prop it up, wouldn’t read all of 3 Nephi and conclude that the sacrifices of the sons of Levi are being foretold as a feature of Christ’s latter-day church. Instead, I think he or she would say, “No, Jesus made clear in 3 Nephi 12: 46-47 and 15: 2-9 that that’s not going to happen. His church wasn’t going to need, or have, temple sacrifice offerings like existed in antiquity. Jesus is quoting Malachi for the purpose of warning all future religious leaders to lead righteously, unlike what the sons of Levi did between Malachi’s time and Jesus’s time.”

    Do you feel you’d be making the same argument you’re now making if you weren’t LDS and were unfamiliar with the LDS version of doctrine and history surrounding D&C 13?

    Isn’t it much clearer in 3 Nephi that Jesus is ending the Law of Moses than it is that he’s presaging a latter-day resurgence of sacrifices by the sons of Levi? The latter he does not say, or at least, Mormon doesn’t quote him as saying it, but the former he does expressly say, and he places special emphasis on it. His explanation that he’s abolishing the Law of Moses follows right on the heels of his sermon by the temple wherein he lays down a very new set of principles for Christians to live by, which appear in stark contrast to the ritual-heavy Law of Moses administered by intermediaries from one tribe only.

    I don’t quite understand your sentence on the Aaronic Priesthood possibly being an outgrowth of the Mosaic Law, but if you suggest the possibility that the LoM was itself abolished, but the Aaronic Priesthood aspect of it was retained, then I think that’s difficult to defend. The Aaronic Priesthood and the levitical duties were the sin qua non of the Law of Moses. To abolish the latter without necessarily abolishing the former was tantamount to the Bolshevik Revolution retaining the czar and his hereditary monarchy.

    Finally, I do think Jesus affirmatively signaled his abolishment of the Aaronic Priesthood, and the lack of need for the Melchizedek high priests in his nascent church. He did it by organizing his church in both hemispheres without them. And neither Jesus or his apostles, disciples or prophets said a word about either of them existing in the early church. If you organize your church, and create offices within it, but your organization contains no high priests, and the priests it does contain have no connection to Levi or Aaron ancestrally, or in the duties they perform, I think that speaks volumes.

    Despite these disagreements, I’ve benefitted from your input, and will add to this essay material from another essay that addresses the points you’ve raised. And of course, I look forward to your upcoming article. But just in case I don’t subscribe to the publication carrying it, which one will it be?

    All the best to you and your family, which I, too, look forward to seeing soon.

    M.S. Brothers


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s