> Remember and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath > in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 9:7 ESV). It seems like this passage describes God being provoked (changed) by the people of Israel. This is a problem, because it contradicts the doctrine of divine immutability, that is often inferred from Malachi 3:6. > For I the Lord do not change... (Malachi 3:6 ESV) Is there a way to resolve this apparent contradiction?

Regarding *The Pilgrim's Progress* by John Bunyan from Chapter 2 (“The Way of the World or the Narrow Way”), pages 52–53. A quote starting on page 52, the last paragraph at the bottom: > “Then Christian asked. ”May we go into the palace?” The Interpreter took him and led him up toward the door of the palace. There Christian saw a great company of men standing at the palace door, all desiring to go in, but few daring to. A little distance from the door there was a man sitting at a table with a [book open] before him. He was writing the names of those who wished to enter the palace. **My Question**: is the book Bunyan referred to "The Lamb's Book of Life" (Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8) or some other book, possibly "The Book of Remembrances" (Malachi 3:16)?

This question (and its answers) indicate that, according to Roman Catholicism, the two witnesses prophesied to come in Revelation 11:3 will almost certainly be Enoch and Elijah (Elias). > And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. Part of the reasoning leading to this notion is that neither of these man died physically but both were taken up into heaven alive and, since it is appointed for man once to die and then the judgement (Hebrews 9:27 ), it is within the integrity of Scripture for them to return where they will eventually be killed by the beast from the bottomless pit. > And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. - Revelation 11:7-10 This is coupled with the prophet Malachi (4:5) declaring: > Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: With the conclusion being that, even though they are not named in the Apocalypse, Elijah will almost certainly be one of the two end times witnesses because he has yet to die in fulfillment of Scripture and he is prophesied in Scripture to come again. Jesus, however, in Matthew 11:10-15 , clearly said that John the Baptist was the prophesied appearance of Elijah and directly quoted Malachi. We also know from Matthew 14 that John the Baptist was put to death by beheading. Additionally, at the transfiguration event recorded in Matthew 17 wherein Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus to three of the disciples, the disciples asked specifically why the scribes say that Elijah must come first and, once again, Jesus declared that John the Baptist **was** that coming of Elijah: > And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 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 17:10-13 My question is: According to Roman Catholicism, since Elijah has already come back and died (fulfilling Malachi, Hebrews 9, and the RC argument literally), how many more times is Elijah coming back to earth to be killed and why?

**According to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are these two messengers in Malachi 3:1?** > Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts." - **Malachi 3:1** The NWT of Malachi 3:1 says, >Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will come to His temple the [true] Lord, whom you people are seeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom you are delighting. Look! He will certainly come, Jehovah of armies has said." It is clear that the first messenger is John the Baptist who will clear the way of the Lord God (that's who the "Me" is in the verse) and Mark 1:1-4 confirms who the messenger is. "Behold, I send My messenger before your face, Who will prepare Your way; verse 3, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make read the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight." I would like to know if the "true" Lord (which the NWT states) that comes to His temple and is identified as the Lord God Almighty the same being as the messenger of the covenant?

Malachi 3:6-12 (ESV): > 6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. 7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’ 8 Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. 9 **You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me**, the whole nation of you. 10 Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. **And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need**. 11 I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the Lord of hosts. 12 Then all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land of delight, says the Lord of hosts. Many Christians believe that the curse for not tithing and the blessings for tithing mentioned in Malachi 3:6-12 apply to the New Testament Church as well. In other words, they believe that Malachi 3:6-12 teaches spiritual laws (curses/blessings) whose scope encompasses both Testaments, not just the first. In their view, Christians who do not tithe would be under a curse, and those who do tithe would be able to enjoy the promised blessings. What is the **biblical basis** for the belief that curses and blessings regarding tithing in the Old Testament still apply to the New Testament Church? _____ Optional follow-up: A natural extension of this question would be to ask the same thing about every promised curse and blessing found in the Old Testament. Which Old Testament blessings/curses still find application today? As an example, Ephesians 6:1-3 comes to mind *"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (**this is the first commandment with a promise**), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”*, which is a clear New Testament validation of a blessing promised in the Old Testament (Exodus 20:12). Should we see this as evidence that *all* promised curses/blessings in the Old Testament still apply? Or should we be more cautious and approach this on a case-by-case basis?

As predicted by Jesus > Matthew 17:11: He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things." and > Malachi 4:5: See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. Now, as for Jesus's coming we will know him for sure, but how do we recognize Elijah when he will come? I think he is not one of the two witnesses of Rev 11, because in that time the tribulation should be already in place.

Malachi 3:1-5 (ESV): > “Behold, **I send** my messenger, and he will prepare the way **before me**. And **the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple**; and **the messenger of the covenant** in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, **says the LORD of hosts**. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. 4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years. > > 5 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts. Trinitarians usually interpret Malachi 3:1-5 as evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, by picking up on the fact that Jehovah is speaking in the first person about himself, but then it turns out that the one who came was Jesus. For more details, here are [two](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56076/38524) [examples](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56079/38524) of this kind of exegesis on the passage, taken from the hermeneutics site. Of course, this way of exegeting Malachi 3:1-5 totally contradicts the Christological views of Biblical Unitarians. How do Biblical Unitarians exegete Malachi 3:1-5?

Regarding the word אֲדֹנִי (*adoni*) in Psa. 110:1 (actually prefixed with -ל, i.e. לַאדֹנִי), translated as “my lord,” a self-professed Unitarian website states,1 >Trinitarian commentators frequently argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word adonai, another name for God, and is therefore proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But not only is this not a valid argument, this verse is actually one of the great proofs of the complete humanity of the promised Messiah. The Hebrew word translated “my lord” is adoni (pronounced “Adon nee” [1] ) in the standard Hebrew texts. **This word is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God**. (*emphasis mine*) Now, the Hebrew word אֲדֹנִי is simply the lemma or base form אָדוֹן2 with a 1st person singular pronominal suffix appended (i.e., “my”). The question, then, should **not** be limited to whether אֲדֹנִי is ever used in reference to Yahveh (God), but rather, whether אָדוֹן and **any** of its suffixed forms (including אֲדֹנִי) are ever used in reference to Yahveh. After all, couldn’t “lord,” “my lord,” “his lord,” “our lord,” and “their lord” all refer to the same “lord”? - The lord said to Abraham and Sarah,... - Abraham said to his lord,... - Sarah said to her lord,... - Sarah and Abraham spoke to their lord,... - Sarah and Abraham said, “Our lord...” - Abraham said, “My lord...” In this context, the “lord” is the same person, regardless of the pronominal suffix. Hence, limiting the discussion to “my lord” is both arbitrary and disingenuous. I encountered the word הָאָדוֹן in Mal. 3:1 . This is simply אָדוֹן prefixed with the definite article הָ, meaning “the lord” (i.e., “the master”). The Hebrew text of Mal. 3:1 states, >הִנְנִ֤י שֹׁלֵחַ֙ מַלְאָכִ֔י וּפִנָּה־דֶ֖רֶךְ לְפָנָ֑י וּפִתְאֹם֩ יָבֹ֨וא אֶל־הֵיכָלֹ֜ו הָאָדֹ֣ון אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֣ם מְבַקְשִׁ֗ים וּמַלְאַ֨ךְ הַבְּרִ֜ית אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֤ם חֲפֵצִים֙ הִנֵּה־בָ֔א אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֥ה צְבָאֹֽות׃ which is translated into English as, >Behold, I am sending My messenger, and he shall prepare a way before Me, and the lord whom you are seeking shall suddenly come to His temple, and/even the messenger of the covenant whom you delight in. Behold, he comes," said Yahveh of hosts. We note a couple of things during exegesis of Mal. 3:1 : 1. Yahveh of hosts is the speaker. - “I am sending My messenger” evidently refers to Yahveh sending His messenger (cp. 2 Chr. 36:15-16 ; Isa. 42:19 ). - Thus, first-person pronouns refer to Yahveh, such as “**My** messenger,” “before **Me**,” etc. However, note the acute analysis of Carl Friedrich Keil in his commentary on Mal. 3:1 : >“The Lord” ((hâ'âdōn)) is God; this is evident both from the fact that He comes to His temple, i.e., the temple of Jehovah, and also from the relative clause “whom ye seek,” which points back to the question, “Where is the God of judgment?” (Malachi 2:17 ). **The question**: How do Unitarians refute the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (*ha-adon*) refers to Yahveh (God) in Mal. 3:1 ? **Footnotes** 1 URL: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/psalm-110-1 2 meaning “master,” “lord,” “sir” **References** Keil, Carl Friedrich. *Commentary on the Old Testament. * 1900. Reprint. Trans. Martin, James. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. (458)

The authorised KJV translates Malachi 3:1 as follows: "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." Does the Hebrew grammar of the verse eliminate any of the following interpretations? 1) The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17, and who the people delight in) who is also the messenger of the covenant (the covenant given to Moses), will suddenly come to his temple. "Behold he shall come" refers to the messenger who will prepare the way, otherwise it would be behold I shall come. 2) The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17, and who the people delight in) who will also be the messenger of a new covenant, will suddenly come to his temple. "Behold he shall come" refers to the messenger who will prepare the way, otherwise it would be behold I shall come. 3) The verse is in response to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?". There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and then God (who the people are wondering where he is in Malachi 2:17) will suddenly come to his temple, as will the messenger who will prepare the way who is also the messenger of a new covenant, and is a messenger the people delight in (presumably the Messiah). Behold he shall come refers to the Messiah messenger, otherwise it would be behold I shall come. 4) The verse relates to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?" but is not a response to it. There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and then another messenger will come to the God of judgement's temple and this other person will be the messenger of a new covenant, and will be a Lord that the people seek and delight in (presumably the Messiah). "Behold he shall come" refers to the Messiah messenger. 5) The verse relates to the last part of Malachi 2:17 "Where is the God of judgement?" but is not a response to it. There will be a messenger who will prepare the way, and will also be a messenger of a new covenant, and who will also be a Lord that the people seek and delight in (presumably the Messiah), and that this messenger will come to the God of judgement's temple.

This is probably not a surprised to scripture veterans, but noticed that Mark 1:2-3 is a quotation from two separate sources, Isaiah and Malachi, but it is ascribed only to Isaiah by the author of Mark. That leads the question above.

About 20 minutes into Handel's 'Messiah there is a chorus about the Messiah being like a refiner's fire.... "and He shall purify... the sons of Levi". This is taken from Malachi 3:3. My question is, why is it only the Levites that are singled out for purification? What about all the other tribes of Israel?

Malachi 3:1-3 >Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts. > >But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. > >He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness. 1. Which of the two: John or Jesus, fulfilled Malachi 3:3. 2. How was it fulfilled? 3. Why does Malachi say Levi present perfect plural "offerings" as a result of John or Jesus' ministry? The difficulty arises in the fact that Jesus' supposedly put an end to the need for offerings and the verse appears to be speaking of Jewish sacrifices not the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

I'm preparing for a Sunday School lesson that includes 3 Nephi 25 where Christ quotes Malachi 4 . > 1 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. That verse is part of a prophecy that the earth will be cleansed when Christ returns. The cleansing is frequently described as fire , such as in the passage quoted above. How will this happen? The verse I quoted has figurative language, so it could be assumed that the fire is figurative. But whenever this topic comes up in church, the discussion seems to imply that the burning will be literal with people occasionally going so far as speculating it will be caused by nuclear bombs (that is not doctrine of the LDS church). The Gospel Principles manual also implies that it's a literal burning: > When Jesus Christ comes again to the earth, He will do the following things: > > 1. He will cleanse the earth. When Jesus comes again, He will come in power and great glory. At that time the wicked will be destroyed. All things that are corrupt will be burned, and the earth will be cleansed by fire (see D&C 101:24–25 ). So which is it? If it's figurative, do we know what the fire represents? If it's literal, do we know what will cause the fire? How will the righteous escape?

>The prophet said concerning the great day which Elijah will usher in, "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 4:6 >Jesus said, "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." -Matthew 10:35 Are these two verses consistent and if so how?

Malachi 4:5: >I will send you the prophet Elijah. He will come before the day of the Lord arrives. It will be a great and terrifying day Jesus says in Matthew 11:14 >"and if you are willing to believe their message, John is Elijah, whose coming was predicted" Jesus says in Mathew 17:12 >But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” It's pretty clear from the above verses that John was Elijah reincarnated. Wouldn't the above verses imply that reincarnation is true?

>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. >Malachi 1:11 (KJV) I have been looking for Protestant explanation of this and how it is fulfilled in Christ. The only one that I have found suggests that the incense that is offered to God represents prayers and the pure offering is also those prayers. My problem with this interpretation is the Hebrew. It clearly suggests two distinct offerings, incense and a pure offering. Some translations suggest it as a grain offering but the Hebrew text does not support that. Supporting this offering which is sacrificial in nature is Isaiah 66:21 (KJV), which must be read in the context of the rest of Isaiah 66. >And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. Are the Levites something other than ministerial priests who make sacrificial offering to the Lord for the people? What is the pure offering if not the offering of Christ on the Cross re-presented daily all over the world in the Catholic Church? What is the Protestant version? What is the reference to Priests and Levites if not that of the "priesthood of believers" and "a sacrificial ministerial priesthood" (Catholic Clergy) taken for the first time after the Cross--from outside the Jewish Rabbinical traditions? How do Protestants say these prophecies have been fulfilled in their churches?

>Malachi 4:6: He [Elijah] will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction. > >Matthew 10:35: For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Is Malachi 4:6 about someone other than Jesus Christ? Jesus taught to love your neighbor as yourself, as Malachi suggests, but why then does he say what he says in Matthew 10:35? Matthew 10:37 goes on to say that if you do not love Jesus more than your brother, you are not worthy of Jesus, but he starts the section in verse 34 by saying "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

God accuses the Israelites of "robbing" him by not tithing the full tenth according to the Levitical law. Can this also be true of believers today who are part of the new covenant and dead to the law? > **Malachi 3:8-11 ESV** Will man rob God? **Yet you are robbing me**. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. **Bring the full tithe into the storehouse**, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the Lord of hosts. The reason I ask is because this is one of the go-to passages people use to encourage tithing because of the *benefits* that come from it (God will pour down a blessing). If that's the case, then are the *downsides* of *not tithing* shown through this passage also true?