#i think they had been trying to make christian doctrine feel more modern by being like

[enoua5]

I cannot stress enough, this is basically what mormons belive the afterlife is like lmfao

It is a common error that many faiths believe the souls of the dead depart this plane of existence for some mythical heaven or hell. In fact, the souls of the dead go to UDFj-39546284, a high-redshift Lyman break galaxy in the constellation Fornax, about 32.7 billion light years away. When asked why the dead from across the universe should all be converging on this one faint galaxy, NASA astrophysicists said “it’s like an eel thing,” and refused to elaborate further.

[samwisethewitch]

Some Thoughts on the Norse Pagan Concept of Fate

Norse paganism/Heathenry has been a big part of my spirituality for a long time. However, one of the core aspects of the Old Norse worldview is the idea of fate with very limited free will, complete with a destined “death day” for every person — which I’m having a lot of trouble accepting right now with thousands dying of COVID-19, plus several recent deaths in my family that were either freak accidents or the direct result of human error.

As I’m figuring things out and beginning my grieving process, I’ve been trying to really dig into the concept of fate vs. free will and see not only what historical sources say but how modern Heathens interpret it.

If you aren’t familiar with the concept of fate in Norse culture, here’s a basic rundown: fate, or örlog, is the force that shapes men’s destinies, and many of the sagas seem to take the stance of fate being unyielding and inescapable. Even being told their fate in great detail doesn’t help men escape it, and even the gods can’t escape their fated deaths at Ragnarok.

The entities most closely associated with fate are the Norns. Both the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda refer to three Norns, sisters named Urðr (whose name is often just translated as “fate”), Verðandi (“happening”) and Skuld (“debt,” “future,” or “should happen”). These three Norns are the keepers of the Well of Urðr, literally the Well of Fate, and also tend Yggdrasil. The Norns are said to record the fates of all gods and men.

However, to complicate things, some sources refer to individual norns, with each person having their own norn or group of norns who are responsible for their örlog. A person with a good fate is said to have good norns, while a person with a bad fate has bad norns.

(For a more detailed description of the Old Norse concept of fate, check out this excellent video by Jackson Crawford.)

This is where I run into one of my major issues with reconstruction and with Heathenry specifically. All of our sources are fictionalized accounts (as opposed to purely religious guides) so it’s not always clear what is genuine theology and what is a literary allusion. Were there three Norns, or did everyone have their own? Do the Norns create fate or just record it? Do they weave threads of fate or carve it into sticks? Was any of this actually relevant to Norse religion or is it just a metaphor? We don’t know!

Is örlog a core doctrine of this religion, or a product of Old Norse cultural values like drengskapr? Is it even still relevant to modern Heathens disconnected from that cultural context? How would the concept have changed over time if the religion had continued uninterrupted? We don’t know!

I decided to check out some books by modern Heathen authors to see how other people have adapted the concept of örlog to fit their modern experiences.

Both Diana Paxson and Patricia M. Lafayllve describe two “types” of fate, örlog and wyrd, with örlog being what is set in stone by the Norns and wyrd being the fate we create for ourselves. This doesn’t really make sense to me, because it mixes Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon concepts, and I think it twists those concepts to fit what the authors want to believe. Wyrd is an Old English word that roughly translates to “fate” or “luck” and is the Anglo-Saxon equivalent to örlog. We see wyrd discussed at length in Beowulf, where, like örlog, it seems to be set in stone with very little room for change. Beowulf can’t escape his wyrd any more than Odin can escape his örlog. Because of this, using “wyrd” as a way to describe limited free will doesn’t really make sense to me.

However, I found a much more interesting model for classifying fate vs. free will in Ryan Smith’s book, The Way of Fire and Ice. There’s no way I could phrase this better than Smith does in his book, so I’ll let his words speak for themselves:

I think this is really fascinating because it follows a general trend in modern religions of developing a greater concept of free will as we move into a postmodern society with fewer clearly defined social rules, which is a pattern we can see at work in Christianity, for example. Medieval Christians had a much stronger belief in unchanging fate, while modern Christians tend to believe in some form of free will.

I am also fascinated by the concept of hamingja as a function of free will. The hamingja is personified as a guardian spirit similar to the fylgia (fylgia are a type of animal guide) that embody a person’s luck and happiness/joy. Interestingly, hamingja can be loaned out to other people, literally sharing your good fortune. This makes sense — if you have a lot of resources at your disposal (which the Old Norse would say was because you had a powerful hamingja), you can use those resources to make things better for others.

If we stick with the idea of people having their own personal norns, this means each person has two sets of guardian spirits who may or may not control their fate. Your norn or norns determine things like the time and place of your birth, the family you are born into, and your social class. Your hamingja, on the other hand, is the personification of the choices you make within the framework laid out by the norns. Your hamingja is made up of your natural talents, the skills you choose to develop, the connections you forge with other people, and anything else that allows you to change your circumstances.

What I’m about to say is 100% guesswork on my part — I have yet to find any scholarly backing for this, so feel free to disregard it as me making connections where none exist. But for me, the concept of personal norns and hamingja seems very similar to the dísir. Dísir are feminine guardian spirits connected to family groups, rather than individuals, and like the norns and the hamingja, they are sometimes connected to fate. Some archaeologists believe that the dísir were deceased family members, and that their veneration is rooted in ancestor worship. This makes a lot of sense to me because our fate, the circumstances of our birth, are largely determined by the actions of our ancestors.

It seems entirely possible to me that the norns and the hamingja might be subsets of dísir, or even that the three may all be different names for the same beings. (Remember, Norse literature frequently uses kennings, alternative titles for a person or thing used to express different aspects of that person/thing and to fit the alliterative structure of Old Norse poetry.) Or, more likely, the dísir were originally associated with fate and luck, and the norns and hamingja represent later developments, splitting the role of the dísir into smaller groups of spirits with more specific purposes. 

These are just my thoughts, but I would love to hear from other Norse pagans! How do you think of the norns? How do you see fate at work in your life?

[charlottemadison42]

On Good Omens and Faith

Here follow personal thoughts on what Good Omens has meant to me as an Exvangelical. There’s a lot of healing & hope here, but it gets a bit dark first, as worthy stories do.

CW: I wasn’t badly spiritually abused in church, but I’ll be discussing things that are spiritually abusive: purity culture, sexphobia, queerphobia, abortion, mild self-harm, failure to treat mental health appropriately, ableism -- plus the special ways church authority makes all of these especially hard.

I’m personally an atheist but this message is not an argument against faith itself, rather against the specific subculture I grew up in. If you are a person of faith you’re welcome here.

I grew up in the American Evangelical subculture of the 80′s and 90′s, in the Keith Green/DC Talk/Left Behind/Veggie Tales era. I got saved at a Carman concert in sixth grade, and re-pledged my faith just to be extra sure every year at summer camp and youth group retreats.

This upbringing is not unusual. Doesn’t make me special. But its effects were real.

I’m finally engaged in a reckoning with it, in the “I should maybe talk this over with a support group or therapist” sense. I was a worship leader and youth leader at a Vineyard church when I left my faith abruptly in 2007*. It took me ten years to tell my family and friends that I was an atheist. For that decade I didn’t think about it -- but when I confessed to my loved ones two years ago, the processing began in earnest.

If you came up Evangelical, you already know how literal our belief in angels and demons can be in certain strains of the church. Until I was 26, I believed they were real entities genuinely and invisibly at war all around me. The End Times were real and we were in them. The Antichrist was whatever high profile democrat could be weaponized at the moment, the Rapture was nigh, and Armageddon was imminent (which explained why tension kept building in the Middle East).

My church community regularly discussed friends and neighbors’ problems in the language of  demon possession or harrassment: depression was a demon, addiction was a demon, promiscuity was a demon. I was part of casual and formal exorcisms and the occasional healing. No holy water, but there were hours of fervent prayers and tears, speaking in tongues and anointing with oil. It’s like a fever dream looking back at it now.**

Shout out to my other teens and tweens of the Frank Peretti era, forbidden from reading books of fantasy any later than Lewis or Tolkein -- Xanth was forbidden, Hogwarts was demonic. We were given instead (retrospectively) horrifying books about spiritual warfare, Christian takes on historical fiction, and end times fantasies. But they weren’t sold as fantasy to us, it was all real. Adults in positions of power confirmed it over and over. Narnia might be allegory but This Present Darkness supposedly illustrated spiritual truths.

I remember telling a trusted church teacher at age 10 or 11 that sometimes I would get scared at night, in the dark, and feel a palpable terror that kept me awake. They told me with no hint of comfort, “That means a demon is visiting you and sitting on your chest, trying to oppress you with fear so you will sin. Don’t wake your parents or read a book, instead you should pray or read only the Bible until the demon is compelled to leave, either by an angel or the presence of God.” This adult was affirmed by amens and mm-hmms.

I took this teaching to heart. I also understood, by implication, that if the bad feeling stayed with me then I was praying wrong -- that no angel would rescue me that night. I knew that my fear as it compounded in the dark was itself a sin that made God harder for me to reach.

These are not things that should be told to children.

Then there were the prophecies. (read more if this resonates with you, if not I’ll clip it here so I don’t take up your whole screen)

Anyone could prophesy in most churches I attended. Dreams were prophecies, visions were prophecies, vague feelings were prophecies. (That gave nightmares / being hormonal / being really hungry an awful lot of sway at Bible study.)

I had a woman prophesy over me weeping, with her hands buried in my hair, that she felt overwhelming grief for my future child. I was 23.

I have no child, and I harbored the secret at the time was that I didn’t want one -- a rebellion for me as a married woman. I feared she was prophesying an abortion in my future, and I was inconsolable for months at the damning choice that would visit me someday. (As of this writing at age 38 I’ve never been pregnant, for which I give all thanks to modern birth control.) I still wonder what happened to that woman’s child, or pregnancy, or perhaps her desire for a child, that this was her prophecy for me.

I heard much darker things prophesied over other people. I remember career changes (ill-advised) and marriages staying together (they shouldn’t have) and mission trips undertaken (that assuredly should not have been) because of prophesies.

Last, of course, I didn’t know it yet but I had many queer friends at the time. Some of them didn’t know it. We had no context in our small town -- and no corners of the internet to hide in and learn context, because the internet didn’t do much more than access our local library catalog at the time. I was told that demons sat on my chest to oppress me as a child, but I was shielded from understanding what a lesbian actually was until I was sixteen.

I remember feeling vaguely guilty when we prayed over this or that person in youth group, entreating God that they could resist their base urges. We prayed that they could choose a life of abstinence if they had to, rather than enter sexual sin and be cast out. I felt guilty but I still joined the circle to pray.

I’m sorry. I was wrong. Part of me knew it at the time. I wish I had listened to that part of me because that it was correct. There are fragments of my former faith I still treasure, but those prayers were rotten to the core.

Sidebar: Luckily that feeling of guilt bloomed quickly into rejecting queerphobic doctrine. By age 20 I decided I could only attend churches that did not preach homophobic takes on scripture from the pulpit, and that did not advocate/imply advocacy for any particular political party. The reason I mention this: if YOU are currently a person of faith in this position, uncomfortable with what you hear from your leadership, go find a church that’s queer-affirming, gives to the poor, and advocates for immigrants. Live in a conservative area? Create or join a home church. That’s what the early church looked like anyway. Don’t shrug off this responsibility. Shine a light.

Anyway. Several years later, I fell.

I had to step down from multiple church leadership positions in one day. My entire life changed in two months; marriage, job, home, friends, everything uprooted when I could no longer pretend to believe. I didn’t tell my family why everything fell apart, even as they let me crash their couches.

I had wanted to be a good believer. I read apologetics, the mystics, eschatology, theophostics. I taught and attended study groups, I took troubled teens out to coffee, I served the homeless, I waited til marriage. I was in church as many as thirty hours weekly. When I first felt my faith slipping I said “not yet,” and I read the entire Bible straight through twice, in different translations, while journaling through “My Utmost for His Highest.” Then, unsatisfied, I read and annotated the New Testament in interlinear Greek. I gave it my everything.

What could replace all that?

Time, it turns out. And freedom.

Freedom to not think about it was perhaps the kindest freedom. The constant labor of self-evaluation and thought policing that goes into Evangelical Christianity is exhausting. Letting it go of it felt like getting my mind back. Or owning it for the first time, since I never knew this freedom before. I had even been seeking counseling because I was hearing multiple voices in my head at once, all mine, often arguing. That problem vanished the hour I deconverted. I heard only one voice anymore, and it was my own.

For ten years I was free to just not think about it.

When I decided to remarry I realized that I didn’t want to explain to anyone why my ceremony would not include prayers or communion. So I told my loved ones at last that I was an atheist, a decade late. They received it graciously, and I’m sure they had known-but-not-acknowledged it for a long time. I hope they don’t worry about me or pray behind my back for my salvation. But if they do I can’t accept responsibility for it anymore.

Since that confession I’ve finally felt compelled to back at what all actually happened in church. It seemed so normal to me at the time. But wait, it wasn’t:

I exorcised people. I laid on hands for healings. I encouraged episodes of religious rapture, falling out, and speaking in tongues, and as a worship leader I knew the music cues to bring them about (yes, there are certain chord and tempo changes for that). I was present for prophecies that changed people’s lives and might have issued some myself, I don’t remember. I alienated people who didn’t fit in, whether because they were queer or just because they didn’t conform to church culture. I witnessed abuse and had no language to report it or even comprehend it. I hurt people. I was hurt.

I was told there were real demons in my room and I had to pray them away all by myself.

The work of undoing this mindf*ck (sorry friends of faith, that’s how it felt) suddenly turned urgent after being ignored for a decade. I can’t afford therapy, but thankfully Twitter chats and message boards and podcasts exist (thank you, @goodchristianfun​ and @exvangelical​).

And then -- out of the blue -- along came my own personal angel and demon, along with Frances McDormand herself. I watched it on a whim. (Actually no, David Tennant’s hair made me.)

Apparently Good Omens had a few things to say directly to my mindf*cked subconscious:

1) Are you scared of demons in a pathological childhood trauma way? Here, have a helping of this amalgam of your favorite Doctor and scariest ever Marvel villain tearing it up as the demon Crowley.

2) Does your mild bookish personality and respect for the culture you grew up in keep you reflexively deferential to authority, even as it gaslights you and hurts others? Enjoy some Michael Sheen as the angel Aziraphale.

3) Are you stuck still mentally assigning a male gender to the god you always claimed was beyond gender? Boom, meet Her in all Her ineffable wisdom.

4) Are you terrified of the End Times, both as a Biblical horror of childhood and as an adult who reads the f*cking news? Let’s fantasize awhile about a solvable apocalypse (because what would that even look like, yo).

5) Do you keep reflexively binarizing good and evil? Still giving in to the temptation to characterize humans as righteous or fallen, especially celebrities and political prospects? Spend some time on Our Side with Adam, the utterly human Antichrist, as he makes choices that matter -- some goodish, some baddish, all with mixed consequences, because that’s what humans do.

6) Do you need more queer love stories in your life? Yes you do. Yes. YES. Here it is. The good stuff. Whether it’s gay, trans, genderfluid, asexual, agender, metaphysical, whatever (I’m enjoying reading all these takes and more on AO3) it’s a hell of a love story.

Good Omens was a f*cking revelation.

I’m not sure why the show hit me as hard as it did in the Exvangelical feels. It’s not that it’s a perfect show, but it was the right thing at the right time for me, and it brought a truck full of dynamite to the excavation I was just beginning with a trowel and a makeup brush. I finished watching ep 6 and thought “why do I feel like I’ll be thinking about this every single day for years?”

And then I looked down, and lo and behold I had an open chest wound -- inside of which I found the banished memory of a child trembling and praying in terror in a dark room.

There was a lot that I forgot about in the ten years it took me to hike away from Evangelical life. It all came rushing back.

I had forgotten the sweat and cries during exorcisms and the heat of laying on of hands. I had forgotten fits of ecstatic tears of self-hatred and self-denial so strong they were almost blissful, as I sang and chanted mantras like “I am nothing, You are everything.” I had forgotten giving away ten percent of my income until I was 26. I had forgotten the constant mental effort of Being A Proverbs 31 Woman, about submission and complementarianism and feeling responsible to guard the virtue of men by never tempting them. I had forgotten the pressure to not even masturbate before marriage and to become a sexual athlete the night after.

I had forgotten the hours and hours of daily prayers. Every phrase was carefully carved in language my superego ran by my doctrine, to make sure no hint of rebellion ever bled through. I washed words of need and doubt and frustration from my mind so they could never slip between me and my Heavenly Father. I didn’t just want to hide thoughts God wouldn’t like, I would have cut them out with violence if I knew how. As a result I picked and ticced and cut and exhibited symptoms of OCD.

It hurt to remember all of this at once during a BBC Amazon Prime miniseries. It confused me. It confused my spouse. I looked at all these feelings, exposed and piled in a massive dirty heap -- and I spotted the straps I used to haul it around with me for decades. Who knew I could carry all that? The weight of faith?

But I don’t have to pick it up again. I had a new story to help me frame my story. I felt equipped with a flaming sword to face my past and a new syntax to describe the old ideas I'm ready to let go of.

I got to recast Heaven and Hell. I was invited to ask myself whether a cozy cluttered bookshop doesn’t beat them both hands down.

I got to reimagine angels and demons, good and bad, intentions and consequences. I was invited to live in the reality that we’re all of us humans in between, and that I’m probably still overinvested in the value of Good and Bad as yardsticks.

I got to reimagine western history. The show’s perspective of history is very limited and Eurocentric, but it’s also the version of history I was taught at an early age, which made the story a useful lens to deconstruct what I learned before I knew much about critical thinking.

The opening of Episode 3 in particular f*cked me up. First Aziraphale lies to God and She vanishes, then Crowley starts poking holes in the story of the Flood, then at the Crucifixion -- I started breathing hard on my first viewing, experiencing a real physiological threat response. I was loving it, of course, but distressed panicky love.

The second time I watched it I realized what was happening: I was going back to Sunday School to revisit ideas I absorbed before I was fully sentient, and examining them in the light of fully formed adult secular morality. They look different from here.

When God withdraws Her presence from Aziraphale in the first few moments of Ep 3 as he prevaricates (well, lies) I remembered the one great fear of my faithful life: that I could sin a particular sin and as punishment I would be cut off from God’s presence. As a believer in the End Times, that meant the Rapture could occur at any moment and I might be rejected, be left behind to experience the Tribulation.

Now, from some remove, I realize that I always had one fear larger. It’s a thought I never allowed myself to entertain consciously. Good Omens unearthed it like a vein of flowing lava:

If the Apocalypse as my church describes it is real, how could God want it to happen? And if God does, is this a God I want to worship? If I don’t, but I’ll be damned for that, is my faith freely chosen?

Whose side could I really be on, in the End Times, if not Heaven’s or Hell’s?

These are not small questions.

I’m relieved that I answered them a long time ago for myself.

But even after the answering, there’s fallout; a million little knots to untie and ideas to unlearn. We all get to spend our lives doing this sort of archaeological dig through our childhood baggage, I suppose. My Stuff is certainly not unique. It’s just a lot. Same as everyone’s.

But once in awhile a story comes along and helps us with the process. A sharper spade, a better tool for the work. In my case, through Good Omens I received demolition-grade explosives. It gave me a framework, characters, and a personal shorthand to speed my own digging and contextualize what I find.

If your history is kinda like mine -- whether you’re still in the faith or not -- be sure to talk to someone about church stuff from your past. The weird stuff, the dark stuff, the things you did/people did to you that now seem “off.” Even if you’ve grown past the point of “mental illness requires an exorcism” there are still dangerous ideas buried like land mines in our moral matrices. Self-hatred, intolerance, fear of abandonment, fear that failure is damnation, presumption that “we’re” on the “right side” of everything and “they’re” not, fear that we the apocalypse Is Written by powers above and so we can’t change it.

I’m so happy I know a story with an Our Side now.

I’m so happy I know a story in which the true test of devotion to God’s Ineffable Plan is turning away from the dictates of Heaven and turning toward the World.

I’m so glad I met Aziraphale -- so like me, still seeking Heaven’s approval far too late in the game. I’m so grateful he found the courage to walk away, and I’m so glad I did too. I love that I know Crowley now, self-pwning lovelorn disaster demon of minor inconveniences and imagination and free will. I’m so happy Crowley was there to tempt his friend with questions from the start, and to receive him when he was finally ready to break away.

I’m so proud to know Adam and the Them and Anathema and Newt, inept humans trying their hardest against unstoppable cosmic forces, getting it right not just despite their flaws but through and because of them.

I’m so grateful I’ve finally managed to completely swap to female pronouns for God (thanks, Frances). I still love stories about Her, I still enjoy talking theology and religion. And after 20+ years of insisting God is above gender but masculinizing him, it’s about time I switch to thinking of God as Her for a spell to even things out.***

I’m so thankful for the nicest fandom I’ve known in ages and all the glorious queer beautiful amazing body-positive art and writing growing in this fabulous garden.

Confession accomplished.

CM

P.S. I might not have the time/resources you need to chat with you if you’ve had similar experiences or want to discuss. If you need help be sure to reach somewhere healthy to get it. If you witness abuse, online or in church or otherwise -- report it, block it, mute it, shut it down, whatever is in your power.

P.P.S. If you have words of rebuke for me from a churchy place, and/or critiques about gender or politics, sorry, don’t give a f*ck. This is my story to tell and I am secure in my spiritual status. I am free indeed.

++++++++++++++

*Re. Deconversion: Or rather, I had my faith zapped out of me in what turned out to be the truest rapturous religious experience of my life. It happened in a church service; I almost fell out and spoke in tongues with the tingling power of understanding that I was truly and finally faithless. It’s an interesting deconversion story if you're familiar with charismatic church stuff, ask me sometime over tea. It felt like this.

**Re. Exorcisms: Most disturbing was the regular practice of exorcising people who clearly needed professional help for their mental health. I was present when prayers against demons happened over cases of depression, manic depression, epilepsy and other seizures, addiction, schizophrenia, and psychotic episodes. My particular church did acknowledge the role of modern medicine, but felt that the true core of these issues was spiritual and that medication ultimately could not solve a problem of demonic infestation. Looking back now I shudder and weep to think that this happened, that I was part of it once, and that it still happens daily at churches everywhere. It can be unspeakably damaging to the people being prayed over. If this practice happens in your church, leave. If it happens at a church where you’re in leadership, end it.

***Re. God as She/Her:  I encourage you to find your own appropriate pronouns for God, whether you believe in Them or not. For me personally, still reeling from the Proverbs 31 upbringing, She/Her is very healing for now. But gender is a construct etc. etc.

[noonymoon]

JUSTICE FOR JESUS — Misconceptions & Prejudices about the Faith in the Biblical Jesus Christ.

PART TWO: But why are Judaism and Christianity extremely different from one another, if they worship the same God?

The short answer is: Satan has infiltrated Christianity around 300 A.D. and turned it into something ENTIRELY else than God said, and Judaism developed to be an extremely religious system with 48942084 rules on top of the rules that YHWH originally established for Israel - like the food laws (which according to modern Science are for a very good reason and me personally, I try to eat as „kosher“ as I can as well because I know God doesn‘t say ANYTHING just to show His dominance, He ALWAYS has 100% good reason to say things and usually all these things are in OUR best interest). Also, at some point Judaism had all the oral traditions of the Rabbis, and the Kabbalah, which is 100% mysticism and magic, when God makes abundantly clear from the VERY beginning that He HATES sorcery, witchcraft, divination, all kinds of occult secrets and arts; and He has all reason to do that. Which you will probably only understand if you watch this video series

I‘m going to adress „Christian Witches“ and „Christian Mystics“ for a second directly and I pray you would listen and REPENT because God makes it abundantly clear that you can not serve two Masters, there‘s no way you can be God‘s child and dabble in occult practices. The Bible says very clearly that everyone gets judged according to their knowledge. So, knowing the Truth about God and Jesus, you still decided to turn your back on Him and mock Him and His Truth („Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.“ — Galatians 6:7) - I really don‘t want to be in your shoes when Judgment Day comes. I understand that you have been hurt by the institutional church, that you needed „more“ than „this“ and that you thought Occultism would make you more „spiritual“ and more „fulfilled“; thousands of Christians have been hurt by the church and dabble in the New Age. But there‘s NO WAY that God will forgive you for being a CHRISTIAN WITCH. It‘s. Not. Possible.

The longer answer is: From the moment Jesus was crucified and was raised to life again by his Father, the Devil knew that he has literally NO POWER anymore. Satan has held humanity in chains since practically the beginning of time, because he had the keys to Sheol since Adam and Eve fell into a linear existence in Eden and would ultimately die, and every single descendant of them (to be more specific it is the Father who bequeathes the spiritual nature of a human, that‘s the whole point of Jesus having a human virgin mother and God Himself as His Father) would be under the curse of death, and when people are afraid to die someday, well, they do all kinds of ridiculous things. The only way Satan can accomplish his goals (of ruining every single person on the planet) is to discredit, confuse and alter the work that Jesus finished on Golgotha. So basically, He can‘t change that it‘s all done, but he can change the way we perceive Jesus; he can change the way we collectively think, behave, feel, act - to take us away from God and His Truth as far as possible; he can change the way how humans „interpret“ God and Jesus and what has been done for us, he can basically distort EVERYTHING, except the fact that it is DONE. He KNOWS there‘s not much time left for Him - because Satan is a diligent student of Bible prophecy and uses literally EVERY flawed translation, every piece that could slightly be misunderstood and develops WHOLE doctrines and denominations and cults of them; in some few cases he even managed to alter the text of the Bible entirely to create a doctrine, today the CORE doctrine of Christianity - without it, you can‘t be a pastor or preacher without getting extreme backlash and will be considered a Heretic or cult leader, and that „you would lead people astray“, and this doctrine will steal your salvation and 90% of all Christians don‘t even notice it, it‘s just so sad. And when you speak up against this doctrine, the Holy Christians suddenly become nasty and call you a Heretic, like? Yes, of course that is God‘s Holy Spirit dwelling within you, and not that counterfeit one from Satan (because Satan can disguise as an angel of Light if he needs to, he once WAS the most beautiful and glorious Angel in Heaven, but his pride and arrogance ruined his heart. So basically, YES, Lucifer‘s/Satan‘s powers are VERY real and VERY powerful, but he will NEVER be as amazing as Jesus, and he most certainly will NEVER be as amazing as God, who created him!)

Basically, when Satan knew that the brilliant plan of Salvation was accomplished when Jesus was raised alive again after His crucifixion, he tried his first attack: relentless persecution of the Apostolic Church from 31 A.D. until ~320 A.D. through both the Jews and the Romans. But Christianity EXPLODED to that time, because the Gospel was pure, the Apostles and Disciples were extremely effective and the body of believers was just amazing. Then, Satan noticed that the message of Salvation in Jesus spread so hard that there was no point in persecuting every single Christian, so his new strategy was to infiltrate it and morph it from within.

“From the first moment of his accession declaring himself the protector of the church...the first emperor who publicly professed and established the Christian religion...rendered Christianity the reigning religion of the Roman empire” The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, Vol 2 Chap 16, pg 138.

This was no other than the Roman Emperor Constantine who professed to be converted to Christianity in 323 A.D. himself, but his belief at best was a blend of paganism and Christianity for political purposes, to keep unity in his empire. This change of events was the reason why pagan and occult practices, traditions and beliefs from Ancient Babylon could infiltrate the true Gospel of Salvation, and sadly it‘s been like that EVER SINCE.

So basically, there‘s no reason at all why Christianity and Judaism should be THIS much of a difference. The faith should be the exact same with the only (major) difference, that one group accepts Jesus, the Son of God, and gains everlasting Life and the other group refuses to accept Jesus, and will not. But both groups have developed into something that God absolutely never wished for. Christians always feel like they are so high and mighty and yet they have NO IDEA that they will not make it to Heaven themselves, because they ALL teach, believe and practice doctrines and traditions (of men) that have NOTHING to do with the God of Israel and mock Him without even knowing it. God says in the Bible that people who diligently SEEK Him and who don‘t fall for man-made doctrines and traditions, THOSE people who overcome the world and overcome THINGS OF THIS WORLD with the magnificent power of Christ, will have Everlasting Life.

Satan raised up his own „Christian“ church through pagan Rome and when he made it big and strong enough, he went back to his first strategy: relentless persecution and execution of true Bible-believing Christians, which we all know as the years of Papal Supremacy or „the Dark Ages“ from 538 A.D. to 1798. And why was it dark? Because there was no spiritual light in the world: The Papacy has managed to destroy all of the ~500 different language translations of the Bible in that time, the common people had no access to the Word of God and the only language the Bible was available in was Latin, and most people could not read Latin. This was a truly dark time for humanity and believers in God. And then, thank God, the protestant Reformation started, the Bible got translated for the common people again, preachers stood up for the Truth of God‘s word, risked their own lives for spreading the true Gospel, got rid of a lot of the terrible blasphemy in those days, millions of true Bible-believing Christians got burned alive as Heretics and Witches, only because they wouldn‘t bow down to the Papal Church. 

Sadly, they as well, adopted an essential doctrine from the Roman Catholic Church and so now today, only people who are not indoctrinated by Religion and discover God, Jesus and the Bible for themselves, without Church, Pastors and Creeds, have the Truth of God. I remember at the beginning of my walk with Jesus, I‘ve thought I need to find a church congregation and attend church every Sunday and so I‘ve tried it once. My local Church is a VERY beautiful church on the inside and I was moved to tears just being there, but as soon as I listened to the sermon, felt the atmosphere and saw the other people in there, i just KNEW in my spirit that God is not present at ALL. It was very disappointing and so I never went to church again. Ever since then, I‘ve learned A TON and know exactly why I had felt this way. God truly is not in the institutional Church - how could He, when all churches belong to Satan?

Up until this day the Papacy, who claims to be the Mother of ALL churches, even the protestant and evangelical ones, says things like: „Let Judaizers be anathema!“ which means that people who practice Jewish traditions rather than Catholic traditions should be accursed (!) as if the Jesus that walked the Earth 2000 years ago was a Roman European and NOT A JEW, like..????. It‘s just bewildering what Satan has accomplished to make people stray away from God and His Son.

In case you ever wondered why „Christian“ Holidays, rituals and beliefs are so similar to the ones of Pagans, why monumental church buildings have been planted on ancient sacred pagan sites, why Christianity seems like a „high and holy“ version of Paganism - it was NOT God, it was NOT Jesus, it was NOT even the Bible, simply said: it was the Roman Catholic Church (Satan) and no one else. 98% of all things that Catholicism believes, teaches AND REQUIRES is absolute blasphemy when you take God‘s Word as the highest authority (which the Scriptures says we SHOULD do, lest we be deceived, nothing will ever contradict the Bible that is true and of God) yet Catholicism is the largest, most influental and most powerful Church; how? Because the Papacy developed something that is called „Papal Infallibility“ which enables them to literally be the scum of the Earth (if you think that I am being rude, please read the following picture carefully) without facing any repercussions!

Maybe it becomes more clear now why Christianity is utterly misunderstood, hated and judged. It was not Jesus Christ, it was „MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.“ — Revelation 17:5 .... and Christians today get confronted with, for example, the Crusades and how Christianity is the worst Religion in the world and they don’t even know how to answer because they never cared to investigate their own Faith! Every evil deed that has ever happened within “Christianity” was, in fact, the Roman Catholic Papal Church who belongs to Satan himself.

According to an Ex-Jesuit (special order of Roman Catholic Priests) whose whistleblowing testimony I‘ve posted a few posts back, the Opus Deii (who disguise themselves as „Christian Democracy“ like my country pretends to be) is an arm of the Jesuit Infiltration that is responsible for the Illuminati, the Masons, the New Age Movement, the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome, and many more; and all of them serve just one purpose: The total control and world domination of the Roman Catholic Church (Satan).

If you love Jesus and are a Catholic brother, PLEASE LEAVE IT BEHIND.

Thank God that He not only gave us our world, our existence, and his Son Jesus, but also the Bible, which tells us EXACTLY what is going to happen and who the Enemy is, when we make the effort to study, and keep Jesus close to our hearts.

It grieves my heart that God and Jesus are so misunderstood because of Satan‘s works and that millions, the majority of all humans that ever lived and all humans that live right now, in these last days of humanity, are all deceived and will perish. And to any other generation in the past I would have said „well.. at least you had an entire human life experience, if it made you happy, then so be it“, but this generation right now, is the one that will regret their decision the most because every person under 60 will not even be close to having an entire human life experience, nor will it be happy. The worst thing is that which is going to manifest until ~2025 will not even be worth considered as a whole „human life experience“. If you think that Covid-1984 was a tough year, buckle up, because from now on it‘s going to get worse and worse. 

I know I say this a lot but today I cried on my way back from the supermarket because it‘s just so devastating to see Prophecy unfolding right in front of my eyes and everyone is VAST ASLEEP. People STILL wonder why it was possible that Hitler (who, by the way, was a Catholic, not a true Christian like he claimed, no wonder he was deeply wrapped up in the Occult) rose to power, how it was possible that we Germans didn‘t notice and didn‘t do anything to stop him from the evil things he did, why we gave him power and authority ... One word: Propaganda. Germans back then were absolutely brainwashed, just like today, WE are being brainwashed globally. And I can PROMISE you 100% that you WON‘T like where our world is heading and everyone will cry „but how could this happen?“ just like they cried about Hitler.

I pray that God‘s chosen people wake up in time, that these posts can help someone to find Christ, see through the deceptions of this world and be set free from Satan‘s bondage. Life is so much more than what we think it is, and honestly, if you‘re like me; always craved for deeper connections, more support and more honest affection in your social circles but never received it, always felt like an alien to everyone else, never had anyone to talk to about meaningful things because everyone was just shallow, then please just maybe consider Jesus as your best friend, because HE LOVES YOU and you will never ever be lonely ever again and you will always, always feel loved and „at home“. Jesus is literally the BEST thing that has ever happened to me, and I truly tried to be happy in this world. You have NO IDEA what I‘ve experienced in my 30 years, I‘ve literally experienced ALL OF IT, and nothing has ever given me peace and love and sanity. Only Jesus. I will never exchange that ever again for nothing! And I wish this experience to literally everyone because it‘s the most beautiful thing ever.

TESTIMONIES

How I Know God is REAL... my encounter with Jesus

Atheist To Believer In Jesus Christ: How Jesus Cured My Eating Disorder

Ex-Muslim Conversion Story

Homosexuality Was My Identity

My Testimony for Jesus 2020- WEED, ALCOHOL, PORN, LUST, TOBACCO, PRETTY MUCH IT ALL! SET FREE!

[infinitelytheheartexpands]

Stiffelio (Parma, 2017): Reactions, Part III

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd the comment Stiffelio made has been added to the collection of banners

and we have also found the closest any opera production has ever gotten to being “The Office”

I do feel bad for him even though he’s still not really supporting his daughter at all

it helps that this guy is a very expressive singer

“GOODBYE CRUEL WORLD”

“ACTUALLY RAFFAELE’S GONNA DIE”

well we finally found the orchestra

ten bucks that the answer to Stiffelio’s question is “if Lina were free, Raffaele would immediately dump her”

“WAIT I DON’T WANT A DIVORCE”

I love this duet

poor guy

I’m convinced that the pact in question involved some threats of blackmail on Raffaele’s part

(also IIRC I read somewhere- because I can’t read French well enough to tell from the original play and also I’ve only read short excerpts of the play- that apparently in the original play, Raphael [y’know; the play’s French] actually raped Lina and then used that to blackmail her into having an affair with him. I’ll have to look that up again, but she does say in the opera that she never stopped loving Stiffelio and that the affair was caused by ‘tradimento’, so betrayal or treachery. anyway that’s my nerdout of the liveblog)

welp he’s dead (had it comin’)

Jorg got the one braincell in this opera

here we go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (definitely one of my top ten favorite final scenes in opera, if not five)

“PERDONATA”

*cheers!*

they’re tearing down ALL THE BANNERS NICE WORK

one more thought before we go:

I was wrong. I think I get the point now.

I thought Vick was trying to make two unrelated points, one about the actual story and one about modern Christianity, but it turns out he was making the same point all along: just because someone doesn’t fall into what is seen as ‘acceptable’ under the Rules doesn’t mean that they are unworthy of love, acceptance, and yes, forgiveness. Those quintessentially human and humane values are more important and valid than any arbitrary doctrine, and certainly more than revenge and discrimination and hatred.

A powerful point. We all need it.

This production seemed a little off at times, but the payoff was so worth it. Will definitely be thinking about it for a long time.

[nerdygaymormon]

I’m having a really hard time with Institute this semester talking about the eternal family because my current family and my sexuality and don’t know what to do.

Institute anon. To elaborate on my previous ask, my parents are sealed but getting a divorce (not a temple divorce I think?) and I’m ace but don’t really want to get married very much and talking about being queer in the Church is hard no matter what your identity is, I think, especially since so much doctrine revolves around the family and marriage, and it hurts and I don’t want to be there.  But I don’t want to lose the Spirit.  But I also don’t feel the Spirit when I’m hurting so much.            

Still Institute anon 😅 That was like.  An overview of what’s so difficult but there are also a lot of more nuanced things in our individual lessons and it’s HARD.

———————————————————————   

I’m sorry you’re having a rough time.

I imagine these are some of the things you’re learning in Institute:

*  It is not good for man (humans) to be alone.

*  Sex drive is a gift from God.

*  Law of Chastity is to have no sexual relations except with a person you’re legally married to

*  The greatest happiness in life comes from having a spouse, a companion for your life

*  This earthly life is when we start an eternal family

*  The covenant path is the way to be exalted & live with God

–UNLESS you’re queer, then none of this applies to you. We’re in a class apart. The greatest blessings aren’t for us.

To exclude queer people is to violate the idea that God doesn’t play favorites, that all are alike to God.

I think about Mark 2:27 when Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.”I think it’s fair to say “Marriage was made for people, not people for marriage.” 

Over the millenia, what marriage looks like and the rules & laws that govern it have changed many times. Even just in our modern era, I’ve observed big difference between the marriages of my grandparents, my parents & my siblings as expectations and roles have shifted.

—————————  

Given that you’re ace, check out 1 Corinthians 7. It’s a very different lesson about marriage than the one you’ll get in Institute. Being single is the preferred option and marriage is for those who aren’t strong enough to go without sex. 

Paul is not into sex & romance. If he were alive today he might describe himself as ace/aro. Paul wishes more people were like him because they’d be free to give more energy and service to God. 

But for the people who aren’t blessed with the gift of celibacy, for those people who have sexual desires & needs, Paul encourages marriage. He speaks of it as a secondary choice.

I think it’s interesting in this chapter he never mentions having children as the purpose for sex. Rather sex is something that will bring two people together as they make sure their partner’s needs are met.

Also in this chapter, Paul is adamant that celibacy should NOT be forced on people. To not allow marriage, to require celibacy of people is to drive most of them to fornication (aka, sex outside of marriage). Is there a better argument than Paul’s for why Christians should accept and celebrate same-sex marriage? 

—————————    

Oh, one more scriptural lesson for ace people.

Jesus’ ministry took place when he was ages 30-33. He was not married. We have no indication He sought romantic relationships. He had very close relationships with men & women. This is the example the Savior set for us. 

And when asked about divorce, Jesus gave a lesson on marriage that our modern-day church sets aside.

1) It’s good for a man and a woman to marry

2) An exception to this would be if this person is divorced, in that case they shouldn’t marry (unless they got divorce because their spouse was having sex with someone else). If they marry, they are adulterers and so is the person who marries them.

3) Another exception to this rule about a man marrying a woman–eunuchs. Jesus describes different types of “eunuchs,” and He doesn’t limit it to men who have been castrated, He includes people who choose to not have sex. With that in mind, it very much sounds like Jesus is including gay people and ace/aro folks in His “eunuch” exception to a man-should-marry-a-woman statement 

—————————  

Even if not explicitly stated, I find that what gets said about marriage & families often has a negative side to it.

For example, on Father’s Day a speaker said that God sends his spirit children to people he trusts the most. While it’s a nice sentiment and made that dad feel good about himself, the message it sends me is, “God doesn’t trust you enough. There’s a lot of idiots out there who have kids, and God trusts them all more than you.”

I know the speaker didn’t consider what his words meant to people who aren’t like him. This happens a lot at church, especially around the topics of marriage & family. Wonderful things are said about people who fit a certain mold, which queer people do not, and so the negative implications of those messages apparently belongs to us. 

One thing I’ve learned is to push back against those negative messages. If you’re in a position to raise your hand and vocalize it, great. If you’re not, then at least tell yourself positive messages to replace the ones you’re hearing.

You are not less worthy than others. You’re not wrong or lesser. You are a child of God who is loved dearly and your Heavenly Parents are rooting for you. They trust you and will help you craft a life that is meaningful and full of blessings. 

President Nelson recently said that You may know for yourself what is true and what is not.  If you’re not feeling the Spirit at Institute when those lessons are presented, that’s a sign. Try asking about your path. If you’re getting an education or working, you can pray for confirmation you’re on the right path.  

—————————  

Your parents getting divorced really puts a big crack in the “families can be forever” ideal. I often wonder about the Primary kids we have sing about having a mother & father and an eternal family, but they are in a single-parent home, or part-member family. There’s a dissonance there that people who fit the mold don’t stop to think about.

I recognize the church has it’s principles and ideals, and I’m not saying it shouldn’t teach those things, but what about the rest of us who don’t fit into the Family Proclamation?

In the April 2019 General Conference, Elder Anderson recognized there are a LOT of us who don’t “fit neatly inside the Proclamation.” His answer was that perhaps he doesn’t understand their situations, but the Savior does, to turn to Jesus.

The Savior knows you and your situation and offers you love.

Elder Anderson promised that “He (Jesus) will bless you and lift the burdens too heavy to bear alone. He will give you eternal friends and opportunities to serve. More important, He will fill you with the powerful Spirit of the Holy Ghost and shine His heavenly approval upon you.”

[queenofthecommunistcannibals]

@yikes-trademarked

i mean yeah, the post has nothing to do with it just comes across as a bit of a slap in the face to people who are genuinely oppressed in a modern day society. how are asexuals ‘neglected’ and ‘isolated’? so most people experience sexual attraction and you don’t, whoop de doo. nobody actually cares if you do or don’t experience sexual attraction. if you could please give me an actual, real life, not someone-calling-you-a-plant-online example of asexual discrimination then i’ll take back my words

___

@yikes-trademarked I super love how instead of apologizing you are doubling down. Okay. I'll give you examples. Here are some general prejudices that affect aro and ace people. They aren't in any real order.

•Until the DSM V asexuality was considered a mental illness. Despite the fact that now we are "allowed" to "identify" as asexual HSDD (Hypoactive sexual desire disorder) is STILL considered a disorder. So instead of trying to help a person accept themselves as asexual allosexual (nonace) doctors will try to "fix" someone if they want to. Asexuality is still seen as something to be cured. It is still a dysfunction in their eyes, they just hide their prejudice a little better.

•Asexuals have been harrassed and raped in an attempt to fix them. Asexuals and aromantics are often seen as a "challenge" to be harassed into affection.

•Mainstream Christianity discriminates against asexuals as they do other queer identities. Here is one quote from a document called "Asexuality and Christianity" produced for Asexual Awareness Week (the fact that we get "awareness" rather than "pride" ain't great either)

"While celibacy is officially considered a good stance in religion, declaring oneself disinterested in sex is often met with disapproval. Asexuals have been told that they are rejecting God's gift of sexuality, that they are just as bad as homosexuals because they are not 'normal'...or people decide to pray to God for them to be fixed or for the Almighty to send the right person for them to fall in love with."

Or from the horse's mouth "Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist. Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well." This was written by two Jesuit priests David Nantais and Scott Opperman. In other religions this is also often true. I know more about Christianity personally but I know similar doctrines exist in Islam and Orthodox Judaism. Not to mention the notion that marriage is the only acceptable option in these religions (unless you are Catholic clergy) and children are a necessity. Hell, according to the conservative traditional gender roles of these religions even an otherwise gender conforming aro/ace doesn't fit (not marrying, no kids, no family, all that).

•Dehumanization from all sides. We are told to be human is to love and that love is nearly always put in romantic or sexual context. Indeed NOT being capable of or experiencing romantic or sexual love is often used as shorthand for someone being a bad person (As Dexter [from Dexter], for example, becomes more sympathetic he develops the ability to feel sexual/romantic love. Robots in fiction can be asexual and aromantic but only if you want to show them as apart from humanity. Once you want to make it clear they have a soul they have to experience some kind of romantic urge or longing. Like Data from Star Trek) An article in Psychology Today by Dr. Gordon Hodson Ph.D. (who specializes in studying dehumanization) postulates (with a study to back it up) that asexuals are the most dehumanized sexual minority.

•On the specifically romantic asexual front in many places do not consider a marriage valid until it has been consumated.

•In media in which asexuality and aromanticism are not proof of evil they are judged to be not real. Here is one of if not our first actual representation in media. In the film Nymphomaniac the SELF-PROCLAIMED asexual character turns out to be a rapist who the protagonist murders in what is supposed to be a "woo! You go girl!" moment. AT BEST this says asexuals aren't real. We're just sexually repressed misanthropes. It might also imply that asexuals are base animals who are waiting to strike. THAT IS ONE OF THE FEW TIMES THE WORD ASEXUAL IS EVEN USED IN MAINSTREAM FILM! I cannot think of a single other.

•We are erased constantly in real life and in media. Here are two examples of active erasure, Jughead Jones (canonly aro/ace in the comics and coded as such since day one) was straight-washed for Riverdale. You may say "oh maybe they didn't know" (which is bullshit) then consider example two: Sherlock Holmes. Holmes (who I adore) has long been one of the few characters that has been "allowed" to aro/aces, but when the creators of BBC's Sherlock were explicitly asked if he was aro/ace they said he absolutely wasn't.

This is part of what I am talking about. We are not allowed to exist. We are invisible.

•Asexuals and aromantics are somehow toxic in our mere existence. We make kids think it is okay to be like us and are poisoning their young minds. We hate sex and thus are against the sex positivity movement.

•"Virgin" is an insult and we are treated as constant children. Somehow we have failed to grow up and cannot be treated as adults.

•And here is what I was really talking about SOCIETY IS NOT MADE FOR US! CULTURE IS NOT CONDUSIVE TO OUR EXISTENCES! I didn't know asexuality was an option until I was about 24. And before that I, like many aro/ace people, put myself in a lot of situations and relationships to "fix" myself. To make myself normal. My first and only sexual encounter was one of the things that sent me spiralling into a serious depression. I didn't know that it was okay to not be interested and to say "no.". So I said "okay" because I thought it was what I had to do to be a normal teenager. I don't know if I ever shared that online before so congrats you got me so mad I revisited my personal trauma. From childhood we are told falling in love is the ultimate reward. As teens we are told we gotta get laaaaaid. As adults not being involved in a sexual/romantic (often indistinguishable) relationship is WEIRD and TROUBLING. I have been told by people who don't know I am asexual that asexual people are "too weird" or even "creepy." The idea that someone might not be capable of romantic love sets off people's red flags that said aromantic might be crazy.

•We are surrounded by sex and romance constantly. Constantly. It is inescapable. In your real life I want you to pay attention to romantic or sexual imagry and storylines around you. There is no break. No alternative. This is what I mean by "invisible at best."

•Also, we are denied a history. It is very hard to prove absence but often sexless figures are immediately dubbed to be gay/lesbian because of their lack of interest in "appropriate" gender. Forgetting entirely that asexuality and aromanticism are options. Then when the question is raised they maybe a figure WAS aro and/or ace we are told that we are """"stealing"""" history. There is like one person in history we are allowed: Nikola Tesla. I love him very much, but he also fits the bill as a weirdo asexual. Because anyone who was the least bit acceptable to society must be allosexual. An example in reverse, Queen Elizabeth I, Britain's most beloved monarch, who never married, never was romantically or sexually involved with anyone (aside from being assaulted as a teenager), and was in her era very famously THE VIRGIN QUEEN who used her virginity as part of her persona to great affect. She is not considered asexual or aromantic and never has been. I have seen a biographer bend over backwards to get away from that accusation including using an incident where an elderly Elizabeth flashed a dignitary to make him uncomfortable as proof that she was allo. We can't have this awesome historical figure be one of those creeps right?!

•i am not even going into the history of how "sexlessness" was historically treated, especially in women. Let me just say that "spinsterism" was considered a danger to children and young women.

•NOTICE I WENT THIS WHOLE POST WITHOUT MENTIONING ASSHOLES WHO USE THE DISK HORSE AND BAR US FROM QUEER CIRCLES EVEN THOUGH SOME STUDIES FIND ASEXUALS HAVE LOWER SELF ESTEEM THAN ANY OTHER QUEER GROUP AND WOULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM A COMMUNITY!! THIS POST IS ENTIRELY EXAMPLES OF NON ONLINE PEOPLE BECAUSE SOMEHOW YOUR CONSTANT ABUSE OR REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE ABUSE IS A-OKAY BECAUSE IT IS PART OF "THE DEBATE" BECAUSE SOMEHOW OUR EXISTENCE IS ACCEPTABLE DEBATE!

These are just some examples. People are free to add more but I am tired. If you want links I will dig them up.

Sincerely,

Fuck you.

I apologize for the "fuck you" but the exclusionist attitude is so disheartening. It is bad for not only aros and aces but also the queer community in general. We should be in this together! Fighting for one another side by side! We should be there for each other for hardships and for celebrations. I think it is vital that exclusionists really examine what and who they are actually fighting against.

[thecomicsnexus]

OMEGA MEN #12-13 MARCH - APRIL 1984 BY ROGER SLIFER, TOD SMITH, MIKE DECARLO, TOM ZIUKO AND ANTHONY TOLLIN

SYNOPSIS (FROM DC DATABASE)

While the Omega Men finish their conference with Mama Madame on Rashashoon, Shlagen desperately flees from a gang of libidinous matrons who are infatuated with them. Once Shlagen is safely away from them, he rejoins his comrades only to discover that Broot has decided to take a temporary leave of absence from the team in order to search for his missing wife. Shlagen volunteers to accompany him.

The other Omega Men leave the injured Harpis behind on Rashashoon to continue her convalescence and make haste towards Euphorix. Primus knows that Kalista intends on re-activating the planetary shield permanently, and he is desperate to return to her before the shield is erected. On Euphorix, Kalista's loyal attendant Rhoark asks her why she hasn't raised the shield yet. Kalista has been biding as much time as possible in the hopes that Primus might return in time. At the urging of Alonzo Dulak, Kalista re-activates the shield, then destroys the shield controls so that it can never be lowered again.

Meanwhile, Broot and Shlagen take a cruiser and plot a course towards a set of coordinates that Broot acquired during his brief tenure as a prisoner of the Citadel. The journey brings them to a grey, arid planetoid seemingly devoid of life. They find a beacon which directs them to a series of underground tunnels. While exploring the tunnels, Broot and Shlagen are separated and Broot finds the embalmed remains of a Changralynian youth. He continues searching until he comes to a massive cavern populated by dozens of young, sickly Changralynians hard at work mining ore. Upon seeing Broot, they immediately flock to him and refer to him as "father" as he is the oldest male Changralynian they have ever seen in their lives. Broot's emotions are a bevy of love, sadness and anger. He is shocked to learn that these broken laborers had never even heard of the Citadel, much less having had contact with their captors. When the day's labors are complete, the Changralynians bring Broot to their temple. They tell him that their religion is the only thing that makes their lives bearable. Broot steels himself, though his anger swells. Religion is the tool that led these Changralynians to a life of slave labor to begin with. At the temple, a blind, Changralynian woman begins reading scripture. Broot is horrified to discover that this woman is his wife Kattayan-Bish.

Broot is cheerfully reunited with his wife Kattayan-Besh. The two have not seen one another since the day the Gordanians took Kattayan as a slave many years ago. The reunion is bittersweet however as Broot grieves over the fact that his wife is blind and sick from radiation poisoning. In fact, all of the Changralynians down in these minds are prematurely aged due to long term exposure to the deadly energy.

Meanwhile on the Omega Men mothership, Doc outfits Primus with a new eye, replacing the cybernetic one he had been using since the siege of Changralyn. Tigorr makes an attempt to alleviate Primus' concerns, but he is no mood for the Karnan's displays of carousal. His only thought is that of his wife Kalista, who he might never see again.

Back at the mining colony, Broot can no longer sit by in silence as he watches his brethren embrace the same religious doctrines that had condemned them to this fate. He smashes their holy scriptures and vainly attempts to convince them that they need not resign themselves to such a life. His wife is steadfast in her beliefs however, and invites Broot to stay with them, to learn that they are in fact content with their livelihood. While Broot continues to come to terms with his people's fate, Shlagen is wandering around the upper chambers of the beacon. While attempting to find some food, he unwittingly opens a broadcast channel to the Gordanians. He quickly breaks the connection, hoping that he has not done anything to warrant their attention.

The following morning, Broot attends the others as they go to work in the mines. One of the Changralynians, Luukey, attempts to negotiate a narrow passageway, but a seismic rupture causes the cavern to collapse on top of him. Broot burrows through the debris, but he is too late. Luukey is dead. Funeral services are held for the lad, but Broot is disgusted by their complacency. He tries once more to convince them to throw off the shackles of slavery, but they refuse. Broot's words do reach the ears of one miner however, who breaks his ceremonial rune stone. He is not completely convinced of Broot's words, but promises that at the very least he will think upon them. The two shake hands and Broot replies, "That's all I ask -- that you think".

REVIEW

As an atheist I can identify with Broot a lot. This is Broot’s story. His wife and slave kids conform to keep the peace even if it kills them. And in the end, they know it’s an option, but they find comfort in what they fear. This is very similar to the feeling some atheist experience in the transition period between believers and non-believers. All the indoctrination you received since you were born affects you (in Christianity is the idea of hell).

However, this doesn’t have to be about religion (even though, the characters rely on a religion that is killing them). This is more about conformism, and staying in a comfort zone even if it is bad for you. People with social anxiety can relate to that very well. These people are slaves by choice. Slaves to the Gordanians in this case, who exchange food for radioactive ore. But it isn’t that they don’t know they are being used. They know, but they consider stepping out of their zone more terrifying than dying where they are.

There are even more examples of situations that apply to this scenario, like depression and addiction. Whatever the idea was, it’s a very powerful story. (You can interpret his final comment in any way that serves you “Dedicated to all those willing to take the risks and explore. From a fellow explorer...”. I don’t know what he meant, but there is no way of asking him now.

Slifer left the title because of irreconcilable differences with DC (we can only imagine it was because of creator rights). It’s strange because around that time, DC was paying good royalties and was trying to make amends with other creators, so I wonder what exactly happened (Lobo, one of his co-creations, wasn’t yet the best-seller character he eventually became). The other possibly is that perhaps his writing was too violent for mainstream comics. This was a direct market book, but there is a lot of violence, mutilations, cannibalism and  prostitution. The book was like a year or two, too early for the modern age. And readers complained on the letters, a lot.

Tod Smith is not an artist I easily remember, but the expressions on the Changralynians are very telling. For a race of characters that look all alike, he did a good job making them unique.

I give this issue a score of 8

[catholicartistsnyc]

Meet: Emily Claire Schmitt

EMILY CLAIRE SCHMITT is a NYC-based playwright. (www.emilyclaireschmitt.com and Twitter: @Eclaire082)

CATHOLIC ARTIST CONNECTION (CAC): What brought you to NYC?

EMILY CLAIRE SCHMITT (ECS): I'm originally from Cincinnati, Ohio and I did my undergrad at Saint Mary's College in Indiana.  I always hoped to move to New York and I was fortunate that a few things fell into place for me when I graduated.  I was accepted into the New School for Drama's MFA program directly from undergrad.  I had applied to schools all over the country, and this happened to be both my top choice and only acceptance letter.  My college boyfriend's family is from Staten Island, so he moved back home and we were able to stay together.  Now that boyfriend is my husband, so I'm here to stay.

CAC: What do you see as your personal mission as a Catholic working in the arts?

ECS: First off, I love this question.  I think about this a lot, and I always try to pray a bit before I start writing, even if what I'm working on isn't an overtly religious piece.  I believe that God wants to be present with us as we grapple with the world and, while I don't let religious doctrines limit the content of my writing, my writing is always filtered through a worldview that God exists.  

A great deal of my art is critical of the institutional Church, but I'm still very insistent that I am a Catholic writer, as opposed to a formerly Catholic writer. There is a fundamental difference between someone who critiques from within and someone who has left the Church and is describing the experience that caused them to leave.  This distinction is supremely important to me.

I believe my vocation as a writer is to be a tool for God to express Themself in the world.  Sometimes this means representing the beauty of God's world, but more often than not it means shining light on that which is not in alignment with the Divine, whether within secular society or within the Church.  I hope that my work makes both religious and secular people uncomfortable.  I hope it makes them wonder what God thinks about them.

CAC: Where have you found support in the Church for your vocation as an artist?

ECS: I've been extremely fortunate to have made great connections with fellow Catholics in the arts.  I've worked with Xavier Theatre and Film, a Jesuit theater company, and they produced a showcase of my play "The Chalice" at the Stonewall Inn.  This was one of the highlights of my career thus far, an intersection of the Catholic and secular world that was truly fulfilling.

CAC: Where have you found support among your fellow artists for your Catholic faith?

ECS: It's a mixed bag.  Grad school was not a positive experience for me in terms of acceptance. After 16 years of Catholic education, I was suddenly in a secular world and I made a lot of mistakes in terms of how I presented myself.  I was wrestling with my faith privately, but fiercely defending it publicly, which is never a good tactic.  I didn't feel safe.  I no longer work with anyone from grad school, and that's best for all of us.

However, post graduation I have really found an artistic community with people of all faiths.  I have frequent collaborators who are non-Catholic Christians, members of other faiths, atheists, and agnostics.  I've found a particular home with The Skeleton Rep, a theater company that focuses on "building modern myth."  My religious beliefs really mesh with their interests, despite being a completely secular company.  I am currently developing a musical with them. 

CAC: How can the Church be more welcoming to artists?

ECS: Stop policing our content.  The vocation of an artist is to observe, critique, and respond.  It is not the vocation of the artist to simply listen and accept doctrine without question.  This means that there is an essential tension between the work of being an artist and the work of being a practicing Catholic.

As an artist, I don't have the luxury of keeping my disagreements with the Church private. I promise I'm listening and it's possible to change my mind. Please be patient with me.

CAC: How can the artistic world be more welcoming to artists of faith?

ECS: I think this is a difficult question because in most of the instances where people have been unwelcoming to me, it's because they have been hurt in some serious way by the Church.  It's taken me a long time to accept that, while I have not personally hurt them, I am part of an institution that has and it's not unreasonable for them to ask me to answer for that.

I try to be clear about my beliefs and about why I have chosen to remain in the Church.  I also try to articulate how I'm striving to make the Church better, while remaining firm in my support of Her.  I have to be both gentle and unafraid about how and why I disagree with the secular world as well.  Once again, I promise I'm listening and it's possible to change my mind.  Please be patient with me.

CAC: Where in NYC do you regularly find spiritual fulfillment?

ECS: I'm a bit of a parish hopper.  When I first came to NYC I fell in love with Saint Francis Xavier, near Union Square.  Their Young Adults Group was a great community for me, but after moving to Brooklyn and back I'm not as involved as I once was.  I've become more interested in traditional, more formal, liturgies. Saint Joseph of Yorkville is a beautiful neighborhood parish that has a highly reverent modern mass.  There are so many families with children there, it gives me great hope.  And the pastor is the man who reported on McCarrick so that's no small thing.... I like a priest I can respect, for obvious reasons.

When I'm feeling in particular need of deep ritual, I do love a Latin Mass. Saint Agnes by Grand Central is a great place to go for that. 

CAC: Where in NYC do you regularly find artistic fulfillment?

ECS: I already mentioned The Skeleton Rep, but one thing they do which I love are monthly artist salons.  Artists will get together, drink wine, and read new work, either a full play or short plays based on a prompt.  There is no formal feedback, just a chance for the writer to hear her play.  And afterwards we have a party.

CAC: How have you found or built community as a Catholic artist living in NYC?

ECS: Connecting with Brother Joe Hoover at Xavier Theater has really connected me with a great community of Catholic artists.  He has a way of making connections and bringing together a dynamic and diverse group of people with a huge variety of perspectives on the faith.  If you ever get the chance to work with them I highly recommend it.  Joe is a fantastic playwright and actor in his own right.

CAC: What is your daily spiritual practice?

ECS: I wish I had a better one...  I pray every day before I write.  My husband and I pray together before meals.  Recently, we've been doing a daily reflection before bed.  It's just one of those Little Blue Books you pick up from your parish during Advent, but it's been great.

CAC: What is your daily artistic practice? And what are your recommendations to other artists for practicing their craft daily?

ECS: I try to write for an hour every morning after working out and before leaving for work. This is really my sacred time: after my husband leaves, freshly showered, and place to myself.  It's short but it's extremely important.  And I can't stress enough the value of praying before you write. 

CAC: Describe a recent day in which you were most completely living out your vocation as an artist. What happened, and what brought you the most joy?

ECS: The most recent Skeleton Rep salon was on New Year's Eve.  I wrote a short piece for the event which spoke of my Catholic faith and it's relationship to the mission of the company.  Afterwards, another artist present pulled me aside to talk about how he is a Catholic as well but had stopped going to Church.  He was interested in going back, so we spent a long time talking about why I felt it was important for young Catholic artists to be in the faith and engage with it from the inside.  The whole conversation was so fulfilling for me. 

CAC: You actually live in NYC? How!?

ECS: I need to be completely up front and say that I have been incredibly privileged in terms of financial support from my family.  This is something we do not talk about enough in the arts.  My parents paid my rent and my tuition while I was in school and I am debt-free.  I'm also married to someone with a traditional career who contributes the majority of our income.  I am so incredibly fortunate it's not even funny.  

CAC: But seriously, how do you make a living in NYC?

ECS: Even with the financial support, I do have a full-time day job.  I don't know how anyone would make rent or buy groceries without one.  I work in social media marketing, which is great because it's mostly all remote.  I've also been nannying for my cousin's baby so making that sweet side cash.

It's a lot of work, and keeping my passion afloat on top if it, and making sure it remains my focus rather than just a "hobby" is a constant battle.

CAC: How much would you suggest artists moving to NYC budget for their first year?

ECS: I can't give a great answer to this, because it's so varied and I was in school when I started.  But consider that your monthly rent is likely to be over 1K no matter where you live.

CAC: What other practical resources would you recommend to a Catholic artist living in NYC?

ECS: I can't recommend enough reaching out to Xavier Theater for professional connections.  In terms of headshots, Joe Loper is a former classmate of mine who does a great job and is very reasonable. http://joeloper.com/

CAC: What are your top 3 pieces of advice for Catholic artists moving to NYC?

ECS: 1.) Don't rush finding your people.  It's a big city and it takes time.

2.) Exercise.

3.) Go to confession.  Why make art with sin on your soul?

[dailyaudiobible]

11/28/2018 DAB Transcript

Daniel 5:1-31, 2 Peter 2:1-22, Psalms 119:113-128, Proverbs 28:19-20

Today is the 28th day of November. Welcome to the Daily Audio Bible. 28th day of November, friends. That only gives us a couple of days to finish this month strong and move into the 12th month of the year. And, so, that's what we’ve come here to do. We’re reading from the Contemporary English Version this week. We have begun the book of Daniel, which we will continue to read and then we began second Peter yesterday and we will continue with that letter we get to the New Testament, but first Daniel 5:1-31.

Commentary:

Alright. So, in our reading from 2 Peter today, we experience a bit of a tirade from the apostle Peter against false teachers. And these were people who had come to faith and even to prominence, right? So, like even to standing, maybe even teachers, but they were falling away from the core essentials of the gospel and then were leading other people to do the same. And it wasn't just matters of doctrine. These people were using their gifting to exploit the week. So, quoting Peter, “They have done evil and they will be rewarded with evil. They think it's fun to have wild parties during the day. They are immoral and the meals they eat with you are spoiled by the shameful and selfish way they carry on. All they think about is having sex with someone else's husband or wife. There is no end to their wicked deeds. They trick people who are easily fooled, and their minds are filled with greedy thoughts, but they are headed for trouble.” So, I mean, we can see why Peter is less than fond of these people. And if that wasn't clear enough, all we have to do is hear what he has to say. “These people are no better than senseless animals that live by their feelings and are born to be caught and killed. They speak evil of things they don't know anything about but their own corrupt deeds will destroy them.” So, he's being blunt. He’s being like James I mean, we’re not…were not confused about what he's trying to say; however, it should be noted that the kind of false teacher Peter described, this is not…this is not the same as this modern custom that we see of mislabeling as a false teacher anybody who asks important and difficult questions of our faith. That is not the same thin. Wrestling with our faith in pursuit of revelation and understanding and insight, this has always been a part of the Christian tradition. But when dogma turns into cement then we’ve got a problem. And, you know, if you’re a little more on the legalistic persuasion you could even think that what I'm saying is wishy-washy, but the reality is just in the Bible. The church was struggling from the very, very beginning and it's all throughout the letters. And what were some of their earliest struggles? Some of the earliest struggles were whether or not Gentile people could even be Christians. That was a big struggle and they had to wrestle, and they disagreed, and it was a mess in the early church. And so much of the writings from the apostle Paul and like even what we’re reading in second Peter, so much of the persecution that had broken out was because of this decision. So, wresting and asking questions, pursuing understanding is a part of our tradition. Peter's distinction was that false teachers were intentionally, right, like, they weren’t pursuing understanding or seeking God, they were intentionally and maliciously deceiving God's people for their own personal gain. He describes them like this, “These people are like dried-up waterholes and clouds blown by a windstorm. The darkest part of hell is waiting for them. They brag out loud about their stupid nonsense and by being vulgar and crude they trap people who have barely escaped from living the wrong kind of life. They promise freedom to everyone, but they are merely slaves of filthy living because people are slaves of whatever controls them.” So that last thing Peter had to say should catch us for second. If there’s is one thing that we could recite before we engage in any conversation or before we make any decision today, anything that we could put in front of ourselves that could change the course of the day for good it would be, “I am a slave to whatever controls me.” So, let's put that into practice today. Every conversation, right, every decision - I am a slave to whatever controls me - and see what that does for the day. But Peter wasn't discussing mantras, like things we can say to help us get through the day. He was discussing the characteristics of false teachers and we finally found out why he was so upset as we came to the conclusion of our reading today. So, Peter says, “When they learned about our Lord Jesus, when they learned about the Savior, they escaped from the filthy things of this world, but they are again caught up and controlled by these filthy things and Now they are in worse shape than they were at first. They would've been better off if they had never known about the right way. Even after they knew what was right, they turned their backs on the holy commandments that they were given. What happened to them is just like the true saying, a dog will come back to lick up its own vomit.” Alight. So, even though Peter is speaking pretty directly and forcefully against false teachers who were leading people into sin, it was the people who fell into sin that Peter was concerned about. And, so, in that context we’re left with some pretty poignant imagery - a dog returning to its vomit. So, we’ve probably all seen it right? Like,  Rover is out in the yard or in the kitchen and barfs. And if they’re left alone they’ll walk in a circle a couple times, right, and then come back with their nose - nice full nostril inhale. And maybe a couple more circles and then they’ll come back and eat it. That's disgusting, right? So, here's the kicker. When we return to our sinful past. It's like puking in a bowl and eating it like soup. It should sound disgusting, because according to Peter it is disgusting. So, let's consider the starkness of what is known to be the final writings of the apostle Peter's life and let's apply that starkness to the context of our own lives. Exactly what sewage are we continually returning to because we have been deceived into believing that it's somehow desirous. What influences do we have over those around us that we might invite them to do the same thing? Because this is what Peter was talking about in our reading today. These are tough but they’re important questions. Why would we choose eating out of a toilet over the banquet God has prepared for us? Let’s invite the Holy Spirit into these questions because we are a slave to whatever controls us.

Prayer:

Father, we invite You into that. There's just a lot there. There’s just a ton there. We do find ourselves making big circles and little circles in our lives and we end up where we started on some things and it's like returning to our vomit when we are…when we are returning to things of old or like resurrecting something that's dead and trying to carry it around like it's alive, and it weighs us down, it beats us up, and then we blame You. And there’s just a lot here. And, so, we invite You into it. We don't want to live this way. We don't have to live this way. We can walk one step forward every day toward sanctification and holiness, it's our prerogative. You offered the path. You’ve paved the way. And most the time we’re just not choosing to walk it. So, thank You for the starkness today of seeing what we’re doing as returning to our own sewage and eating it. Help us to remember that imagery Lord as we continue to walk forward with You so that we can see things as they are, not as we have been deceived to believe they are. Come Holy Spirit we pray. In Jesus’ name we ask. Amen.

Announcements:

dailyaudibible.com is the website, its home base, its where you find out what's going on around here.

And for the last week we’ve been talking about the Daily Audio Bible family Christmas Box for 2018. And yes, that is available. And yes, you can find it at dailyaudiobible.com in the shop in the Christmas section.

However, we have another announcement to make today and there's no one better to make this announcement then the most beautiful redhead in all of the world, my wife, Jill

Jill: Thanks babe, flattery…flattery gets you everywhere. So, it’s true. We have a very special announcement. Every year when I get ready to announce More gathering, I say that I'm more excited this year than any other year and I say that because it's true you. You would think it gets old but the anticipation, the excitement, the palpable energy, it's true. I get more excited every year about what God is gonna do. With that being said, this year, More Gathering 2019, I have the bittersweet pleasure of announcing that this is our final year at Sharp Top camp in Jasper Georgia. This has been what Brian and I have been sensing the last couple of years and we just…we waited…we waited to make sure that our sense was right, that it was from the Lord, that it wasn't just us feeling tired or, you know, just emotional, or just feeling the distance of travel. It was something that we were sensing and did not even no it until we came together and had a conversation. And both of our senses were the same. And, so, after much prayer, much consideration, this will be the last year that more gathering will be in Jasper George. Now, with that being said, I cannot at this time announce what More Gathering 2020 will look like, because I don't know at this point. I am not worried. I am not anxious. I am not concerned with where were going. I believe God knows. I fully believe and trust that when I'm supposed to know, He’ll make that inevitably clear and I’m actually quite excited, quite tickled about that because that's the journey with God. We walk blindly by faith. We trust Him to provide. We trust Him that He knows, that He's already taken care of it. And, so, we're just gonna walk, and we’re gonna obey, and we are going to celebrate this last year together at Sharp Top in Jasper George 2019. Now, if you've been on the fence and said, I need this mountaintop experience, which you hear other women talk about, this is the year for you to come. This is it. This is the last chance. And I can tell you that if you're wondering about any of it - the lodging everything - it is the most spectacular food experience. Sit down hot meals. The grounds are phenomenal. It’s just…the whole thing…I cannot say enough how impeccable the camp has served us, the staff, the team at Sharp top. I am eternally grateful for all that they have done. They have exceeded every single expectation in the weekends that they have provided for us. That part I will absolutely miss, the excellence that we are served with, the excellence that a just operate every day in. Like, well done. Well done young life and Sharp Top. So, here's the deal. We usually offer some sort of discount up to a certain time. If you take part in that, you'll save money. We have done away with that this year. We have we are offering the absolute lowest price possible to make it affordable for you to come. So, if you're waiting for, you know, a promotion our discount, that's not happening this year. This is the rock-bottom flat rate price that we can offer to you. Now if this is your first time and you have never been and you need a private room, I’m gonna tell you right now, those private rooms are gonna be to first to go. They will go fast and we never have enough to sell because everyone wants a private room. Don't let that stop you. There’s something beautiful happens in the rooms. The friendships that are forged, they last a lifetime. I mean, it's truly amazing and spectacular to see those friendships and how they blossoming and the reunions that women continue to have year after year because they went through something deep and beautiful together and together is how it's supposed to be done. So, this is it. This is your last chance to come to the end of an era and we’re gonna celebrate together. That's what we’re gonna do, celebrate the end of an era together and we are going to celebrate going forward. Sign up dailyaudiobible.com or moregathering.com. Now, the last thing that I want to say ism we always, always have women that cannot afford to go that want to be able to be there. And maybe you know that you absolutely cannot go but you can afford to send somebody. I wish I could tell you the gift that it is that you would be giving to a woman in need. I wish I could tell you the transformation that I see on women's physical faces and the posture that takes place over the course of the weekend of women who just walk in bearing the burdens of life and literally carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders and leave free because they know who they are because God has met them there and spoken specifically to the spirit of who He calls them to be, who he says they. And seeing freedom take place…well…I can tell you…there's no greater gift. It takes all of us. It takes all of us doing our part and doing what we can. If that’s you and you know that you can help give and you would like to be a part of that and that way you can email me at jill@dailyaudiobible.com. And for those of you that can. I just want to say thank you in advance. Thank you for the gift of freedom that you have already given to some women. A lot of times assistance comes in at the end and there's not enough time for women to get all of the pieces in order that they need to come because where women. You know, we’ve gotta take care of the food and the kids and all of the things that we take care of. So, we’re mentioning it now while there’s time for women to get all of the things done. So, that’s it. This is the big announcement. It’s the last year at Sharp Top. We hope that you will join us for the end of an era, the final the final frontier in Georgia, in Jasper Georgette. We are gonna finish well and strong and then we are going to wait with anticipation to see what God does next.

Brian: Amen to that. And yes, to everything you’ve said, everything that Jill has said is right. So registration for the More Gathering 2019 that will take place in the mountains of Georgia for the final time is open now at dailyaudiobible.com in the Initiatives section. And if this has been something that you’ve desired to come to for years then this is the time. And we always…you know…like…we could weight to the beginning of the new year to start talking about the More Gathering, but it is such a unique and fantastic Christmas gift that we talk about it now because it's like…give the gift of freedom…the gift of more in life. We think that is that is the gift we are all looking for. So check it out. You can you can register for More Gathering 2019 now.

If you want to partner with the Daily Audio Bible in the common mission that we share to bring the spoken word of God to anyone who will listen anywhere on this planet any time of day or night and to keep building community through things like the More Gathering around this rhythm so that we know that we know that we’re not coping through this alone, we have brothers and sisters all over the world. If that has brought light and good news into your world, then thank you for your partnership. There's a link on the homepage dailyaudiobible.com. If you're using the Daily Audio Bible press the Give button in the upper right-hand corner or, if you prefer, the mailing address is PO Box 1996 Spring Hill Tennessee 37174.

And, as always, if you have a prayer request or comment, 877-942-4253 is the number to dial.

And that's it for today. I'm Brian I love you and I'll be waiting for you here tomorrow.

Community Prayer and Praise:

Hello Daily Audio Bible family, this is Sheila from Massachusetts. It’s been a very long time since I’ve called in, but I am listening to you all daily, and praying for you all regularly. I’m calling today specifically to pray for Linda. Linda, I heard your call yesterday of the day before. Your family is divided, and you are going through some hard times. You talked about having relationship problems and noticing patterns in the past, that you just need to make some changes. I just praise God that we can sit back sometimes and look at ourselves, take stock, and recognize where we need to change. With the help of Jesus Christ, Linda, you have the ability to make those changes and experience the most wonderful relationship in your life. You said that almost daily you think about suicide. You said that you wouldn’t do it. I want you to make a promise to all of us as your Daily Audio Bible family. I want to look in the mirror, look yourself in the eyes and say I am a child of God, I am loved by God, I am so precious, I am so beautiful, I am so wonderful, He is things in store for me that I don’t even know and I could never ever, ever interfere with that plan by taking my own life. Sister, please, look in the mirror, make that declaration. We love you, your Daily Audio Bible family loves you, I love you as a sister in Christ, and I am praying for you. Family, I hope everyone has the love of Jesus in their hearts through the holidays and we’re saying hallelujah no matter what if. Talk to you all later…

Hi Daily Audio Bible family, my name is Paula and I’m calling from England and have got a praise report. I thought in the grace of Thanksgiving I would share my praise report. I’ve been being a listener for over 10 years now and I haven’t called as often as I should. I probably have called…I don’t know…on average probably once a year, but many, many years ago I called regarding my work situation and things weren’t going really well. I wanted to leave my job and at that point it was like if God didn’t give me a new job that was it. Anger for unanswered prayers, right? Anyway, I called back to give a praise report that I didn’t get all the jobs I applied for, but God had change the situation, the work situation. I went to a different department, I left the lab, I went to project management and I really, really thrive there. And things changed and I absolutely loved it. And I called back to give a praise report that God __  had a __ opportunity, so I was able to do a fully sponsored PhD by my company alongside my full-time job. Well, obviously it was stressful, so I called back again asking for prayers and, long story short, I did my PhD in just over four years and earlier this year everything was…I submitted my thesis and I did my __ and it went really well and I have my PhD. whoop whoop! And I really just want to say thank you for all you guys. And Brian and Jill, guess what? You guys made it into my thesis. My dedication and acknowledgement and yeah, I mentioned you guys there. My friends Cat and Olga you guys made it to. And the entire DAB family. I mentioned you guys as well. I mean __ was the longest of acknowledgements and dedications I’ve ever seen. I had Bible verses - I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. So yeah, just for all you, that praise report has been really awesome, and God has done so many other things but I think that all the time. __ so, thank you. I love you so much. Take care.

Hi, my name is Deisha. I’m from New York. Today’s November 24th. I’ve been listening to the Daily Audio Bible since December 31, 2016. That day I just didn’t know how I could make it. I was praying for God for breakthrough and he led me to start listening to the podcast and I listened to the Daily Audio and I love you guys, I love you guys from the bottom of my heart. You guys remind me on a daily basis that Jesus is present, and He is real He is with us. Just how you treat each other and Brian what you’ve done is incredible. I can’t thank you enough. I can’t promote you enough. And, you know, if I had more I would give more but I implore everyone to donate to the Daily Audio where you can, 5, 10, 20, 25 or whatever because this family this is so wonderful. I continue to pray for you all and all of your needs. So, I finally got out of my shell and decided that I would call. So, I’m calling because I need to, the message was so on point in obedience, in the way we treat each other, the way husbands and wives are to each other. I pray that my husband and I fall in line with those teachings. I know that my husband loves the Lord and I pray for him and I pray that our marriage just meshes the way that it should. I also pray so much my family. In 2016 my grandfather died, and my family seems to have taken a decline but recently things are just falling apart, and I’m so hurt, and my mom is so hurt. And I just ask that you guys pray for my marriage and my family...

Hi Daily Audio Bible family this is Asia from Chicago. It’s been a while, I haven’t called in a while but I’m really thankful for you guys in a been praying for all of you all and, yeah, it’s…it’s just crazy how much has changed even since I called last. I was really struggling when I called last and I’m doing so much better now. So, praises, all praise to the Lord. He’s so good and I couldn’t have done it without His bride, which is you guys and Brian and Jill. Love you guys. I’m calling specifically today for Asia. Asia is calling Asia. Asia from Chicago calling Asia in Germany. Asia, ever since I heard your prayer a little while ago I just…I’ve wept for you, I’ve prayed for you almost every day, specifically you. So, I just want you to know that I’m really sorry for everything you’re going through and you are…you are thought of, you are loved. All right, in the name of Jesus. Amen. Bye guys.

[didanawisgi]

Nonoverlapping Magisteria

by Stephen Jay Gould

“Incongruous places often inspire anomalous stories. In early 1984, I spent several nights at the Vatican housed in a hotel built for itinerant priests. While pondering over such puzzling issues as the intended function of the bidets in each bathroom, and hungering for something other than plum jam on my breakfast rolls (why did the basket only contain hundreds of identical plum packets and not a one of, say, strawberry?), I encountered yet another among the innumerable issues of contrasting cultures that can make life so interesting. Our crowd (present in Rome for a meeting on nuclear winter sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) shared the hotel with a group of French and Italian Jesuit priests who were also professional scientists.

At lunch, the priests called me over to their table to pose a problem that had been troubling them. What, they wanted to know, was going on in America with all this talk about "scientific creationism"? One asked me: "Is evolution really in some kind of trouble. and if so, what could such trouble be? I have always been taught that no doctrinal conflict exists between evolution and Catholic faith, and the evidence for evolution seems both entirely satisfactory and utterly overwhelming. Have I missed something?"

A lively pastiche of French, Italian, and English conversation then ensued for half an hour or so, but the priests all seemed reassured by my general answer: Evolution has encountered no intellectual trouble; no new arguments have been offered. Creationism is a homegrown phenomenon of American sociocultural history—a splinter movement (unfortunately rather more of a beam these days) of Protestant fundamentalists who believe that every word of the Bible must be literally true, whatever such a claim might mean. We all left satisfied, but I certainly felt bemused by the anomaly of my role as a Jewish agnostic, trying to reassure a group of Catholic priests that evolution remained both true and entirely consistent with religious belief.

Another story in the same mold: I am often asked whether I ever encounter creationism as a live issue among my Harvard undergraduate students. I reply that only once, in nearly thirty years of teaching, did I experience such an incident. A very sincere and serious freshman student came to my office hours with the following question that had clearly been troubling him deeply: "I am a devout Christian and have never had any reason to doubt evolution, an idea that seems both exciting and particularly well documented. But my roommate, a proselytizing Evangelical, has been insisting with enormous vigor that I cannot be both a real Christian and an evolutionist. So tell me, can a person believe both in God and evolution?" Again, I gulped hard, did my intellectual duty, and reassured him that evolution was both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief—a position I hold sincerely, but still an odd situation for a Jewish agnostic.

These two stories illustrate a cardinal point, frequently unrecognized but absolutely central to any understanding of the status and impact of the politically potent, fundamentalist doctrine known by its self-proclaimed oxymoron as "scientitic creationism"—the claim that the Bible is literally true, that all organisms were created during six days of twenty-four hours, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that evolution must therefore be false. Creationism does not pit science against religion (as my opening stories indicate), for no such conflict exists. Creationism does not raise any unsettled intellectual issues about the nature of biology or the history of life. Creationism is a local and parochial movement, powerful only in the United States among Western nations, and prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that choose to read the Bible as an inerrant document, literally true in every jot and tittle.

I do not doubt that one could find an occasional nun who would prefer to teach creationism in her parochial school biology class or an occasional orthodox rabbi who does the same in his yeshiva, but creationism based on biblical literalism makes little sense in either Catholicism or Judaism for neither religion maintains any extensive tradition for reading the Bible as literal truth rather than illuminating literature, based partly on metaphor and allegory (essential components of all good writing) and demanding interpretation for proper understanding. Most Protestant groups, of course, take the same position—the fundamentalist fringe notwithstanding.

The position that I have just outlined by personal stories and general statements represents the standard attitude of all major Western religions (and of Western science) today. (I cannot, through ignorance, speak of Eastern religions, although I suspect that the same position would prevail in most cases.) The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.

In the context of this standard position, I was enormously puzzled by a statement issued by Pope John Paul II on October 22, 1996, to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the same body that had sponsored my earlier trip to the Vatican. In this document, entitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth," the pope defended both the evidence for evolution and the consistency of the theory with Catholic religious doctrine. Newspapers throughout the world responded with frontpage headlines, as in the New York Times for October 25:

"Pope Bolsters Church's Support for Scientific View of Evolution."

Now I know about "slow news days" and I do admit that nothing else was strongly competing for headlines at that particular moment. (The Times could muster nothing more exciting for a lead story than Ross Perot's refusal to take Bob Dole's advice and quit the presidential race.) Still, I couldn't help feeling immensely puzzled by all the attention paid to the pope's statement (while being wryly pleased, of course, for we need all the good press we can get, especially from respected outside sources). The Catholic Church had never opposed evolution and had no reason to do so. Why had the pope issued such a statement at all? And why had the press responded with an orgy of worldwide, front-page coverage?

I could only conclude at first, and wrongly as I soon learned, that journalists throughout the world must deeply misunderstand the relationship between science and religion, and must therefore be elevating a minor papal comment to unwarranted notice. Perhaps most people really do think that a war exists between science and religion, and that (to cite a particularly newsworthy case) evolution must be intrinsically opposed to Christianity. In such a context, a papal admission of evolution's legitimate status might be regarded as major news indeed—a sort of modern equivalent for a story that never happened, but would have made the biggest journalistic splash of 1640: Pope Urban VIII releases his most famous prisoner from house arrest and humbly apologizes, "Sorry, Signor Galileo… the sun, er, is central."

But I then discovered that the prominent coverage of papal satisfaction with evolution had not been an error of non-Catholic Anglophone journalists. The Vatican itself had issued the statement as a major news release. And Italian newspapers had featured, if anything, even bigger headlines and longer stories. The conservative Il Giornale, for example, shouted from its masthead: "Pope Says We May Descend from Monkeys."

Clearly, I was out to lunch. Something novel or surprising must lurk within the papal statement but what could it be?—especially given the accuracy of my primary impression (as I later verified) that the Catholic Church values scientific study, views science as no threat to religion in general or Catholic doctrine in particular, and has long accepted both the legitimacy of evolution as a field of study and the potential harmony of evolutionary conclusions with Catholic faith.

As a former constituent of Tip O'Neill's, I certainly know that "all politics is local"—and that the Vatican undoubtedly has its own internal reasons, quite opaque to me, for announcing papal support of evolution in a major statement. Still, I knew that I was missing some important key, and I felt frustrated. I then remembered the primary rule of intellectual life: when puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents—a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless, completely disappeared from large sectors of the American experience.

I knew that Pope Pius XII (not one of my favorite figures in twentieth-century history, to say the least) had made the primary statement in a 1950 encyclical entitled Humani Generis. I knew the main thrust of his message: Catholics could believe whatever science determined about the evolution of the human body, so long as they accepted that, at some time of his choosing, God had infused the soul into such a creature. I also knew that I had no problem with this statement, for whatever my private beliefs about souls, science cannot touch such a subject and therefore cannot be threatened by any theological position on such a legitimately and intrinsically religious issue. Pope Pius XII, in other words, had properly acknowledged and respected the separate domains of science and theology. Thus, I found myself in total agreement with Humani Generis—but I had never read the document in full (not much of an impediment to stating an opinion these days).

I quickly got the relevant writings from, of all places, the Internet. (The pope is prominently on-line, but a Luddite like me is not. So I got a computer-literate associate to dredge up the documents. I do love the fracture of stereotypes implied by finding religion so hep and a scientist so square.) Having now read in full both Pope Pius's Humani Generis of 1950 and Pope John Paul's proclamation of October 1996, I finally understand why the recent statement seems so new, revealing, and worthy of all those headlines. And the message could not be more welcome for evolutionists and friends of both science and religion.

The text of Humani Generis focuses on the magisterium (or teaching authority) of the Church—a word derived not from any concept of majesty or awe but from the different notion of teaching, for magister is Latin for "teacher." We may, I think, adopt this word and concept to express the central point of this essay and the principled resolution of supposed "conflict" or "warfare" between science and religion. No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or "nonoverlapping magisteria").

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man's land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult. To cite just two broad questions involving both evolutionary facts and moral arguments: Since evolution made us the only earthly creatures with advanced consciousness, what responsibilities are so entailed for our relations with other species? What do our genealogical ties with other organisms imply about the meaning of human life?

Pius XII's Humani Generis is a highly traditionalist document by a deeply conservative man forced to face all the "isms" and cynicisms that rode the wake of World War II and informed the struggle to rebuild human decency from the ashes of the Holocaust. The encyclical, subtitled "Concerning some false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine" begins with a statement of embattlement:

Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.

Pius lashes out, in turn, at various external enemies of the Church: pantheism, existentialism, dialectical materialism, historicism. and of course and preeminently, communism. He then notes with sadness that some well-meaning folks within the Church have fallen into a dangerous relativism—"a theological pacifism and egalitarianism, in which all points of view become equally valid"—in order to include people of wavering faith who yearn for the embrace of Christian religion but do not wish to accept the particularly Catholic magisterium.

What is this world coming to when these noxious novelties can so discombobulate a revealed and established order? Speaking as a conservative's conservative, Pius laments:

Novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology.…Some question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially.…Some even say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism.

Pius first mentions evolution to decry a misuse by overextension often promulgated by zealous supporters of the anathematized "isms":

Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution…explains the origin of all things.…Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

Pius's major statement on evolution occurs near the end of the encyclical in paragraphs 35 through 37. He accepts the standard model of NOMA and begins by acknowledging that evolution lies in a difficult area where the domains press hard against each other. "It remains for US now to speak about those questions which. although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith." [Interestingly, the main thrust of these paragraphs does not address evolution in general but lies in refuting a doctrine that Pius calls "polygenism," or the notion of human ancestry from multiple parents—for he regards such an idea as incompatible with the doctrine of original sin, "which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." In this one instance, Pius may be transgressing the NOMA principle—but I cannot judge, for I do not understand the details of Catholic theology and therefore do not know how symbolically such a statement may be read. If Pius is arguing that we cannot entertain a theory about derivation of all modern humans from an ancestral population rather than through an ancestral individual (a potential fact) because such an idea would question the doctrine of original sin (a theological construct), then I would declare him out of line for letting the magisterium of religion dictate a conclusion within the magisterium of science.]

Pius then writes the well-known words that permit Catholics to entertain the evolution of the human body (a factual issue under the magisterium of science), so long as they accept the divine Creation and infusion of the soul (a theological notion under the magisterium of religion):

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

I had, up to here, found nothing surprising in Humani Generis, and nothing to relieve my puzzlement about the novelty of Pope John Paul's recent statement. But I read further and realized that Pope Pius had said more about evolution, something I had never seen quoted, and that made John Paul's statement most interesting indeed. In short, Pius forcefully proclaimed that while evolution may be legitimate in principle, the theory, in fact, had not been proven and might well be entirely wrong. One gets the strong impression, moreover, that Pius was rooting pretty hard for a verdict of falsity. Continuing directly from the last quotation, Pius advises us about the proper study of evolution:

However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure.… Some, however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

To summarize, Pius generally accepts the NOMA principle of nonoverlapping magisteria in permitting Catholics to entertain the hypothesis of evolution for the human body so long as they accept the divine infusion of the soul. But he then offers some (holy) fatherly advice to scientists about the status of evolution as a scientific concept: the idea is not yet proven, and you all need to be especially cautious because evolution raises many troubling issues right on the border of my magisterium. One may read this second theme in two different ways: either as a gratuitous incursion into a different magisterium or as a helpful perspective from an intelligent and concerned outsider. As a man of good will, and in the interest of conciliation, I am happy to embrace the latter reading.

In any case, this rarely quoted second claim (that evolution remains both unproven and a bit dangerous)—and not the familiar first argument for the NOMA principle (that Catholics may accept the evolution of the body so long as they embrace the creation of the soul)—defines the novelty and the interest of John Paul's recent statement.

John Paul begins by summarizing Pius's older encyclical of 195O, and particularly by reaffirming the NOMA principle—nothing new here, and no cause for extended publicity:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation.

To emphasize the power of NOMA, John Paul poses a potential problem and a sound resolution: How can we reconcile science's claim for physical continuity in human evolution with Catholicism's insistence that the soul must enter at a moment of divine infusion:

With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation.

The novelty and news value of John Paul's statement lies, rather, in his profound revision of Pius's second and rarely quoted claim that evolution, while conceivable in principle and reconcilable with religion, can cite little persuasive evidence, and may well be false. John Paul—states and I can only say amen, and thanks for noticing—that the half century between Pius's surveying the ruins of World War II and his own pontificate heralding the dawn of a new millennium has witnessed such a growth of data, and such a refinement of theory, that evolution can no longer be doubted by people of good will:

Pius XII added . . . that this opinion [evolution] should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine. . . . Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

In conclusion. Pius had grudgingly admitted evolution as a legitimate hypothesis that he regarded as only tentatively supported and potentially (as I suspect he hoped) untrue. John Paul, nearly fifty years later, reaffirms the legitimacy of evolution under the NOMA principle—no news here—but then adds that additional data and theory have placed the factuality of evolution beyond reasonable doubt. Sincere Christians must now accept evolution not merely as a plausible possibility but also as an effectively proven fact. In other words, official Catholic opinion on evolution has moved from "say it ain't so, but we can deal with it if we have to" (Pius's grudging view of 1950) to John Paul's entirely welcoming "it has been proven true; we always celebrate nature's factuality, and we look forward to interesting discussions of theological implications." I happily endorse this turn of events as gospel—literally "good news." I may represent the magisterium of science, but I welcome the support of a primary leader from the other major magisterium of our complex lives. And I recall the wisdom of King Solomon: "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country (Prov. 25:25).

Just as religion must bear the cross of its hard-liners. I have some scientific colleagues, including a few prominent enough to wield influence by their writings, who view this rapprochement of the separate magisteria with dismay. To colleagues like me—agnostic scientists who welcome and celebrate thc rapprochement, especially the pope's latest statement—they say: "C'mon, be honest; you know that religion is addle-pated, superstitious, old-fashioned b.s.; you're only making those welcoming noises because religion is so powerful, and we need to be diplomatic in order to assure public support and funding for science." I do not think that this attitude is common among scientists, but such a position fills me with dismay—and I therefore end this essay with a personal statement about religion, as a testimony to what I regard as a virtual consensus among thoughtful scientists (who support the NOMA principle as firmly as the pope does).

I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense of institutional commitment or practice. But I have enormous respect for religion, and the subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution, paleontology, and baseball). Much of this fascination lies in the historical paradox that throughout Western history organized religion has fostered both the most unspeakable horrors and the most heart-rending examples of human goodness in the face of personal danger. (The evil, I believe, lies in the occasional confluence of religion with secular power. The Catholic Church has sponsored its share of horrors, from Inquisitions to liquidations—but only because this institution held such secular power during so much of Western history. When my folks held similar power more briefly in Old Testament times, they committed just as many atrocities with many of the same rationales.)

I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat between our magisteria—the NOMA solution. NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectua] grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance. NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility has important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions.

Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology. I may, for example, privately suspect that papal insistence on divine infusion of the soul represents a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature. But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain. Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us.

As a moral position (and therefore not as a deduction from my knowledge of nature's factuality), I prefer the "cold bath" theory that nature can be truly "cruel" and "indifferent"—in the utterly inappropriate terms of our ethical discourse—because nature was not constructed as our eventual abode, didn't know we were coming (we are, after all, interlopers of the latest geological microsecond), and doesn't give a damn about us (speaking metaphorically). I regard such a position as liberating, not depressing, because we then become free to conduct moral discourse—and nothing could be more important—in our own terms, spared from the delusion that we might read moral truth passively from nature's factuality.

But I recognize that such a position frightens many people, and that a more spiritual view of nature retains broad appeal (acknowledging the factuality of evolution and other phenomena, but still seeking some intrinsic meaning in human terms, and from the magisterium of religion). I do appreciate, for example, the struggles of a man who wrote to the New York Times on November 3, 1996, to state both his pain and his endorsement ofJohn Paul's statement:

Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution touches the doubt in my heart. The problem of pain and suffering in a world created by a God who is all love and light is hard enough to bear, even if one is a creationist. But at least a creationist can say that the original creation, coming from the hand of God was good, harmonious, innocent and gentle. What can one say about evolution, even a spiritual theory of evolution? Pain and suffering, mindless cruelty and terror are its means of creation. Evolution's engine is the grinding of predatory teeth upon the screaming, living flesh and bones of prey.… If evolution be true, my faith has rougher seas to sail.

I don't agree with this man, but we could have a wonderful argument. I would push the "cold bath" theory: he would (presumably) advocate the theme of inherent spiritual meaning in nature, however opaque the signal. But we would both be enlightened and filled with better understanding of these deep and ultimately unanswerable issues. Here, I believe, lies the greatest strength and necessity of NOMA, the nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion. NOMA permits—indeed enjoins—the prospect of respectful discourse, of constant input from both magisteria toward the common goal of wisdom. If human beings are anything special, we are the creatures that must ponder and talk. Pope John Paul II would surely point out to me that his magisterium has always recognized this distinction, for "in principio, erat verbum"—"In the beginning was the Word."

Carl Sagan organized and attended the Vatican meeting that introduces this essay; he also shared my concern for fruitful cooperation between the different but vital realms of science and religion. Carl was also one of my dearest friends. I learned of his untimely death on the same day that I read the proofs for this essay. I could only recall Nehru's observations on Gandhi's death—that the light had gone out, and darkness reigned everywhere. But I then contemplated what Carl had done in his short sixty-two years and remembered John Dryden's ode for Henry Purcell, a great musician who died even younger: "He long ere this had tuned the jarring spheres, and left no hell below."

The days I spent with Carl in Rome were the best of our friendship. We delighted in walking around the Eternal City, feasting on its history and architecture—and its food! Carl took special delight in the anonymity that he still enjoyed in a nation that had not yet aired Cosmos, the greatest media work in popular science of all time.

I dedicate this essay to his memory. Carl also shared my personal suspicion about the nonexistence of souls—but I cannot think of a better reason for hoping we are wrong than the prospect of spending eternity roaming the cosmos in friendship and conversation with this wonderful soul.”

[ Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16-22; Reprinted here with permission from Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Harmony Books, 1998, pp. 269-83. ]

[vincentcheungteam]

COMMENTARY ON MALACHI

PREFACE TO 2003 EDITION

Although Scripture distinguishes between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, it does not group its documents into what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Bible is one book – not two – revealing to us information about the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, which are two administrations of only one dispensation of grace, contrary to the teaching of modern dispensationalism.

In addition, although Scripture acknowledges that the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant as a superior administration of grace, it never says that what we call the New Testament documents are superior to or would replace what we call the Old Testament documents. Neither does Scripture say that the New Covenant replaces the moral requirements that are listed in the Old Testament documents, but that are not exclusively tied to the Old Covenant, unlike the ceremonial laws that have been fulfilled in Christ.

Therefore, Christians cannot ignore any part of Scripture, and they have no warrant to declare any part of Scripture as inferior or less relevant. As Paul writes, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

In the following exposition of Malachi, we will see that the God of the Old Covenant is the same as the God of the New Covenant – he exercises the same love toward his elect, and requires the same reverence from his people. It will also be clear that human nature, before being transformed and sanctified by the Spirit, has remained the same throughout history. Many professing believers and ministers are often guilty of the same sins for which Malachi rebuked his contemporaries.

INTRODUCTION

Scholars have disputed whether the word Malachi, meaning "my messenger," should be understood as a proper name or as a title. To understand the word as a title would turn the book into an anonymous composition, although this does not diminish its authenticity and authority.

Some people contend that the word is a title because of the unusual superscription of Malachi 1:1, where there is no biographical or other information concerning the prophet. But this observation as an argument is unpersuasive since, "While most other prophetic superscription provide one or more of these points of information, Malachi's simple naming of the prophet is not unprecedented."1

Then, some try to argue that the word is a title by identifying Malachi with "my messenger" in 3:1. However, the passage indicates that this "messenger" in Malachi 3 is someone who would come in the future, and therefore the term cannot be referring to the same person as 1:1.

Some suggest that even if "my messenger" functions as a title rather than a proper name, it does not necessarily make the book an anonymous composition, since it may be a title of a specified individual. For example, "the targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel…added to Malachi 1:1 the explanatory phrase, 'whose name is called Ezra the Scribe.'"2

Calvin seems to support a version of this view, and writes, "I am more disposed to grant what some have said, that he was Ezra, and that Malachi was his surname, for God had called him to do great and remarkable things."3 Against Origen, Calvin also argues against the view that the object designated by the word could have been an angel, because it carries an ending that was usual for proper names, and therefore the word should be considered as the name of a man.4

Harrison argues that, although attributing the book to Ezra was a "tradition accepted by Jerome, it is actually no more valuable than similar ones associated with Nehemiah and Zerubbabel."5 His position on the matter is that, "While the historical period and the general interest of the composition might suggest any one of these individuals as the author, there appears to be some legitimacy for the view that regards the work as an anonymous composition."6 Other scholars contend that the book is in fact the concluding section of Zechariah.7 Robert L. Alden writes, "On the positive side…If a man named Malachi did not write the book bearing this name, he would be the only exception. Moreover, Malachi is neither an unlikely nor an unsuitable one for the author of this last book of the prophets."8

On this matter, I agree with Joyce Baldwin: "While there is no evidence that Malachi is to be identified with Ezra the tradition is strong that Malachi is a personal name, and in the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary it is logical to accept that the prophet was called Malachi."9 This is not a unique belief in Old Testament scholarship, since it is also "the conclusion reached by Chary…and he cites A. van Hoonacker, H. Junker and A. Deissler as being of the same opinion."10

Pieter A. Verhoef offers the same conclusion, maintaining that, "In the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary it is logical to accept that the prophet was called Malachi," and that, "According to G. A. Smith 'it is true that neither in form nor in meaning is there any insuperable obstacle to our understanding mal'akhi as the name of a person.'"11

W. J. Deane also convincingly argues for this position. He points out that the author of this book could not have been Ezra because of the marked differences in literary style, and that "it is hardly possible that the authorship of so distinguished a man should have been forgotten when the canon was arranged."12

However, just because the author could not have been Ezra does not mean that it must have been a prophet named Malachi. The answer to this is that "to all the prophetical books the writer's own name is prefixed. The use of a pseudonym or a symbolical name is unknown; and the authenticity of the contents of the prophecy is always testified by the naming of the author as one known to his contemporaries and approved by God."13 Thus Malachi in 1:1 is intended to be understood as the name of the prophet, whose divine utterances follow, and not a title or office.

The remaining reason for questioning the authorship of this book is the aforementioned unusual superscription; that is, the beginning of this book contains no biographical or other information relevant to the prophet himself. But such an exception does not in itself exclude the authorship of one named Malachi, especially "when the same omission occurs in the case of Obadiah and Habakkuk, of whose personality no doubt has ever arisen."14 For these reasons, I conclude with Deane that "Malachi, therefore, is certainly a real person."15

Most scholars are in agreement that several inferences from internal evidence yield an approximate date to Malachi's ministry.

The fact that the temple had been rebuilt (1:13; 3:1, 10) indicates that the book is post- exilic – it was composed after the Jews had returned from their captivity to Babylon.16 This also places the ministry of Malachi after that of Haggai and Zechariah, the two prophets immediately preceding Malachi in the Old Testament canonical arrangement.

Since the temple was completed in about 515 B.C., Malachi's ministry must have been after this date. In addition, we know that the temple worship had been in place long enough for the people to have grown weary of it (1:13). As Verhoef points out:

[Haggai and Zechariah had] stirred up the returned exiles to rebuild the temple, which was completed in 515 B.C. (Ezra 5-6). As far as Malachi was concerned, this event already belonged to the past. The book assumes the existence of the temple (1:10; 3:1, 8) and presupposes a time of spiritual decline, because the temple worship had already deteriorated to such an extent that the priests and the people had to be reproved by the prophet about their malpractices (1:6-14; 2:1-9; 3:6-12).17

The word used for "governor" in 1:8 "is a technical term from the Persian period,"18 and places the prophecies before "the death of Nehemiah, who was the last civil ruler."19

Malachi addressed the very issues corrected during Nehemiah's second term in Jerusalem, which places him prior to 445 B.C., and thus limiting the prophecies in the book to some time after 515 B.C., but before 445 B.C..

If Malachi had ministered after Ezra's arrival to Jerusalem in 458 B.C., it narrows the date to somewhere between 458-445 B.C.. Despite a small number of difficulties, most scholars are in agreement that the composition of Malachi occurred around 450 B.C.. Although some place Malachi before Ezra, that is, prior to 458 B.C., the fact that he must have prophesied long after the completion of the Second Temple (after 515 B.C.) is not in dispute.

Malachi addresses his audience in the form of disputations, where the prophet attributes to the people challenges to God's initial assertions, whereupon God would answer their objections through Malachi, often followed by certain promises or predictions.

Although some scholars consider such an approach unique,20 others think that the method was not entirely novel,21 seeing that one may find the semblance of disputations in passages such as Amos 5:18-20 and Micah 2:6-11, "and Jeremiah frequently refers to exchanges with his contemporaries,"22 as do Isaiah and Ezekiel. Nevertheless, some maintain that Malachi was at least "an early example of an extended use of the question-and-answer method," which later became "the usual format for rabbis and scribes."23

In any case, the significance to this is that, "Malachi reveals the same sensitivity to the thoughts and feelings of his contemporaries as did his predecessors."24 He was aware of the people's objections to God's ways, and by divine inspiration, was able to provide authoritative responses to them.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman II, An Introduction to the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994; p. 438. 2 Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament; Peabody, Massachusetts: Prince Press, 1999; p. 958. 3 John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XV; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1998; p. 459. 4 Ibid., p. 459. 5 Harrison, p. 958. 6 Ibid., p. 958. 7The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 7; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985; p. 702. 8 Ibid., p. 702. 9 Joyce G. Baldwin, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Vol. 24; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1972; p. 212. 10 Ibid., p. 212. 11 Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament); Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987; p. 156. 12The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers; "Malachi," p. iii. 13 Ibid., p. iii-iv. 14 Ibid., p. iv. 15 Ibid., p. iv. 16 James Montgomery Boice, The Minor Prophets, Vol. 2; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1986; p. 230. 17 Verhoef, p. 157. 18 Dillard, p. 439. 19 Boice, p. 230. 20 Dillard, p. 439. 21 Baldwin, p. 213. 22 Ibid., p. 213-214. 23Expositor's, Vol. 7; p. 704. 24 Baldwin, p. 214.

1. THE BURDEN OF THE LORD (1:1)

The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. (1:1)

We have already discussed the word Malachi, and have concluded that it is the name of an individual, whose prophecies are recorded in the rest of this document. We will now examine the rest of this verse.

Many people believe that the word "burden," when used in a prophetic context, does not refer only to prophecy in general, but also to the pronouncement of judgment. Calvin says, "Whenever this word is expressed, there is ever to be understood some judgment of God."1 Verhoef elaborates, "We may concede to the opinion that in prophecy the word…generally acquires an ominous sense linked up with the catastrophic nature of many prophecies. In this sense the word usually denotes a pronouncement of utmost importance, a prophecy of judgment."2

In Jeremiah 23, we read that the word had become a way for the ungodly to deride the prophets, who at times brought them messages about God's impending judgment against the people's sins. Jeremiah 23:33-34 says:

And when this people, or the prophet, or a priest, shall ask thee, saying, What is the burden of the LORD? thou shalt then say unto them, What burden? I will even forsake you, saith the LORD. And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house.

As Feinberg argues,3 it is better to translate "What burden?" in verse 33 as, "You are the burden!" – as in, "What a burden (you are)!" Because of the people's sins, God's prophets had been bringing words of judgment to them, prefacing the prophecies with "The burden of the Lord." But instead of repenting of their sins, the hearers had grown to find such messages burdensome. Thus they had begun using this term in their derogatory challenges to the prophets, saying, "What is the burden of the Lord this time?"

Nowadays, we find many people who likewise find the requirements of God burdensome. To them, God's commandments limit their liberty and seem to be outdated relative to the culture. Those who preach biblical principles without compromise are often said to be inflexible and intolerant, placing unreasonable demands on the people. On the other hand, John reminds us that to love God is to obey his commandments, and it should not seem burdensome to us: "This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3, NIV).

The rebellious nature of the human heart has not changed since Jeremiah's day. Even then, the people had grown weary of the constant warnings and urgings of the prophets. Or, as some people would complain today, it seems that some ministers are always preaching sermons of "doom and gloom," of sin and judgment. But they do not realize that there may be good reasons for preaching these messages.

The people considered God's word burdensome, and would say to the prophets, "What is the burden of the Lord now?" To such blatant irreverence, God replied, "It's you! You are the burden!" Thus there is a play on words here in Jeremiah – whereas in one instance the burden refers to the message of prophecy, in the next it refers to the people as a troublesome group in God's eyes. He proceeds to note that this is one burden God would soon unload from his shoulders: "I will even forsake you, saith the LORD."

Not only those who call themselves unbelievers make such complaints against God. Professing Christians everywhere find it difficult to live the Christian life, and they would often complain against biblical requirements, and the restrictions that God has placed upon them. They enjoy calling attention to the "sacrifices" that they have already made, and how it would be unreasonable to ask them for more. Such "Christians" form what may be the greatest burden of the church. Of course, most of these people are false converts, who have never been regenerated and are still heading toward hell.

The ungodly and carnal tend to blame the godly and obedient for their problems. As Ahab said to Elijah, "Art thou he that troubleth Israel?" (1 Kings 18:17). But Elijah answered, "I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim" (v. 18). It is those who "have forsaken the commandments of the Lord" that are the troublemakers of society, not those who faithfully follow God.

Family divisions are often blamed on those who have converted to Christianity. This includes how false converts who call themselves Christians persecute the true converts in the family who take their faith seriously. Such conflicts occur between parent and child, husband and wife, brothers and sisters, and among friends. Christians should say to their accusers, "It is you, not me, who is causing trouble in this relationship. It is you who is rebelling against the Lord, and therefore it is you who must change." Unbelievers also blame the Christians for other conflicts and divisions in society, and most who call themselves Christians are too cowardly to let the sinners know otherwise.

Christians who are faithfully following God are not responsible for family divisions and social conflicts. They are not to blame, as if they have done something wrong. No one has the right to compromise truth in order to maintain a false unity. It is those who are in opposition to the Scripture that God will hold accountable for the problems of society. Non- Christians, including false converts, are the problems of society. In fact, Christians are the only ones preventing society from getting much worse.

Every Christian should examine himself as to whether he considers God's word to be burdensome in any area, and whether he questions God's justice or wisdom in any way. Do we find it a burden to study or to pray? Do we complain that our relationships suffer because of God's claims on our lives? Do we bemoan the fact that biblical standards at times prevent us from profiting financially? These are indications of an unrenewed or even unconverted mind, whose attitudes are not submissive to God's word. But by the power of the Holy Spirit, it is possible for the elect to obey God's word, and delight at his commands.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 461. 2 Verhoef, p. 188. 3The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 6; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986; p. 526.

2. THE WORD OF THE LORD (1:1)

The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. (1:1)

Malachi says that he is delivering "the word of the LORD" (1:1) to the people, and thereby claiming divine origin for his prophecies. "Everywhere in the OT the expression 'the word of the Lord' denotes the divine revelation."1 Some scholars consider it significant that this expression is usually connected with the name of Yahweh (thus the capitalized "LORD") instead of El or Elohim. Vriezen may indeed be correct that Yahweh is used in connection with the revelatio specialis, or special revelation, and El is used more often in connection with the revelatio generalis, or general revelation.2 Exegesis of the relevant verses in support of this claim and the question of how far one may apply this distinction are beyond the intent of this present volume. In any case, we are satisfied that Malachi's use of the expression, "the word of the LORD," is his affirmation that the statements that follow have their origin in the mind of God, and that his prophecies consist not in merely human thoughts and words.

Peter reminds us, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Martin Luther comments, "Now what is found written and foretold in the prophets says Peter, that men have not discovered nor invented; but holy and pious men have spoken it from the Holy Spirit."3 To say that a message is from "the LORD," brings attention first to its origin; that is, the content of the speech or writing does not come from the speaker or writer, but from God himself.

That a message originates from God yields at least two implications, namely, since that message is from God, it is both binding and decisive. This means that whatever God says carries absolute authority, and this places an inescapable obligation upon the audience to obey its demands, and that any message from God possesses total control over historical events.

As the creator of all that exists, God has the authority to dictate the thoughts and behavior of his creatures. Since God has revealed his moral requirements through the Scripture, biblical ethics is therefore based on the authority of God. When he delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses, God began by a declaration of his divinity: "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (Exodus 20:2). He immediately proceeded to forbid the worship of all other so-called gods, saying, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (v. 3). Only after he had established himself as the sole object of worship did he proclaim the other moral laws, such as, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (v. 14). Thus God asserts his divine status as the "peg" on which all of his commandments rest.

If there are no moral laws, or if the moral laws do not rest on divine authority, who is to say that it is wrong to murder? On what basis other than preference will another man try to persuade me against stealing? Why is it wrong to commit adultery? Who says that I should not commit perjury even when it appears to be the most convenient course of action? Mere opinion or pragmatic concerns place no moral obligation on me to concede to another person's moral standard, for I could most likely assert an opposite standard on the same grounds.

Therefore, a system of thought that is without a revelation from God has no basis for any universal and binding ethical principles, but a system of thought that is wholly derived from a revelation from God has an universal and binding moral code. These are the only two possibilities. However, if God has indeed revealed an absolute and universal moral code, then the first is not a real option. In other words, if God has indeed given moral laws to his creatures, then there is only one legitimate system of ethics, and all other alternatives exist only as examples of defiance against the Master. And this is in fact the case – God has verbally revealed his moral demands to humankind in the Christian Scripture, and only in the Christian Scripture.

Scripture affirms that what God says will occur exactly as he declares. Jeremiah says to God, "There is nothing too hard for thee" (Jeremiah 32:17), and Numbers 23:19 adds that God is truthful, and therefore whatever he says will be fully carried out by his power: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

God declares through Isaiah, "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isaiah 46:9- 10). Job says to God, "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2, NIV). Since what God says will happen will certainly happen, and his words are recorded in the Bible, this means that what the Bible says will happen will certainly happen. There is no difference between what God says and what the Bible says. The immediate implication here is that all the predictions of Malachi would certainly come true.

Applying this to contemporary preaching, our messages must be "the word of the Lord" to be authoritative and relevant, and this means that we must preach the words of Scripture. Speaking from the Scripture means that no one may say that we are expressing our personal opinion, that what we say are not morally binding, or that our messages about biblical predictions will come to nothing. Rather, when we are preaching the words of Scripture our messages will be authoritative, universally applicable and binding, and historically accurate.

Peter realizes the importance of faithfully speaking God's word, and declares, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11). Jesus himself was the highest fulfillment of such a ministry: "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him" (John 3:34). Lest any should teach things that are inconsistent with what God has revealed in Scripture, both Jesus and James warn their hearers: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19); "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1, NIV).4

In his final letter, Paul gives a solemn charge to Timothy, and prefaces it with an appeal to the divine witness: "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom" (2 Timothy 4:1). This important charge is nothing other than for Timothy to "Preach the word" (v. 2). But Paul elaborates on this, and adds that Timothy must "be prepared in season and out of season" (v. 2, NIV) in carrying out his task, or as the NLT has it, "Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not." This ministry of preaching requires Timothy to "Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching" (v. 2, NLT).

The preacher must be ready and persistent: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4). This is an accurate description of many people today who claim to be Christians, but who contradict that claim when they prefer preaching that tickles their ears and encourages their lusts against that which is faithful to the words of Scripture. Such widespread wickedness is all the more reason why we must also accept Paul's charge to preach the word. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and therefore possesses the authority of God. Only by promoting the words of the Bible can we transform society and bring a much needed reformation to the church.

Since what God says carries ultimate authority, when we preach or write from the words of Scripture, we can be sure that what we say is both binding and decisive. It is binding in the sense that the audience must obey God's commands, and decisive in that what we preach from the Scripture concerning the future events, such as the damnation of unbelievers to endless conscious torment in hell, will occur without fail. With complete accuracy, those who speak according to the word of God can predict the final destiny of mankind and history. "Every time the true prophets spoke…'by the word of the Lord'…things would happen…'according to the word of the Lord.'"5 Such can be the power and scope of our preaching ministry.

When our messages faithfully relate the words of God, we are not expressing only our preference, but we are relating God's own declaration to the people. We can be certain that the messages contain God's will for them, so that we may urge them to submit to the words of Scripture with both exhortations and warnings. People may differ with us on matters of mere preference, but no one has the right to disagree with God.

If we are indeed preaching the words of Scripture, then a moral obligation comes upon the hearers to believe and obey what is being said. Those who submit are right in God's sight, but those who resist sin against him. In this way, the word of God is "sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). Biblical preaching quickly divides the righteous and the wicked in the audience, although we cannot know a person's inward reaction until he expresses his thoughts. But God knows all of our thoughts, and he knows our attitudes toward him. The true Christian says, "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer" (Psalm 19:14).

If God has called you to preach, you must realize that if you faithfully preach the words of Scripture, then what you say becomes binding and decisive. The word of God binds the conscience and decides history. But if you do not preach the words of Scripture, your messages will lack authority and relevance. Many Christians have already grown accustomed to this latter type of preaching.

It is significant that "the word of the Lord" is here being delivered "by Malachi" (literally: "by the hand of Malachi").6 Calvin comments, "The word hand, as we have observed elsewhere, means ministration. The meaning then is, that this doctrine proceeded from God, but that a minister, even Malachi, was employed as an instrument; so that he brought nothing as his own, but only related faithfully what had been committed to him by God from whom it came."7

Although God could speak to his creatures directly from heaven, he chose to reveal his thoughts through human instruments, such as his prophets and apostles. After his words have been committed to writing, he now entrusts the Scripture to ministers whom he has chosen to promote, as their vocation, his words through preaching and writing. In addition, every Christian has been given the honor and responsibility to promote the knowledge of God through their money, labor, speech, and other available means.

Being a representative of Christ is a duty and privilege not to be underestimated. As Paul exclaims, "Who is equal to such a task?" (2 Corinthians 2:16, NIV). But then he answers, "Our competence comes from God" (3:5, NIV). Therefore, let us faithfully and persistently proclaim the authoritative word of God to our generation by preaching and writing from the words of Scripture.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Verhoef, p. 189. 2 Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology; Wageningen: Veenman; Oxfort: Blackwell, 1970; p. 345. 3 Martin Luther, Commentary on Peter & Jude; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1990; p. 249. 4 In James 3:1, the word translated "masters" in the KJV is didaskalos – rightly rendered as "teachers" in the NIV and other translations. 5 Verhoef, p. 190. 6Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV; "Malachi," p. 1. 7Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 462.

3. ELECTION OF INDIVIDUALS (1:2-5)

I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel. (1:2-5)

After Malachi asserts the divine origin of his message, he proceeds to prophesy. Before explaining the significance of the above passage, we need to examine the statement, "I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau" (NASB). An accurate understanding of this statement will help us appreciate the force of the passage. Statements like this often perplex readers more than they should, and many people try to explain them away by showing why these statements mean something other than what they obviously assert.

The statement brings up the subject of election. One popular explanation says that Malachi is referring to the election of nations, so that he is not speaking of Jacob and Esau as individuals, but rather the nations that they represented, namely, Israel and Edom. In other words, God did not choose Jacob the individual over Esau, but he chose Israel over Edom.

However, this interpretation fails to account for the fact that Jacob and Esau were indeed individuals, and that God had indeed chosen Jacob over Esau. In fact, for God's election of Israel over Edom to make any sense at all, one must presuppose his election of Jacob as an individual over Esau as an individual. One who says that the passage refers to national election cannot, without contradiction, deny individual election. It is precisely because God had chosen Jacob the individual that the nation that came from him, Israel, was preferred over Edom.

Scripture records the birth of the twins in Genesis 25:21-24:

And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

Both Malachi and Genesis mention the nations that would arise from the twins, but the present question is whether we may derive individual election from the biblical account of Jacob and Esau.

Now, Paul quotes the statement in question in Romans 9:13: "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." If we can demonstrate that Paul is referring to God's election of individuals, then we must accept the doctrine of individual election even if Malachi's main emphasis had been the election of nations. Instead of using national election to explain away individual election, one must admit that even national election is based on individual election, and that God had chosen Jacob the individual over Esau the individual.

The passage in Romans reads as follows:

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (v. 10-16)

Paul does not mention the two nations in this passage, but quotes Scripture as saying, "The elder shall serve the younger" – not that the elder nation would serve the younger, but the elder brother, Esau, would serve the younger Jacob. God predicted this to Rebecca while "the children (not nations) being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand." So the passage is speaking of election, and Paul writes that this is God's decision about the destinies of the children (not nations) before they were born, and before they had "done any good or evil."

Many people wish to avoid the conclusion that God is the one who sovereignly predetermines the overcome of each individual. Therefore, they assert that although God's election of individuals is not based on their past works and beliefs, perhaps it is based on his "foreknowledge"1 of their future works and beliefs. However, Paul's point is that election is "not of works" at all, whether we are speaking of the past, present, or future, but he states that election is "of him that calleth" – that is, election is based on God's sovereign calling.

Paul says that God's election is "not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (v. 16). The NIV reads, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." The NLT is even more explicit: "So receiving God's promise is not up to us. We can't get it by choosing it or working hard for it. God will show mercy to anyone he chooses." Election depends on God's sovereign mercy, not man's will or work, for he said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Whether someone receives mercy does not depend on his choice or effort, but on God's will alone.

Thus the Bible teaches that election is not based on foreknown faith or good works; that is, God does not choose someone because he foresees that this person will exhibit faith and good works. Instead, the Bible teaches the reverse, so that faith and good works are granted to those whom God has chosen by his sovereign grace; that is, a person exhibits faith and good works only because God has chosen to save him. It is not because of foreknown faith and good works that one becomes God's elect, but it is because one has been elected that God produces faith and good works in him. Therefore, faith is "the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8), and good works are produced by "God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

William Barclay observes:

Paul argues that there is more to Jewishness than descent from Abraham, that the chosen people were not simply the entire sum of all the physical descendants of Abraham, that within that family there was a process of election all through history…there was election within the family of Abraham's physical descendants….2

He makes the further point that that selection had nothing to do with deeds and merits. The proof is that Jacob was chosen and Esau was rejected, before either of them was born. The choice was made while they were still in their mother's womb...Everything is of God; behind everything is his action; even the things which seem arbitrary and haphazard go back to him. Nothing in this world moves with aimless feet.3

Douglas J. Moo writes as follows:

I think that a corporate and salvation-historical interpretation of vv. 10-13 does not ultimately satisfy the data of the text…Paul suggests that he is thinking of Jacob and Esau as individuals in vv. 10b-11a when he mentions their conception, birth, and "works" – language that is not easily applied to nations…a description here of how God calls nations to participate in the historical manifestation of his salvific acts runs counter to Paul's purpose in this paragraph.

In order to justify his assertion in v. 6b that not all those who belong to 'physical' Israel belong also to 'spiritual' Israel, and thus to vindicate God's faithfulness (v. 6a), he must show that the OT justifies a discrimination within physical Israel in terms of the enjoyment of salvation. An assertion in these verses to the effect that God has "chosen" Israel rather than Edom for a positive role in the unfolding of the plan of salvation would not contribute to this argument at all…

For these reasons I believe that Paul is thinking mainly of Jacob and Esau as individuals rather than as nations and in terms of their own personal relationship to the promise of God rather than of their roles in carrying out God's plan. The nations denoted by these names, we must remember, have come into existence in and through the individuals who first bore those names…

What does Paul mean by asserting that God "loved" Jacob but "hated" Esau?…If God's love of Jacob consists in his choosing Jacob to be the "seed" who would inherit the blessings promised to Abraham, then God's hatred of Esau is best understood to refer to God's decision not to bestow this privilege on Esau. It might best be translated "reject."4

Then, John Murray writes in his commentary on Romans:

The thesis that Paul is dealing merely with the election of Israel collectively and applying the clause in question only to this feature of redemptive history would not meet the precise situation. The question posed for the apostle is: how can the covenant promise of God be regarded as inviolate when the mass of those who belong to Israel…have remained in unbelief and come short of the covenant promises? His answer would fail if it were simply an appeal to the collective, inclusive, theocratic election of Israel. Such a reply would be…no more than a statement of the fact which, in view of their unbelief, created the problem. Paul's answer is not the collective election of Israel but rather "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel." And this means, in terms of the stage of discussion at which we have now arrived, "they are not all elect, who are of elect Israel."5

In other words, not every individual within an elected nation has been chosen for salvation, and therefore, "the interpretation which regards the election as the collective, theocratic election of Israel as a people must be rejected and 'the purpose of God according to election' will have to be understood as the electing purpose that is determinative of and unto salvation."6

Thomas R. Schreiner also argues that the passage addresses the election of individuals for salvation. He writes:

Verse 13 introduces a scriptural citation…that confirms and elaborates on the scriptural promise enunciated in verse 12. The citation "I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau"…is an exact rendition of the LXX (and MT) of Mal. 1:2-3, except that the object…now precedes the verb, perhaps to emphasize that Jacob was the object of God's choice…the point of the text is that God set his affectionate love upon Jacob and withheld it from Esau…What Rom. 9:13 adds to the promise of verse 12 is that the submission of the older to the younger is based on God's choice of Jacob and his rejection of Esau…Does the text suggest double predestination? Apparently it does.7

The view saying "that this passage does not relate to individual salvation but only to the temporal destiny of nations since Jacob and Esau represent two peoples (Gen. 25:23) and their historical destiny…ignores the fact that the issue in the context of Rom. 9 relates to the salvation of the Jews, and a discussion of historical destiny apart from salvation is irrelevant to the issue that called forth this discussion."8

Concerning verses 15-16, Marvin R. Vincent comments:

Have mercy therefore contemplates, not merely the sentiment in itself, but the determination of those who should be its objects. The words were spoken to Moses in connection with his prayer for a general forgiveness of the people, which was refused, and his request to behold God's glory, which was granted. With reference to the latter, God asserts that His gift is of His own free grace, without any recognition of Moses' right to claim it on the ground of merit or service…God is laid under no obligation by a human will or a human work.9

Kenneth S. Wuest says, "This emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of God in the disposition of His mercy…A participation in God's mercy is dependent upon God's sovereign will alone."10 John Piper agrees: "God's decision to treat Esau and Jacob differently is not merely prior to their good or evil deeds but is also completely independent of them…This rules out the notion…that election is based on God's foreknowledge of men's good works."11

Verse 16 does not only say that election is not "of him that runneth," but election is not even "of him that willeth." This means that election is independent not only of foreknown works, but it is independent also of foreknown decisions – that is, it is independent even of foreknown faith. Accordingly, Piper writes:

Paul never grounds the "electing purpose of God" in man's faith. The counterpart to works in conjunction with election (as opposed to justification) is always God's own call (Rom 9:12b) or his own grace (Rom 11:6). The predestination and call of God precede justification (Rom 8:29f) and have no ground in any human act, not even faith. This is why Paul explicitly says in Rom 9:16 that God's bestowal of mercy on whomever he wills is based neither on human willing (which would include faith) nor on human running (which would include all activity). So far then we may say that the prediction of Rom 9:12c ("the elder will serve the younger") is an expression of God's predetermination of…the destinies of Jacob and Esau. Moreover this predetermination is not based on any actual or foreknown distinctives of the brothers. It is based solely on God who calls…God's purpose is to be free from all human influences in the election he performs.12

As John says, "We love him, because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19). Since the faith and love in us have been caused and produced by God, it makes no sense to say that his election of us are based on our faith and love, as if his election of us was a reaction to these qualities in us. God did not choose us because he knew that we would have faith, but we have faith because God has chosen us. God did not choose us because he knew that we would believe in Christ, but we have come to believe in Christ because God has first sovereignly chosen us. Repentance itself is a gift from God, available only to those whom he has chosen: "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25). No one can even repent of their sins unless God grants it.

In response to the biblical teaching that it is God who selects individuals for salvation, and that his choice is completely independent of any prior knowledge of faith and works, many people then voice the objection, "Is there unrighteousness with God?" (v. 14). Paul answers, "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (v. 15-16). Barclay comments, "Man has no claim on God whatever. The created has no claim on the Creator. Whenever justice enters into it, the answer is that from God man deserves nothing and can claim nothing. In God's dealings with men, the essential things are his will and his mercy."13 If one wishes to discuss justice with God, he must remember that it would be in full accord with divine justice for God to send everyone to hell. That God has chosen to have mercy on some and to condemn all others to hell does not contradict his justice at all; rather, it establishes both his mercy and his justice.

This introduces Paul's additional points in verses 17-24, which we will quote without further explanation at this point:

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

This chapter has thus far demonstrated that the doctrine of election does not refer only to God's sovereign preference of one nation over another nation, but it refers to God's sovereign choice of some individuals for salvation, and his sovereign choice to condemn all other individuals. There is much more to say, but since the rest of this chapter against requires extended arguments, we must be allowed to proceed. Therefore, we conclude this section with Calvin, "Let us then feel assured that the salvation of those whom God is pleased to save, is thus ascribed to his mercy, that nothing may remain to the contrivance of man."14

We have already argued against the view that the election of individuals for salvation is based on God's "foreknowledge" of human choices and actions. However, those who insist that election is based on foreknown faith or works continue to derive their confidence from several passages, such as Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2. Since some readers may not see through their serious misuse of these passages, we should take time to examine them.

Romans 8:29-30 says, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Our opponents claim that the words "whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate" indicate that God's election of individual for salvation is based on his knowledge of the future faith or good works of people.

Accordingly, they claim that the words "foreknow" and "foreknowledge" must mean God's knowledge of the future, such as our future decisions and actions. That is, the "knowledge" here refers to God's cognitive awareness of decisions not yet made, actions not yet performed, and events not yet occurred. Then, they say, God elects individuals for salvation on the basis of such knowledge of the future. God elects a person for salvation if he looks into the future and foresees that this person will accept Christ. God chooses this individual as one of the elect because of this foreknown faith. Thus foreknowledge means prescience (knowledge of something before it happens).

However, this is an unbiblical understanding of God's foreknowledge. Although we have already examined arguments as to why it is impossible that God bases election on foreknown faith, I will offer additional arguments, and arguments specifically about foreknowledge, to refute this view in what follows.

Even on the face of it, it makes no sense to say that God bases election on foreknown faith. Since God is the one who generates faith in someone as a gift, then to say that he elects someone based on foreknown faith only means that God elects someone based on what God himself will do, not what man will do, and foreknown faith would then refer to God's knowledge of what God himself will decide, not what man will decide.

Therefore, unless our opponents can show that faith is not a gift, but that it is something manufactured by man at his own will and by his own ability, then to say that election is based on foreknown faith still does not refute the biblical teaching that it is God who determines who will receive salvation or damnation. However, for our opponents to refute the notion that faith is a gift requires them to refute the Bible. Although the Bible cannot be refuted, to even attempt to refute it would make them non-Christians.

In any case, the position saying that election is based on divine prescience is commonly called Arminianism, and the position saying that election is based on divine sovereignty is commonly called Calvinism. However, we must remember that the correct view is in fact the biblical view, regardless of which personality it may be associated, whether John Calvin or Jacob Arminius. As Jonathan Edwards writes:

Nevertheless, at first, I had thoughts of carefully avoiding the use of the appellation Arminian in this treatise. But I soon found I should be put to great difficulty by it; and that my discourse would be so encumbered with an often-repeated circumlocution, instead of a name, which would express the thing intended as well and better, that I altered my purpose….However, the term Calvinistic is, in these days, among most, a term of greater reproach than the term Arminian, yet I should not take it at all amiss to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake; though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them.15

That is, we do not believe a doctrine just because a prominent person believed it; rather, we believe a doctrine because the Bible teaches it. Nevertheless, for the sake of convenience, I will be using these two terms to represent the opposing views in this discussion, so that what follows opposes Arminianism, and defends Calvinism.16

Let us read the passage in question again: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:29- 30). Assuming that one already has a general knowledge of the New Testament, it is possible to refute the Arminian interpretation using information available from this passage by constructing a dilemma whose alternatives exclude Arminianism.

This passage describes the "order of salvation" (ordo salutis), or "the process by which Christ's work of salvation is made manifest in the life of the redeemed man."17 The passage asserts that one who goes through any point of this process has also been through the previous ones, and will certainly go through the ones that come after. That is, "whom he did predestinate…he also called," and "whom he called…he also justified," and so on. In other words, one who has been predestined by God will also be called by God, who will then also be justified by God. Every predestined person will be called, and every called person will be justified. There is no one who is predestined who will not be called, and there is no one who is called who will not also be justified.

According to the passage, the process begins with God's foreknowledge, which means that those whom God foreknows will also be predestined, called, and justified. Now, Scripture teaches that God knows all future persons and events, and all decisions and actions. Therefore, if the Arminian defines "foreknowledge" as prescience, then God must "foreknow" every individual in history, since God knows all things, including all future things. But if this is the case, then it would mean that this passage teaches universal salvation; that is, every person in history would be saved or "justified" before God.

We affirm that God knows all things: past, present, and future. If foreknowledge refers to God's cognitive awareness of individuals, then he foreknows everyone, and there is no one whom he does not foreknow. If he foreknows everyone, then everyone is predestined; if everyone is predestined, everyone is called; and if everyone is called, everyone will be justified – which means that everyone will be saved. This is a conclusion that even the Arminian will not accept. But if one were to be consistent with his definition of foreknowledge as prescience, and so accepts the doctrine of universal salvation, he will be confronted with a host of biblical verses that teach otherwise.

Of course, the Arminian is not saying that God's foreknowledge in this passage refers to his cognitive awareness of the existence of individuals, but that he foreknows the future faith of those who would accept Christ. But this is precisely the problem with the Arminian interpretation. Romans 8:29 says, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate…." Paul relates God's foreknowledge with persons rather than their faith. He does not say, "For whom he did foreknow would believe," or any such thing. There is no mention of the persons' faith or works. This is also consistent with the construction of the rest of the passage. That is, the person whom God foreknows, he also predestines; the person whom God predestines, he also calls; and the person whom God calls, he also justifies. The Arminian adds to the passage what he thinks it should say, rather than reading what it actually says.

The Arminian who defines foreknowledge as prescience has several options. First, according to Romans 8:29, everyone whom God "foreknows" will be saved, and since God "foreknows" all things (if foreknowledge is defined as prescience), then it means that everyone will be saved. Second, the Arminian may deny that God "foreknows" everyone, but that he only "foreknows" some people, and only those so "foreknown" will be saved. But since he defines foreknowledge as prescience, then when he denies that God "foreknows" everyone, it means that God's prescience is not comprehensive, and therefore he denies God's omniscience, or that God knows all things. Third, seeing that the first two options are unacceptable, he can concede that foreknowledge refers to something other than prescience, or foreknown faith.

The first two options effectively make the Arminian a non-Christian, since they entail blatant denial of biblical doctrines. But if he chooses the third, then he has acknowledged that Romans 8:29 does not support his Arminianism. If God's prescience is comprehensive (if God knows all future things), if everyone whom he "foreknows" will be saved (according to Romans 8:29), and if universal salvation is an unbiblical doctrine (the Bible teaches that not everyone will be saved), then this must mean that God's foreknowledge is different from God's prescience. That is, God's foreknowledge cannot refer to his cognitive awareness of the future existence, faith, or works of individuals.

Some Arminians say that Calvinists ignore the "obvious" meaning of this passage. However, the Arminian interpretation is not obvious at all, since the passage says that God foreknows the persons who would be saved, and not their faith. Given the Arminian definition of foreknowledge, the obvious implication is not Arminianism, but universal salvation, that everyone will be saved. But universal salvation is unbiblical, since the Bible teaches that many people will be condemned forever. Therefore, what is obvious from this passage is that foreknowledge cannot refer to prescience, and thus it is obvious that the Arminian interpretation fails.

Contrary to Arminianism, although God certainly possesses an intellectual knowledge of all future persons and events, the Bible often uses the word foreknowledge (Greek: proginosko, prognosis) to mean foreordination. The "knowing" here would then involve what the Hebrew yada conveys, as speaking of a personal relationship. It refers to an act of God's will rather than a passive reception of information. That is, the biblical concept of God's foreknowledge involves a type of "knowing" that is both personal and cognitive, and the emphasis is often on the personal.

For example, when referring to false prophets and false disciples, Jesus says, "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:23). When he says, "I never knew you," he cannot be denying cognitive knowledge of the people's existence, thoughts, and works, since he is without doubt cognitively aware of their wickedness when he says, "depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Thus when he says, "I never knew you," he is denying that he has a personal and salvific relationship with them, and not that he has no information about them.

Another example comes from Jeremiah 1:5, where God says, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Now, when a verse is in the form of a parallelism, one part expands on or clarifies the meaning of the other part. For example, "For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods" (Psalm 24:2), does not necessarily mean that in addition to having "founded it upon the seas," he also "established it upon the floods." Rather, "established it upon the floods" carries a similar meaning, and helps to clarify "founded it upon the seas." Another example is in the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus says, "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" (Matthew 6:13). Again, it is not that we are to ask God to "deliver us from evil" in addition to "lead us not into temptation," but that "deliver us from evil" gives the meaning of "lead us not into temptation."

Likewise, the parallelism in Jeremiah 1:5 clarifies the meaning of "knew": "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (v. 5, NIV). For God to know Jeremiah is to appoint him and set him apart. God "knew" Jeremiah before he formed him. The words "knew" is parallel to "sanctified" and "ordained." Thus the type of knowing here carries the idea of choosing. The main sense is that God had chosen and designed Jeremiah before he was conceived.

S. M. Baugh also uses this verse to illustrate the meaning of God's foreknowledge in the Bible:

Another remarkable example of divine foreknowledge is expressed in Jeremiah 1:5, where God says to Jeremiah: "I knew you before I formed you in the womb, I consecrated you before you emerged from the womb; I have given you as a prophet to the nations." The first two lines are closely parallel in the number of syllables and word order…But how can God have known Jeremiah before he was even conceived? Because he personally fashioned his prophet, just as he had fashioned Adam from the dust (Gen. 2:7), and just as he fashions all people (Ps. 139:13-16; Isa. 44:24). God foreknew not only the possibility of Jeremiah's existence – he knows all possibilities indeed – but God foreknew Jeremiah by name before he was conceived, because he knew how he would shape and mold his existence. Given this Old Testament background, we can understand why in the New Testament we have no extended discussion on the nature of God's foreknowledge. There was no need.18

J. A. Thompson translates the verse as, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you intimately; Before you were born I set you apart," and comments, "The verb, yada, 'know,' often carried considerable depth of meaning in the OT, for it reached beyond mere intellectual knowledge to personal commitment. For this reason it is used of the intimate relations between a man and his wife (Gen. 4:1)."19 Huey writes, "Here it involves a choosing relationship (Gen 18:19; Deut 34:10). The Lord was thinking about Jeremiah before he was born. At that time God had already designated Jeremiah to be a prophet."20

Of course, a personal relationship is impossible without intellectual knowledge; otherwise, one would not even know with whom he is having a relationship. But the point is that God's foreknowledge, in a salvific context, refers to a relationship established by his sovereign choice. Therefore, God's foreknowledge refers to his predetermination about persons and events, including the election of individuals for salvation. For God to foreknow someone is to set his affection on that person, even before he is born. It is this meaning of election and favor that Romans 8:29 seeks to convey.

Even when it comes to prescience, we cannot think of God's knowledge as a passive reception of information; rather, even the content of God's prescience is completely determined by his will. God knows all future things because he determines all future things. As Jesus says, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father" (Matthew 10:29, NIV). Knowledge does not "happen" to God as an addition to his mind, but since he is the one who determines all events, and he knows his own thoughts, then he also knows all future events, because he knows what he has decided will happen. Therefore, even divine prescience is not a passive knowledge of something that will happen apart from God's predetermination, but prescience is in fact his knowledge of what he has decreed will happen. Since this is the case, the Arminian can appeal to neither foreknowledge nor prescience to support his theology.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says, "In the case of God, to know, being an act of will, means to make an object of concern and thus carries the nuance 'to elect.'"21 The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says, "God's foreknowledge stands related to his will and power. What he knows, he does not know merely as information. He is no mere spectator. What he foreknows he ordains. He wills it."22

J. M. Gundry-Volf writes,

Rather than referring to speculative or neutral knowledge (i.e., knowledge of who will believe), the Pauline notion of divine foreknowledge is understood by many interpreters as a knowing in the Semitic sense of acknowledging, inclining toward someone, knowledge which expresses a movement of the will reaching out to personal relationship with someone…This kind of knowing is illustrated by the meaning of the Hebrew yada, "to know," in texts such as Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; and Jeremiah 1:5…In Paul's use of proginosko the aspect of pretemporality is added to the Hebrew sense of "know" as "have regard for" or "set favor on." The result is a verb which refers to God's eternal loving election.23

Then, in its article on this subject, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says the following:

Arminian theology, in all its variant forms, contends that God's foreknowledge is simply a prescient knowledge, a knowing in advance whether a given person will believe in Christ or reject him. God's election, therefore, is said to be simply God's choice unto salvation of those whom He knows in advance will choose to believe in Christ. God foresees the contingent free action of faith and, foreseeing who will believe in Christ, elects those because they do. But this is destructive of the biblical view of election. In biblical thought election means that God elects people, not that people elect God. In Scripture it is God who in Christ decides for us – not we who, by making a decision for Christ, decide for God.

Reformation theology has contended that the divine foreknowledge contains the ingredient of divine determination. The Reformers claimed that God indeed foreknows who will believe, because believing in Christ is not a human achievement, but a divine gift imparted to men by God's grace and Spirit. Thus God's foreknowledge is not merely prescience, but a knowledge that itself determines the event. That is, in Reformation thought what God foreknows He foreordains…

There are…scriptural passages in which foreknowledge quite explicitly carries the meaning of foreordination. In Peter's speeches in Acts, what Peter says about the predestination of the crucifixion of Christ in 4:28 is almost identical with the meaning of prognosis in 2:23. What happened to Jesus, says Peter, took place according to "the definite plan and foreknowledge of God." Foreknowledge here echoes the idea of God's counsel or plan in 4:28, reflecting that foreknowledge is an ingredient of that determination which made the death of Christ certain. God foreknows the death of Christ because the crucifixion was His planned determination…

That God's foreknowledge contains the idea of divine determination does not rest merely on a few biblical texts but reflects a truth about God that comes to expression in a variety of biblical concepts descriptive of the unique and mysterious character of God's actions. God's foreknowledge is itself a form of determination which accounts for the reality of that which is divinely foreknown…As in God's foreknowledge, all of these divine actions are reality- imparting, blessing-bestowing divine actions, which as such predetermine. He who creates (or recreates) by that very fact determines in advance…

God's foreknowledge is far from mere prevision or prior intellectual awareness; even its ingredient of determination is a expression of blessing. In biblical usage God's foreknowledge does not relate to whatsoever comes to pass, to an all-comprehensive divine will. Foreknowledge relates to matters beneficent and salvific…The Bible uses the words "foreknow" and "predestinate" in a salvific context and with a salvific meaning…

In biblical thought, divine foreknowledge includes the idea of foreordination to salvation and we may not enlarge the meaning of either term to include "whatsoever comes to pass." To give it a large coverage is to include those whom the Bible describes as those whom God does not know, as in Jesus' disclaimer, "I never knew you" (Mt. 7:23).24

Now that we have clarified the meaning of foreknowledge, we should apply it to Romans 8:29-30, which I will quote again: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Baugh writes:

The classic Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29, that God's foreknowledge of faith is in view, is clearly reading one's theology into the text. Paul does not say: "whose faith he foreknew," but "whom he foreknew." He foreknew us…in Romans 8:29, predestination is not dependent on faith; rather, God predestines us on the basis of his gracious commitment to us before the world was…Perhaps another rendering better expresses the concept behind Romans 8:29: "Those to whom he was previously devoted…" This again, is not to say that God's foreknowledge is devoid of intellectual cognition; to have a personal relation with someone, such as a marriage relation, includes knowledge about that person…God has foreknown us because he fashioned each of us personally and intimately according to his plan…That Paul refers to this concept of a committed relationship with the phrase whom he foreknew in Romans 8:29 is confirmed by the context…Further confirmation of "foreknowledge" in Romans 8:29 as referring to a previous commitment is found in a nearby passage, Romans 11:1-2, where proginosko can have only this meaning: "God has not rejected his people, has he? No way! For I also am an Israelite…God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." As in Romans 8:29, the objects of foreknowledge are people themselves rather than historical events or a particular person's faith…The Arminian notion of "foreseen faith" is impossible as an interpretation of God's foreknowledge in Romans 11:1-2, and, consequently, in the earlier passage, Romans 8:29, as well. The latter explains that God initiated a committed relationship from eternity with certain individuals whom he predestined for grace.25

On this verse, Calvin writes, "But the foreknowledge of God, which Paul mentions, is not a bare prescience, as some unwise persons absurdly imagine, but the adoption by which he had always distinguished his children from the reprobate…he foreknew nothing out of himself, in adopting those whom he was pleased to adopt; but only marked out those whom he had purposed to elect."26 F. F. Bruce agrees: "God's foreknowledge here connotes that electing grace which is frequently implied by the verb 'to know' in the Old Testament. When God takes knowledge of people in this special way, he sets his choice on them."27

John Murray explains:

It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this [Arminian] interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that "foreknew" means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates…The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage. On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that "foreknew" refers to the foresight of faith…Many times in Scripture "know" has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with "love," to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action…There is no reason why this import of the word "know" should not be applied to "foreknow" in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present…It means "whom he set regard upon" or "whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight" and is virtually equivalent to "whom he foreloved."28

Thomas R. Schreiner holds the same view:

Some have argued that…God predestined to salvation those whom he saw in advance would choose to be part of his redeemed community…According to this understanding predestination is not ultimately based on God's decision to save some. Instead, God has predestined to save those whom he foresaw would choose him…It is quite unlikely, however, that it accurately represents the meaning…in Rom. 8:29 the point is that God has predestined those upon whom he has set his covenantal affection. Note that the object of the verb…is personal, "those whom"…God set his affection upon.29

Douglas Moo likewise argues for this position:

In [Arminianism] the human response of faith is made the object of God's "foreknowledge"; and this foreknowledge, in turn, is the basis for predestination: for "whom he foreknew, he predestined." But I consider it unlikely that this is the correct interpretation…The NT usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage…the three others besides the occurrence in this text, all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before" – in the sense of intellectual knowledge, or cognition – but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine, before" (Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2)…That the verb here contains this peculiarly biblical sense of "know" is suggested by the fact that it has a simple personal object. Paul does not say that God knew anything about us but that he knew us, and this is reminiscent of the OT sense of "know…."Moreover, it is only some individuals…who are the objects of this activity; and this shows that an action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb. If, then, the word means "know intimately," "have regard for," this must be a knowledge or love that is unique to believers…This being the case, the difference between "know or love beforehand" and "choose beforehand" virtually ceases to exist.30

Therefore, as the Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says, "In Romans 8:29 and 11:2, the apostle Paul's use of the word foreknew means 'to choose' or 'to set special affection on.' The electing love of God, not foresight of human action, is the basis of His predestination and salvation."31

At this point, some Arminians object that if foreknowledge does not mean prescience but foreordination, then why does Romans 8:29 say, "whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate"? That is, if "foreknow" means what the Calvinist says it means, then does not the reference to predestination become redundant? As Godet says in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, "Some have given to the word foreknow the meaning of elect, choose, destine beforehand…but what is still more decidedly opposed to this meaning is what follows: He also did predestine."32

This is a stupid and amateurish objection. It is a desperate and futile attempt to escape the conclusion that we have so firmly established. In fact, only the most incompetent would make such an argument after carefully examining the passage, or even just having read verse 29 to the end. The entire verse says, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Paul is telling us that whom God has chosen for salvation, he has also predestined the same people "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Foreknowledge in this verse refers to God's election of individuals to salvation, while predestination reveals the specific purpose or end that God has designed for his elect.

Thus Gundry-Volf writes:

Paul distinguishes between divine foreknowledge and divine predestination in Romans 8:29: "those whom he foreknew, he also predestined." While foreknowledge denotes the exercise of God's will to establish a special relationship with those whom God graciously elect before all time, predestination expresses God's appointing of them to a specific goal before all time…In Romans 8:29 this goal is conformity with the image of the Son, a reference to the final salvation of the elect…Foreknowledge as divine choice is thus the basis of predestination to glorification with Christ…Foreknowledge does not have to be understood as foresight of faith in order to be distinguished from predestination.33

Wuest recognizes that foreknowledge in this verse refers to God's sovereign election of individuals, and so he translates verse 29 and 30 as follows:

Because, those whom He foreordained He also marked out beforehand as those who were to be conformed to the derived image of His Son, with the result that He is firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, those whom He thus marked out beforehand, these He also summoned. And those whom He summoned, these He also justified. Moreover, those whom He justified, these He also glorified.34

The GNT translation says, "Those whom God had already chosen he also set apart to become like his Son, so that the Son would be the first among many believers. And so those whom God set apart, he called; and those he called, he put right with himself, and he shared his glory with them."

Without additional arguments, we have also refuted the Arminian interpretation of 1 Peter 1:2. The verse says that we have been chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Of course this is true, since foreknowledge means foreordination. Peter is saying that our election for salvation is based on God's sovereign decision – that is, his foreordination or foreknowledge.

Calvinism is repulsive to many people who claim to be Christians. But as Charles Spurgeon said, Calvinism is nothing other than biblical Christianity. Thus if you do not affirm Calvinism, you do not affirm biblical Christianity. If you call yourself a Christian, then you are obligated to affirm and promote Calvinism, and to denounce and refute Arminianism.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 The word is placed within quotation marks since, at this point, I am using prescience as the definition of God's foreknowledge, which is the way many people have defined it, but I will refute this definition later. 2 William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans (The Daily Study Bible Series); Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1975; p. 128-129. 3 Ibid., p. 129. 4 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament); Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996; p. 585-587. 5 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997; p. 18. 6 Ibid., p. 19. 7 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament); Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998; p. 500-501. 8 Ibid., p. 501-502. 9 Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. III; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers; p. 104. 10 Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973; p. 161. 11 John Piper, The Justification of God; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1993; p. 52. 12 Ibid., p. 53. 13 Barclay, p. 130-131. 14Calvin's, Vol. XIX; p. 358. 15 Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will; Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996; p. viii-ix. 16 Also see Systematic Theology and Ultimate Questions, by Vincent Cheung. 17 Rousas J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1; Vallecito, California: Ross House Books, 1994; p. 503. 18 Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, ed., Still Sovereign; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000; p. 186. 19 J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament); Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980; p. 143-145. 20 F. B. Huey, Jr., Jeremiah & Lamentations (The New American Commentary); Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1993; p. 50. 21Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985; "ginosko, gnosis, epiginosko, epignosis," p. 120. 22Evangelical Dictionary of Theology; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1984; "Foreknowledge," p. 420. 23Dictionary of Paul and His Letters; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993; "Foreknowledge, Divine," p. 310-311. 24The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982; "Foreknowledge," p. 336-337. 25Still Sovereign, p. 194-195. 26Calvin's, Vol. XIX; p. 317-318. 27 F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), Revised Edition; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985; p. 166. 28 Murray; Romans, Vol. 1; p. 316-317. 29 Schreiner; Romans, p. 452. 30 Moo, p. 532-533.31Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary; Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986; "Foreknowledge." 32 As quoted in: Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986; p. 183. 33Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 311. 34 Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

4. ELECTION OF NATIONS (1:2-5)

I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel. (1:2-5)

Our discussion on the election of individuals serves to prevent one from using the reference to the election of Israel as a nation in Malachi 1:2-5 to deny the election of Jacob as an individual. In fact, God favored Israel over Edom precisely because God favored Jacob over Esau. The conclusion from the previous chapter is that God sovereignly and actively chooses some for salvation, and he sovereignly and actively chooses all others for damnation. Salvation comes from God's sovereign grace, and not from man's will or work.

Malachi begins his message by asserting God's love for Israel. By reminding the nation of God's favor, Malachi makes clear that although it is necessary to confront the sins of the nation, God has always been faithful to his covenant people. In contrast, Israel has not been faithful or obedient toward God. Given God's supreme status, his faithfulness toward this nation, and his covenant relationship with it, there is no excuse for the people's apostasy. The prophet arranges his materials as disputations between God and Israel. Here the audience responds by challenging this initial assertion of God's love: "I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?" (1:2). This chapter deals with God's answer and its implications.

The people challenge God's statement about his love for Israel, and demand to be shown in what way God has exhibited this love. Malachi responds with an argument from history:

Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. (v. 2-4)

Although Malachi here mainly contrasts God's treatment of Israel with his treatment of Edom, we have established that the words, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau," do not exclude the election of individuals for salvation. Rather, Paul uses the same words in Romans 9 with the understanding that God had chosen Jacob as an individual and rejected Esau as an individual before they were even born, not on the basis of their future decisions or actions, but on the basis of God's sovereign will alone, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand" (Romans 9:11).

Jacob and Esau are mentioned here to remind the audience of their different treatments by God regardless of their similarities. They were not only brothers, but they were even twins. If one were to have the advantage over the other, Esau should have been the privileged one, since he was the firstborn. However, God had chosen Jacob and rejected Esau independent of any foreseen conditions in either of them, and this shows that God does not give his love to one who seems to be more worthy of it, but rather he gives his love to whomever he chooses. God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Romans 9:15). God had chosen Jacob because God decided to choose him, and not because of any existing or future goodness in Jacob. Any goodness in Jacob came because God had chosen him; God did not choose Jacob because of any existing or future goodness in Jacob.

God may similarly choose a nation for his special purpose and favor. Israel had arisen from Jacob, and thus the election of Israel the nation presupposes the election of Jacob the individual. As Moses says:

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 7:6-8)

God has indeed favored Israel, seeing how he has "chosen [Israel] to be a special people unto himself." The passage explicitly states that this choice was not based on the merits of the people of the nation, but rather on the promises that he has sovereignly made to their ancestors as individuals. This confirms that the election of Israel as a nation presupposes the election of Jacob as an individual:

And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land. (Genesis 35:10-12)

Now, Moses had warned the people of Israel that if they were to disobey God's laws, then God would punish them, and "if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me…I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste" (Leviticus 26:27, 33). That is, God would eject the people from their land if they would continue to defy him. But he also said that he would bring them back to the land if they would repent of their sins:

If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. (v. 40-42)

Before Malachi's ministry, the people of Israel had sinned and were thrown out of the land. Even Solomon's temple was destroyed. Later, God allowed them to go back and rebuild the land. By the time of Malachi's ministry, the temple had been rebuilt, although the new temple was inferior to the previous one: "But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice" (Ezra 3:12); "Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?" (Haggai 2:3).

Because of these painful circumstances in their recent history, some of the people had become cynical, and they began to question the foundation of God's relationship with the nation, namely, his covenant love and faithfulness. Thus they say to God, "How have you shown your love for us?" What love? What faithfulness? Malachi answers by reminding them that God had treated Israel and Edom in different ways.

Although Edom had arisen from Jacob's twin brother, Esau, it was not at all friendly to Israel. When Jerusalem was under attack by Babylon, the Edomites "were on the side of the invader, acting as informants."1 They also looted the people of Israel, and attacked those who were trying to escape. Obadiah writes concerning Edom:

On the day you stood aloof while strangers carried off his wealth and foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them. You should not look down on your brother in the day of his misfortune, nor rejoice over the people of Judah in the day of their destruction, nor boast so much in the day of their trouble. You should not march through the gates of my people in the day of their disaster, nor look down on them in their calamity in the day of their disaster, nor seize their wealth in the day of their disaster. You should not wait at the crossroads to cut down their fugitives, nor hand over their survivors in the day of their trouble. (v. 11-14, NIV)

The "Edomites moved into Judah's vacated territory and apparently had the better of their enemies."2 But later, they were invaded and driven out by the Nabateans.3 By the time of Malachi, the Israelites had returned to their land. The temple had been rebuild, and had been in service for a number of decades. Edom also wanted to rebuild, saying, "We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places" (v. 4). But God says through Malachi, "They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever" (v. 4).

Both nations had sinned against God, and both were demolished. God allowed Israel to rebuild, but he prevented Edom from doing the same. Malachi reminds the people of Israel, "the LORD's great power reaches far beyond our borders!" (v. 5, NLT), so that both Israel and Edom were under God's control, and Edom could have rebuilt if God had permitted it. Since it was God who determined the outcomes of both nations, their opposite fates indicate his different treatments toward them, showing God's favor toward Israel.

It is significant to say that the power of God extends beyond his favored nation. The gods of the other nations, which were not gods at all, were often territorial. For example, after losing a battle to the Israelites, the Syrians said, "The gods of Israel are mountain gods, and that is why the Israelites defeated us. But we will certainly defeat them if we fight them in the plains" (1 Kings 20:23, GNT). Of course, this was a misconception. Throughout the Scripture, and now in Malachi, we are presented with a God that possesses absolute sovereignty over every person and every nation at all times. He is master over all of history.

Ever since Adam, the reprobates have been trying to overthrow the rule of God over them. As Psalm 2 says, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us" (v. 1-3). God's commands are as chains and fetters (v. 3, NIV) to them, restricting their freedom to live and sin as they wish. From the Tower of Babel to the murder of Christ, and from the persecution of the first Christians to the persecution of today's Christians, the ungodly have been plotting against God, his Christ, and his people.

But no one can overturn what God has decided: "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (Isaiah 14:27). So, Psalm 2 continues, "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure" (v. 4-5). The wicked devices of men do not threaten God's control over the nations; it is impossible to eliminate divine sovereignty by human legislation. We can be sure that God will accomplish his plans despite extreme opposition.

Since all authority has been given to Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18), who also "shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom" (2 Timothy 4:1), the only intelligent course of action is to dedicate ourselves to serve his purpose and obey his commands. Accordingly, the Psalm admonishes the people, "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him" (v. 10-12).

On the relationship between Christianity and history, Ronald Nash writes:

Christianity has always had a special interest in history. Not only does Christianity teach that God is Lord over history (in the sense that history began in his act of creation, is governed by his providence, and will end at his judgment), it also holds that through Christ, God actually entered into human history. In an important sense, Christianity is grounded upon certain revelatory events (such as the Crucifixion and the Resurrection) that took place in the real world of space and time.4

These statements are essentially accurate, although careless and imprecise at several points.

God had always controlled all of history, and in a sense, it is true that God "entered into human history" in the person of God the Son, Jesus Christ. However, this must not be misconstrued to mean that God has become a temporal being. The divine nature is timeless, and since the divine nature is also immutable, it can never change. God the Son did not enter history in the sense of becoming a temporal being, since this is impossible, but he entered history only in the sense of having taken up a human nature, or a set of human attributes, without affecting his divine nature at all.

That Christianity is "grounded upon certain revelatory events" must not imply that these events alone constitute God's revelation to mankind, and that the Scripture is only a written record of revelation and not the revelation itself. Rather, Scripture is itself the revelation, so that the words of the Bible constitute God's direct revelation to us, and not just an indirect record of revelatory events.

Therefore, let no one consider any revelatory event as somehow more authoritative than the Scripture, since the words of the Bible (not just the events recorded in the Bible) "came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). As Paul writes, "All scripture [not just the events that it records] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is not merely a human record of divine revelation, but it is in itself God's divine revelation to mankind.

In addition, it is misleading to say "the real world of space and time," as if the non-spatial and non-temporal realm of God is unreal. Nevertheless, it is correct for Nash to emphasize that the Christian faith involves events that took place in space and time, including the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ.

No meaningful religion or philosophy can totally ignore history, since the universe itself is historical in nature, and an adequate intellectual system must be able to account for its creation or existence. Of course, a biblical approach to theology and apologetics would insist that no non-Christian philosophy of history can succeed.

God's complete control over all of history carries strong implications for the historian. Since God controls all of history, and since God has revealed himself exclusively through the Christian Scripture, this means that only Christians can provide an accurate account of any historical event. All non-Christians are poor historians. They will always fail to acknowledge the ultimate and common cause of all historical events, and thus neglecting a necessary principle by which one can accurately interpret history.

Jesus says that not even one sparrow will "fall on the ground without your Father" (Matthew 10:29). The word translated "without" is aneu, which Thayer defines as "without one's will or intervention," and so the phrase appears as "apart from the will of your Father" in the NIV. Such is the extent and precision of God's sovereign power over individuals, nations, and all of history. This means that even Arminians, although they claim to be Christians, cannot be good historians, because they reject the teaching of Christ, or at best pay lip service to it without drawing out and acknowledging its necessary implications. Only Calvinists can be good historians. For that matter, since only those who affirm the biblical worldview can accurately interpret anything, only Calvinists can be truly good at anything.

If you disagree, it is probably because you have a wrong definition of what good means – nothing is good if it is not biblical. In America's Providential History, Beliles and McDowell write, "Since God is the author of history and He is carrying out His plan in the earth through history, any view of the history of America, or any country, that ignores God is not true history. He is Sovereign over His creation and 'His Story' in the earth, and is at work in significant, and seemingly insignificant, events to accomplish His purposes for mankind."5 But this view of history is not widely taught. Christian ministers should teach their people a biblical philosophy of history, and parents should teach it to their children, so that Christians may have an accurate view of historical events, always keeping in mind God's sovereignty over all of creation.

Now, although God had favored Israel as a nation, he did not save every Israelite from sin – many never inherited salvation, but were condemned to hell. That is, God did not choose every individual within the "chosen" nation for salvation. Paul explains, "It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (Romans 9:6, NIV). In other words, it is not that God's promise to Abraham had failed, but that God never promised his grace to all of Abraham's physical descendants:

Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. (Romans 9:7-8, NIV)

Therefore, although Ishmael was Abraham's physical descendant, God commanded Abraham to send him away: "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (Galatians 4:30). Likewise, although both Jacob and Esau were the physical descendants of Isaac, God sovereignly accepted Jacob and rejected Esau.

By God's sovereign control, Israel continued to disobey God, and even killed his prophets and servants:

Then he sent some more servants and said, "Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet." But they paid no attention and went off – one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. (Matthew 22:4-6)

Therefore, as God had planned to do all along, when Christ came, he announced the destruction of Jerusalem: "The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city" (v. 7). This happened in 70 A.D., when the Roman "army" marched into Jerusalem, they "destroyed those murderers" (the Jews killed Christ and the prophets), and literally "burned their city."

At the same time, God permanently removed the "kingdom" from Israel, and gave it to the church:

I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:11-12)

Then the owner of the vineyard said, "What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him." But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. "This is the heir," they said. "Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. (Luke 20:13-16)

The church is now the covenant community of God; however, as with the covenant community in Israel, not all those who have joined or have been born into this community have been chosen by God for salvation. In theological terms, not all the members of the visible church belong to the invisible church.6 In fact, it seems that only a very small minority of those who belong to the visible church are truly saved.

But those who have the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham, and they have such faith precisely because God has chosen them for salvation. Scripture commands us to examine ourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5) and to gain assurance (1 Timothy 3:13), so that we may distinguish ourselves from the false converts, and know that we are truly among God's elect (2 Peter 1:10). Then, knowing that we are among those who are "called according to his purpose," we can be confident that "all things work together" for our good (Romans 8:28).

In the context of thinking about God's special favor toward his elect, Paul exclaims, "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31). If we are true Christians, then we can be sure that nothing can separate us from the electing love of God, and that in all things "we are more than conquerors through him that loved us" (v. 37). But this is not true for the wicked, as the Scripture says, "The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy" (Psalm 145:20).

God has chosen to show us favor. The proper response to his electing love consists of worship and obedience. But we should affirm the sovereignty of God not only on the individual level; rather, we should proclaim that his "great power reaches far beyond [the] borders" of our church (Malachi 1:5, NLT), and extends to every pagan society, political party, business corporation, and even the fate of every false religion rests in his hands.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Baldwin, p. 222. 2 Ibid., p. 222. 3 Ibid., p. 223. 4 Ronald H. Nash, The Meaning of History; Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998; p. 18. 5 Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, America's Providential History; Charlottesville, Virginia: Providence Foundation, 1996; p. vii. 6 See my other writings on election and covenant for more information.

5. THE COVENANT OF FAITH (1:6-2:9)

A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.

And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the LORD of hosts. Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible. Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD. But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the LORD a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.

And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it. And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law. (Malachi 1:6-2:9).

This is a long passage, so we will not take time to analyze every phrase, but we will discuss only some of the main points.

The proper response to God's covenant love consists of worship and obedience; it should result in gratitude toward God and confidence in him. However, Malachi's hearers did not have these qualities; instead, they have broken their covenants with God and one another. Therefore, Malachi begins to confront them about their sins.

Malachi first directs his accusations against the sinful priests. Just as a father must be honored, and a master must be feared, God should be honored and feared because he is both the father and master of his covenant people. But God complains that the priests "despise my name" (1:6). Of course, it is a serious charge to accuse the priests of despising God, since one would expect them to honor God the most out of all the people.

The prophet's argument appears simple, but it is indeed compelling. His culture takes for granted the premise, "A son honoureth his father," and the Decalogue includes the authoritative command, "Honour thy father and thy mother" (Exodus 20:12). Also, a servant belongs to his master by right of purchase, and it is assumed that fear is owed to one's master. God says, "If then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?" (v. 6). If a person honors his human father and fears his human master, should he not show the same and even greater honor and fear toward his divine father and master? Thus this first point is a type of a fortiori argument.

Instead of admitting their guilt, the priests say, "Wherein have we despised thy name?" (v. 6). They are saying that if they have done wrong, then their fault remains a mystery to them. God answers that they "offer polluted bread upon mine altar" (v. 7). But this clarification does not seem to remind them of any wrongdoing, for again they ask, "Wherein have we polluted thee?" (v. 7). First, God replies, "Ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible" (v. 7), and then, "ye offer the blind for sacrifice…and…ye offer the lame and sick" (v. 8). Of such behavior, he challenges, "Is it not evil?" (v. 8).

Long ago, God had set forth the requirements for any sacrifice offered to him:

Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you. And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein. Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD. (Leviticus 22:19-22)

Any sacrifice offered to God must be "without blemish." Animals that are "blind, or broken, or maimed," are unfit as sacrifices. However, these are precisely the types of animals the priests offer to God: "And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?" (v. 8). Lest the priests think that there is nothing wrong with these defective animals, God asks if they had offered the defective animals "unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person?" (v. 8). They would certainly give the best animals to secure the governor's favor, but they offer to God what is useless to themselves.

Verhoef thinks it best to translate the words "is it not evil" (v. 8) as "there is nothing wrong," thus reflecting the attitude of the priests: "When you bring a blind animal for sacrifice, there is nothing wrong, or when you offer crippled or diseased animals, there is nothing wrong. Do offer them to your governor!"1 Paul Redditt writes, "God himself supplied the clinching argument: if they were to say such an offering showed no disrespect, they should try giving it to their…governor."2 They would cower under men of authority, but they dare to spit in God's face. Many professing Christians behave the same way today.

The ministry's purity have deteriorated because the priests have been saying, "The table of the LORD is contemptible." Verse 7 in the NLT says, "Then you ask, 'How have we defiled the sacrifices?' You defiled them by saying the altar of the LORD deserves no respect." In these disputations, Malachi relates God's message to the people, and includes responses from them fitting to their attitudes and behavior before refuting them, and so "it was unlikely that these words were uttered"3 explicitly by the priests themselves. Rather, "Malachi is trying to bring to the surface subconscious attitudes by drawing out the implications of unworthy actions,"4 that is, "they have said it to themselves, that these words reflected their subconscious attitudes."5 Thus the NRSV translates, "By thinking that the LORD's table may be despised." They offer defective sacrifices to God and think little of it, showing that they hold their priestly duties and God himself in contempt.

The priests consider their service to God "a weariness," saying, "How tired we are of all this!" (v. 13, GNT). Leviticus 22:23 says, "a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts…shall not be accepted…for a vow," but the people attempt to play the "deceiver" (v. 14) with God by sacrificing to him "blemished" (v. 14, NRSV) animals to fulfill their vows. In response, God brings a curse on them: "A curse on the cheater who sacrifices a worthless animal to me, when he has in his flock a good animal that he promised to give me!" (v. 14, GNT); or, "Cursed is the cheat who promises to give a fine ram from his flock but then sacrifices a defective one to the Lord" (NLT). One who attempts to cheat God invites a curse upon himself.

Although God is "a great King," they are weary of worshipping him in the prescribed manner, and instead they bring to him "that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick" (v. 13). This is because "For them the holy service of God had become a bore, a labor of duty rather than of love, a yoke around their necks," and "The very men who were the mediators between God and his people (Exod 28:1, 43), the teachers of Israel (Lev 10:11; Deut 33:10; 2 Chron 15:3), and the court of appeal (Deut 19:17-19) were, by their own choice, profaning their office and bringing shame on the name of Yahweh."6

The word translated "torn" (gazul) in the KJV refers to something stolen or obtained through violence and robbery,7 and so in the NLT: "Think of it! Animals that are stolen and mutilated, crippled and sick – presented as offerings!" God certainly rejects this type of "worship," and so he says, "I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand" (v. 10). He so detests such feigned worship that he exclaims, "Oh, that someone among you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not kindle fire on my altar in vain!" (v. 10, NRSV).

In contrast to these priests, God recalls the fidelity of Levi, who "feared me, and was afraid before my name" (2:5). He says that, "the law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity" (v. 6). It is with him that God made a "covenant…of life and peace" (v. 5). But the priests in Malachi's day have "departed out of the way," having "caused many to stumble at the law," and "corrupted the covenant of Levi" (v. 8). Therefore, God sent a curse upon them (v. 2), and made them "contemptible and base before all the people" (v. 9).

Many people regard Malachi 1:11 as a prophecy about the New Covenant era, in which believers will worship God "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23). That is when "his majesty shall be recognized throughout the wide world, and pure worship shall be offered to him from every nation under heaven"; "There is a general consensus of commentators in referring the time to the Messianic future," and "there can be little doubt that a prophecy is intended."8

God had said through Hosea, "I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God" (Hosea 2:23). He would call those who were once not his people as his very own people. As Jesus says in Matthew 8:11, "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." The elect in Christ would know to worship God in truth and sincerity.

What Malachi says about the priests applies to today's ministers, since "Then a professional clergy existed, and today one also exists."9 From among his people, God has chosen some to serve him in special ways, and this is true in both the Old and New Covenant eras. Some Christians mistakenly believe that, although some individuals were specifically called to the ministry under the Old Covenant, all the Christians under the New Covenant are called to the ministry in the same sense, and that no one has any ministerial authority over another. Any authority one has within a church is given because of purely functional or pragmatic reasons, but all are "equal" under God.

Proponents of this view often cite as support 1 Peter 2:9, which says, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." They argue that although not all were priests under the Old Covenant, all the Christians are now priests in Christ, and therefore there should be no professional clergy that carries special authority in the church.

However, this is a misuse of the text, since Peter is in fact quoting from an Old Testament passage directed at the people of Israel: "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel" (Exodus 19:6). God calls "the children of Israel" a "kingdom of priests," just as Peter calls Christians "a royal priesthood." Thus to admit that every Christian is in some sense a "priest" does not eliminate the professional clergy. If 1 Peter 2:9 destroys the distinction between clergy and laity, then Exodus 19:6 should have done the same under the Old Covenant. But since Exodus 19:6 did not destroy the distinction between clergy and laity, then neither can one use 1 Peter 2:9 to destroy such a distinction.

On the other hand, the Bible says that, after his ascension, Christ "gave gifts unto men…And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:8, 11-12). Then, in another place, Paul denies that everyone is called to these offices (1 Corinthians 12:28-30). When Paul greets the Philippians, he makes special mention of "the overseers and deacons" that are among "all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi" (Philippians 1:1, NIV). James writes, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). This implies that Christian teachers are distinguishable from other Christians, and that God himself distinguishes between the two.

Therefore, although every Christian is a priest in some sense, God has evidently selected some people to carry additional responsibility and authority in the church. Hebrews says, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you" (Hebrews 13:17).

However, this does not mean that Christian ministers are mediators between God and his people in the sense that other Christians cannot approach God without them. Scripture says that there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Anyone who has believed in Christ, therefore, needs no other mediator than Christ to approach God in worship and confession.

Edmund Clowney writes as follows:

In addition to the inspired apostles and prophets, Christ also gives to his church evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). Such men are called to preach the Word with authority. They do not share with the apostles in the inspiration that first delivered Christ's gospel, but they do share in the stewardship that ministers it.

The steward of biblical times was an overseer among the servants. He carried the keys to his master's house and bore responsibility for its administration. He was a servant among fellow-servants, but with authority…

God does call workmen in the Word with deepened insights to perceive the outlines of sound words and with anointed lips to declare them. There are men made "mighty in the Scripture" (Acts 18:24). A stewardship of the gospel is committed to such men…

As they are obliged to preach, so others are obliged to hear. Their message must be received as the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13); those who by faith receive their witness will rejoice in the day of Christ's return, while those that obey not the gospel will know the judgment of God's vengeance (2 Thess. 1:8-10).

The congregation must respect the authority of ministers of the Word as those "over them in the Lord: (1 Thess. 5:12) to be esteemed highly in love for their work's sake.10

Another way to express this is that Christians are equal as children of God in Christ, but they do not possess equal authority or qualifications as ministers of Christ. They have equal access to God, but not equal grace and power in ministry.

This distinction between the clergy and laity is repugnant to many people, who often oppose this design of God. But Scripture prescribes such a distinction, that there are ministers such as overseers and deacons who possess spiritual gifts and authority that other Christians do not have, and that not all are called to these ministries. The true motive for opposing this distinction is often a rebellious desire to usurp the authority that rightly belongs to God's chosen ministers. Wicked people who claim to be Christians desire to show off their talents and speak their minds. They pay little attention to the apostle's warning: "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1).

A strong tendency to cheat ministers of their salaries also contributes to this opposition against the clergy and laity distinction. If a professional clergy does not exist, then a person who functions as a pastor in fact does not hold an office that deserves a salary. Therefore, the church does not need to pay him a salary for his service; rather, he must earn an income from a secular job, and faithfully perform all his church duties at the same time. However, this is robbing a worker of his rightful wages, and God has expressed his wrath against this throughout the Bible (see Leviticus 19:13, Jeremiah 22:13, Malachi 3:5, Colossians 4:1). Such wickedness has no place in the kingdom of God. The church must urgently correct its people about this great injustice.

Paul writes, "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you?" (1 Corinthians 9:11, NASB). But many professing Christians are cheating preachers of their pay, so that many faithful workers in the church are underpaid or not paid at all for their services. Those people who withhold the proper wages from these ministers increase their own savings, and they make purchases that add to their own comfort. But the money that they have saved and the items that they have purchased will cry out against them to testify about their wickedness (James 5:4). God will not hold these people guiltless, but he will punish them very harshly.

However, only faithful Christian ministers who demonstrate exemplary doctrine and character deserve their wages. Today, many who claim to be Christian ministers are offering defective sacrifices to the Lord. Like the priests in Malachi's day, they despise their ministerial offices, saying that it is wearisome and unprofitable to serve God. As a result, they relax the strict standards of ministry that God reveals in the Bible, and they offer only worthless sacrifices to him.

They neglect their private life with God. They are called first to serve God with worship, prayer, and study. Their doctrinal distortions reflect their unfaithfulness to Scripture. Failing to understand God's revelation, they misdirect those who hear them with inaccurate teachings. Doctrinal compromise leads to moral laxity and confusion, so that adultery, homosexuality, abortion, blasphemy, the neglect of theological study, and other sins are not confronted with the full force of the authority given to them. This is a betrayal their ministerial office, and they are like the priests who "corrupted the covenant of Levi" (Malachi 2:8). Since false doctrine misrepresents and defies the will of God as explicitly stated in the Bible, from it comes all kinds of wickedness and destruction that permeate all of life and society.

God says that his covenant with Levi "called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name" (Malachi 2:5). This description stands in stark contrast to the priests that the prophet is confronting here, seeing that they despise God and his ordinances. To be in the ministry, one must fear and love God; otherwise, he is disqualified from holding any spiritual office. As James Boice writes:

If God's ministers are godly, the people of God will tend to be godly also and even the ungodly will have some cause for honoring the Lord's name. If ministers are unfaithful – if they suggest by their conduct that God is contemptible and His service a burden – then the people will not be edified, their lives will not exhibit the excellencies of God's character, and God will be despised among the heathen for their sake.11

If a person has been called by God to the ministry, and if he truly fears and loves the Lord, he will not remain theologically ignorant very long. Godly people "find joy in obeying the Law of the Lord, and they study it day and night" (Psalm 1:2, GNT). To these people, "The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb" (Psalm 19:9-10, NIV). If each person must live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4), how much more must the minister "be diligent" (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB), so that he may become one who "correctly handles the word of truth" (v. 15, NIV)?

Thus faithful Levi did not only fear God, but "True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was found on his lips." God says, "He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many from sin" (Malachi 2:6, NIV). Proper moral influence can result only from biblical proclamation with theological precision, since without this, God's moral requirements remain undefined in the minds of the minister and his audience, and any discussion on such matters may degenerate into nothing more than a reflection of the current culture or one's preference.

Malachi continues, "For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction – because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty" (Malachi 2:7, NIV). Many people evaluate a ministry based on its political correctness instead of its theological correctness, indicating how far their thinking has departed from God's word. Malachi says to the priests, "By your teaching [you] have caused many to stumble" (v. 8, NIV). Only fools and rebels say that sound doctrine and theological orthodoxy do not occupy the highest place.

In connection with this, Boice says,

I am particularly concerned about the sermons many preachers offer to God on Sunday mornings. Years ago a distinguished preacher who had spent a summer listening to others preach told me, "It was all pretty thin gruel." This is my judgment too, if indeed my own assessment is not worse. Where are the great themes of Scripture? You do not find them in the majority of sermon topics listed in the Saturday edition of most city newspapers. Where is the effort that is necessary to make a sermon say something worth crossing town or even crossing the street to hear? God can no doubt rightly say of many ministers today, "It is you, O priests, who despise my name…You place defiled food on my altar."12

Our passage sets forth personal piety and theological soundness as the two basic requirements of a minister. Paul teaches the same – as he instructs Timothy on being a "good minister of Jesus Christ" (1 Timothy 4:6), he says, "Watch your life and doctrine closely" (v. 16, NIV). But many people are least concerned about these two things, and such is the sinful state of the Christian clergy.

However, although many people place all the blame on preachers, we can place much blame also on the people. In the first place, the people of Israel had a history of rejecting godly priests and murdering true prophets. False ministries are often allowed to continue because, as God says, "The prophets prophesy falsely…and my people love to have it so" (Jeremiah 5:31). Paul predicts that, "The time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires" (2 Timothy 4:3, NRSV). Christians must bear much of the blame for the existence of false teachers and prophets. They are the ones who continue to finance them and attend their gatherings. Christians sometimes even turn against their ministers for warning them about false teachers and prophets, a reaction that exposes their wickedness and contempt for the truth.

Although Malachi could blame the priests for offering defective sacrifices, for they were indeed at fault, we must also note that the sacrifices were brought to the priests by the people. Against the explicit teaching of Scripture, the people brought blemished animals to the priests. Although the priests had the responsibility of examining the sacrifices and rejecting the inappropriate ones, the people were also guilty.

Rather than tolerating the people's rebellion against God, faithful ministers must boldly "Preach the word" (2 Timothy 4:2), that is to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority," and "Let no man despise" (Titus 2:15) them. Ministers must "earnestly contend for the faith" (Jude 3) regardless of pressure and opposition. Those who are truly serving the Lord need not be frightened or discouraged in the midst of difficulties, but we can be confident that God has reserved for himself a remnant, who are growing in personal holiness and biblical understanding, and at the appointed time they will exert a positive influence on the earth in accordance with God's sovereign plan.

Christians who long for genuine revival must begin to treasure those who are good "ensamples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:3) and who are "mighty in the scriptures" (Acts 18:24). They must see them as the church's greatest assets, and treat them accordingly. Paul writes, "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching" (1 Timothy 5:17, NIV).

Those who labor well in "preaching and teaching" are very rare. Wisdom dictates that Christians should provide the necessary resources to these faithful ministers so that they may live peaceful lives, develop their spiritual gifts, and impart their knowledge "to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). A "good minister" (1 Timothy 4:6) is one who exhibits personal piety and theological soundness, and who is able to impart these to those who hear him.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Verhoef, p. 208-209. 2 Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (The New Century Bible Commentary); Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995; p. 165. 3 Verhoef, p. 216. 4 Baldwin, p. 226. 5 Verhoef, p. 216. 6Expositor's, Vol. 7; p. 713. 7 Verhoef: "Some interpreters assume that gazul is an animal that has been taken by violence, that has been caught and mutilated by a wild animal…This interpretation is indeed possible…However, the meaning 'stolen' seems preferable…" (p. 233). 8Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV; "Malachi," p. 3-4. 9 Rousas J. Rushdoony, Tithing and Dominion; Vallecito, California: Ross House Books, 1979; p. 13. 10 Edmund P. Clowney, Called to the Ministry; Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964; p. 45, 50-51. 11 Boice, p. 237. 12 Ibid., p. 237.

6. THE COVENANT OF MARRIAGE (2:10-16)

Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts. And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (Malachi 2:10-16)

Once a person breaks his commitment to God, his relationship with human beings also suffers. God's commandments constitute the only sufficient basis for a meaningful and authoritative system of ethics, and in turn, one's obedience to these commandments is the only proper basis for being faithful and ethical in his personal relationships. One who is not faithful to God may still appear to be faithful to his wife or his friends, but without faithfulness to God as the context and background, all his apparently faithful actions are superficial, and ultimately sinful. In addition, there is no ultimately rational and binding reason for him to remain even superficially ethical. It is different for one whose allegiance belongs to God alone. Since God holds the ultimate position of authority over his life, the only thing that can cause him to disown the biblical principles of ethics is his prior repudiation of God. The Bible says, "the love of Christ controls us" (2 Corinthians 5:14, NASB).

Why do the Israelites "deal treacherously every man against his brother"? The people are in a state of spiritual apostasy, with the priests being responsible for much of the damage. Since they have broken their commitment to God, they no longer respect his commandments in their human relationships. That they have "one father" and "one God" who made them is no longer morally relevant in their thinking.

Malachi then deals with the ramifications of their unfaithfulness to God when it comes to their marriages. Verse 11 says that they have committed "an abomination" by having "married the daughter of a strange god." They are marrying women who worship "gods" other than the God of Israel. Baldwin argues that the issue is not interracial marriages, but interfaith marriages. She writes:

There was no objection on racial grounds to intermarriage. A mixed multitude went out of Egypt with the Israelites (Ex. 12:38), but by submitting to circumcision and keeping the passover they committed themselves to the God of Israel (Ex. 12:48; Nu. 9:14). Boaz married Ruth the Moabitess, but she had forsaken Chemosh for Israel's God (Ru. 1:16).1

However, these Israelites are marrying women who remain devoted to their false gods. These marriages "assumed a compromise between the God and Father of Israel and…pagan [idols]."2 Their eagerness to marry women of other faiths signifies their lack of commitment to God and his commandments. Malachi says that the Lord would "remove from the community of Israel" (v. 12, GNT) those who "married women who worship foreign gods" (v. 11, GNT). Marrying an unbeliever is an extremely serious sin. Alden observes, "Malachi said there would be no exception to the rule: Intermarriage meant excommunication (v. 12)."3

Then, the prophet turns to address another sin, one so serious that the Lord has ceased accepting their offerings because of it.: "And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand" (2:13). When asked why God rejects their offerings, Malachi answers that it is because they have "dealt treacherously" against "the wife of thy youth" (v. 14), that they have "broken your promise to the wife you married" (v. 14, GNT).

The NIV indicates that they have violated the "marriage covenant" (v. 14). The men were divorcing their wives, and breaking the covenant with them. Malachi condemns these divorces as "disloyal" (v. 14, NLT) and "cruel" (v. 16, GNT), and in verse 16, God says, "I hate divorce!" (v. 16, NLT).

Although verse 14 teaches that marriage is a covenant, some have rebelled against this proper interpretation, suggesting that the words in question means only that "the wife too belonged to a covenant with God,"4 However, better scholars have argued that an exchange of marriage vows form a covenant between the couple, and therefore marriage is even more binding than a signed contract.5 As Hugenberger writes:

Perhaps the most significant of these arguments was the observation that this interpretation overlooks the opposing evidence of the four nominal syntagms…attested in Biblical Hebrew which parallel the disputed expression…In each case the mentioned covenant exists between the person(s) indicated by the nomen regens and the person referred to by the pronominal suffix or additional construct, exactly as is being argued for "your wife by covenant…" in Mal. 2:14.6

Moreover, the idea that marriage is a covenant is not unique to Malachi, given passages such as Genesis 31:50 and Proverbs 2:16-17: "If you mistreat my daughters or if you take any wives besides my daughters, even though no one is with us, remember that God is a witness between you and me" (NIV); "…the adulteress…has left the partner of her youth and ignored the covenant she made before God" (NIV). When two people marry, even if no one else is present, God acts as a witness, as Malachi indicates, "the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth" (2:14). Jay Adams explains that the marriage relationship is a "covenant of companionship," and "forsaking the companion of one's youth is paralleled with forgetting the covenant of God (Prov. 2:17)…In Malachi 2:14…God denounces husbands who are faithless to their companions. These companions are further described as those who are wives by covenant (NASB)."7 Therefore, the relationship between marriage partners is formed as a "covenant…made before God."

The implication is that marriage is even more binding than "a legal contract to be drawn up with the appropriate documents."8 God himself is a witness to this union, and this makes disloyalty to one's marriage partner especially despicable, such that God "regardeth not the offering any more" (v. 13) of one who "deal[s] treacherously against the wife of his youth" (v. 15).

Another implication is that since God is the witness to a marriage, putting the two together and making them one, the fate of the marriage is never up to the couple to decide, but if divorce is to occur at all, it can happen only on God's terms.

As Jesus says, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). Since God is the one who puts together a marriage, to destroy it without his explicit permission and under his prescribed conditions would be to attack a work of God. Man has no right to dismantle what God has constructed. Even if the husband and the wife agree to divorce, it is not up to them; rather, they must obey all the relevant biblical precepts.

Christians should never enter into this covenant relationship with non-Christians. As Paul writes:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." (2 Corinthians 6:14-16, NIV)

Since religious commitment is such that it should permeate all of life, there can be no fellowship between believers and unbelievers beyond the most superficial level.

Therefore, Scripture forbids Christians to marry atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, and Catholics – that is, all non-Christians are unacceptable. In effect, "non- Christians" would also include those who claim to be Christians, but who do not exhibit the evidences of true conversion as listed in Scripture. Since it appears that most professing Christians today are in fact non-Christians, this means all non-Christians and most "Christians" are unacceptable as marriage partners.

In other words, if you are unmarried, do not marry someone unless you are certain that the person is a true Christian, exhibiting the biblical signs of true regeneration and conversion. And if you are married, do not divorce unless your situation clearly meets the biblical conditions. Blatant disobedience will put your very soul in danger of hellfire.

God wants the union of a man and a woman to produce "godly offspring" (2:15, NIV). If one reason for marriage is to produce godly children, then it follows that the parents' conflicting concerns would hinder this goal. The Christian parent would emphasize theology, spirituality, integrity, and humility, but the non-Christian parent may emphasize wealth, accomplishments, competitiveness, and relativistic ethics. To say the least, a non- Christian would not teach a child to be a true Christian. "The family was intended to be the school in which God's way of life was practiced and learned (Ex. 20:12; Dt. 11:19)."9 It is difficult to provide such an environment unless both parents are true Christians, that is, people fully committed to the teaching of Scripture.

The topic of marriage deserves extensive study. To derive a set of scriptural guidelines for marriage and divorce, it is necessary to perform careful exegesis of relevant biblical passages such as Genesis 2:23-24, Deuteronomy 24:1-5, Malachi 2:13-16, Matthew 5:31-32, Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Timothy 3:2, Hebrews 13:4, and several others.

For now, we will be satisfied with the following summary: Marriage consists of the special and exclusive union of a man and a woman, whose covenant relationship is witnessed and officiated by God himself. A Christian is only permitted to marry another Christian. If one is converted after marriage, one is not to divorce the spouse. But if the non-Christian spouse desires to sever the relationship, the Christian cannot force the unbeliever to remain. Once within a marriage relationship, one must remain faithful and not to divorce the other, except when the other is unfaithful. Even then, divorce is not necessary, but only permitted. One who illegitimately divorces the spouse is a covenant-breaker, and incurs God's judgment.10

The above mentions that marriage is only between one man and one woman. There is no such thing as a "homosexual marriage." Scripture condemns homosexuality as a most wicked and perverted sin. God will send all homosexuals to hell:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NASB)

Paul says, "Do not be deceived" about this, but many people today are deceived on precisely this issue, and they are lying to themselves and to others that God accepts homosexuals. The truth is that unless a homosexual repents and renounces homosexuality, so that he is no longer a homosexual, God will send him to hell to suffer endless extreme conscious torment. Any person who disagrees with this disagrees with the explicit teaching of the Bible, and thus defies Paul's authority and denies Scripture's infallibility, meaning that this person forfeits any justification for calling himself a Christian.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Baldwin, p. 238. 2 Verhoef, p. 270. 3Expositor's, Vol. 7; p. 717. 4 Redditt, p. 172. 5 Baldwin, p. 239. 6 Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994; p. 340. 7 Jay E. Adams, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980; p. 15. 8 Baldwin, p. 239. 9 Ibid., p. 240-241. 10 Some scholars have derived and defended stricter guidelines from Scripture on divorce and remarriage, but we will not discuss them here.

7. REFORMATION IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY (2:17-3:5)

Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment? 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. 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: 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. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And 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 against 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. (Malachi 2:17-3:5)

Malachi 2:17 alludes to a common objection against how God governs the world: "Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?" The people challenge God's justice on the basis of how evil men often prosper, so much so that they accuse God of regarding evil as good.

The people's words have "wearied"1 the Lord, just as those who complain against God today are stupid and annoying. Some take the statement, "Where is the God of judgment?" as "tantamount to doubting His existence,"2 although others more correctly maintain that this challenge is only about how God dispenses justice. The lack of prosperity among the people and the absence of God's glory in the temple have generated this cynicism and doubt. It seems to them that God favors evil men, seeing how the evil people were prospering rather than destroyed.

The reference to "my messenger" predicts the arrival of one who "shall prepare the way." This prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist, who then introduced "the messenger of the covenant." Thus the book of Malachi consists of consists of a messenger of God (1:1) delivering to the messengers of God (2:7) a prophecy concerning the Messenger of God, who is the Messiah, Jesus Christ. As Hebrews 1:1-2 says, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

The people ask for the God who dispenses justice. Malachi answers that "the Lord" himself will "suddenly come to his temple." Although it seems that the Lord tarries, the prophet affirms that he will surely come. And when he does, he will indeed bring justice with him: "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: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver." When the Lord comes, he will be "like a refiner's fire…and purifier of silver." Contrary to the people's accusation, instead of tolerating or delighting in wickedness, he will thoroughly purge evil from among his people.

The rhetorical questions, "But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth?" suggest that very few or even none will be able to stand under God's judgment. "The interrogative pronoun which is repeated for the sake of emphasis refers to people and therefore alludes to the speakers of 2:17,"3 and this gives us a clue as to the objects of the Lord's judgment, made explicit in the following verses.

The primary objects of purification and judgment are not those whom the complainers regard as evil; rather, the Lord "shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness" (v. 3). A positive change in the nation's spiritual condition should begin with the spiritual leaders, for it is their corrupt theology and conduct that are increasing apostasy. Contrary to what Baldwin suggests, "An offering in righteousness" (GNT: "the right kinds of offerings") likely refers to the correct manner and objects of sacrifice4; that is, the priests would again minister "in perfect accord with the demands of the law." Just as their contempt for the temple rituals exposes their inner rebellion and irreverence, to offer sacrifices in the prescribed manner presupposes a change of heart in the priests. Therefore, the implication is that when the purification results in the presentation of acceptable sacrifices, it also means that they would be "offered in the right spirit."5

After the priests have been purified, "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years" (v. 4). Spiritual reformation among the people usually occurs after the proper changes have been made in the clergy. Nevertheless, Calvin rightly observes that, "he meant to confine to the elect what ought not to have been extended to all, for there were among the people, as we have seen and shall again presently see, many who were reprobates, nay, the greater part had fallen away."6 Only those who have been sovereignly chosen by God would respond to spiritual purification.

God further responds to the call for the "God of judgment," and says:

And 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 against 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. (v. 5)

He would come indeed, not to judge only those whom the complainers consider as evil, but he says, "I will come near to you to judgment."

Accordingly, C. F. Keil writes:

The refining which the Lord will perform at His coming will not limit itself to the priests, but become a judgment upon all sinners. This judgment is threatened against those who wanted the judgment of God to come, according to ch. 2:17. To these the Lord will draw near to judgment, and rise up as a swift witness against all the wicked who do not fear him.7

Being the spiritually backward people that they are, their demand for justice has backfired on them. The people have been making false accusations against God, but God would come to judge all the reprobates, including those who accuse him of wrongdoing:

[They say] that he hid himself from them and looked at a distance on what was taking place in the world, as though the people he had chosen were not the objects of his care…when they denied that he was the God of judgment, because he did not immediately, or soon enough, resist their enemies…His answer is, "I will not forget my judgment when I come to you, but I shall come in a way contrary to what you expect."8

Malachi then lists several sins for which God will judge the people (v. 5). The list includes sorcery, which was rampant among the post-exilic Jews.9 God condemns both their spiritual and social sins. That they "fear not me" (v. 5) reveals "the source from which all these sins flowed, and refer to all the sinners mentioned before."10

Boice observes that challenges against God's justice (2:17) are "distressingly frequent."11 Even many professing Christians are easily swayed by feeble arguments, and they would question the love and justice of God at the slightest sign of trouble. Although Jesus says that "a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth" (Luke 12:15), they persist in measuring God's favor in terms of such things as wealth and popularity. But James says that God has chosen many poor people to be "rich in faith" (James 2:5).

Jesus says to his disciples, "I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you" (John 15:15). Theological understanding – that is, knowledge of the ways of God as revealed in Scripture – is one important measure of God's favor and friendship. Jeremiah says:

Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

Material wealth, secular wisdom, natural strength, and political influence are nothing to boast about. The fact that many professing Christians admire and are intimidated by those who have worldly wealth and secular education exposes the apostasy of the church, and it is likely that these are not Christians at all. Rather, they are probably false converts want to go to heaven (although they probably will not), but at the same time they look back to the world. Jesus says that a man does not profit at all if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul (Mark 8:36). Such a man is to be scorned for his folly, not admired for his short-lived riches.

Paul tells us not to be "conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2). We must stop thinking like non-Christians, and stop prizing what they hold dear. He continues, "But be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (v. 2). What the world considers good, acceptable, and perfect often does not agree with God's standards. To think as the world thinks is to adopt a mindset that esteems dung as gold (Philippians 3:8). What foolishness! Scripture says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22). In other words, the Bible says that non-Christians claims to be smart, but they are stupid.

On the other hand, God says, "let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me." Do we know God? Do we understand him? Those who claim to be Christians, but whose perverted minds fail to grasp the essence of spirituality, sometimes denounce the study of theology as impious. They claim to know much about God because of their experience, but when you question them, they will spew out ideas about God that are completely foreign to Scripture. They are impostors; they do not know God. If we do not understand much about theology – that is, God's word and God's ways – then we have nothing to boast about, even if we are wealthy, popular, or educated according to non-Christian standards.

However, if we have arrived at an intellectual comprehension and volitional assent that God is one who exercises and delights in "lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness," and if we have biblical assurance based on biblical evidence that we have come to know God in a salvific relationship, then that is something to boast about. Only true Christians who know God's word and God's ways has the right to boast, but even then, only about what God has done for them by his sovereign grace. Knowledge of God is ultimate, and anything else is child's play in comparison. Therefore, let not the Christian boast about other things, and let him not be intimidated by the boasting of unbelievers, but rather reduce them to silence by biblical wisdom.

The people accuse God of being unjust, or failing to dispense justice. Why is it that God does not always swiftly judge the wicked? Many biblical passages answer this, such as Psalm 37, Psalm 92, 1 Timothy 5:24-25, and others. However, the reprobates will reject the truth, since they produce objections against God to excuse their wickedness. Many are persistently distressed by the so-called "problem of evil" and the prosperity of the wicked because they are not close to the Lord. As Psalm 73:16-17 says, "When I tried to understand all this, it was oppressive to me till I entered the sanctuary of God; then I understood their final destiny" (NIV).

Now, although Scripture conclusively answers the problem of evil and the prosperity of the wicked,12 God does not owe us an explanation in the first place. Thus we must receive with gratitude any revelation from Scripture, as a precious gift of knowledge about God's ways. Of course, the unbelievers' hostility against the Bible is wicked, and God will punish them with everlasting hellfire. And those who claim to be Christians but who disdain theological understanding are without excuse. If we claim to be Christians, then let us ask questions about God not with an accusatory attitude, but with fear and trembling, knowing his goodness and justice (Romans 9:20).

To the challenge, "Where is the God of judgment?" Malachi gives the surprising answer that the God of justice himself will come to his temple. Malachi 3:1 is correctly understood as a messianic prophecy, and in this verse, the prophet identifies "the Lord" with "the messenger of the covenant," who would "suddenly come to his temple," indicating that the Messiah would be deity and not a mere man. Of course, this is consistent with other predictions about him. As Isaiah says, the Messiah would be called "mighty God" and "The everlasting Father" (9:6).

Referring to the Messiah, Psalm 110:1 says, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." However, the Messiah must also be David's descendent, and so Jesus asks his opponents, "If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" (Matthew 22:45). This is possible only if the Messiah is in fact the preexistent Son of God, who takes on a human nature in a way that does not compromise or affect his divine nature.

However, he will come to bring another surprise in that he will come to judge his own people. Calvin explains:

They expected God to be to them like a hired soldier, ready at hand to help them in any adversity, and to come armed at their nod or pleasure to fight with their enemies: this they expected; but God declares what is of a contrary character – that he would come for judgment; and he alludes to that impious slander, when they denied that he was the God of judgment, because he did not immediately, or soon enough, resist their enemies….They indeed wished God to put on arms for their advantage, but God declares, that he would be an enemy to them….13

God would indeed dispense justice. But if he comes to judge sinners, and if "judgment must begin at the house of God" (1 Peter 4:17), then he would also punish the sins of Israel. To those who falsely consider themselves righteous, Jesus say, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). There is indeed a righteousness that can escape God's wrath, but it is sovereignly granted by God only through Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). Those who accuse God of being unjust can hardly be righteous. So then, "let us ever fear lest our haste should prove our ruin, for he has no respect of persons, so as to favour our unfaithfulness and to be rigid toward those who are hostile to us. Let us take heed that while we look for the presence of God, we present ourselves before his tribunal with a pure and upright conscience."14

Malachi lists some of the sins for which God will punish the people, but these are the very same sins that many professing Christians commit today:

And 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 against 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. (3:5)

Of course, most professing Christians are in fact false converts, and they will be condemned to endless suffering in hell, like all the other non-Christians.

Many professing Christians seem to be unaware that all occult practices are "grievous sins in the eye of the law"15 deserving of the death penalty. Living under the New Covenant does not mean that what is sinful in the Old Covenant suddenly becomes acceptable or morally neutral. Divination and all similar practices are still abominations in the sight of God: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).

Christians must never study occult materials or non-Christian religious texts for personal interest or application; rather, we must either criticize and refute them in the harshest terms, or we must destroy them:

And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. (Acts 19:18-20)

Adultery (v. 5) is also common among those who call themselves Christians. This sin violates the marriage covenant, and makes the offender particularly reprehensible. When a thief is caught, "he shall give all the substance of his house" as restitution (Proverbs 6:31), but how can a person repay the man whose wife he has defiled? "He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts" (v. 35). Adultery cannot be undone, and so "he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent" (v. 29). In connection with adultery, Proverbs 5:21-23 warns: "For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray."

Scripture commands us to tell the truth, so God will punish "false swearers" (Malachi 3:5). Paul says, "putting away lying," we should "speak every man truth with his neighbour" (Ephesians 4:25). We should "lie not one to another" because we have "put off the old man with his deeds" (Colossians 3:9). Therefore, one who has been regenerated by the Spirit of God has the obligation and the ability to cease his former sinful conduct, since his inner dispositions have been converted toward a godly direction.

Besides its obvious referents, the phrase, "those that oppress the hireling in his wages," applies also to those who cheat the servants of God by underpaying, or even not paying, preachers for their work. Oppressing "the widow and the fatherless" is also sinful, since according to James, "pure religion" does not ignore social issues such as the needs of the community (James 1:27). Nevertheless, helping the needy must never be done without presenting the gospel. Christians must not help others out of humanistic motives, as if it is right to help others without leading them to repentance and faith toward God, when in fact helping others is meaningful only in the context of obedience to God's commands.

Ministers are called to "feed the flock of God," and be "ensamples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2-3). When the spiritual leaders backslide, many of the people will follow. On the other hand, when the ministers have learned to bring "an offering in righteousness," then the people's offering will become "pleasant unto the Lord" (3:5). Referring to the "sons of Levi" (3:3), Keil writes, "Since they, the supporters and promoters of the religious life of the nation, were quite corrupt, the renovation of the national life must begin with their purification."16 Likewise, W. J. Deane writes:

Thus judgment should begin at the house of God…We may call to mind Christ's purging of the temple, and his denunciations of the teaching body among the Jews, and see herein his way of trying his ministers in all ages, that they may shine like lights in the world, and adorn the doctrine of God in all things…When the purification has taken place, and the priests offer pure worship, then the sacrifices of the whole nation will be acceptable.17

Verhoef observes that the ministers were "responsible for the religious decline of the people. Thus the purification of the people has to start with them," although "the people themselves were also included in this act of purification."18

Therefore, a spiritual reformation should usually occur with the purification of the ministers. The two items mentioned earlier remain the most important aspects of the process; that is, good ministers are known by their personal piety and sound theology, without which they cannot properly lead the people. Purification of the ministers must first repair their devotion and theology.

A lack of personal piety and sound theology is rooted in spiritual blindness. Jesus denounces the Pharisees as "blind leaders of the blind," and "if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch" (Matthew 15:14). Of course, this does not say that the people are better, for they are also said to be blind in this verse, so that "the blind lead the blind." Those people who criticize their ministers are often just as sinful and hypocritical, and just as blind. But God has chosen faithful preachers to open their eyes (Acts 26:18; 2 Corinthians 4:4), and this makes spiritual blindness a fatal disease to the Christian ministry, since both will be lost if the one who leads the blind cannot see. Preachers must be those whose eyes God has opened, and as a result are able to lead others to see the truth (Ephesians 1:17-18).

Psalm 119:18 says to God, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." While walking with his disciples, Jesus "opened…their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45). Those without clear spiritual sight cannot derive sound theological knowledge from Scripture. Without the understanding granted by God's sovereign grace, they may read the words, but their minds will distort the meaning and deduce false implications, which in turn will lead them "unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).

With diligence, a person with clear spiritual sight can develop the ability to correctly handle the word of God (2 Timothy 2:15). Then, reasoning from biblical axioms, he is able to derive a sound system of theology, which in turn functions to direct his conduct toward right worship and obedience toward God. By sharing his wisdom with others, he will "turn many away from iniquity" (Malachi 2:6).

Malachi says concerning the priests, "You have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble" (2:8). Many people do not live godly lives because their leaders have poisoned them with unbiblical theology. False teaching causes them to stumble in their spiritual walk. Many people fail to see this connection because of their aversion to formal theological studies. A biblical lifestyle is defined by a biblical theology, and it is by means of this biblical theology that the Spirit will enable a person to live a biblical lifestyle. Godliness is thus not more important than theology; rather, godliness is impossible without theology.

When speaking about adultery, Scripture says that one who commits this sin "lacketh understanding" (Proverbs 6:32). The Revised English Bible says that he is "a senseless fool" – it does not say that he is especially romantic, that he has experienced too much pressure at work, or that his wife does not satisfy him. Among other things, the adulterer fails to understand and acknowledge the meaning and implications of breaking the marriage covenant – something that a pastor should have explained to him, perhaps by preaching or counseling.

But what if the pastor endorses adultery? In our day, many ministers assume theological positions that allow people to commit almost all of the sins that the Bible forbids. For example, instead of resisting occult teachings, many pastors are even teaching occult practices to their people, saying that they are spiritually and morally neutral when the Bible explicitly condemns them. To make sinful practices acceptable to the general Christian public, the apostates must first constructs a theology that allows and justifies these practices. In our day, theologies have been produced that permit divination, adultery, perjury, homosexuality, feminism, and all things evil.

Therefore, spiritual reformation must begin with the ministers and scholars, whose sermons and writings direct the life and thought of those who follow them. But a remnant chosen by God will gather that hold to sound doctrine, and they will resist the kingdom of darkness through biblical argumentation: "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).

One's spiritual sight determines his theology, which in turn determines his conduct. Thus we should pray that God will grant Christians leaders sight to "see wonderful things" (Psalm 119:18) from the Book, and be bold to preach these insights to this generation, so that our lives and thoughts may become pleasing to God. Christians, and especially ministers, urgently need to heed Paul's admonition: "Be careful in your life and in your teaching. If you continue to live and teach rightly, you will save both yourself and those who listen to you" (1 Timothy 4:16, NCV).19

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Verhoef: "Here the perfect tense has the meaning of a present tense, and indicates that the conduct of the people was not only a fact of history but continued until the present day" (p. 285). 2 Baldwin, p. 242. 3 Verhoef, p. 290. 4 Verhoef, p. 291; Baldwin, p. 243-244; Redditt, p. 177. 5 Baldwin, p. 244. 6Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 575. 7 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 10; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2001; p. 658. 8Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 576. 9 Keil: "On sorcerers and adulterers see Ex. 22:17, Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22. That sorcery was very common among the Jews after the captivity, is evident from such passages as Acts 8:9; 13:6, and from Josephus, Ant. xx. 6, de bell. Jud. ii. 12, 23…" (p. 658). 10 Keil, p. 658. 11 Boice, p. 248. 12 See Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil." 13Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 576. 14 Ibid., p. 577. 15 Keil, p. 658. 16 Ibid., p. 657. 17Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV; "Malachi," p. 39. 18 Verhoef, p. 291.57. 19 Or, "Keep a firm grasp on both your character and your teaching. Don't be diverted. Just keep at it. Both you and those who hear you will experience salvation" (The Message, Copyright by Eugene Peterson, 1993, 1994, 1995. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group).

8. REFORMATION IN CHRISTIAN DEVOTION (3:6-12)

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts. And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:6-12)

The spiritual condition of the clergy is often reflected in the general believers. The ministers who preach sound theology and practice godliness give clear direction to the people, who can then apply biblical precepts to their life and thought, resulting in godly living. Now, contrary to what many people believe, Christians must obey even hypocritical ministers as long as these ministers teach sound doctrine, even if they disobey it themselves: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matthew 23:2-3). Therefore, providing biblical teaching without personal examples should be sufficient to command obedience in the people; nevertheless, Scripture commands a minister to be a good example to the people by his godly conduct, so that he does not become a hypocrite in denying what he preaches by his sinful behavior (Titus 1:16). In any case, a person can never excuse his disobedience by pointing to hypocritical ministers. Each of us will give an account to God.

In other words, a person must not require an example to model after before he obeys God, but he should only require knowledge of what God commands; however, it remains a minister's duty to be an example of godly living (1 Timothy 4:12; 1 Corinthians 9:27). Without personal examples, some people might find it more difficult to apply God's word to their lives; nevertheless, when there is no one who can serve as an example of godly living, a Christian should still be able to obey God by imitating Christ based on the information about him in Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:1; Ephesians 5:1; John 10:4-5; Hebrews 12:2).

The fact that ministers carry the responsibility of teaching and obeying the word of God (Matthew 5:19) does not mean that the rest of the people are blameless when spiritual decline occurs. The Bible notes that even when there is nothing wrong with the ministers, the people often rebel against the Lord: "But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted" (Ezekiel 3:7); "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Since apostasy cannot be blamed solely on the clergy, Malachi turns to address the people, and reprimands them for their lack of devotion to the Lord.

God first reminds the hearers of his immutability, saying, "I am the Lord, I change not" (v. 6). God's attributes remains the same, and they will never change. He is not subject to any external influence, and he is eternal so that there is no before or after in his being, so that he does not change. His omniscience implies that he has no succession of thoughts, and therefore he does not change his mind. His knowledge and decisions eternally exist in his mind, and are not subject to alteration. Since he knows all, he does not gain knowledge, and nothing surprises him. Since he is eternally immutable and comprehensively perfect, he never becomes better or worse.

However, Malachi is not focusing on God's ontological immutability, but his unchanging policy toward his covenant people, and so he says, "therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (v. 6).1 That is, although Israel has been rebelling against God's laws throughout the generations (v. 7), it has never been completely extinguished by God. This echoes Malachi's earlier argument – whereas Edom has been destroyed and is not allowed to rebuild, Israel has also come under God's judgment, but is allowed to rebuild their nation by God's providence.

The people of Israel have accused God of being unjust to his own people, and that he has even been kind to evildoers. They accuse him of being unfaithful to his promises toward Abraham and Israel, seeing how the nation is not prospering as they have expected. God answers that he has not changed, but it is Israel that is at fault for departing from his ordinances (v. 7). In fact, it is precisely because of God's faithfulness that the people of Israel are "not consumed" (v. 6) despite their sinfulness.

God then calls to them, saying, "Return unto me," to which they again retort, "Wherein shall we return?" (v. 7). Keil explains, "From time immemorial they have transgressed the commandments of God…And yet they regard themselves as righteous. They reply to the call to repentance by saying…wherein, i.e., in what particular, shall we turn?"2 They are like the adulteress that Proverbs describes: "She eats and wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (Proverbs 30:20, NASB). This sounds like many professing Christians today. They would commit adultery and perjury, approve of abortion and homosexuality, encourage unity with heretics and unbelievers, and then each of them would say, "I have done no wrong." But these are not Christians; rather, they are those to whom Jesus will say, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:23).

On God's call to "return," Calvin writes:

It would be account of their sins, which, as Isaiah says, hinder the course of that beneficence to which he is of his own self inclined….And he bids them to return. Hence the Papists very foolishly conclude, that repentance is in the power of man's free- will. But God requires what is above our strength; and yet there is no reason why we should complain that there is a too heavy burden laid on us; for he regards not what we can, or what our ability admits, but what we owe to him and what our duty requires. Though then no one can of his own self turn to God, he is not on this account excusable, because we must consider whence comes the defect; and how much soever, as I have already said, a man may pretend his own impotency, he cannot yet escape from being bound to God, though more is required of him than he of himself can perform.3

Justification and sanctification depend on God's sovereign grace, and not on a non-existent "free will." Beyond this, we must defer a discussion on the economy of God and man in sanctification for another setting.

Hugenberger observes:

[The verse may contain a reference to Jacob] in order to highlight the people's sin. After Jacob's exile in Paddan Aram, when he "returned" both to the promised land and to the Lord, he built an altar at Bethel, and he offered a tithe to the Lord according to his vow in Gn. 28:20-22 (cf. also Gn. 35:1-7). When Jacob's descendants similarly returned from their exile, they rebuilt the altar at Jerusalem, but they were grossly negligent in offering their tithes (cf. also Ne. 13:10-13).4

In reply to the people's challenge, "Wherein shall we return?" Malachi mentions what seems to be an impossible transgression: "Will a man rob God?" Used also in Proverbs 22:23, the word for "rob" carries the idea of "plunder" or "take by violence." Although the LXX favors "to deceive," thus creating a pun on the name of Jacob, it seems that the Hebrew should be preferred, as supported by the Vulgate.5 This meaning is also well established in the Talmudic literature.6 So the question is whether a man may seize what belongs to God.7

How is it possible for a man to rob or to defraud God? One would be foolish to even try, but this is what Malachi accuses the people of having tried to do. Then, as we have come to expect by now, the people respond, "Wherein have we robbed thee?" (v. 8). The answer is that they have robbed God "in tithes and offerings" (v. 8).

Tithing refers to giving ten percent of one's possessions and income to God, usually accepted by his chosen representatives. Abraham and Jacob practiced it (Genesis 14:20, 28:22), and God made it a compulsory legislation under Moses. Malachi accuses the people of robbing God by not paying their tithes, and in addition, they also robbed God of their "offerings," which "was partly a voluntary and partly a compulsory contribution."8 The tithes are to be brought "into the storehouse," which was a "repository for the tithes attached to the temple and presided over by the Levites (1 Chr. 9:26, 29)."9 J. M. P. Smith observes that the tithes and offerings "together constituted a large element in the maintenance of the temple staff of priests and Levites."10 By neglecting their tithes and offerings, the people have generated financial hardship for those who are dedicated to spiritual work.

God says in verse 9 that since the nation has robbed him, he has released a curse against it, so that "the punishment mentioned in 2:2 would be visited upon the guilty nation as a whole."11 Verses 10 and 11 indicate that the curse consists in failure of crops, resulting from adverse weather conditions and pestilence. It seems that the people have used their economic difficulties as an excuse to withhold from God what belongs to him, although it is precisely their disobedience that has placed them under the curse from God. As Hugenberger observes,

This negligence may have seemed justified because of crop failure, drought and pestilence (10-11), which would have been more than enough to deter such complacent worshippers. The Lord reveals, however, that these natural disasters were the result, and not the cause, of the nation's disobedience (8; cf. Hg. 1:6, 9-11; 2:16-19).12

The nation had earlier been under a curse during the ministry of the prophet Haggai. The reason was that they were focused on building their own houses, while the temple of God was far from complete:

Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying, Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste? Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways. Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes. (Haggai 1:3-6)

God surely speaks the truth when he says, "Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them" (Malachi 3:7). Haggai's message was similar, urging them to give God what he demanded, and to put God's honor before their own comfort: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways. Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD" (Haggai 1:7-8).

To repair the damaged relationship between God and Israel, the people must again bring "all the tithes into the storehouse" (Malachi 3:10). The Hebrew verb here expresses a command, so that God's laws are not to be obeyed or ignored based on one's preference. "All the tithe," followed by a determinate genitive in the Hebrew, means the entirety, and may be rendered as "the whole tithe" (NIV) or "all the tithes" (NLT). The verse may imply either that the people are not brining in the whole tithe or that not everyone is tithing. The first interpretation is preferred, because God says that "the whole nation" (v. 9) is robbing him. Keil writes, "In v. 10a the emphasis lies upon kol: the whole of the tithe they are to bring, and not merely a portion of it, and so defraud the Lord; for the tithe was paid to Jehovah for His servants the Levites (Numbers 18:24)."13

If the people would return to God by bringing in all their tithes, then he promises, "[I will] open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field" (v. 10-11). To open "the windows of heaven" means that he will satisfy the nation's need for rain,14 and the words, "there shall not be room enough to receive it" denote an "overflowing blessing" (NRSV).15

Therefore, "Without omitting the need for holiness (cf. 2:13; 3:3-4), God promises in vs 10-12 that as soon as his people become faithful in presenting their full tithes, the desperately needed rain will come (10), pestilence and crop failure will cease (11)."16 The result is that "all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land" (v. 12). That is, "Israel will then once again take up its central and unique position as 'the favored people' (Gen. 12:3; Isa. 61:9; Zech. 8:13)…The same nations who have ridiculed and oppressed the returning exiles will be obliged to proclaim them a nation which is being blessed by God."17

In our day, the restoration of right worship and piety in the church entails not only a reformation of Christian ministry, but also a reformation in Christian devotion. Spiritual revival means a renewed commitment to study the Scripture and obey what it commands. This in turn entails a return to God's "ordinances" (v. 7), including the biblical precept to support Christian ministers by your tithes and offerings.

Some people teach that tithing is not for today, but their arguments against the practice are weak. We will begin with Verhoef's example. He admits it "cannot be denied" that, between the Old and New Testaments, "there is continuity in connection with both our obligation to fulfill our stewardship and the promises of God's blessing in our lives." But then he adds:

It must be clear that [tithing] belonged, in conjunction with the whole system of giving and offering, to the dispensation of shadows, and that it therefore had lost its significance as an obligation of giving under the new dispensation. The continuity consists in the principle of giving, in the continued obligation to be worthy stewards of our possessions, and the discontinuity in the manner in which we fulfill our obligations.18

We may find fault with his above statements right away, but let us read more about the reasons for his conclusion on Christian tithing:

The law declares one day out of seven to be holy unto the Lord, the Spirit sanctifies all seven of them. The law sets apart one tribe out of twelve to be priests, the Spirit declares that the whole congregation has to fulfill the priestly office (1 Pet. 2:9). The law demands a tenth part of his people's possessions, the Spirit translates us to become God's possession with all that we have. Everything belongs to him. We are but stewards who will have to give account of all we possess.19

This is ridiculous. First, in these sentences he contrasts "the law" and "the Spirit" as if these two are in radical conflict, but he gives no biblical justification for this. Instead, Paul says, "We know that the law is spiritual" (Romans 7:14), but perhaps Verhoef does not know. Since he frames his assertions in this unjustified manner, his position is already in suspect.

He says, "The law declares one day out of seven to be holy unto the Lord, the Spirit sanctifies all seven of them." Does he mean by this that the law does not declare the other six days as "holy"? But it is the law that says, "Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy" (Leviticus 19:2). Unless God is holy only on the Sabbath, his people are required to be holy all seven days of the week. It is precisely because all seven days belong to God that he demands of his people, "keep my sabbaths" (v. 3). The New Covenant has not "improved" on this, for Peter writes, "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:15-16). He cites the law as the reason for the Christian to be holy "in all manner of conversation." Rushdoony writes:

All our lives, days, and activities are required to be holy in all of Scripture: there is no difference here between the Old and New Testaments. One day in seven is to be set aside for rest, but all seven must be given over to holiness, all are sanctified unto the Lord and by His Spirit. Verhoef confuses the ideas of rest and holiness; they are related, but clearly separate. Not only rest but work also must be holy.20

Next, Verhoef says, "The law sets apart one tribe out of twelve to be priests, the Spirit declares that the whole congregation has to fulfill the priestly office (1 Pet. 2:9)." The verse to which he refers reads, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9). However, Peter himself is citing from the Old Testament:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exodus 19:5-6)

But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day. (Deuteronomy 4:20)

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. (Deuteronomy 14:2)

And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken. (Deuteronomy 26:18-19)

It appears that in 1 Peter 2:9, Peter merely summarizes these Old Testament passages that were originally spoken to Israel, and applies them to the Christians: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."

A previous chapter mentions that one cannot use 1 Peter 2:9 to eliminate the distinction between clergy and laity. That is, by saying that every Christian is a "priest" under the New Covenant, Peter is not making a contrast to the people under the Old Covenant. This is because, again, Peter is citing Old Testament passages that in their original contexts refer to the people of Israel. That is, even the Old Testament calls Israel "a kingdom of priests," and yet God had chosen from among the people the Levites to function as a professional clergy.

This contradicts Verhoef, who asserts that the Spirit has chosen every Christian to be priests in the sense that the Levites were chosen to be priests. If a professional clergy existed under the Old Covenant even through the entire nation was called "a kingdom of priests," then Verhoef cannot use 1 Peter 2:9 to say that all Christians are priests in a sense that eliminates the distinction between the Christian clergy and the Christian laity. By this verse, Verhoef cannot refuse to acknowledge a distinction between the Christian clergy and the Christian laity similar in kind to the one that had existed between the Levites and the other Israelites under the Old Covenant. As Rushdoony observes:

This is an amazing statement, amazing in its dishonesty and falsity. Surely Verhoef knows that here too Peter is citing the law!…To be a holy people means to be a separated people, a dedicated or a priestly people. This the Old Testament was, and this the New Israel of God now is. Then a professional clergy existed, and today one also exists. What Ex. 19:6 says, 1 Peter 2:9 repeats.21

Then, Verhoef applies the former examples, which we have demolished, to tithing: "The law demands a tenth part of his people's possessions, the Spirit translates us to become God's possession with all that we have. Everything belongs to him. We are but stewards who will have to give account of all we possess." The implication is all that the Old Covenant believers had belonged to themselves except for ten percent, but all that the New Covenant believers have belong to God with no exception. Although this is false, even if Verhoef is right about this, what he says still fails to explain why New Covenant believers may cease to tithe, instead of giving a hundred percent, that is, all of their possessions to God.

Verhoef says that under the Old Covenant, ten percent of a person's possessions belongs to God, and therefore the Old Covenant believer is required to give ten percent of his possessions to God's ministers. On the other hand, Verhoef maintains that under the New Covenant, a hundred percent of a person's possessions belongs to God. But instead of concluding that compulsory giving has thus increased from ten percent to one hundred percent, he concludes from this that the New Covenant believer becomes a manager over his possessions for God, and that he is not required to give ten percent, or any designated amount, to God's ministers.

Now, If Verhoef is saying that we should give to the ministers only what belongs to God, and that we may keep the rest, then by saying that all of our possessions belong to God under the New Covenant can only mean that compulsory giving has increased from ten percent to one hundred percent under the New Covenant. Verhoef concludes that we may give less precisely because more of what we possess belongs to God! However, unless Scripture explicitly teaches otherwise, it would seem that when more belongs to God, more should be given to him.

Verhoef's reasoning is that Old Covenant believers give one day out of seven to God because one day out of seven belongs to God, and the other six belong to themselves. But under the New Covenant, all seven days of the week belong to God, so Verhoef says we should give God none of those days. By the same reasoning, Old Covenant believers are required to give ten percent of everything they have to God because ten percent belongs to God, but since everything that we have belongs to God under the New Covenant, we are somehow required to give him nothing at all. The point is that Verhoef's absurd and unbiblical argument backfires against him, so that instead of canceling compulsory giving, it results in increased compulsory giving.

The truth is that everything belongs to God under both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and to give God ten percent represents an acknowledgment of God's total ownership of all things. God could demand less or demand more, since everything belongs to him, but he saw fit to establish the tithe as a means by which his people may honor him, and to supply for his ministers.

Accordingly, Rushdoony writes:

Surely a professor of Old Testament should know that the first-fruits and the tithe represent the dedication of all the harvest and of all our income, persons, and lives to the Lord. The whole point of giving of the first-fruits, the firstlings of the flock, and the tenth, not the left- over but the first portion to the Lord, means the dedication of all to the Lord….We have already seen that Deut. 4:20 speaks of Israel as God's inheritance or possession, Deut. 14:2, as a unique or peculiar people unto the Lord, i.e., as His own, and so on. In every age, God's elect are His possession in the fullest sense of the word….The refusal to tithe is turned into a virtue, as a sign that somehow, by withholding our tithe, we are giving the Lord everything!22

Rushdoony then concludes his criticism of Verhoef, and says:

At one point, Verhoef is right: we are "God's possessions with all that we have for one hundred percent. Everything belongs to Him. We are but stewards, who will have to give account of every dime we possess." Precisely, and this is why God requires the tithe of us, our first-fruits. His claim on us is prior and total. We acknowledge that claim by giving God the tithe He requires of us by law. If we give Him priority in our lives, time, work, and income, then we have indeed manifested thereby that we are truly His possessions. If we deny Him His tithe, then our professions are indeed empty ones.23

The following illustration may help clarify the point:

[God] knows there is something wrong with the husband who answers his wife's complaint that he doesn't give her any time by saying, "What do you mean, I don't give you my time? ALL my time is yours. I work all day long for you and the children." That has a very hollow ring to it if he doesn't give her any "especially time." Giving her some evenings together and some dates does not deny that all his time is for her, it proves it. This is why God declares one day in seven especially God's. They are all his, and making one special proves it. And this is the way it is with our money and God. Giving God a tenth of our income does not deny that all our money is God's, it proves that we believe it. Tithing is like a constant offering of the first fruits of the whole thing. The tenth is yours, O, Lord, in a special way, because all of it is yours in an ordinary way.24

Another objection to Christian tithing comes from Hebrews 7, where it says that Jesus is a greater high priest than Aaron:

This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people – that is, their brothers – even though their brothers are descended from Abraham. This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. (Hebrews 7:1- 10, NIV)

The Aaronic priesthood is inferior to the Melchizedekian priesthood for several reasons. First, Abraham, the ancestor of Aaron and the Levites, paid tithe to Melchizedek, who in turn blessed him, "And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater" (v. 7). Second, the former is administered by mortal beings, but the latter is founded on "the power of an indestructible life" (v. 16). Third, the Levites were priests because of their ancestry, but Christ is our high priest by a personal oath from God: "For it is declared: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'" (v. 17; Psalm 110:4). The Melchizedekian priesthood is indeed superior to the Aaronic priesthood. Since God has made Jesus a priest in the order of Melchizedek, it follows that Jesus is greater than Aaron.

But what this implies is another matter. Why does the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood imply the abolition of the tithe? Being under the administration of a superior priesthood does not automatically mean that one does not need to tithe. Perhaps one may point to verse 12, which says, "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." But again, that does not automatically settle the issue. Why does "a change of the law" necessarily entail the abolition of the tithe? The law says, "Thou shalt not murder." Does it mean we may commit murder under the new priesthood, seeing that there is "a change of the law"?

What is this "change in the law"? Does it refer to a change, or even the abolition, of all previously revealed moral laws, ceremonial laws, and civil laws? Or, given the context, does it refer only to the laws relevant to the Levitical priesthood? Albert Barnes explains:

The connexion requires us to understand it only of the law so far as it was connected with the Levitical priesthood. This could not apply to the ten commandments – for they were given before the institution of the priesthood; nor could it apply to any other part of the moral law, for that was not dependent on the appointment of the Levitical priests. But the meaning is, that since a large number of laws – constituting a code of considerable extent and importance – was given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or superintend, it followed that when their office was superseded by one of a wholly different order, the law which had regulated them vanished also, or ceased to be binding. This is a very important point in the introduction of Christianity, and hence it is that it is so often insisted on in the writings of Paul.25

Therefore, the change from the Aaronic priesthood to the Melchizedekian priesthood changes only those things that are directly relevant to the Aaronic priesthood, and does not automatically eliminate the tithe. Rather, the question should be whether the Melchizedekian priesthood is one that receives tithes. We find that this priesthood indeed receives tithes, since the same passage refers to the Genesis account in which Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. Then, we observe that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, which is an order priesthood that receives tithes.

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, saying that they appear to be faithful in paying their tithes, but they neglect the even more important matters of the law: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Indeed, Jesus says that inward virtues such as judgment, mercy, and faith are "weightier" than tithing, but he does not abolish or belittle tithing in any biblical passage, nor does he say that it is passing away.

As Piper observes, Jesus never said, "You have heard that it was said to you, Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse! But I say to you, Five percent will do, or even two."26 Rather, he says, "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." That is, they should maintain both inward character (faith, love, justice, etc.) and outward obedience, such as tithing.

Some people claim that Paul does not ask for money to support his ministry, and that he even teaches against it. But this is a gross distortion of Scripture. Although Paul sometimes works to support himself, this is because he does not want to negatively affect how the gospel would be received by those who have never heard. He writes, "If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:12, NIV). On other occasions, he does accept financial support from Christians (Philippians 4:15-16).27

Paul certainly does not teach that Christians should withhold support from their ministers and churches. Instead, he explicitly teaches that ministry work itself deserves full wages, that ministers should not have to find work outside of their ministries, and that Christians must provide them with full financial support:

Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?…Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. (v. 6-11, 13-14; NIV)

For Christians to deny financial support to gospel ministers is to cheat them of their rightful wages. Since these ministers are God's chosen spokesmen, to cheat them is also to rob God, and no one can rob him with impunity.

Paul has not always taken advantage of his right to receive financial support (v. 15), but that does not mean he never had this right. If Christian ministers do not have the right to demand financial support from Christians, Paul's argument would be meaningless. His point is that he has not taken what was rightfully his, and not that he has given up what did not belong to him in the first place. Therefore, the right to receive financial support is for the minister to temporarily relinquish whenever he deems appropriate for the sake of the gospel, but it is never up to the Christians to withhold the money from him.

As for those who think that the tithe is an Old Covenant ordinance that has been abolished in the New Covenant, notice that Paul establishes the minister's right to receive financial support by twice appealing to Old Covenant law:

For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?…Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?" (v. 9, 13).

Then, he states the point he is making when he appeals to the law, saying, "In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel" (v. 14). He says in the same way that Old Covenant priests were cared for by the people's offerings to God, New Covenant ministers are to receive their financial support from those who hear them.

In addition, Paul goes so far as to say, "The elders who do good work as leaders should be considered worthy of receiving double pay, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching" (1 Timothy 5:17, GNT). Some translations read, "double honor" (KJV, NIV, etc.), but this is clearly wrong, since the very next verse says, "For the Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages'" (v. 18, NIV). The context is about money, or paying the ministers what they deserve. Thus Jay Adams writes, "Paul referred to double pay, not honor," and adds, "One wonders what it was that induced the translators to err when the correct translation was so obvious."28 Perhaps the translators were biased against a command to pay our preachers written in such plain language?

The statement, "The worker deserves his wages," indicates that financial support to a minister is as wages to any other worker; that is, the money is owed to the person, and it is not just a voluntary gift. To deprive the minister of a salary would be like cheating any worker of his pay, an act that God will certainly punish. Therefore, if a minister does well in overseeing the church, and especially if he works hard in preaching and teaching, Scripture commands you to pay him, and pay him double! Christians who pay their ministers well are not especially generous or honorable, but they are only fulfilling their obligations, but those who deny ministers of their pay are no better than robbers and thieves.

We have shown that the New Testament seems to reaffirm the tithe rather than abolishes it. Moreover, it explicitly renews the instruction that we must pay workers the wages that they deserve, and that Christian ministers deserve double pay. Therefore, the contemporary aversion to tithing and disgust at the mere mention of money by ministers, betrays a heart bound by deep covetousness and defiance against God. Rather than worshiping God and respecting ministers, they worship money and respect wealth. But as Jesus warns, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money" (Matthew 6:24, NIV).

R. Paul Stevens asks, "Does the disbursement of monies represented by our checkbook or credit-card invoices reflect God's priorities for everyday life?"29 Jesus says, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matthew 6:21, NIV). In other words, you will spend your money on what you consider important, so that we can gain much insight into your spiritual condition by examining how you spend your money. If we were to look at how you have been spending your money, what would we conclude about you? Would we conclude that you constantly deny yourself and daily take up your cross (Luke 9:23), or would we conclude that you are a false convert who is only interested in preserving your own safety and comfort?

Failing to resist our biblical arguments, some people claim that preachers are generally greedy, and any talk of money from them is only a reflection of their insatiable lust for money. For support their case, they often cite the examples of those who had been exposed as frauds, those who had mishandled or embezzled large sums of money, and those who are living especially extravagant lives.

But surely this is a Red Herring. It is like the pro-abortionist who argues for the right of women to abortion from examples like pregnancies resulting from rape. How many women considering abortion were raped? Even if we grant all rape victims the choice to abort their pregnancies, how would that even come close to solving the abortion debate, seeing that the majority of women are not pregnant by forced sexual intercourse? In any case, does the rapist's sin nullify God's command?

In a similar way, for every greedy or dishonest person who calls himself a Christian minister, there are thousands of stingy and covetous people who call themselves Christians. Why should the counterfeit silence the genuine? Should not the true and faithful ministers of God speak all the louder and bolder, so that the true word from God may be heard? And should not true Christians encourage such bold speech about money, rather than suppress it? The truth is that those who oppose sermons or books that teach Christian obligation and generosity do so to hide their covetousness and defiance, and to suppress their tormented conscience. On the other hand, John Piper observes:

Every time you give a tithe, you must deal with the desire for what you might have bought for yourself. To give is not to buy…We must fight covetousness almost every day. And God has appointed an antidote: giving. He tests us again and again: what do we desire most – the advancement of his name or 10% more security and comfort and fun? As Jesus says, You know where your heart is by where your treasure is. Tithing is one of God's great antidotes to covetousness.30

Instead of succumbing to the "greedy preachers" argument, we must expose the complaint for what it is – a glimpse into those whose minds are ensnared by the love of money. They are the covetous ones, and not necessarily the preachers. Ministers should "rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15) such Mammon worship, and let no one despise them (v. 15) for teaching obligatory tithing and generous giving. It is not only a matter of comfort for the ministers, but true Christians are those who puts first the interests of God's kingdom. Accordingly, Piper continues:

The task [Jesus] gave us is so immense and requires such a stupendous investment of commitment and money that the thought of settling the issue of what we give by a fixed percentage (like a tenth) is simply out of the question. My own conviction is that most middle and upper class Americans who merely tithe are robbing God. In a world where 10,000 people a day starve to death and many more than that are perishing in unbelief the question is not, what percentage must I give?, but how much dare I spend on myself?31

As Boice says, "It is generally the case that in the New Testament the obligations of the Old Testament legislation are heightened rather than lessened. That is, the law is interpreted in the fullest measure…Under reasonable circumstances any true believer in Christ should give more than the tenth, for all we have is the Lord's."32

Randy Alcorn correctly states that the Old Testament in fact demands several tithes from God's people, which amounted to twenty-three percent of their income.33 Thus for me to argue for a ten percent compulsory giving is rather mild in comparison, and serves to establish only a starting point for Christian giving. Do those who resist tithing prefer Piper's perspective – that is, to ask, "How much dare I spend on myself?" – or are they instead bound to the idea that ministers should work full time jobs outside of the church to earn their own living, and still function as perfect pastors?

2 Chronicles 31:4 says, "[Hezekiah] ordered the people living in Jerusalem to give the portion due the priests and Levites so they could devote themselves to the Law of the LORD" (NIV). Then, Nehemiah 13:10-11 reads as follows:

I also learned that the portions assigned to the Levites had not been given to them, and that all the Levites and singers responsible for the service had gone back to their own fields. So I rebuked the officials and asked them, "Why is the house of God neglected?" Then I called them together and stationed them at their posts.

The people are not to merely supplement an income that the minister must obtain elsewhere, but they must give him an amount that is at least sufficient to free him from secular work altogether. To fail to do this is to neglect the house of God.

However, that is only the minimum. Even in the secular arena, a person's salary is often determined, among other things, by the difficulty and worth of his work. The minister's task is unparalleled in both of these areas. He has to convict sinners, convince skeptics, encourage the downcast, teach the ignorant, and bring the elect to maturity – all by faithfully handling the word of God. The effects of his accomplishments are far-reaching, and will endure forever. Therefore, 1 Timothy 5:17 says that those church leaders "who do their work well should be paid well" (NLT), and not just with an amount enough to live on. The GNT says that he is "worthy of receiving double pay." This applies especially to the doctrinal ministers – those who work hard at preaching and teaching (v. 17).

Since a minister's work involves teaching people the words of Scripture, how you treat your minister reflects your estimation of the value of God's word, so that if you rob your minister of his salary, you have no biblical justification to say that you love God and his word. What you give to your minister will demonstrate whether you treasure God's word "more than gold" (Psalm 19:10), or whether you will trample God's wisdom under your feet, and then turn to abuse the one who delivers it to you (Matthew 7:6).

Of course, when Scripture commands you to support your minister, and especially your doctrinal minister, it is referring to a minister that is faithful and competent. You are under no obligation to support a heretic; rather, Scripture commands you to expose and oppose him. Concerning one who teaches false doctrine, John writes, "Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work" (2 John 1:11). If you know that a minister teaches heresy, then to support him with your money or to help his work in any way would be to share in his sin. Instead, you must submit to a minister that teaches the true biblical faith, and support his work with your money. This is such a simple point that you might think we can just assume it, but whereas many people disobey the biblical command to support their ministers, many others support the wrong ministers with their money.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 The Hebrew verb rendered "are not consumed" may also be translated "have not ceased" (REB). The latter would imply that just as God has been consistently faithful, so has Israel been consistently defiant against his laws (Baldwin, p. 245). Following Verhoef (p. 299-300) and others, here I assume the first interpretation; that is, it is because of God's unchanging policy toward his covenant people that Israel has not been destroyed, even though its people have been disobedient throughout the generations. 2 Keil, p. 659. 3Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 583. 4New Bible Commentary; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000; p. 888. 5 Verhoef, p. 302-303; Baldwin, p. 245-246. 6 Baldwin, p. 245. 7 But the idea of deception or "to circumvent" may not be completely absent. Keil writes, "The prophet thereupon shows them their sin: they do what no man should presume to attempt – they try to defraud God in the tithe and heave-offering, namely, by either not paying them at all, or not paying them as they should into the house of God" (p. 659). 8 Verhoef, p. 305. 9New International Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979; p. 993. 10 Quoted in Verhoef, p. 305. 11The Wycliffe Bible Commentary; The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1962; p. 918. 12New Bible Commentary, p. 888. 13 Keil, p. 659. 14 Calvin: "It is the first thing as to fertility that the heavens should water the earth, according to what Scripture declares: and hence God threatens in the law that the heaven would be iron and the earth brass, (Deut. xxviii. 23,) for there is a mutual connection between the heaven and the earth…for when it is dry and as it were famished, it calls on the heavens, but if rain be denied, the heavens seem to reject its prayer…We hence see that God is not only in one way bountiful to us, but he also intends by various processes to render us sensible of his kindness: he rains from heaven to soften the earth, that it may in its bosom nourish the corn, and then send it forth from its bowels, as though it extends its breast to us; and further, God adds his blessing, so as to render the rain useful" (Vol. XV; p. 590-591). Keil: "Opening the sluices of heaven is a figure, denoting the most copious supply of blessing, so that it flows down from heaven like a pouring rain (as in 2 Kings 7:2)…till there is no more need, i.e., in superabundance" (p. 659). 15 Vulgate: "usque ad abundantiam"; Septuagint: "until it suffice"; Syriac: "until ye say, It is enough." 16New Bible Commentary, p. 888. 17 Verhoef, p. 309. 18 Ibid., p. 311. 19 Ibid., p. 311. 20 Rushdoony, Tithing; p. 12. 21 Ibid., p. 13. 22 Ibid., p. 13. 23 Ibid., p. 13. 24 John Piper, Toward the Tithe and Beyond: How God Funds His Work; Bethlehem Baptist Church, September 10, 1995. 25 Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Inc.; p. 1277. 26 John Piper, You will be a Land of Delight; Bethlehem Baptist Church, December 6, 1987. 27 NLT: "As you know, you Philippians were the only ones who gave me financial help when I brought you the Good News and then traveled on from Macedonia. No other church did this. Even when I was in Thessalonica you sent help more than once." 28 Jay E. Adams, The Place of Authority in Christ's Church; Timeless Texts, 2003; p. 60. 29The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997; p. 965. 30 Piper, Toward the Tithe. 31 John Piper, I Seek Not What Is Yours But You; Bethlehem Baptist Church, January 24, 1982. 32 Boice, p. 255. 33 Randy Alcorn, Money, Possessions, and Eternity; Tyndale House, 1989; p. 213.

9. THE FEAR OF THE LORD (3:13-18)

Your words have been stout against me, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee? Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts? And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered. Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. (Malachi 3:13-18)

The prophet here contrasts the thoughts and words of the wicked with the thoughts and words of the righteous. In addition, he provides a definitive answer to those who accuse God of overlooking evil deeds. The passage examines "on a more profound level"1 some of the topics that have already been discussed, especially in the section 2:17-3:5.

The exchange begins with God addressing a group of murmurers through Malachi (v. 13). "Stout" from the Hebrew means "hard"2 (REB) or "harsh" (NRSV), and so it might read, "You have spoken harsh words against me, says the LORD" (NRSV). The attitude is more antagonistic than 2:17. Jude 15-16 refers to the "hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him," saying that God will "execute judgment" upon these "murmurers [and] complainers."

As before, the people deny the charge and say, "What have we spoken so much against thee? (v. 13). Deane reads "have we spoken" as having the idea of "together," and so to mean, "What have we said against thee in our conversations with one another?"3Jamieson supports this, saying, "The niphal form of the verb implies that these things were said, not directly to God, but of God, to one another," and adds that the Hebrew for "have we spoken" indicates a case of habitual mode of accusing him.4 Verhoef points out that some "ancient versions neglected the reciprocal sense of the Niphal (nidbarnu, 'have we spoken ourselves'), but this is evidently the meaning here…The people were busy with malicious gossip, which was directed against the Lord."5 And so he translates, "What have we spoken among ourselves against you?"6

The content of such "malicious gossip" is set forth in verses 14-15: "Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts? And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered." The people complain that it is "futile" (NIV) to have "kept his ordinance." In addition, they say:

[It is without profit to] go about dirty or black, either with their faces and clothes unwashed, or wrapped in black mourning costume (saq) [as a] sign of mourning, here of fasting, as mourning for sin…from awe of Jehovah. The fasting, and that in its external form, they bring into prominence as a special sign of their piety, as an act of penitence, through which they make reparation for certain sins against God.7

But as we have already seen, the people have not been keeping God's ordinances – not even in a superficial way. Their violations in offering defective sacrifices and breaking marriage covenants are externally recognizable, but they still claim to have obeyed God. Keil observes:

What is reprehensible in the state of mind expressing itself in these words, is not so much the complaint that their piety brings them no gain…as the delusion that their merely outward worship, which was bad enough according to what has already been affirmed, is the genuine worship which God must acknowledge and reward.8

They falsely claim to obey God, and when their desires do not materialize, they accuse God of failing to treat them in accordance with their piety. That is, they dare claim to be more faithful to God than God is to them.

The "profit" that they fail to obtain is that "the righteous have no advantage over sinners."9 Those that they perceive as wicked people seem to prosper, and so they "call the proud happy," or "blessed." Those who "work wickedness" are "set up" to gain wealth and stability, and "leave a name behind them."10 Those who "test God's patience with their evil deeds" are permitted to "get away with it" (GNT), and they are "delivered when they fall into misfortune."11

Then, verse 16 contrasts the thoughts and words of these murmurers with the thoughts and words of "they that feared the Lord." The latter "spake often one to another," and the word "then" (v. 16) indicates that their words are occasioned by the blasphemous talk against the Lord coming from the murmurers. Deane suspects that, "They may have argued with these impious talkers, and warned others against them."12 The verse reminds us that God always reserves for himself a remnant of true believers who are prepared counteract the wicked in every age. The Lord listens to the thoughts and words of the righteous, and "a book of remembrance" (v. 16) is written concerning them.

God promises to have mercy on these righteous people on "that day…as a man spareth his own son that serveth him" (v. 17). What they will be spared from is described later, but one significance of "that day" is that it will be a time to "discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not" (v. 18). The Lord will separate the righteous and the wicked to their very different fates.

The NRSV renders verse 17 as, "They shall be mine, says the LORD of hosts, my special possession on the day when I act, and I will spare them as parents spare their children who serve them." The righteous shall be God's "special possession" (NIV: "treasured possession") on that day. Verhoef translates "the day that I will make"13 rather than "the day when I act," but with the Septuagint and Vulgate, Deane prefers, "They shall be to me, saith the Lord of hosts, in the day which I am preparing, a peculiar treasure."14 This is the day of the Lord's "unexpected appearance."15 It will be a day of judgment, in which God will "spare" those who fear him (LXX: "I will choose them").

On the day of judgment, it will be obvious that God treats the righteous and wicked differently (v. 18). The righteous person is one who "serveth God," and the wicked person is one who "serveth him not" (v. 18). This addresses what has been brought up in 2:17 and 3:15:

Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?…And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

Baldwin thinks the fact that the righteous is "spared" (v. 17) indicates that he "had nothing to his credit."16 As the Scripture says, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth" (Romans 9:18), and "whom he called, them he also justified" (Romans 8:30). According to this sovereign will, God reserves a remnant of people who will remain faithful to him, and to whom he will show his mercy (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 9:23).

The NIV is preferred in verse 18: "And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not."17 The "again" (per Keil, et al.)18 indicates that such distinction between the righteous and the wicked have been previously demonstrated, perhaps with the Exodus as one example (Exodus 11:7). This distinction will again be dramatically made on "the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (4:5).

God will spare the righteous (v. 17), and these are "they that feared the Lord" (v. 16). To better understand the difference between the righteous and the wicked, we must understand what it means to fear God. We can derive much of the needed information by examining Malachi's description of the two groups before interacting with other sources.

God says concerning the wicked, or those who do not fear him, that they are people who have "gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them" (3:7); that is, they disobey scriptural commands and precepts. In our context, their disobedience includes offering blemished sacrifices, perverting sound doctrines, and breaking marriage covenants. Also, the wicked have challenged God justice throughout this prophetic book, giving us a glimpse into the nature and direction of their thought and speech.

For example, they say, "Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them" (2:17), even though this obviously contradicts the character of God as revealed in Scripture. Moreover, they judge God to be unjust, or that he has failed to dispense justice, based on their experiences and circumstances. Thus they say, "Where is the God of justice?" (v. 17, NIV). They also say, "And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered" (3:15), indicating that it is futile to expect God to properly deal with humanity. They claim that the righteous and the wicked receive the opposite of what they deserve, and that they blame God for it.

This kind of talk reminds us of the murmuring Israelites whom God had brought out of Egypt by Moses: "And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread" (Numbers 21:5). They have tested God's patience many times with such words, reminding us of the charge that God directs toward the people in Malachi's day: "Your words have been stout against me, saith the LORD" (3:13).

The people complain that, "It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts?" (3:14). But as the earlier portion of Malachi has shown, they have not "kept his ordinance." God says, "Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them" (3:7).

Their claim to have "walked mournfully" before God probably refers to some sort of voluntary religious humiliation, such as fasting or other rites.19 But they have done these things as merely superficial and outward acts to gain God's favor, and failing to obtain such, they have quickly turned against him, signifying their insincerity from the beginning. They have used harsh words against God, but even when their speech seems to honor him, it is as Isaiah says, "Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me" (Isaiah 29:13). Their thoughts do not correspond to anything positive that they say about him. As Keil observes, "What is reprehensible in the state of mind expressing itself in these words, is not so much the complaint that their piety brings them no gain…as the delusion that their merely outward worship, which was bad enough according to what has already been affirmed, is the genuine worship which God must acknowledge and reward."20

They appear willing to worship only because they think that it would result in gain. Instead of affirming God's intrinsic worth as the reason for worship, their motivation for serving him depends on practical benefit or "profit" (v. 14), without which they begin to "call the proud happy" (v. 15). In other words, righteousness is not to be upheld for the sake of honoring and obeying God, but for the sake of expected gain.

This is the picture of those who do not fear God. One would hardly think that these are believers in the God of Israel, but some of them are even priests. Calvin remarks:

They thought that they worshipped God perfectly; and this was their false principle; for hypocrites ever lay claim to complete holiness, and cannot bear to confess their own evils; even when their conscience goads them, they deceive themselves with vain flatteries, and always endeavour to draw over them some veil that their disgrace may not appear before men. Hence hypocrites seek to deceive themselves, God, angels, and men; and when they are inflated with the confidence that they worship God purely, rightly, and without any defect, and that they are without any blame, they will betray the virulence which lies within, whenever God does not help them as they wish, whenever he submits not to their will: for when they are prosperous, God is vauntingly blessed by them; but as soon as he withdraws his hand and begins to prove their patience, they will then show, as I have said, what sort of worshippers of God they are. But in the service of God the chief thing is this – that men deny themselves and give themselves up to be ruled by God, and never raise a clamour when he humbles them.21

Upon their profession of Christ, some people appear to worship him with great joy and enthusiasm, but upon some slight pressure or misfortune, they stop serving God, and some even deny him. They would complain that they have faithfully served him, but they have not received the benefit that they expected. Of course, this exposes their initial motive and the fact that they have never sincerely served him in the first place. Anyone who says, "I have served God, but it was of no use," never really served him at all.

As Jesus describes in the Parable of the Sower, one may have "received the seed that fell on rocky places…and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away" (Matthew 13:20-21, NIV). Some theologians call this type of "faith" a "temporary faith" and an "imaginary faith":

It is not permanent and fails to maintain itself in days of trial and persecution…They who possess this faith usually believe that they have the true faith. It might better be called an imaginary faith, seemingly genuine, but evanescent in character…It is a faith that does not spring from the root implanted in regeneration, and therefore is not an expression of the new life that is embedded in the depths of the soul. In general it may be said that temporal faith is grounded in the emotional life and seeks personal enjoyment rather than the glory of God.22

This is the type of false religious commitment we are describing – one that "is grounded in the emotional life and seeks personal enjoyment rather than the glory of God." Once personal enjoyment deteriorates and the emotions suffer, a person who possesses only a temporary faith "quickly falls away." The faith and excitement may initially appear to resemble that of a genuine believer, but time and circumstances will often expose them. But some people never find out that their faith is false in this life. This is why the Bible teaches us to examine ourselves to see if our faith is real. Just because you feel like your faith is real does not mean that it is real; instead, your life must exhibit the biblical evidence of true conversion.

The church presently contains many false Christians. Many of them will forsake Christ in their lifetimes,23 perhaps because of their inability to embrace sound doctrine (John 6:53- 69)24 or endure adverse circumstances (Matthew 13:20-21). But God will distinguish between the true and the false:

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 13:38-43)

Because false faith is not only possible but very common, we must make sure of our "calling and election" (2 Peter 1:10), and see to it that we are truly "in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5). As we increases in the assurance of our salvation, built upon biblical evidence instead of subjective feelings, we can also be increasingly confident that our salvation is forever secured, for God is "able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24).

In contrast with the wicked, the righteous are those who fear the Lord (Malachi 3:16). Their trust in God is ultimately independent of emotional satisfaction, material benefit, and physical comfort, but they worship God because he is intrinsically worthy of worship. They serve God because he is God, and they do what is right because God says it is right. They perceive that knowledge about God is its own worthy end. Their commitment does not slacken because of pressure or persecution, but their stability comes from God.

Those who feared God were those who "thought upon his name" (3:16). The GNT has "respected him," and the REB renders the phrase, "had respect for his name." However, "kept his name in mind" (Verhoef)25 and "loved to think about him" (NLT) are better.26 The righteous love to think about God, and their thoughts about him are full of respect and gratitude, without any complaint or resentment. "Doubtless this is a rare virtue," Calvin says, "…he who remembers God has made much progress in his religious course."27 Throughout Malachi, we have caught glimpses of the wicked thoughts within those who do not fear the Lord, and the thoughts of the righteous stand in stark contrast to the reprobates, who "glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Romans 1:21). But for those who fear the Lord, "My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD" (Psalm 104:34).

Also, the righteous "spake often one to another" (v. 16). This is in opposition to the harsh words that wicked men have spoken against God. Jesus says, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matthew 12:34). Out of an evil heart comes hate, blasphemy, and murmuring, but out of a pure heart flows thanksgiving, praise, wisdom, and encouragement. Doubtless the righteous spoke well of the Lord. They "exhort one another daily" (Hebrews 3:13), encouraging one another "unto love and to good works" (Hebrews 10:24). The righteous person prays, "May the words of my mouth and the thoughts of my mind be acceptable to you, LORD, my rock and my redeemer!" (Psalm 19:14; GNT: "my words and my thoughts").

Thus we discern from Malachi that the fear of God involves having an accurate intellectual concept of God, resulting in reverent thoughts and words about him. It is tested to be genuine through great pressure, adverse circumstances, honest self-examination, and authoritative preaching.

Now let us examine some other sources to see if we can derive additional biblical information about the fear of God. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives an explanation that is typical but unsatisfactory:

A healthy fear is reverence or respect. The Bible teaches that children are to respect their parents (Lev. 19:3), wives are to respect their husbands (Eph. 5:33), and slaves are to respect their masters (Eph. 6:5). The Scriptures also declare that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7) as well as "the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 16:16).28

The examples listed above seem to indicate a sense of reverence that implies obedience more than mere respect. Wuest translates Ephesians 5:33 using the words, "with deference and reverential obedience."29 Richmond Lattimore's translation reads, "the wife should be in awe of her husband."30 Thus the concept of "healthy fear" in the Bible appears to mean much more than mere respect.

Lawrence Richards provides another typical definition: "Such fear is reverence for God. We who fear God recognize him as the ultimate reality, and we respond to him."31 Common to most definitions on the fear of God are the concepts of reverence, awe, and respect, but the element of dread is mostly ignored or even denied. As Earle writes, "It should be obvious that 'the fear of the Lord' does not mean being afraid of God."32 But this is not obvious at all! It seems that the popular misconception about the fear of God results from unbiblical presuppositions about what our concept of God and relationship to him should be, rather than what the biblical evidence suggests that they are supposed to be. The examples that Earle gives,33 which supposedly make his conclusion "obvious," do not eliminate the element of dread at all, but they simply describe several aspects or implications of fearing God.

On the other hand, G. A. Lee correctly includes the element of "terror" in his definition of the fear of God. He says:

God does inspire human beings to be in dread of him, sometimes unintentionally (in contexts of revelation or theophany, e.g., Ex. 3:6), sometimes intentionally. Thus He may rebuke the people for not fearing (yr) or trembling (hil) before Him (Jer. 5:22), and the psalmist exhorts: "Serve the Lord with fear [yira], with trembling [rada] kiss his feet" (2:11f.).34

But then he brings out another point that we must address:

To the believers this fear of God may become a problem. Since they (presumably) have been delivered by God from judgment, they should not have to experience the dread and terror that are usually associated with divine judgment. One solution to this problem is to regard this terror as a chastisement rather than a judgment.35

In other words, if true Christians have been guaranteed deliverance from divine punishment, then there should not be anything for them to be afraid about. Lee suggests that the "terror" element in the believer's fear of God is the fear of receiving his chastisement. However, this is inadequate. Jesus himself feared God during his earthly walk (Isaiah 11:2), but if he knew within himself that he would not sin, this would have eliminated the possibility of divine chastisement. But if the object of godly fear is chastisement, it would be difficult to imagine how Jesus could have the fear of God, knowing that he would not sin.36 Lee assumes that one can fear only some negative natural consequence, but this is not necessarily true. For example, a believer's joy is not derived from some positive natural consequence, but it is produced and energized by the Holy Spirit through his renewed mind. It is not the result of some gain in the natural realm.

A better explanation of the element of dread in godly fear is that such dread results from an unambiguous perception of God's nature. We are specifically referring to God's transcendence as intrinsically capable of inducing such terror in a person (human or angel), even one who seems to have no natural consequence about which to be fearful. Nevertheless, this "terror" does not produce an ungodly spiritual bondage, but it makes one a faithful slave of Christ, and causes profound reverence and godly conduct. It also produces an unshakable confidence that results in having been freed from the obsession for self-preservation (Proverbs 14:26).

Although Claude F. Mariottini lacks precision and unnecessarily appeals to "mysteries," he recognizes that God's transcendence produces godly fear:

When God appears to a person, the person experiences the reality of God's holiness. This self-disclosure of God points to the vast distinction between humans and God, to the mysterious characteristic of God that at the same time attracts and repels. There is a mystery in divine holiness that causes individuals to become overwhelmed with a sense of awe and fear. They respond by falling down or kneeling in reverence and worship, confessing sin, and seeking God's will (Isa. 6).37

Mariottini has other flaws. Godly fear refers to something that should exist at all times, and not only when one has a special experience with God. Nevertheless, he is right in affirming that a recognition of God's transcendence induces awe and fear in man beyond mere respect. Mariottini continues:

The God of Israel is an awe-producing God because of His majesty, His power, His works, His transcendence, and His holiness. Yahweh is a "great and terrible God" (Neh. 1:15); He is "fearful in praises, doing wonders" (Ex. 15:11); His name is "fearful" (Deut. 28:58) and "terrible" (Ps. 99:3)….God's works, His power, majesty, and holiness evoke fear and demand acknowledgment.38

The point is that the fear of God must include a sense of terror, that it is more than what many people mean by reverence or respect, although it includes these things. Also, this terror is not produced only by the possibility of punishment, but also a clear perception of God's transcendence. As the New Unger's Bible Dictionary says, "This fear would subsist in a pious soul were there no punishment of sin."39 However, we need not wholly eliminate the fear of punishment in godly fear, since the fear of punishment does not really contradict the preservation of the saints, seeing that the saints may be preserved at least partly by means of the fear of punishment, while the reprobates fear punishment and still disobey. Moreover, the fear of God is not mainly a product of divine encounters or mystical experiences, but it is a product of knowledge and understanding (Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:2-5; 15:33). Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."

Some people say that our New Covenant privileges have eliminated this kind of fear. This misconception has partly results from some of the false distinctions that they have made between the two Covenants. In any case, the New Testament contradicts their conclusion. For example, Jesus says in Matthew 10:28 that we should fear God rather than men. For Paul, "fear or reverence of God or Christ is foundational for the Christian's relations to God and humanity."40 Philippians 2:12 says, "Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (NIV).41 2 Corinthians 5:11 says, "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." Acts 9:31 says that the early believers were "walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost." The element of dread is also retained, as Hebrews 10:31 implies: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

S. E. Porter writes:

The fear of God is the most important motivating factor for Christian conduct…and it is what distinguishes Christian behavior from that of others…It is to a large extent the distinguishing mark of believers…that they fear God…For example, Peter says in Acts 10:35 that God accepts people from all nations who fear him, and similarly 1 Peter 1:17 implores its readers to live lives of fear before the God who judges. This God is one into whose hands it is a fearful thing to fall (Heb 10:27, 31).42

But does not 1 John 4:18 say that the Christian should have no fear? The verse reads, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." How then are we justified in saying that the fear of God contains an element of terror?

As with any verse in the Bible, we must read John's words in context, so as not to misconstrue their meaning. Verses 16-17 read as follows: "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world." Verse 17 is clearer in the NLT: "And as we live in God, our love grows more perfect. So we will not be afraid on the day of judgment, but we can face him with confidence because we are like Christ here in this world."43 The KJV rendering of "fear hath torment" is unclear to many. The NLT translates that, in the context of this passage, "If we are afraid, it is for fear of judgment" (v. 18).

The fear that our love "casteth out" is that which causes one to "be afraid on the day of judgment." But we have already mentioned that the fear of the Lord does not refer only to the fear of punishment, since the possibility of damnation has been eliminated with one's justification through faith in Christ. As one increases in God's love, he also increases in his confidence that he has been truly delivered from God's wrath, and in turn he can have "boldness in the day of judgment."

To summarize, the fear of God consists of both reverence and terror, resulting from both God's transcendence and his power to punish. However, it is not only produced by fear of punishment, and as one's assurance increase, his fear of punishment may decrease; nevertheless, he will continue to have a holy terror toward God because of his divine transcendence. This kind of fear toward God results in reverent thoughts and words about him, as well as godly conduct.

Malachi's audience complains that God favors the evildoers and forsakes the righteous. The prophet answers that both these evildoers and the murmurers fail to fear the Lord, and that God pour out his wrath on both groups of people. However, God will show mercy to those who fear him. Malachi's answer to the people echoes the words of Proverbs 23:17: "Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the LORD all the day long." Let us, then, "serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear" (Hebrews 12:28).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Verhoef, p. 313. 2 Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961; p. 874. 3 Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV; "Malachi," p. 41. 4 Jamieson, p. 874. 5 Verhoef, p. 315. 6 Ibid., p. 312. 7 Keil, p. 660. 8 Ibid., p. 660. 9 Ibid., p. 660. 10 Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV; "Malachi," p. 41. 11 Keil, p. 660. 12 Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV; "Malachi," p. 42. 13 Verhoef, p. 312. Also Keil, p. 661. 14 Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV; "Malachi," p. 42. 15 Verhoef, p. 322. 16 Baldwin, p. 249. 17 Also NASB: "So you will again"; Keil, p. 661; Verhoef, p. 312. 18 Keil, p. 661-662. 19 Verhoef: "They have voluntarily submitted themselves to the rites in connection with mourning and penitence to please the Lord, but according to them it all was of no avail" (p. 317). 20 Keil, p. 660. 21 Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 597-598. 22 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1938; p. 502. 23 By this, I mean an outward abandoning of their outward commitment. Inwardly, they have never truly believed on Christ. So, it is not that true faith can be lost, but that they never had it in the first place. Their entire religion is superficial. 24 Especially verses 60 and 65-66. 25 Verhoef, p. 312. 26 The Hebrew verb chesheb means to reckon, count, or think. Thus, to recognize the meaning and authority of God's name would be a correct understanding; nevertheless, that remains an activity belonging to the category of thought, or something in the attitude of mind. And so, a translation of "love to think about him" may arguably be less accurate in wording, but more expressive in meaning. "Love to think about him with reverence" may be even better, though perhaps awkward as a translation. 27 Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 604. 28 Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary; Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986. 29 Wuest, The New Testament. 30 Richmond Lattimore, The New Testament; Bryn Mawr Trust Company, 1996. 31 New International Encyclopedia of Bible Words; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991; p. 272. 32 Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 409. 33 Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, 14:27, 15:33, 8:13, 10:27, 14:26, 19:23, and 22:4. 34 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; p. 290. 35 Ibid. 36 Some people maintain that Jesus could have sinned; however, this would imply either that Jesus functioned purely as a human or that his divine nature had no control over his human nature. Both of these options are heretical. His human nature in itself could have sinned, since it was a genuinely human nature, but his human nature never functioned by itself without his divine nature, or else he would not have been God when he was on the earth. 37 Holman Bible Dictionary; Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers, 1991; p. 481. 38 Ibid. 39 New Unger's Bible Dictionary; Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1988. 40 Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 292. 41 Wuest: "carry to its ultimate conclusion…your own salvation with a wholesome, serious caution and trembling…" (The New Testament). 42 Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997; p. 371-372. 43 As a translation, the NLT may not be precise enough in this verse. In particular, "our love grows more perfect" is unacceptable, since perfection in usual English language cannot be increased, as it is impossible to be "more unique" than something else. The NIV rendering of "love is made complete among us" may be better.

10. THE DAY OF THE LORD (4:1-6) 

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (Malachi 4:1-6) 

Verses 1-3 are usually seen as a continuation of the previous verses (3:13-18), belonging to the same disputation; therefore, we should not lose sight of 3:13-18 when examining 4:1-3. In response to those who challenge God's justice (2:17, 3:15), Malachi speaks of a "day" when the righteous and the wicked will be distinguished (3:18), and that only those who "feared the Lord" (v. 16) would be spared (v. 17). Malachi 3:18 is in fact speaking of what will result from the day of the Lord as described in 4:1-3.

The day in "the day cometh" (4:1) refers to the Day of the Lord as mentioned in 3:2, 3:17, and 4:5. The Hebrew expression hinneh…ba, or "behold (the day) is coming," indicates a future time, but also implies the imminence of what is predicted.1

That this day will "burn as an oven" (v. 1) indicates the heat of severe and destructive judgment, as opposed to the "refiner's fire" in 3:2. The purpose of this burning is not to refine or purify, but to destroy. The object of this destruction includes "All the arrogant and every evildoer," signifying a comprehensive procedure. This will be a day of severe punishment for the wicked, and they will not escape. "Those who are called blessed by the murmuring nation will be consumed by fire, as stubble is burned up, and indeed all who do wickedness, and therefore the murmurers themselves."2

The extent of the destruction is indicated in that the wicked "shall be stubble" (v. 1) and that the day will "burn them up" (v. 1), so that "it shall leave them neither root nor branch" (v. 1). This divine judgment will be comprehensive and thorough, inflicting permanent destruction to the wicked, so that "there will be nothing left of them" (v. 1, GNT). As Verhoef writes, "Contrary to the public suggestion that evildoers prosper, that they put God to the test and get away with it (3:15), they will all perish on that day!"3

On the other hand, God has a different plan for the righteous. "But unto you" (v. 2) signals a transition from predicting the fate of the wicked to what is in store for the righteous. God says that for those who "fear my name" (v. 2) will "the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings" (v. 2).

The focus is on "righteousness," and "sun" indicates how it will be manifested. On that day, righteousness will become apparent and dominant, as the sun shining forth in its full strength and brightness. We find similar expressions in Psalm 37:6 and Isaiah 58:8: "And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday…Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward."

This "sun of righteousness" will bring "healing in his wings" (v. 3). Within the context of the metaphor, the "wings" proceed from the impersonal "sun," and thus it should read "healing in its wings" (NIV; NASB). The wings would be the rays of light coming from the sun.

The "wings" of the sun have been variously interpreted – from the wings of a bird, to Luther's unlikely "symbol of protection with reference to a hen and her chickens,"4 to Reinke's interpretation of swift movement. C. van Gelderen offers the alternative that the "wings" may refer to the fold of a Jewish person's garment where valuables are stored, and thus "healing" would be what is brought about by the sun's wings. In any case, there is nothing preventing the more straightforward understanding of the sun's rays shining forth to bring healing to the righteous, although the same heat will burn up the wicked as straw, leaving them neither root nor branch.

Another issue raised by this "exegetical labyrinth"5 is whether the "sun of righteous" refers to Christ, perhaps even as a messianic title, or whether it is just representing righteousness as the sun.

In agreement with many of the church fathers and early commentators, Calvin writes, "There is indeed no doubt but that Malachi calls Christ the Sun of righteousness,"6 saying that it is "a most suitable term"7 for the Messiah. Walter L. Wilson concedes to this interpretation, and says, "This beautiful type represents the Lord Jesus when He shall return to this earth in power to heal all human woes, and to remove all curses from the earth."8

On the other hand, although Keil acknowledges that the messianic interpretation "is founded upon a truth, viz., that the coming of Christ brings justice and salvation," he nevertheless finds that "the context does not sustain the personal view, but simply the idea that righteousness itself is regarded as a sun."9 Alden adds, "'Sun' is capitalized in the KJV…This capitalization has sustained the idea that the figure is a messianic one. No use is made of this figure, however, in the NT. For that reason most translations have not capitalized 'sun.'"10

However, I doubt that every true messianic type in the Old Testament must be directly recognized and repeated in the New Testament, and it is questionable that Bible translators do not capitalize "sun" as a denial of its messianic implications just because it is not used as a messianic designation in the New Testament. If one were to say that the "sun of righteousness" does not refer to Christ, he must do so on grounds other than that the New Testament does not repeat this imagery in reference to Christ.

In addition, there is a possible allusion to the winged sun disk pictured in some Eastern cultures. But even if the sun disk is used as a type, its meaning must be ascertained from the context of our passage, since even in the ancient cultures and religions, the symbol represents different and often contradictory concepts.11

In any case, the above options are not necessarily in conflict. It may be that a common imagery taken from the cultures is here used to represent righteousness as the sun, which in turn figuratively points to Christ. In him is the ultimate fulfillment of judgment against the wicked and healing for the righteous. Thus although the christological interpretation has a strong consensus, the other viewpoints are not necessarily excluded, but appears to add meaning and background to it. Nevertheless, any figurative interpretation should not deny the apparent meaning, that righteousness is here depicted as the sun.

God will destroy the wicked on that day, and he will uphold the righteous. "The sun of righteousness" will come with "healing in its wings" (4:2). God will heal the wounds inflicted by the wicked upon those who fear the Lord. The semantic domain of the Hebrew word implies a healing in the most comprehensive sense; that is, it refers not only to the opposite of disease, but also of disaster and trouble. It is the basis of an abundance of peace and life.12 "See then in what way he meant there would be healing in the wings of Christ; for the darkness would be dissipated, and the heavens would be free from clouds, so as to exhilarate the minds of the godly."13

The coming of the Lord and the dawning of righteousness will produce effects represented by two imageries. First, the righteous "shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall" (4:2). This is to say that as calves are "freed from their stall in the spring and allowed for the first time to leap about and exercise their legs,"14 that day would be a time of great liberty and joy for those who fear the Lord. Second, verse 3 says, "And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts." The state of the righteous and the wicked will undergo an "amazing reversal."15 Having been made into "ashes" under the heat of God's judgment, the wicked will be trampled upon by the righteous, which is an image taken from the custom of war, where the victor puts his foot on the neck of the conquered.16 Paul writes, "And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Romans 16:20, NASB). Stepping on one's enemy as representative of triumph is a "symbol familiar, probably, in all languages to express not only the completeness of the defeat, but the abject humility of the conquered."17

Verse 4 begins the final section of Malachi. In its canonical order, this passage also concludes the Old Testament in the Greek and Latin versions.18 Deuteronomy uses "remember" thirteen times to remind Israel of God's deliverance.19 The object of this remembrance here is the "law of Moses" (v. 4). The word in this context refers to both intellectual recollection of and obedience to the law. Of course, intellectual recollection of God's law is the necessary prerequisite to faithful and deliberate obedience to it.

"Horeb" (v. 4) is synonymous with Sinai, where Moses received God's law. Some modern versions (e.g. NLT and GNT) simply translate the word as "Mount Sinai." The covenant includes "decrees and ordinances" (v. 4),20 and was made with "all Israel" (v. 4), so that it required conformity by the whole people.

Very few Christians understand the role of the law under the New Covenant, and some people falsely assume that the whole law has been abolished, resulting in Antinomianism, or lawlessness. But as Donald C. Stamps writes, "Faith in God always includes an attitude of obedience to the Lord from the heart. Believers in Christ are still required to follow the moral demands of the OT law as well as the commands of Christ."21 Jesus says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The New Covenant fulfills the Old, but it does not abolish the word of God. Paul writes that, "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:10), and not the replacing of the law. Walking in love does not mean that one violates the law, but that one fulfills it. The principle behind Malachi 4:4 and the words of Jesus in John 14:15 demand that Christians obey all the moral precepts in Scripture.

The important instruction in verse 4 serves as a strong warning to prepare for the Day of the Lord, when the wicked will be destroyed. Verse 4 is an instruction for the people as to how they must prepare for the Day of the Lord. The prophet urges his hearers to "return" (3:7) to God's "ordinances" (3:7), so that they will not suffer ultimate loss on the day of judgment that will surely come. This day is going to be "great and dreadful" (v. 5).22

Verses 5 and 6 say that God will send "Elijah the prophet" before the Day of the Lord arrives. Elijah is certainly an appropriate choice, since he had "served as a moral catalyst to the nation. No other prophet so dramatically changed the attitude of his contemporaries, nor so influenced the destiny of the nation."23 He was a spiritual reformer whom God had given the power and the boldness to challenge the apostasy of his time.

Elijah represents the kind of ministers that many people in our culture would find most unwelcome and offensive. Most "Christians" would probably deny that God would send such a person to the world as his spokesman. From the perspective of today's culture, Elijah was narrow-minded, intolerant, judgmental, violent, and fanatical. Rather than trying to "learn" from other religions, he challenged the false prophets to a supernatural duel (1 Kings 18). He had no respect for those who did not worship his God. He said, "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him" (1 Kings 18:21). Thus he upheld the law of non-contradiction when it comes to religion, affirming that two contradictory belief systems cannot both be true. If the biblical faith is true, then all the others are false. Such is the spirit of Elijah.

Paul also understood that Christ and Belial are opposed to each other, just as light has no communion with darkness, and righteousness has no fellowship with unrighteousness: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-15). However, many of those who claim to be Christians today do not follow after Elijah and Paul. Instead, they conform to the current ideologies of this world, something that Paul explicitly prohibits (Romans 12:2). These people are false prophets and traitors of the faith.

Malachi here predicts that Elijah will come before the Day of the Lord, and Scripture says that John the Baptist had fulfilled this prediction. Gabriel announced to Zechariah that he would have a son (Luke 1:19), who would turn many back to the Lord: "And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17). This is a clear reference to Malachi 4:5-6, signaling that John would be the fulfillment of Malachi's prediction.

John 1:21 may confuse some people, because John seems to deny that he was Elijah in this verse: "Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not." But right after this, John says that he is the person that Isaiah prophesied about: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias" (v. 23). Since the forerunner, or he who prepares the way of the Lord, had always been understood to be Elijah, John's words constitute an admission that he was indeed Elijah. In John 1:21, he is denying that

he was the historical Elijah; that is, he denied that he was the reincarnation of the same Elijah who went up to heaven in a chariot of fire many years before. As Gabriel has said earlier, John's ministry was to be one exhibiting the "spirit and power of Elijah," and not that he was to be the historical Elijah returned in person.24

Jesus also said that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophesy about Elijah: "But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:12-13). Therefore, we can be certain that John the Baptist fulfilled Malachi's prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6.

Malachi 4:6 also predicts that this Elijah would "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers" (Malachi 4:6). Gabriel repeats this to Zechariah, although he omits "the heart of the children to their fathers," but replacing that with the explanatory words, "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just" (Luke 1:17). So the task is not just about "bridging the generation gap."25 Instead:

The fathers are rather the ancestors of the Israelitish nation, the patriarchs, and generally the pious forefathers, such as David and the godly men of his time. The sons or children are the degenerate descendants of Malachi's own time and the succeeding ages…This chasm between them Elijah is to fill up…so that they will be like- minded with the pious fathers.26

John the Baptist did fulfill such a ministry: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand…Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matthew 3:1-2, 5-6). His task was to make preparation for the coming of Christ, and to "make his paths straight" (v. 3).

In addition, John's prediction of the one who would come after him corresponds to Malachi's description of the "messenger of the covenant" (Malachi 3:1), whom he said would follow God's "messenger" (v. 1). For example, corresponding to Malachi 3:1-3 and 3:16-4:6, John says in Luke 3:16-17, "one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable." Then, he says that his words are to be fulfilled in the person of Jesus of Nazareth: "John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me" (John 1:29-30).

Now, many people assume that the Day of the Lord is the same thing as the Second Coming or the Final Judgment, but they are not the same. Whereas the Second Coming refers to the time when Christ will come to resurrect both the righteous and the wicked – to welcome the righteous to heaven and to damn the wicked to hell – the Day of the Lord refers to 70 A.D., when Jerusalem was destroyed. Many biblical prophecies referring to this event have been falsely attributed to the Second Coming, with the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 as a prominent example. We will observe only several verses here:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down…." I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24:1-2, 34; NIV).

This prediction refers to what happened in 70 A.D., when the Roman army invaded Jerusalem, destroyed the temple, and set fire to the city. God came in terrible judgment and destroyed all those who rejected Christ. When Pilate asked what he was to do with Christ, the Jews insisted that he be crucified, and said, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25, NIV). And it came true that Jerusalem was destroyed about 40 years after they said this, killing them and their children. However, the Christians were delivered because they followed Christ's instruction to flee the city (v. 16). Thus Malachi 4 and Matthew 24 have been completely fulfilled, and they do not refer to a time in our future.

However, there is still a judgment coming. In fact, your own day of judgment is coming. As Hebrews 9:27 says, "Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." Throughout Malachi, the wicked accuse God of being unjust and unfaithful. Malachi answers with a prophecy about the first coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. At the present, it may again seem that the evil people often prosper, and the righteous are not always treated with grace, but all these will be rectified in the next life, if not in this life. Paul writes:

Remember that some people lead sinful lives, and everyone knows they will be judged. But there are others whose sin will not be revealed until later. In the same way, everyone knows how much good some people do, but there are others whose good works won't be known until later. (1 Timothy 5:24-25, NLT)

Exact justice may not be rendered in this life, but God's ultimate answer to this is that all will be made right and every account will be settled at the final judgment. On that day, there will be a clear distinction between the wicked and the righteous. "The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" (Revelation 21:8).

As in the day of Malachi, God will spare the one who fears his name (Malachi 4:2), "as a man spareth his own son that serveth him" (3:17). Calvin explains well what it means to fear the name of God:

This fear is what peculiarly belongs to true religion, so that men submit to God, though he is invisible, though he does not address them face to face…When therefore men of their own accord reverence the glory of God, and acknowledge that the world is governed by him, and that they are under his authority, this is a real evidence of true religion: and this is what the Prophet means by name. Hence they who fear the name of God, desire not to draw him down from heaven, nor seek manifest signs of his presence, but suffer their faith to be thus tried, so that they adore and worship God, though they see him not face to face.27

One who fears God does not require him to "openly show his hand armed with scourges"28 before he submits, but he will obey what God has set forth in Scripture without defiance.

To those who will serve him faithfully in this manner, who will fear him and obey his word without doubt, murmuring, or resentment, he promises that, "I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Revelation 21:7). Therefore, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Verhoef, p. 324. 2 Keil, p. 662. 3 Verhoef, p. 326. 4 Ibid., p. 330.5 Ibid., p. 327. 6 Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 617. 7 Ibid., p. 617. 8 Walter L. Wilson, A Dictionary of Bible Types; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., p. 1999; p. 402. 9 Keil, p. 662. 10 The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 7; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985; p. 702. 11 Verhoef: "The sun-god Shamash was the god of righteousness and the protector of the poor…The sun disk of the Assyrians and Persians was a symbol of dominion and therefore a sign of violence and destruction. Under the wings of Malachi's sun no violence or destruction will be found, but healing, redemption, everlasting life, and peace" (p. 331). Verhoef is correct here only if the activity of the sun does not apply to 4:1; otherwise, the same sun that scorches and destroys the wicked is the same sun that heals the righteous with its rays. 12 Verhoef, p. 330. 13 Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 620. 14 Redditt, p. 184. 15 Baldwin, p. 250. 16 See Joshua 10:24; 2 Samuel 22:41; Psalm 91:13; Psalm 110:1. 17 Jamieson, p. 1183. 18 The Hebrew version places the Writings at the end, not the Prophets.19 Baldwin, p. 251. 20 Verhoef, p. 337. 21 The Full Life Study Bible (NIV); Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House; Life Publishers International, 1992; p. 1395. 22 See also Joel 2:31. 23 Baldwin, p. 252. 24 See also Matthew 14:1-2, 16:13-16. 25 Baldwin, p. 252. 26 Keil, p. 664-665. 27 Calvin's, Vol. XV; p. 620-621. 28 Ibid.

━━━━━━━━━//━━━━━━━━

Vincent Cheung. Commentary on Malachi (2003).

Copyright © 2003 by Vincent Cheung http://www.vincentcheung.com

Previous edition published in 2001.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted without the prior permission of the author or publisher.

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, King James Version (KJV).

[lokbobpop]

False

What does true or false mean? True or false is variously said of something that must be considered as correct (true) or incorrect (false).

late Old English, "intentionally untrue, lying," of religion, "not of the true faith, not in accord with Christian doctrines," from Old French fals, faus "false, fake; incorrect, mistaken; treacherous, deceitful" (12c., Modern French faux), from Latin falsus "deceptive, feigned, deceitful, pretend," also "deceived, ...

False f alse fal see fall see

Writing false

My false me not the real me the false me is the mind as me the real true me is underneath the false me and if i keep seeing realizing and understanding this the false me will just leave me as it not longer serves me its not real it has not grounds for all of its thinking it is the false me it dotn know its the false me it just showed it self within me as fear just them i heard a loud noice and thought is that the tidelwave coming t get me like what was said or is it my fear of myth mond i asked myself knowing exactly who it was the fearful mind not me not the true me the false me.

Reading false

When you play the game true ot false and you have to guess between a couple of answers what is wright and what is wrong i wouldnt say i was amazing at it as its usually always facts about thinks nobody knows anyway and is a complete guess.

False information whe people give out false info like some people who gossiped i have embellished and few gossips in my time i have made them grow i see this yes nothing to be proud about putting another down and getting a kick out of it because you feel justified in doing it as you have seen the person as not good enough and you dont like them.

False teeth my granddad had all false teeth the chemicals when he was crop dusting rotted all his teeth so the were false so glad i still have enough to eat just and Doran have false teeth.

A neighbour when growing up had a false eye and other had a false leg its amazing how we add parts false parts to ourselves i would if i needed another leg.

To be false when you meet a new man you are or i have been false being this really nice person so they would like me so they would only see the good side of me so they would want ot go out with me when i think you should definitely get to know them first yo should definitely see who they really are and make better choices from there.

False eyelashes the girls liek these things and i have tried them lol

False hair ive not tried this but both girls have had false hair extensions but it pulls all you natural hair out as well not good it you asked me but hang on i think i did try not sure and i didnt like the feel i some else hair on me ill have to ask the girls id i did but im going with i did i can feel the clamps in my hair.

Saying false

Not real cant be trusted someone who is false when you meet someone and you can see they aren’t being real and have this false nature abou themselves they show one sid dot one person and another side to another yes personalities which we all do but hide our false side as best we can as we are many faceted with all out personalities i have probably hundreds lol

False information come up this time within the new and propaganda so much false news nothing is real anymore nobody can trust anyone anymore there is so much propaganda going on the big divide of us all even though we are so divide within ourselves already we have to divide ourselves more with our fello man who we all are the same as us as all not seeing yourself within another no seeing we are all the same as one and equal.

I hope i dont have pt get false teeth i have only one tooth on my upper left side :(

To be false when i a personality

Sf

Does this definition support me no its really doesn’t false personalities stand out most as i am walking my personalities i see realize and understand how they work how they gave shaped me into the person i have believed myself ot be all wrong i am not these personalities i never have been but i have been blinded by. Them and i let the mind show me them to live by and they were all wrong they were all false. Seeing others as false and not reflecting my own falseness within me all the false info do i really need ot know the truth no only my own truth is enough to stand by no others mine id goof enough. My gossip of being false wanting to be liked with my false info of another not seeing me my tre self.

False fall see

False

To see realize and understand all parts of me that don’t support me and to free myself of them

To see in another’s wrongs to correct my own

My own truth is enough all other info is not needed for me to expand on me

I will live this word to support me in seeing the false me and opening up to be exposed the real me to see realize and understand that seeing all parts of me and separating whats not truth of me i will live the live i so deserve to be the truest me.

[je-blauge]

Rambling thoughts on fantasy religions

As an agnostic raised in a Christian culture, I'm writing kind of for my own demographic here. One of the things I've heard a lot about is how religion in fantasy tends to be Christianity with the serial numbers filed off, usually with polytheism tacked on, and I think this is mostly because people raised in Christian traditions have a set of unquestioned assumptions about religion. I will make comparisons to other religions with which I am passingly familiar to illustrate my point, keep in mind that I absolutely AM NOT recomending that you base a fantasy religion on somebody else's religion without extensive research on both their traditions and doctrines but more importantly what modern practitioners would consider a respectful depiction of their religion and their religious figures. I also do not claim to be an expert on any of the religions I cite bellow, so if you feel I've mischaracterized yours, fell free to let me know

So what this is basically going to be is a series of questions about religion and the worldbuilding around it that you may not have thought of.

1. Is "faith" even a thing? I almost said "faith" instead of "religion" in the last sentence of the first paragraph above, but I changed it because those two terms really are not interchangeable. The Buddha, for example, doesn't seem to me like he would have been particularly comfortable with anyone telling you to just trust him the way Jesus does. Yes, there are things he promises only after years of dedicated practice, but his call is literally to "come and see," to try what he's teaching and see for yourself whether it works for you. Yes, I'm aware there are Christians who would explain the concept of faith this way, but I still feel like it's a distinction worth being aware of.

2. Is there a goal to your religion? If so, what is it? In Christianity, the goal is to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. So Chrisitians tend to think of this as the goal of all religion. It isn't. Whether the religion of the Greeks and Romans even had a goal depended who you asked, what part of the country you were in, what year it was, etcetera. There was an afterlife, sure, but it was just about equally depressing for everyone. If you played your cards right you could get yourself deified and join the Olympians, sure, but this was based on whether or not Zeus took a personal liking to your strength/courage/belligerence/ass rather than anything to do with personal virtue or goodness. For Buddhists and Jewish people, the existence of an afterlife is debatable--The Buddha said that someone who achieved Nirvana would never again be reincarnated, but refused to answer the question of whether or not such a person existed in any form after death, and I have personally witnessed Jewish people debating whether or not scripture implied the existence of an afterlife (the general "consensus," and I use this term very loosely, seems to be that there may well be one, and it's probably pretty cool if there is, but don't worry about it too much.) In both cases, the reason for this ambiguity is the same: because the question distracts from the goal at hand. The objective of Buddhism is to attain a state of awareness and wisdom that frees the practitioner from suffering, death and decay. Of Judaism, the goal is to repair the world, to lift up the Earth so that it becomes as heavenly as the spiritual plain.

3. Are there gods? What is a god? What is the relationship of humans and gods? You absolutely can have a religion without gods. You can have a religion without a creation myth, or prophecy, or a foretold end of the world. I don't have any examples off the top of my head, so I'll end that line of thought there. Exactly how powerful is a god? Any Christian would hold the idea that God could be killed by any means to be high blasphemy--but the Norse know exactly how Odin is going to die. Under what conditions will and won't gods intercede in a person's favor? The Christian God, when things go badly for a good person, is generally expected to have some Wise Reason that will eventually pan out for that person's ultimate good. The Greek Gods generally don't intervene because they either haven't noticed, don't care, or both, and step in only when it amuses them or when someone has offended them. Maui usually intervenes on behalf of humans in general rather than individual people, and his actions are often well intended but short-sighted, causing a mixed bag of good and bad. In Buddhism, Nirvana is "beyond the reach of the gods." Gods may exist, sure, but they can't help you attain what Truly Matters, and depending on them will hinder you more than it helps. In Judaism, God is cool and wise and all, but isn't unquestionable or always right. He's generally portrayed as amused and delighted when a mortal outsmarts him, rather than offended you would even try, as some Christians would be when you question what the pastor says God told him when he had Him over for chess or something the other day.

I don't have a conclusion here, just a series of thoughts. Have a nice day

[nerdygaymormon]

In regards to the anniversary of black priesthood: my mom and I argued- I said it wasn't much of a revelation and the leaders had been racist before. She said it was a curse from Cain and Abel. So I said: "Dark skin is a curse?" She had no retort. She urged me to research more. What are your feelings on the revelation?

My opinion is that the common racist views of the time were proclaimed to be doctrine of the LDS Church. Some incidents further cemented the view that people of African ancestry were less deserving and led to the ban on priesthood ordination and temple blessings for them. These were defended with much vigor by many prophets.

This is a real shame. One thing that we’re reminded of several times in ancient & modern scriptures is that God is no respecter of persons. The LDS Church also teaches we’re all children of Heavenly Parents. Jesus’ teachings were radical in His time, and still are in ours, to love one another and to treat others as we wish to be treated. Those teachings should have led us to be the most loving and liberally inclusive people, instead we were among the last holdouts of racist views and teachings.

The Civil Rights Movement transformed American society’s thinking, but the Church had trouble adjusting, I think because we had so many statements and official letters and Conference addresses by prophets and apostles affirming racists teachings as doctrine.

There’s several other areas where the LDS Church likewise took beliefs that were commonly held at the time and supported them with teachings and doctrinal statements.  I think it’s a powerful testimony that inspiration and enlightenment aren’t limited to this church. As a gay man, it gives me hope that the personal revelation and feelings of queer members is correct, and the growing understanding of society is God-given. I still think the commandments to love one another and to treat others as we wish to be treated should make us more loving and liberally inclusive than we currently are.

I’ve looked through lots of material. Never once have I read of a revelation where God restricted the priesthood in the LDS Church. It appears the doctrine taught for over 100 years was an attempt to justify racist attitudes, understanding and actions. Similarly, there is no grand revelation that can be pointed to for the severe restrictions of queer members, but it’s supported by many statements made by LDS leaders.

————————————————————-

Joseph Smith was more enlightened than many of his time. I think this is a result of his becoming personally acquainted with African Americans, including Jane Manning James who lived in his home as a housekeeper.

His views changed over the course of his life. In the 1830’s he wrote that slavery is authorized by the Bible. By the 1840’s he came to see slavery as being evil and against the principles of the US Constitution. He wrote that if black people were in different circumstances they would be the equal of white people and called for the abolishment of slavery.

Under Joseph, the Church proselytized to everyone, regardless of race or slave status. Several blacks joined the church. He personally ordained a black man to the priesthood.

Missouri was a slave state, the people living there thought the Mormons were too friendly with African Americans. Joseph Smith revealed D&C 101:79 “Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.”

To try to counter the Missourians fears, the Church issued an official statement (D&C 134) that because the US gov’t allowed slavery, the Church wouldn’t interfere in that relationship. This included not preaching to them without their owner’s consent. Later this changed to not until after their owners were converted.  

When the Church moved to Nauvoo, these restrictions were lifted, although interracial marriage was prohibited and public offices could only be held by white men, as was common in much of the USA. By 1842, Joseph Smith was making known his increasing strong anti-slavery views. When he ran for president in 1844, his platform included the abolishment of slavery.

————————————————————-

Brigham Young may have been the right person to rescue the Church and lead it to safety in the desert, a brilliant colonizer and organizer, but he brought with him his other beliefs. There are many things taught by Brigham Young that the LDS Church no longer stands behind.

1847 - After removing two black men from the Church, blacks are restricted from receiving the priesthood

1849 - Brigham Young declares that Cain’s seed is prohibited from the Priesthood and the curse would remain in the afterlife

1852 - Brigham Young speaks to the legislature and declares that for religious reasons they must support slavery. A law is passed to make slavery legal in the Utah territory and also outlawed interracial marriage

1852 - Brigham Young teaches that having one drop of blood from Cain means cannot hold the priesthood

1853 - Elijah Abel not allowed to receive his endowment

1859 - Brigham Young says that slavery is a divine institution and won’t be abolished until the curse of Ham is removed from his descendants

1859 - Brigham Young says that descendants of Cain will one day get to hold the priesthood, but not until all other descendants of Adam have received the blessings of the priesthood

1863 - Brigham Young says that for a white man who has a child with someone descended from Cain, the penalty is death on the spot 

————————————————————-

Curse of Cain is that because he killed Abel, a mark was put on him. In Judaism there’s texts which surmise that a letter was put on his forehead. The idea that black skin is the curse doesn’t become widespread in Christianity until the rise of the Atlantic slave trade. 

Ham is the son of Noah. When he discovered his father drunk and naked, he ran to tell his brothers rather than honor his father by covering him. Ham is cursed to be a servant of servants. During the era of the Atlantic slave trade, it became widely believed that Ham married a black woman who descended from Cain and they survived the great flood on the ark. Therefore all black-skinned people coming from Africa are cursed to servitude and enslavement. 

————————————————————-

In 1978 when priesthood and temple blessings were restored, the apostle Bruce R .McConkie said to disregard everything that he, Brigham Young or other Church leaders had said on the subject, they were speaking with limited understanding. 

————————————————————-

If you want to read about heroes, look up these individuals: Elijah Abel,  Green Flake, and Jane Manning James 

[theunderdogwrites]

Ten "Suggestions" For A New World

I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith. Went to church every Sunday with my family from the time I was four until the age of 19. I was baptized, received my first communion and attended CCD classes (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine). And just for fun and out of curiosity, I've read the bible (New Testament) three times. [I want to quickly share with you the meaning of the word "confraternity": 'a lay brotherhood devoted to some purpose, especially to religious or charitable service'. Already its clear women are not really welcome.]

Once I was free to make my own choices, I stopped going to church. To be honest with you, I couldn't hear myself think over the constant propaganda being served to me by an elderly ornery priest wearing a $2500 robe and asking me to kneel at a $10,000 marble alter while attempting to guilt me into giving the church money to help feed the poor. I've never been the sharpest tool in the shed, but I knew something wasn't quite right with this religion. A friend of mine introduced me to the term "recovering Catholic" and I've adopted it as my own.

Do I believe in God? What... a terribly complicated question. In short, yes. In length, I believe in something I can't put my finger on and it has a name. I know I talk to this Universe character a great deal, maybe that’s it? Anyway, the God I believe in... that something with a name I can't accurately put my finger on - is about kindness and compassion, respect, acceptance, tolerance and love. And I mean, for real. Not just because it sounds good in your mouth.

Have you ever looked up the meaning of TOLERANCE?

‘allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference’

The fact I’ve not yet killed anyone, means I am a highly tolerant being. Ego stroke.

You may have your own opinions and beliefs; in fact, I encourage you to form your own opinions and sift through what you do and don't believe. But let other people find their own way. Be who they are to be and if it's a different path than yours... don't tell them they're going to Hell. All that does is stress Satan right the fuck out.

I was taught to pray from an early age. Kneel down beside the bed at night, make the sign of the cross and talk to God. Ask him to bless the people you love, show compassion for those who wronged you and be thankful for everything you've been given. End with the sign of the cross. Although I no longer kneel at the side of my bed or make the sign of the cross, I do still pray. I've never had an issue with prayer. It's a form of communication and communication is king. Even if you believe no one is listening, it truly does help to just have raw dialogue with yourself.

Have I ever used prayer to help me out of a tough spot? Absolutely.

Have I ever prayed for something and promised something else I knew I most likely wouldn't follow through with? Yes. Have I ever prayed then become angry when things didn't go my way? Definitely.

Have I asked for forgiveness, mercy and wisdom? Yes.

 I'm not ashamed of any of those admissions. But I'm not going to print them on a t-shirt and strut around either. I don't feel I am any different than anyone else when it comes to prayer. Evidence of this are the religious contestants on Survivor who ask God for assistance in winning a million dollars so they may do good with all that money.

Currently, for me, prayer is an open-ended conversation that takes place in my soul. There's yelling and screaming. Blame. Crying and swearing. The launching of projectiles and ever so often... peace, laughter, approval and cookies. There's chaos and harmony and somehow, I manage to cultivate enough intelligence to string together a bunch of words to make a half decent sentences from time to time.

This brings me to: The Ten Commandments. Take a quick gander at this so you can get your bearings:

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/topics/ten-commandments-list

In a nutshell, these are "God's standards" which he wants you to live by.

Going to confession was the worst. Especially as a typical 15-year-old girl. "I am not telling you shit" was pretty much my life's motto so to expect me to open up to an old priest and share my sins and secret thoughts so he may shame me with a mini lecture and an act of contrition, was insanity.

Every time I went to confession, I used the same three "sins":

I disobeyed my Mother and Father                                  

I took the Lord`s name in vain

I lied

I figured this to be believable for a girl my age. If you look at the commandments, I wasn't going to covet my neighbor`s wife or his ox and I certainly wasn't going to get myself another God to worship considering I already couldn't figure out the one I'd been given. And murder? I probably didn't even know what that meant. I mean, until the guidance counselor at my school pointed out to me what suicide was, I had no idea it was even possible to do that to yourself. I wasn't stupid, but rather innocent. And isn't it funny that it took a person of "authority" whose intentions were being governed by a higher power, to bring those kinds of ideas into my brain where they once didn't exist? Something to ponder.

Let's be honest, the Ten Commandments... as they stand right now in current society... a little outdated, right? Technology is rapidly changing how we communicate and behave. And it's time to modernize in order to keep up. I'm not proposing we abolish the original document. I'm not trying to offend anyone or stamp out their beliefs. I know the Ten Commandments is a sacred collection of words that many believe is straight from the mouth of God. Attempting to rip up or shit on something with that much power over so many people... is suicide. (Look Ms. Foster! I learned another way one can harm themselves other than dragging a razor over one's wrists! Your job wasn't meaningless after all!)

I'm merely proposing that someone (ME ME ME) take a stab at writing up a new set of standards which people (YOU YOU YOU) should SERIOUSLY consider following if they wish to achieve a pleasant after life. And the only person you must believe in - yourself.

The first thing I want to do is change the word "commandments" to "suggestions". It's less aggressive and more light-hearted, even though you're still expected to comply. No one wants to be told what to do, not really, and by "commanding" them in a preachy way to curb behavior... well, you're just asking for trouble. Imagine the success rate if Moses had come down from the mountain and said:

“Hey... hi everyone, look, God spoke to me and mentioned something about these ten suggestions He'd like us to seriously consider if we want to get into Heaven. He was pretty adamant that we pay attention and do our best to not ignore this list. I think He spent a lot of time coming up with this stuff... so we really do owe it to Him to try and give this all we got. Ok, thanks everyone... back to not raping women and making false idols out of gold".

I just feel that by changing the wording and therefore tone of this document - you're not alienating the more cantankerous, free-spirited or stubborn people of the world with a menu of demands you expect them to blindly obey.

The second thing I want to do is provide a brief explanation for each "suggestion". There is nothing worse than treating people as though they don't deserve further information when you'd like them to do something that wasn't their idea. Communication is comforting and reflects respect. You can't say: "Because I told you so" or "Just do it" and expect to be well received. All this is going to get you are responses such as: "You're not the boss of me" and "Go fuck yourself".

So, without further ado, I give to you:

The Ten "Suggestions" For A New World

 Please do not update your Facebook status message more than once a day:  This is a sign of vanity, a deadly sin. And it's really annoying to the point where people secretly want to kill you for repeatedly mugging their news feeds with updates in increments of 32 minutes, on the broad details of your existence. No one actually cares here, on planet Self Absorption.

Please do not kill: This is the only original "commandment" included on this new list because it has stood and always will stand the test of time. There are loads of shitty, stupid, selfish & servile individuals in the world and relieving them of the burden of breathing seems like an all-around great idea, but it's actually a terrible idea. Why? Well, for starters... it's not your place to end a human life. It's just not. Life is special. You - not so much. Plus, it causes debilitating pain for a great many people. When you take someone's life away you create a hole inside the people who love them. This hole can never be filled. It will never get smaller. These people will never heal. They might be able to carry on... eat food again one day, maybe buy a new couch, laugh at a joke - but they will never heal. They will walk around, unhealed and with a hole in their heart till their dying day. Don't make holes in other people.

Please resist from being a complete douche bag: (Traditionally the term 'douche bag' is     usually gender specific and applies to men, but for this  "suggestion" it also applies to women, because women can be douche     bags as well. This does not apply to cats. The lives of cats are based upon douche-baggery, but it's cute and therefore exempt)  Being a total jerk is in your bloodline. Eve was a jerk to Adam. Adam was a jerk to God. The snake was a jerk to Eve. God was a jerk to the dinosaurs. And the dinosaurs were jerks to everyone. So... this  "suggestion" is going to be a difficult one not to fail at from time to time. The idea here isn't to be perfect, because that isn't unachievable. But rather, genuinely compassionate and generous when you see someone who wouldn't benefit from you running your truck into their fence and then driving off like a douche bag coward. And the state of being a douche bag isn't always limited to actions befitting a little scamp, no it can also be in the way you dress (Underwear above the pants line? Come on!) Or how you tell uninterested parties about your drunken antics and the loss of your favorite pair of really expensive shoes. Or  tweeting/texting the person next to you while you're in a group setting. Now you can see why pretty much everyone will be unsuccessful at this "suggestion". We're douche bags.

If  you open a bottle of wine - please finish it: This really shouldn't require much explanation. Drinking two-day old wine is the equivalent of sucking on week old doughnuts. Even hobos understand this concept. If you save your wine, you're stealing food out of the mouth of a grape stomping child. Is that what you want? No. Drink your damn wine already.

Please flush the toilet after you poop / wipe the seat off if you urinate on it: No  list of "suggestions" would be complete without a mentioning of bathroom etiquette because so many people are unable to recognize and execute proper manners in this area. I reckon 74% of the population does not want to see your excrements. And the other 26% need to seek out some counseling. Immediately. Leaving your shit in the toilet for others to    view does not make you regal, it makes you a filthy barnyard animal. And it's not funny or clever. Neither is urine on the seat. And this applies to both men and women. Take ten seconds, grab some toilet paper and WIPE THE SEAT OFF. Your pee is not liquid gold. No one wants to bottle it to sell on eBay or Etsy.

Please do not use social media to draw attention to your drama: This     is a tough one, I know. We all suffer from drama and when we feel severely slighted by the Universe, a person or even a business... we just want to share our pain in hopes of others being able to relate to us and provide some words of comfort. And what better way to reach your 472 "friends" than screaming out on Twitter or rapidly posting about your discomfort on Facebook. But the problem is... you're not actually connecting to anyone. Not really. You can't see their expressions. You can't hear the tone in their voice. And you definitely cannot count on their sincerity if they don't contact you privately and not in an open forum for all to witness. And, it's awkward. Once people see your drama, they can't un-see it. Even if you delete it, you don't get to delete it from their minds. And as a sub-section to this "suggestion" - also try to avoid saying stuff on social media that you wouldn't say to a person's face. This is just a fancier version of talking behind someone's back while doing it in front of their face without them actually realizing that it's being done.

Please do not text and drive: If you own a car you probably spend a     decent amount of time in that car, driving. Probably so much time that it     feels automatic, like blinking.  And because it's automatic you will rarely think about what you're actually doing - operating a 4000-pound killing machine. What is more important than taking your eyes off the road to check in on your game of choice? Or answering that text about where     you're going on your vacation? Your life. The lives of others. (please see "suggestion" number two) Chances are you're already deeply distracted by your real life, there is no reason to add to that list fumbling around with a cellphone so you can tell someone what you thought about last night's episode of Spring Baking Championship (is that just me?).

Please leave your ego at the door: People love confidence; they hate     arrogance. Arrogance is phony. Intimidation and strutting around like an erect penis OR vagina won’t hide the truth - that you’re afraid and maybe a little underwhelming in your own mind.  There is nothing wrong with     having flaws... accepting those flaws... flaunting those flaws. It builds     character. But if you must insist on being an arrogant tool, then you must  also accept that you're not only unhealthy to yourself, you're toxic to     others.

Please do not give others false hope: If someone has posted an ad on     Kijiji or Craigslist - don't express interest and give them a date and time of when you're going to show up to purchase the item if you have no intention of making an appearance. Forget about it being rude and full of    atrocious manners; it's downright cruel to let someone believe they've     just sold their dining room table when in fact - they haven't. (Yes, I’ve been scarred).

Please remember, you're not always right: Unless you're me. And even then, you’d only be operating at a success rate of about 32%.... so, just be yourself.