Malachi 1:6-14 Rebuke 2, Part 1 The Priests have despised the name of the Lord

The second section of Malachi is a rebuke concerning the Priests despising the Lord’s name. Malachi addresses the priests directly (Malachi 1:6, Malachi 2:1), as they fail to honor him in allowing unclean offerings to be made (Malachi 1:6-14) and by failing their role as messengers of the Lord (Malachi 2:1-9).

Malachi 1:6-14 By bringing defiled sacrifices

Malachi 1:6-8 Second verbal exchange

In order to express the first rebuke against the priests for permitting unclean sacrifices, Malachi begins with the longer form of the verbal exchange discussed in 1.2.1. The statement of rebuke deals with the priests having despised the name of the Lord. This statement begins first with the general statement with an ellipses that as “a son honors (יְכַבֵּד imperfect) his father, and a servant his master”. The imperfect is used with יְכַבֵּד to express an action that is customary.^[1] Honoring parents was generally assumed as right by the people of Israel, as it is part of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:12, Deut. 5:16) and the punishment for disobedience was death (Deut. 21:18-21). ^[2] Appealing to this general knowledge, and reminding the people that the Lord is both a father and a servant, we can imply easily that honor is due to the Lord. The prophet then uses two rhetorical questions in a row to create a dramatic effect. These questions involve the audience directly and create a tension that requires a resolution.[3] The prophet only reveals at the end of the verse who he is addressing this next rebuke, the priests. By placing those targeted by this rebuke at the end, we have an element of surprise. People would not expect the priests to be the ones who dishonor the Lord.^[4]

There is an objection to the statement (Malachi 1:6), and it is then defended (Malachi 1:7-8). The Lord mentions their unworthy offerings that would not even bit fit for an earthly governor.[5] The Lord appeals to the polluted food (לֶחֶם)^[6] that they brought to his altar. Malachi is admonishing them based on the instruction on defective sacrifices from Leviticus 22:17-30.^[7]

By their words, we see that the priests do not know that think they have done anything wrong. They do not see the connection between the altar and the Lord. The altar is connected to the Lord by being his table. Despising the table, is despising to the Lord. The priests have despised his name because they have brought blind sacrifices, to which the priests answer: “there is no evil”, and they are admonished for bringing lame and sick offering to which they also respond: “there is no evil”. The Lord tells them that their sacrifices would not even be worthy of an earthly governor, who would not be pleased with them. הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ  literally means « will he lift up your face » it is figurative for being gracious or showing favor.^[8]

Malachi 1:9-11 Call to repent, and to stop the sacrifices

Malachi urges the priests to repent, and appease the face of the Lord (Malachi 1:9). They can cease these offerings, closing the doors, and no longer burning offerings. They are pointless, as they are of no delight to the Lord (Malachi 1:10). Worthy offerings are being brought to the Lord in all places (Malachi 1:11). גָּדוֹל שְׁמִי בַּגּוֹיִם the Lord’s name is great among the nations. Contextually we see that it was a Pagan king, Cyrus who was the one to command the rebuilding of the temple. Mentioning the other nations helps gives strength to the rebuke, maybe similarly to Romans 11:11, 14 to purpose could be to motivate the Jews to change.

Concluding the rebuke of the sacrifices

In verse 1:12-13 similar ideas to Malachi 1:7-8 are repeated. The priests are saying that the table of the Lord is despised, because unlawful offerings are being brought to the Lord. Malachi ends the talks concerning the sacrifices with a warning of a curse. The Lord will curse the one being deceitful, who has a worthy animals to offer in his flock (זָכָר)^[9] but is vowing and slaughtering the spoilt to the Lord. The offerings are unworthy, because the Lord is a great king among the nations as we have already seen in Malachi 1:5.

---

^[1] Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 315.

^[2]John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), 1577.

[3] Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry , (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1986) 341.

^[4] David J. Clark and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on Malachi, UBS handbook series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2002), 380.

[5] There were no governors before the exile so this word is key to dating the text, after the exile.  

^[6]Meaning food in general. The use of food to talk about an offering also used in Leviticus 21:6.  Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 537.

^[7]Walvoord, Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary,1577.

^[8]Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 669.

^[9] זָכָר just means male but when it refers to animals, it if often for sacrifices Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 271.

Malachi 1:2-5 Rebuke 1: A Failure to recognize God’s love.

In this first section we have the first rebuke against the people of Israel who have failed to see that God loves them. It begins with the first verbal exchange. It takes the shorter form (discussed in 1.2.1). Malachi begins with a statement: “I have loved you” (Malachi 1:2a) and it is followed by an objection, the people are presumably not seeing how it is that God is loving them (Malachi 1:2b). This is followed by a defense of the first statement (Malachi 1:2c-4), and the section concludes with the appropriate response to God’s love (Malachi 2:5).

Malachi 1:2-4 Defense: You can see that I love you by how I hated Esau

To show that the Lord loves Jacob, the focus is brought to Esau. The Lord makes the following statement: “I have loved Jacob and Esau I have hated.” In his sovereignty God has chosen Jacob over Esau (Genesis 25:23). Verses 3 and 4 develop the theme of God’s rejection of Esau, which is recurrent in the Prophets (Isa 11:14; 34:5–6; Jer. 49:7–22; Eze. 25:12–14; 35:15; Joel. 3:19; Am. 1:11; and all of Obadiah).[1]

Concerning God’s hatred, Targum Jonathan translates it with רַחֵיקִית to be distant. This takes it to mean God’s hatred is a form of neglect. It is difficult to take it this way when the following verses describe the Lord opposing Esau. God’s hatred is manifested with the wayyiqtols which show a sequence in the events that follow.[2] First וָאָשִׂים אֶת־הָרָיו הָרָיו שְׁמָמָה the Lord is saying “I will place his mountains desolation”. It should probably be understood “for desolation” but a word is missing, which could be a sign of poetry. Secondly וְאֶת־נַחֲלָתוֹ לְתַנּוֹת מִדְבָּר “his inheritance to jackals wilderness”, again we have the omission of some words that would likely be present in prose. These expressions are hard to understand and we find textual variants because of the difficulty in comprehension. The Vulgate translates לְתַנּוֹת as dragon or serpent because they took a different root: תַּנִּין , the Septuagint has “gift”, taking the root נָתַן. It is not that they have different vorlage but rather it is a mistake in the translation. The Targum goes further in its interpretation. It seeks to explain the figures of speech, interpreting “to the jackals of the wilderness” with “desolation of the wilderness” it is clear that the place described is not habited if there are wild beasts.

Verse 4 continues with what it looks like for the Lord to hate Esau. Edom says רֻשַּׁשְׁנוּ “we are beaten down”, וְנָשׁוּב וְנִבְנֶה חֳרָבוֹת but they are determined: “and we will return and we will build ruins” again the article is missing but it should be “the ruins”. In response, the Lord says: הֵמָּה יִבְנוּ וַאֲנִי אֶהֱרוֹס they are building, which has an ongoing aspect marked by the imperfect יִבְנוּ, and God is tearing down also has an ongoing sense, so as much as Edom builds, the Lord is tearing down.[3] We see that God’s goes beyond him being distant, as he is in the process of actively destroying. God’s hatred of Edom is visible to the nations. First וְקָרְאוּ לָהֶם גְּבוּל רִשְׁעָה literally “they will call them border of wickedness. The verb “to call” is active and plural, maybe referring to other people groups as this verse deals at a “people” level. The people will be called אֲשֶׁר־זָעַם יְהוָה עַד־עוֹלָם which translates "whom the Lord is indignant forever.”

Malachi 1:5 Israel will respond positively and God will be praised.

There was a change from the second person to the third to talk about what it meant for God to love Israel. The Lord talked about his hatred for Esau in the third person. Now, in this final component, the prophet returns to the second person. In response to God’s work against Esau, Israel will see and will say: “the Lord is great beyond the border of Israel” יִגְדַּל is in the imperfect that it is not referring to something complete,[4] the statement is a response to what Israel sees outsides its borders, the Lord in his actions against Edom shows himself to be great outside the borders of Israel. This is a significant statement when we deal with groups of people worshipping local deities, the Lord is Lord of all things, and not limited to one place, the worship given to the Lord is greater than what one nation can give as it is beyond the borders of Israel.




[1] Alden, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets, 709–710.


[2]Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2006), 326.


[3] Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 313.


[4] Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 313.

Malachi 1:1 Prescript

Malachi opens with an introductory verse, identifying this writing as an oracle “מַשָּׂא” by the hand “בְּיַד” the messenger of the Lord “מַלְאָכִי” (Malachi). In this first verse I want to highlight some hints about the kind of message that is going to be presented and some information on the author. First, מַשָּׂא expresses the idea for an utterance or oracle but this word also derives from נָשָׂא which means to lift or carry.[1] Figuratively, the oracle of the Lord is a heavy load, or burden, through the weightiness of the message to be delivered.[2] This weight of the message is felt in the six rebukes that are to come. Concerning the author, this message is בְּיַד, meaning “by the hand” which could mean that it has been written by the hand of מַלְאָכִי the Lord’s messenger. In the Vulgate the Hebrew for “my messenger” is translated as a proper name: “Malachi”. This change has been kept in translations that have followed. Earlier that the Vulgate, the Septuagint translated it ἀγγέλου αὐτου̂ (his messenger), and Targum Jonathan דיתקרי שמיה עזרא ספרא (my messenger, is called Ezra, the scribe). It would fit that both Ezra and Malachi be the same person given the common themes that are to come in Malachi and those found in the period of Ezra and Nehemiah.




[1] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 669.


[2] Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 672.

Malachi - An Introduction

Background and Theme of Malachi

The Lord elected Israel out of all the people and made a covenant with them. According to this covenant, he would be their God and they would be his people and live according to his ways. The people of Israel were warned about being taken into exile by foreign nations if they did not obey the Lord, and this was the case, but this is not the end. The people of Israel are brought back into their land, but the heart of man has not changed. The writing of Malachi is a series of six rebukes against the people of Israel in the post-exilic era.

Methodoloxy

The study of the text of Malachi for this paper is done with the three standard, scholarly tools Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. The study of the biblical text has helped to identify the main theme of the writing, and the different sections that it is made up of.

The text will be studied section by section, on the level of individual clauses. The poetic and prophetic genres will be taken into account. The meaning of the clauses will be taken in the greater context of the section, the writing of Malachi, the book of The Twelve, the Prophets and the Old Testament canon. To complement my study with the three standard tools cited above, my main source for information are the lectures of Dr. Jordan Scheetz,[1] various commentaries, and other early witnessed to a pre-Masoretic text.

---

[1] Jordan Scheetz, Hebrew Poetry (Class lecture, Tyndale, Badhoevedorp, Fall 2014).

The Different Sections

Opinions differ on the outline of Malachi. We can assume the author did not start writing with an outline.[1] Malachi brings rebuke after rebuke, so apart from dealing with the the prescript (1:1) and epilogue (3:22-24) separately, I am dividing the body of the writing by topic of rebuke. The first section is about Israel’s failure to see that the Lord loves them (Malachi 1:2-5). In the second section, the priests are being rebuked because they are despising the Lord (1:6-2:9). This section is larger than the other sections. Some have argued that it should be split in two (1:6-17, 2:1-9) and this is not a problem because Malachi 1:6-17 does have a specific flow with the repetition of seven repetition of “אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת”[2] which is not found in Malachi 2:1-9. There is also a different emphasis on how the Priest are despising the Lord, first, because of their polluted offerings, and then because of their failure as ministers of God’s word. I am keeping these two sections together because they are both addressed to the same people, the priests, and deal with them despising the Lord. The third section is a rebuke of the people’s treacherous acts (2:10-16). The fourth is about the coming of the Lord, rebuking them for doubting that the Lord is just (2:17-3:5). The fifth section contains a rebuke concerning tithing (3:6-12). The final and sixth section contains a rebuke similar to fourth one. The people are being rebuked for doubting that God deals rightly with the righteous and the wicked (3:13-22).

As well as being separated by theme, every section contains a verbal exchange, which introduce every section except the third one. The verbal exchanges take a smaller form in sections 1, 3, 4 and 6, and a longer form in section 2 and 5. The shorter form is made up of an introductory statement by the Lord, followed by the people’s objection and the Lord’s second statement. The longer form has an extra objection and the Lord gives a third statement.[3]

---

^[1] Robert L. Alden, “Malachi,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 708.

^[2] David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis–Malachi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 322.

^[3] Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 321.

 

Poetic Prophecy

There are different reasons why God would communicate to us through poetry. Robert Alter makes the point that “poetry is our best human model of intricately rich communication, not only solemn weighty and forceful but also densely woven with complex internal connections, meanings and implications” so it would make sense that poetry would be used for divine speech.[1] Ray Lubeck mentions the more personal aspect of speaking through poetry. It is effective to touch us and move us. Poetry is denser with its concepts and forces us to slow down. Rather than making arguments it creates mental images and experiences that we would have new perceptions.[2]

The kind of prophecy that we find in the prophets is different from that of the Psalms. It is not characterized by the strong rhythmic and compact style that is found in the Psalms.[3] One of the strong distinctive between Prophetic and other kinds of Biblical Poetry is its powerful vocative character. It is a direct address to a real historical audience.[4] Poetry uses different literary devices such as parallelism, and figures of speech such as similes, ellipses, and metaphors. Understanding these devices will also help in our understanding of the text. Given the poetic nature, we cannot take everything literally.

---

[1] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2011), 176.

[2] Ray Lubeck, Read the Bible for a Change: Understanding and Responding to God's Word (Federal Way, Washington: World Vision 2005), 122-23.

[3] Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 171.

[4] Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 174.

Malachi in the Bible as a Whole

Malachi has a very special place in the Bible, and for such a small writing, it has and important disproportionate influence on the New Testament.

The Hebrew Bible is made up of three sections: The Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Along with Rendtorff, I will not be talking about the “book” of Malachi, but one of the twelve writings that make up the book of “The Twelve”.[1] The writing of Malachi is placed in a very special place in the Canon. It is placed at the end of the book of The Twelve, which is at the end of the Prophets which is the second part of the Hebrew Bible. Malachi finds its place in The Twelve showing continuity with the theme of the Day of the Lord in Zechariah, the writing just preceding it, but also echoing themes from Hosea marriage and infidelity to create an inclusio in The Twelve. At the end of Malachi we also find an inclusio with the beginning of the Prophets in Joshua 1:7, with the emphasis on keeping the Law of Moses. The ends of Malachi 3 and Deuteronomy 34 hold key positions, connecting the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, together. The theme of the separation of the righteous from the wicked which is the main point of the first Psalm echoes well one of the themes of Malachi, in the chapter that follows it in the Canonical order of the Hebrew Bible. We can see that the Bible is carefully put together.

Malachi has a disproportionate influence on the New Testament. It is only made up of three chapters, but the references to it in the gospel are very significant when it comes to John the Baptist’s ministry, but also in the letter to the Romans, when Paul writes about God’s unchangeable election, he quotes Malachi.

Malachi in The Twelve

The Twelve is made up of twelve distinct writings written from as early as the middle of the eight century in the pre-exilic period to the time of the return and the restoration at the end of the sixth century.[2] The first six writings focus on Israel and the nation's sin, the next three emphasize the punishment of sin on the Day of the Lord, and the last three talks about the restoration of Israel and their neighbors.[3] The Twelve are connected to each other through the themes they present, but also they each have personal qualities, adding their own individual contribution to the book as a whole. The most important theme in the Twelve is “the Day of the Lord”. It is talked about in different ways and the prophets help understand what it means, how Israel and the other nations are concerned, what they must do, how God will respond to their attitudes. At the end of The Twelve, the problems of the reconstruction and consolidation of the community after the exile are addressed, along with how they must live as God’s people until the “Day of the Lord”. The rules are the same as before, so the last books of The Twelve connect how our eschatological hope affects our life in the “here and now.”[4]

Malachi fits in the last group of three writings, relating more to the theme of the restored people of God. Zechariah had a strong emphasis on the end times, while Malachi is dealing in his present time with how people are to live then. The writing is a conversation between the Lord’s messenger (Malachi) and his contemporaries. The problems are clearly those of the post-exilic community: the new built temple, foreign nations.[5] The writing deals with the current struggles and sins the nation is dealing with, also seen in Ezra/Nehemiah.




[1] Rolff Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2005), 264.


[2] Rolff Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2005), 264.


[3] House, Paul R.; Mitchell, Eric, Old Testament Survey (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2007), 232.


[4] Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible, 313-14.


[5] Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible, 309.

The Tough Doctrine of Election!

A friend sent me a message, asking for my opinion about Calvinism, the idea that God chose some to be saved, and other he did not chose. This was my reply: 

Yo Broo !

Soo Calvinism… Yeah, it’s the big question about God sovereignty vs our freewill. And we have to acknowledge God is sovereign, and we have free will! How do the two work together? Nobody really knows.

So if you remember Joseph’s story in Genesis 37-50, his brothers try to kill him, then they sell him, in slavery, and at the end, Joseph acknowledges that it was God, who had sent him to Egypt in order to save his family (Gen 50:20). So in a mysterious way, the people were free to do what they wanted the whole time, and God was still entirely sovereign!

I see it this way for salvation as well. There is a dilemma, and no one can really solve it! But extremes are dangerous. The Bible teaches that all those who are saved, were chosen before they were born. But for everyone who is alive, we know that all those who believe will be saved! So who was chosen? God knows! Who can believe? Everyone is invited to believe! Extremes say: because God has already chosen, there is no point in telling people about Jesus! (extreme Calvinism), or the other side, I am better than those who are not saved, because I made the right decision! They should have known better!

So I would say: what Calvin holds is in scripture! (John 6:44, Mat 11:27, Ephesians 1:3-6, Romans 9:11-23). But you cannot forget all the verses that seem to leave it open for everyone who believes to be saved! (Romans 10:9,13, Acts 2:38, John 5:24).

When people say: “it is not fair God chose some and not others.” I think what is not fair is that God, chooses to save any at all, since we are all sinners! Grace: getting something you do not deserve.

My big conclusion is: there is a tension in scripture. We need to keep the tension in our theology! (This topic has probably been the one that I’ve struggled with most along the years). Hope this helps! Let me know if you want more! (but sorry if you wanted a smaller answer!)

Matthew 6:25-34

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? 28And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.  34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

I am going to preach on this text in two days. I am briefly going to describe the process of going around it.

Finding the big idea

The first time was finding the main idea. For this you need to see what the text is talking about. Then you find the complement: what are you saying about the subject.

The subject is: Why you should not be anxious. The complement: Because it reflects your little faith, because God's provision is visible, and because anxiety makes no sense.

The main idea of the text is the subject + the complements. We cannot be anxious because once we choose to follow God, anxiety reveals our little faith, we cannot be anxious because we see God's provisional care in the world,
BeOutline

The classic way to go, is to start with an introduction, then have a body with three main points, and a conclusion with an application. 

Introduction

I like the idea of identifying the main idea with me, trying to connect it with the hearers and then showing that this is something that we must all be concerned about as a community.

In order to do this I will begin with a story, of what my thoughts were about the implications of the Christian faith on how they ought to live. I believed with such a system of beliefs, there was no way they could ever be anxious. Now that I am a Christian, I see that this is far from what I experience. 

Anxiety is part of life, in my own life, I will share some example, and also part of the audience's life, and in is something that we can address as a community, we must be aware of what the Bible says in order to find comfort for ourselves, and in order to comfort others!

I want to read the text, and give the big idea in this text. I am going to point out that the main idea is repeated three times in the text: "Do not be anxious" What I am going to show in this text is that God wants us to make him our priority, we do not need to worry, because worrying makes no sense, if we serve God, our life will not be characterized by anxiety, and we cannot be anxious because God's provisional care is just obvious to us. 

I want to define anxiety - say what it is not, say what it is.

I am going to argue that anxiety here refers to even anxiety about the most basic things, which means that it must extend to all kinds of anxiety.  

Body with my three main points: Why can't I be anxious?

Because if we serve God we cannot be anxious!

25: begins with therefore! So we must look to the previous verses, and the conclusion is that if someone is storing up their treasure in heaven, and not playing a game of trying to serve two masters, they logically will not be anxious. Because they have their mind set on the right things! Which follows later on when Jesus calls those who are anxious "oh you of little faith" in verse 30, and then follows in verses 31-32 by comparing those who are anxious with non-believers. If we serve God out lives are to look different than those who live without God!

Because God's visible provisional Care!

The second argument for not being anxious, is just looking at the reality of how God provides, three elements are given: our own body and life, God has provided which is more important that the other things we normally seek, and then we can look to the birds of the sky, and the flowers of the field. One one hand, we see that we are worth more than birds, remembering our value, our identity in Christ is crucial when we are anxious. If we want to know our value, one way is to look at what someone is willing to pay for something! God gave us his only son! Concerning the flowers who are here today and gone tomorrow, in seeing how God cares for such a transitional area of creation, How Much More Will he Care for us!

Because anxiety does not make sense for anybody!

The third kind of reasons i think are just logical! You do not have to be a Christian to be convinced by these reasons that you should not be anxious. Verse 25: remember what is more important food or life? We we are anxious, it is because we want a better life. If we have food, we believe we will have a better life! If we are anxious about it, though it is the better life that we seek, remember an anxious life makes it worse. Life is more important than food! If you do not have food, remember do not mess up your Life which is more important by being anxious! Second logical reason - Look at verse 27 - who has ever added any time time their life by being anxious? I am going  to give examples to illustrate - stress about preaching this, about Hebrew quizzes, or worrying has never added any money in the bank. Thirdly we have verse 34 - Let tomorrow worry about tomorrow! There is enough to deal with today. I've been worried about this day, and I knew the day would come and it wouldn't even be a big deal! When we worry about the future my experience tells me that nothing ever happens as I think, and most of the time their is nothing I can do to change those things anyway, so there is no point at all!

Conclusion and Application

Do not be anxious, but trust God, because that is how those who trust God live, just look at God's provisional care all around you, and how meaningless is anxiety anyway!

The text states the same negative command three times: "Do not be anxious", to apply this passage I want to use the positive command found in the text - for those who are anxious - Seek First the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be added on to you"

That is nonesensical, from Julian Bacon telling you this - but remember who is speaking - I was reading about Jesus treatment before his crucifixion, and it occured to me that have gone through what he did, and being who he is, listen to Him! "Seek my Kingdom, and My Righteousness! and I will take care of you" We do this by remember what Jesus has done for us, we seek to know him more, be changed by him, and preach is Good news to others!

My Thoughts on the death penalty

This evening I was talking with one of my professors in his office and for some reason we started talking about the death penalty, because it was related in a vague way to our topic of conversation (Jurgen Moltmann and his Doctrine of God!). He then asked me what my position was, and I thought I would write this, because he was surprised at my position coming from a European. 

In Theory I am in favor of the death penalty

I am careful in saying that I am only for the death penalty in theory. I believe that it is the lowest form of logic. If I take an innocent man's life from him, someone ought to take my life from me. What argument would I be able to give? 

Man is created in the image of God

When we talk death penalty, we must look at Genesis 9:

“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind."

 The death penalty is often seen as savage or barbaric. This might sound counter-intuitive, but the reason I read in Genesis, is that God created man in his image. This is what gives man his value. God therefore cares so much about man. The punishment for destroying such a valuable being must fit the crime. The more God cares about man the higher the sentence. Man is priceless, the murder of an innocent man then must demand for the highest kind of punishment. Death.

What is justice

Take this scenario. Someone just bought a piece of cake. They are about to take their first bite and I decide to purposefully bump into them to make that cake fall. The minimum required for justice to be served is that I would have to compensate the person, to make things right. This would be done when I put a new piece of cake in their hand. A piece of cake for a piece of cake. Sounds pretty logical no? When my professor asked me why I supported the death penalty, I told him, the for me it was a mathematical issue. One life equals one life!

If it is mercy, don't call it justice

I believe that if I kill someone, I will deserve to die. If the judge decides to sentence me to 5 years in prison instead. I will be thrilled! But I would maintain that it is not justice, but rather, mercy! Mercy is not getting what you deserve.

Justice is only mercy in the Gospel

When someone does something wrong, you have a choice. Either you give them what they deserve, or you chose not to. Justice is giving someone what they deserve. Mercy is not giving them what they deserve, so by definition, we can never have both at the same time. Yet, watch this. because God is the ultimate judge of the universe, and he sent his Son Jesus, who lived a perfect life, to give his life for our lives. The ultimate judge paid to satisfy our judgment. God can be just and forgive us. 

What kind of message are you giving?

What kind of message are you giving the world when you go for a lesser sentence than the death penalty. Say I murdered someone, and am given 5 years. If we call this justice, then are we not saying that the life of the person who died is worth 5 years in prison? I would say that this is ridiculous, and nonsensical.

Can I take this theoretical stance on such a practical topic

 In practice, I see a few issues with the death penalty. First, and this is enough not to ever risk it, is that there is a risk of killing innocent people. Second, I do not view executing someone murder, I think it is different, but I do not yet see myself as executing someone, and so saying that I want someone else to do it for me is a bit hypocritical (but that could be said about us westerners who eat meat without having ever killed an animal before!!). Thirdly, the procedure in the US takes years a too much money, life in prison is a lot cheaper.

Keep them alive so they have more time to believe in Jesus?

I think - yes and no. On one hand sure why not! But on the other, I feel like being on death row, and actually demonstrating God's justice for their terrible crime is just as much gospel. Probably way more than showing mercy to one who is unrepentant. If he is repentant of his sins, showing mercy is pointless. Keeping them on death row might be what saves them, as God's justice is demonstrated, death was necessary to pay for the crime of all our sins, Jesus had to die. His murder will only be paid for in the eyes of the state when the person is killed. 

Death penalty is not an alternative to forgiveness

The Bible is clear that if we do not forgive others, our Father in heaven will not forgive us. I believe that we must forgive no matter what the crime. I am stating that as a fact, I would not go up to people who have gone through something big and tell them they must forgive straight away. But it is what is expected. Un-forgiveness has severe implications on how the forgiveness of Christ is viewed in our lives. If we do not forgive, we think that in some way what was done to us is worse than the sin Christ died for in our life. Christ forgives all, who would we be to hold something against someone, like we would be more important, or more righteous than Christ?

Why my opinion does does really matter!

I don't ever intend to be part of the government. I probably would not vote for death penalty. Also, this is all very theoretical for me. I do not know any murderers, and myself do not know anyone who was murdered, so it is not really a personal topic to me. I still hold everything I have written as true :)