Book of Malachi - Ch. 3, Vs. 1-4 (05/07/2023)

All right, well, y 'all can turn to Mark Chapter 1.

Ada, start turning. All right, let's see here. Mark Chapter 1.

We're going to kind of reset the context a little bit before we jump into the continuing verses of our

Malachi passage. And this kind of picks up right where we left off last week, talking about verse 1 of Malachi Chapter 3.

So this is Mark Chapter 1. Let's start at verse 2. It says,

As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for their mission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

And John was clothed with camel's hair and with a girdle of a skin about his loins, and he did eat locusts and wild honey and preached, saying,

There cometh one mightier than I after me, the lachet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

I indeed have baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the

Holy Ghost. And then in the same book, if you skip over to Chapter 11, so Mark Chapter 11, starting in verse 15, it says,

And they come to Jerusalem. Let me give you a little bit of context really quick. This chapter is about Jesus' triumphal entry, his kind of the official recognition of his kingship, and all of those things, a lot of really cool aspects to the story leading up to this moment.

But at verse 15, it says, And they come to Jerusalem. And Jesus went into the temple. That's our key phrase there.

Jesus went into the temple and began to cast them out that sold and bought in the temple and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of them that sold doves and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.

And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer?

But ye have made it a den of thieves. And the scribes and the chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy him, for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

And when even was come, he went out of the city. Okay, so both of these events that we just read about, the first being in the first chapter of Mark, beginning with John the

Baptist, as well as the story of starting with Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but him then going into the temple and cleansing it, both of these events were prophesied in the same verse in our passage in Malachi, which we looked at last week.

We didn't look at the Mark passages we just read last week, but they speak of the same thing.

The beginning of Mark in verse 2, when it says, as it is written in the prophets,

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. That is a direct fulfillment of prophecy in Malachi 3 .1

that we read last week. In the following verse, it says, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the

Lord, make his path straight, is a direct fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 40, verse 3, which we also looked at last week.

Mark blends those two prophecies together as it introduces John the Baptist, and it says in Malachi 3 .1,

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me. So that was fulfilled right before Jesus' ministry began, of course.

And then it says right after that phrase in the same verse, Malachi 3, 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. And we talked about this last week as well. In Mark 11, verses 15 -19, speaks of this event that was also fulfilled.

This was a reference to Jesus' first coming and him appearing in his temple.

So here we learn of two separate messengers in this first verse, Malachi 3. We learn of two separate messengers, both sent for the fulfillment of prophecy and the fulfilling of their ordained ministries.

Of course, we know what John the Baptist went on to do, and, of course, it got into that a little bit in that Mark 1 passage we were just reading, preparing the way before the

Lord and letting everyone know that he was coming to baptize with fire, with the

Holy Spirit. And, of course, we know to what extent Jesus' ministry as it began around the same time and as it was prophesied in Malachi 3, verse 1 as well.

But we read all that last week. We dove last week into that first alone, and I wanted to, again, reset the context a little bit before we start getting into verses 2 and following of our

Malachi passage. I want you guys to consider just for a second, what is the context of these prophecies that were made at the beginning of chapter 3 of Malachi?

Consider the context for just a second within this book that we've been studying. The context is the sinful priests and the wicked

Israelites are being warned that their time is limited because, as it says in 3 .1,

suddenly these messengers—was specifically talking about Jesus appearing in his temple— but suddenly these messengers will appear, and the first cleansing of the temple will be merely the beginning of the purifying that we're about to learn about in the following verses.

So remember, these prophecies are amazing in Malachi 3 .1. We can look at that, and we can see the power of God's Word and the inerrancy therein and be reminded of the very specific prophecies as they were fulfilled.

But remember, the context in which this prophecy was given is the context of an incredibly sinful people, sinful

Israel, that has gone far astray from the Lord at the time we're reading it.

These prophecies, at the time they were given, were meant to be a warning. They needed to get their act together.

Their time was limited because suddenly, as it says in that verse again, these messengers will appear.

Now we'll start at verse 2 of Malachi 3 and pick up from there.

It says, Now right off the bat, we now have a shift in events, although Malachi seamlessly moves from one to the other.

We talked about this a little bit last week as well, as if it's all one event. And from their perspective, it very much was.

And I would say even from Jesus' perspective, it could be considered all one event as well, with the

Age of Grace that we now find ourselves in, the Church Age, being just kind of a valley between the peaks, as Dad has put it before, between the peak of His first coming and His second.

The prophets, looking forward at these events, only saw the peaks and often talked about them as if it was one event.

We know that verse 1 has been fulfilled, both in reference to John the Baptist and in Jesus appearing in His temple.

That's what we just read in Mark. But now, verse 2, What do you guys think that's a reference to?

It makes it very clear the further you go. For He is like a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap.

This is quite a bit different from the entry that He made in that same Mark passage we just read on the donkey.

He did appear suddenly, and He did enter His temple during His first advent.

But now it shifts to the next coming of Jesus, which will be on an even more grand scale, at least from our perspective, in terms of what the people of Israel have always been expecting and what we know will be during His second coming, this grand, epic event as He comes back in the clouds.

This is what it's now referring to. Who can abide that day? Malachi asks. Who shall stand when

He appears? Well, while verse 1, again, prophesies of Jesus' first coming,

Malachi, like I said, already shifts quickly into His ultimate return during the second coming. And this day, as we know, will be a day of judgment.

And it makes sense that the prophet here in Malachi is using this day as yet another warning that these people need to get their act together.

Consider the way they were living, and then the prophet, the messenger of God this time coming and telling them

He's coming back. Who can abide His return?

Or His coming, rather. He didn't call it the return because from Malachi's point of view, it was all one event, like I said.

You guys, you can turn here if you'd like, or you could just listen. But in Amos 5, if you want to turn there, you can, starting in verse 18.

Let's get a little bit more. Let's flesh out a little bit more of the

Israelites' perception of this day and why it would have been such a potent warning from Malachi to them in this second verse of Malachi 3.

We're going to go look at kind of a parallel passage here. And this is Amos 5, starting in verse 18.

It says, Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! To what end is it for you?

Now, okay, think about the context of Amos for a second. Who is desiring the day of the

Lord at the time Amos was written? Who's being spoken to? He's speaking to the

Israelites. He's speaking to God's people. They are the ones, they are the only ones at that time in history that would have been looking forward to the day that their

Messiah came, the day of the Lord itself. But Amos quickly tells them,

Woe unto you that desire that day, which is an interesting thing because it is turning it on their head and reminding them, listen, you don't get to benefit from His return.

I keep calling it His return. From their perspective, it was just His coming. You don't get to benefit from His coming because when

He comes, He's coming to refine and to purge His people. And it says, To what end is that day for you?

Amos asks. So he's talking to the Israelites who are, again, at the time of Amos, again, living in this sinful state, similar to the state they were living in Malachi.

He says, Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! To what end is it for you? The day of the

Lord is darkness and not light. So slow down there. Don't get too excited in your desire for this day and for what you are looking forward to because this is a day of darkness and not light.

As if a man did flee from a lion. This is what this day is going to be like. As if a man did flee from a lion and a bear met him.

He thinks he's escaping one trouble and along the path in escape of the one, he runs into another.

As if he's running from a lion and then he runs into a bear and the bear turns on him. Or, it says, went into the house and leaned his hand on the wall and a serpent bit him.

When they get to a place they feel is safe in escape from all of the craziness that's going to be happening and leading up to this day, but also during this day, as soon as they get to a place of what they would perceive to be safe, a place of safety, they lean their hand against the wall and a serpent bites them.

It says in verse 20, Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness and not light? He reaffirms this point that he made in the prior verse.

Even very dark and no brightness in it, he asks. I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them, neither will

I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. What does that sound like? That sounds very similar, if not very close to exactly the same, is what the priests were doing in Malachi that we covered extensively in chapter 1 and a little bit in chapter 2.

I hate, I despise your feast days. I can't remember which verse it is exactly, but it specifically mentions their solemn feasts in Malachi that the

Lord will take the dung from the sacrifices they make during their solemn feasts, spread it upon their faces in humiliation for the way they're acting.

So very similar state these people are living in at the time Amos is being written as is being addressed in Malachi some centuries later.

The rhetorical question, so if we go back to Malachi for a second, the rhetorical question asked in Malachi, who can abide the day of the

Lord, it's kind of answered, not only in Malachi as we're about to unfold, but also in this

Amos passage that we just read. It makes it pretty clear in not so subtle terms that in a sense, no one can endure that day.

It's going to be a day of darkness, not of light. And specifically in regard to the people that are being talked to in this passage in Amos, he's addressing the fact that, look, this is going to be a day of darkness because I hate and I have despised your feast days and will not smell your solemn assemblies.

The way they were acting and conducting themselves, the irreverence in their temple worship, their sinful state, was so gross to the

Lord that the prophet Amos was warning them, again, woe unto you that desire that day because if he comes, if that day happens, and you are still living in this state, well, as he says, woe to you.

So again, the question is asked in Malachi, who can abide that day? Amos answers it not so subtle terms.

Malachi is going to do it as well shortly. But in a sense, no one can endure that day.

Certainly not anyone that is living in the flesh at the time that the Lord comes back for us, kind of back on our timetable.

But the question, as it was presented in Malachi, is meant to be a way, again, to get these people that are living so wickedly to think about that day, to consider that day and the implications that the day of the

Lord carry. Woe unto you that desire that day. Don't be so excited. It's going to be a dreadful day for the large majority of the world.

Now, in verse 2, which I read a second ago, we're back in Malachi again, chapter 3.

In verse 2, it says, Who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap.

So we're given a couple of figures here of, again, the refiner's fire, the fuller's soap.

It's like a launderer's soap. And the pictures that were given there really emphasize the effectiveness of God's purifying of the nations when that time comes.

He's going to purify them like a refiner taking some silver or some gold that is mixed with all sorts of different alloys, mixed alloys and things like that, and he's going to refine them and remove the dross so that it is a pure metal, in the same way that a launderer would cleanse with his soap, which

I imagine at the time this was written was probably a very, like probably didn't get any cleaner than what the profession of the launderer had to clean whatever, you know, he had.

And so those are the pictures that were given as to how effective Jesus' purifying will be when he comes.

And this picture kind of continues in verse 3. Again, we're back in Malachi chapter 3, verse 3.

It says, and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi.

Remember, a huge part of this study was the priests. It began with the priests.

These were supposed to be the guys that were setting the example for the rest of the people, and they weren't doing that.

In fact, they were doing the opposite and giving them a new standard that was in direct opposition to God's word.

He shall purify specifically the sons of Levi. Jesus is going to bring back his priestly tribe to start doing what they've always been intended to do or what their purpose has always been.

He shall purify the sons of Levi. He shall purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the

Lord an offering in righteousness. It'll be wonderful. That day will come again. Verse 4, then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the

Lord. And this is sad but also kind of beautiful, as in the days of old and as in the former years.

Now, it's sad because we realize, given the context of Malachi, this isn't happening. They weren't doing it the right way.

And we've got that. We've definitely gathered that much from what we've read in Malachi up to this point.

They were not doing their priestly roles, their job, the responsibilities that came with them as priests.

They weren't doing it. But there will come a time when those offerings will be pleasant, when they will be righteous again, as in the days of old, as in the former years, as Malachi puts it.

So the result of God's purification during this time would result in a pure class of Levites, the very tribe of God that was ordained to serve him and lead his people, and yet have been so astray at the time that Malachi is being written.

But once again, at the time in the future that Malachi is now speaking of, keep in mind, he is now not only referencing

Jesus' second coming, the Messiah's second coming, but also the millennial kingdom, because this is what it's referring to in terms of the pure, righteous, and pleasant offerings that they will offer to the

Lord again. He's now talking about this future event, and he says that they will once again offer, again, righteous and pleasant offerings.

Now, let's talk about offerings for just a second, because this isn't the first time that offerings and sacrifices are spoken of in the future tense in this

Malachi study that we've been doing. If you guys recall, Malachi 1, verse 11,

For from the rising of the sun, even to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the

Gentiles. Different group of people, but still talking in the future tense.

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. We have a prophecy there of the Gentiles offering pure offerings. We talked about this in detail back when we were in that chapter.

I believe that could be in reference to our spiritual offerings at this very moment, but I think it also could be grouping that together with offerings that will be given in the millennial kingdom as well.

That's talking about the Gentiles. Now, we're talking about the nation of Israel again, and specifically the tribe of Levi, the priest.

Once again, this is now the second time that in the future tense, Malachi talks about the offerings becoming pure again.

Because at the time of Malachi, why is he even given this contrast? What's the point of him giving these prophecies?

He's giving this contrast of just how bad of a job the priests were doing at this time that this book was written, that this prophecy was given.

And when the Lord comes back, offerings will be sacrificed once again in his millennial kingdom, but the offerings during this time aren't going to be for the same purpose that they were meant for in the

Old Testament. Now, they weren't doing it correctly in Malachi, but at various times in the Old Testament when they did, they were meant for a specific purpose.

What was that purpose? It was, as a picture, of the coming crucifixion.

It was a picture of Jesus' first coming and the sacrifice that he made.

That was the purpose of sacrifices and offerings throughout the Old Testament when done correctly. But in this future place that Malachi is now talking about, in the millennial kingdom, those sacrifices will be brought back.

They will be pure once again, but there will be a difference. What do you guys think the difference will be?

If the Old Testament sacrifices were intended as a picture of the crucifixion of the coming sacrifice, and that already happened, why would

Jesus bring sacrifices back during the millennial kingdom when he's back with us? Yeah, Dad, it'll be a memorial rather than something to come.

It will be a memorial or a way to commemorate the ultimate sacrifice that was made at Calvary.

It'll still point to the same event. It will just be in the past rather than the future. Yeah, Dad? Yeah.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Observing?

Oh, the Sabbath, yes. And the end of the reformation.

It's really interesting. There's a.

There's so many things I want to say that I'll take the rest of the lesson. I've been doing a little bit of a study in the history of the reformation, and the beginning of the

Protestant movement. And it's pretty fascinating how much was wrong. How much bad not how many things they did that were wrong is the best way to put incorrect in the process of reforming.

A lot of times and myself included when I think of the reformation, you immediately go to the good that came out of it, which isn't necessarily bad.

But you can also come away with the false assumption that it was only good. But what's interesting is the reformation was a long process of reforming.

And there were decades where even the reformers were persecuting

Christians for not doing certain things that they thought you should do, like infant baptism is one example.

The history of the Baptists is one of a lot of persecution because they always came back to the

Bible. They if they saw something that even the reformers, the first generation of reformers were doing that they didn't think were biblical, they weren't going to do it.

But unfortunately, there were sects of reformers that persecuted just like the

Catholics were persecuting, which is so ironic, because that was the point of the reformation. Martin Luther did.

Martin Luther was aware of numerous persecutions toward Baptists because they were not carrying on some of the traditions that they thought should still be there, even though they were coming out of the

Catholic Church. Another thing I was going to say, man, Dad, you said a lot there. It was good stuff.

Oh, goodness. OK, yes, it means that.

Two things. Number one, if all of the feasts and much of the temple worship, well,

I guess all of proper temple worship in the Old Testament was to point to Jesus. What's to say that the same things can't be used to point back at Jesus now?

We have to be careful is obviously there are denominations or groups of people that try to bring

Judaism into into Christianity and say that salvation is by grace, but also the works that it can be twisted.

And that's why I probably, Dad, a lot of people are so thrown off about anything

Old Testament is because they want to stay away from that. But what they don't realize is it's the law that they're bringing in there, not the feasts and the things that picture

Jesus. The law was somewhat separate to that to a degree. The law was the standard that God gave us to show the depravity of man in that an ultimate sacrifice had to be given.

The feasts represented that perfect sacrifice. Go ahead. The sacrifices.

Right. Well, and I would also argue that some of the feasts are a little bit different than the sacrifices themselves.

Well, right.

Well, so and, you know, you think, well, does that mean we need to be doing the feasts?

Well, I think this is a big part of what Romans 14 that you just finished studying is all about. Who's to say that a

Christian family could not use a feast as a commemoration of Jesus without it being something that they judge others for not doing or vice versa?

Who would be a Christian family that thinks it'd be weird, almost bizarre to do any of those feasts because it's, you know,

Old Testament or a little maybe too Jewish or something? Who are they to judge that family for doing that in commemoration of Jesus, Jesus, Jesus's work?

That's that that's where the beauty of Romans 14 comes into play, because it gives us the opportunity to to worship in various ways as the

Holy Spirit leads us to do. One last point on things that said before we moved on is you guys need to go listen to a debate on YouTube.

You need to listen to this as well, dad. It's fascinating. There's a very popular preacher, super.

I've heard about him for over the last decade, and I had some co -workers, some ex -co -workers that thought this guy hung the moon.

He was their favorite preacher. His name is Andy Stanley. Sure. A lot of you guys have heard his name.

He is the the head elder or pastor. I'm not sure what his official title is.

He's the senior pastor is what we would call him of North Point Church in North Point Ministries, which is massive.

It's one of the largest ministries in the world, certainly in North America. And in the past,

I'm sure he's from from my understanding, even a lot of theologians, pastors that I highly respect have given some praise to that ministry in the past because their outreach.

Well, his dad was very conservative. Yes, I was about to get to that.

This is a second generation ministry. And it was I can't remember his dad's first name, but.

It was built on some pretty solid stuff. It's huge now. And even Andy Stanley, I'm sure, has preached sermons, many of which we would agree with.

However. He's recently been under quite a bit of controversy for multiple reasons. One of those reasons is that he believes we need to, in his words, unhitch the

Old Testament from the New Testament, that essentially we do not need the Old Testament, nor should we reference the

Old Testament when it comes to our evangelizing, our witnessing to people and things of that sort. The debate

I'm referencing, you guys can find on YouTube easily is Andy Stanley versus a guy named Jeff Durbin, who's another guy

I've been following recently, very reformed Baptist pastor out of Phoenix or out of somewhere in Arizona.

And the Apologia guys know that we were talking about not too long ago. And the debate was on that concept.

Should it be unhitched? And it was it was. With all due respect, a wonderful put down of Andy Stanley's positions, and you can see where a lot of people, why a lot of people get stuff like being weirded out in the millennial kingdom, there will be sacrifices again because guys like Andy Stanley act like it is taboo.

Like the Old Testament is taboo in that it's not needed as a foundation for our Christian faith.

Guys, I don't think we would be Christians without the Old Testament because it was the fulfillment of all of the prophecies that gave power to what the

New Testament talks about. And he kept asking these ridiculous questions to the guy who was debating,

Jeff Durbin, like, would we have the Bible without the resurrection? Because his whole point is we need to bring everything back to the resurrection.

Forget the Old Testament. Even to some degree, like the following New Testament epistles and things can come later.

We need to start at the resurrection, go only to the resurrection, use that event as the foundation for everything.

Jeff Durbin, of course, was coming back to know the word of God is the foundation for everything. To which Andy Stanley says, well, we have the

Bible without the resurrection. Answer that question. And Jeff Durbin, well, he said yes, because Andy Stanley would not let him give a full answer.

He's like, it's yes or no. It's yes or no. What Jeff Durbin's point, however, was the resurrection couldn't not have happened.

I'm trying to think about how he worded it. I think he put it in the negative. The resurrection was going to happen because of the

Old Testament was his point. And eventually he conceded and was like, if the resurrection didn't happen, yes, we would not have the faith that we have today.

Our faith would be baseless. And Paul even told us that without the resurrection. But that's an oversimplified argument or question to ask.

Would we have a Bible without the resurrection? Because Jeff Durbin's point was we would not have the resurrection without the

Bible, without the Old Testament that prophesied the resurrection everywhere. And so, right.

Well, you couldn't. Yeah, it was. And even the gospel, as Paul gave it himself, what did he say before every point of the gospel in the death, resurrection, the death, burial, resurrection and ascension?

Prior to every one of those points he gives, he says, as it is written, this happened, as it is written, that happened. That's the very gospel that Paul gave.

I don't know if he used that. Yeah, he used several. He used several that were good.

As it is written. And so yeah, and so his point being is the

Old Testament is the foundation for our Christian faith and therefore it shouldn't be so bizarre to us that in the millennial the sacrifices will come back.

Yes, Mimi. He was very careful about the way,

I'm talking about Andy Stanley, he was very careful about his wording because he is walking a tightrope of trying not to sound like a heretic, but trying to make the argument that the

Old Testament doesn't need to be the foundation, it's the resurrection, the event of the resurrection that needs to be the thing.

And there were the standard or the foundation. And Jeff Durbin said a number of things as arguments against unhitching, as Andy Stanley put it, the

Old Testament. And Andy Stanley would come back and be like, I don't disagree with that. And he would act all, you know, like, you know, you're misunderstanding me and that kind of stuff.

So if you got to watch the debate, all the way to the end, because it gets fascinating by the end, all it gets,

Andy Stanley gets very defensive about a couple of things that I think make it more clear. But point being, he was very careful, he wouldn't have said anything that would have alluded to what you said,

Mimi, you can, you can perhaps take some writing between the lines, perhaps.

It's a weird stance, that's for sure. But y 'all should listen to that debate, because it has a lot to do with a lot of the points that dad just made in why our brothers and sisters in this church age are thrown off by not only prophecies of sacrifices coming back to the

Millennial Kingdom, but also the significance of things like the Passover Feast. And the, the doing things that were not either removed or tainted by the

Catholic Church in early in the in Christian history. There's always cherry picking.

Yes, sure.

Rather than take the time to find out what God is saying in His words, pick and choose what makes sense to us.

And if it doesn't make sense to us, wait for it to be written. Or cling on to traditions that come from people we deem authoritative, and just, we just put, put the responsibility on them.

Well, they said this is how it should be doing it, or how we should do it, so we're going to do it. That can be kind of a scapegoat as well for a lot of things, but really interesting stuff.

Let's see, I think I have a little under 10 minutes to get a little bit further here. In fact, we, yeah, a little bit further.

But that was up on rabbit trail there. It's an important topic in this day, because the Old Testament is attacked, even within Christian denominations.

Not attacked. It is, it is, I don't know, disregarded, perhaps, because they feel that it hurts their defense of their faith.

Because the Old Testament has some weird stuff, some bizarre stories, some questionable, you know, ethical things.

But think about it, that is through the lens of the liberal sources that they have attacking the things.

We looked at a passage of Deuteronomy not that long ago that is talking about, you know, God commanding certain people to be stoned for certain acts.

But if you look at the context, if you look at the stuff, it is clear as to why He is invoking capital punishment on these people.

These people were trying to do some very bad things that would have hurt God's own people.

And so, if you're not looking at the context and you just take the word of these attackers of the

Bible as a whole, not just the Old Testament, but the whole Bible, and try to use the Old Testament as a way to really get us off of our footing, and being like, well, that is problematic.

Well, what do you do? You start trying to unhitch the Old Testament from our faith so that it's a, quote -unquote, easier fight against these attackers.

In reality, what they'll find is it's just as hard, if not harder, because what they forget is that the Bible is its own defense, number one.

And number two, if you are not arguing from the power of the word, this is one thing I've always,

I mean, Dad is like this as well, but John MacArthur on national stages like Larry King, he'll be on a panel.

This is years, decades ago, he hasn't done this in forever, but he used to be on Larry King all the time. He was a regular as the evangelist on a panel of maybe an atheist and a

Muslim and other, or charismatics in some cases. And he always just brought, he didn't try to sound philosophical, he just brought the word into it.

And he would be asked in Q &As later, like, you know, do you ever worry that that is going to just make people think you're just a

Bible zealot? Or, you know, like you, I forgot how they phrased it, but, you know, like the concern that these people have that they won't be able to adequately defend it because of the problematic things in the

Old Testament or whatever. And his point is, if you're not coming at it from the Bible, if you're not using the Bible as a refutation, as an argument, as an answer to these things being brought forth, there's zero power in what you're saying anyway.

So you might as well use the Bible, including the Old Testament, because whether they hear what you're saying or not, if it falls on deaf ears, that's not your responsibility.

It's the work of the Holy Spirit as to whether or not their ears will be open. So don't go into it with a powerless, non -authoritative place of trying to be philosophical and wiggle your way around some of the things in the

Old Testament in order to do it. And so the premise of unhitching the Old Testament is built on this quasi -apologetic approach of trying to convince atheists that actually you can, you know, this all makes sense.

It's really weird. Yeah, it's more tasteful.

You're going to have a hard time trying to make the true Jesus of the Bible tasteful, well, to any generation, but especially this one.

It's all about subjective morality. They're changing their own definitions on a weekly, yearly, monthly basis anyway.

So what are you going to try to change your approach to how you present the Bible on a monthly basis as well to fit their current needs as to what they want to hear?

You can't do it. It's just going to be an endless rabbit trail, and you're going to waste your life doing it, and there'll be no power or authority behind it either.

Well, again, you have

His power. You have the countless prophecies that are what gave the New Testament its power, them being fulfilled, of course.

And you also have the end samples that Dad mentioned earlier from which we,

I'll use the same terminology in reverse, that we should be hitching our faith to those end samples, tethering, if you will, our faith to those things.

And Paul even told us that we should do that because it is the ultimate foundation to everything the

New Testament is built upon, all of the works of Jesus. Jesus doesn't supersede

Himself. Jesus isn't going to give us the New Testament as a way to supersede

His own words in the Old Testament. It's there to be a cohesive one because He doesn't contradict

Himself. He is immutable. That includes His word. It's all meant to be a cohesive one.

As I've said many times, yes, He treats His people differently in certain periods of time, certain dispensations, if you want to put it that.

Obviously, His relationship to man is different post the Garden of Eden than it was in the

Garden of Eden. His relationship to man was different before the flood than it was after.

Before the law, after. During the law, now in the church age. He treats

His people differently through time, but He Himself, in His word, certainly is immutable.

That's what we're referencing when we talk about the characteristic of His immutability. Great stuff there, for sure.

Well, I only have a couple minutes left, so I'll probably just go ahead and end it there. And we'll pick it right back up here next week.

We didn't get even close to some of the stuff I was really excited to get into. Just the sequence of these verses in Malachi from verses 2 through 5.

A lot takes place in those few verses. And let's see, we got through verse 4 here.

We'll start at verse 5 next week. But a lot happens in those verses.

And the sequence of events that takes place in these verses that we're reading about is really interesting in light of parallel passages in the

Old Testament that we have, as well as some words of Paul that he gave us later in Romans in regard to the salvation of his people.

We're going to get into all that next week, so we'll end it here for now. Where are we leaving off here?

Okay, start here. Alrighty, guys. Do you all have anything else you'd like to share before we close?

Any other comments? Appreciate all the comments today.

This has been fun. And I'm looking forward to moving through it here. Keep in mind, these verses that we're in are part of a parenthetical.

Yeah, go ahead, Dan. Of course.

Well, okay, think about that doctrine for a second. This is a great point. One of the doctrines that almost any denomination despises because it is putting a mirror in front of their own humanity, that is the doctrine of total depravity, and without the

Old Testament. Now, I almost hate making these types of arguments because it makes it sound like I'm saying the

New Testament doesn't cover the doctrine of depravity. It sure does, but it is based on the detailed, explicit stories of how depraved we are all throughout the

Old Testament. And so the doctrine is talked about in the New Testament, but it is fleshed out in vivid color, as Dad would put it, in the

Old Testament, all throughout the Old Testament. Think about the book of Malachi we're looking at right now and what these people were doing and what the priests were doing.

So, yes, they want to unhitch because maybe it will remove the doctrine of depravity, as someone put it.

They also mentioned the six days of creation, the creation story. Of course, that's been attacked for a long time.

I mean, there are such wonderful creation scientists out there that can have a field day.

And I have heard it in debates against evolutionists that tried to make fun of the idea of a six -day creation and on.

And even many Christian denominations believe that the six -day creation is ridiculous, gap theory, day -age theory.

That's where those things come in. But, yeah, there's a lot of reasons why they may want to unhitch the Old Testament. Go ahead,

Dad. Oh, yeah.

And that's one of the ones I'm referring to. It's not my favorite, but it's a great organization.

There's the Institute of Creation Research. That's awesome. There is

Dr. Baugh's Creation Evidence Museum and all of his scholarly work there.

And he's not alone, by the way. We talk about Dr. Baugh a lot. He has an unbelievable team of fellow scientists and Ph .D.

physicists and you name it that have been on his research team since the 80s. You have them. But, yes,

Ancient Genesis is a great one. And I appreciate Ken Ham. He has been one of the few that have debated creation versus evolution from a young -Earth perspective.

Because there's a lot of creationists that will argue, again, the day -age theory or the gap theory and agree that it is millions or billions of years old.

But God was the source. I appreciate his work in defending young -Earth creationism.

So that is a wonderful source. Severinos, I 100 % agree there as well. Great stuff, guys.

Well, let's go ahead and dismiss. And we will move on to the next service. Heavenly Father, thank you so much for this wonderful day.

Thank you for your word and everything that we can pull from it. And the inerrancy within the consistency across every book, every passage, chapter, verse, throughout both testaments,

Lord. We thank you so much for the power that you exhibit through your word.

But also so much of what you reveal to us through it all so that we can know you.

So we can know you, know your word, and know your marvelous works across all dispensations, to Mimi's point, as well as having a relationship with you,

Lord. We thank you for this fellowship, of course, bringing us together once again for this church family.