Answering questions from Johnathan regarding the angel of the Lord.

[En Hakkore]

John the baptist prepared the way before the LORD's arrival, even the arrival of Jesus Christ and not a renewal of the Mosaic covenant. Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi. The context you are using in Malachi 2:4-8 only applies to the Mosaic covenant and does not apply to the new covenant that Lord Jesus purchased with his own blood. Therefore Jesus is messenger #2, imo.

Your opinion is duly noted, but you are actually arguing in a circle... assuming reference to some new and future covenant and reading this back into the Malachi text where none is referenced. A renewed emphasis on the Mosaic covenant is the job of the forerunner and Luke does, in fact, craft John's preaching in loose conformity with stipulations drawn from the Mosaic law as specifically presented in the Malachi text (compare Luke 3:10-14, 19 with Mal 3:5). While Jesus is not, in Luke's estimation, the priestly messenger of the Malachi text, it should be noted he does imply Levite lineage on his maternal side by referring to Mary, through the angel who appears to her, as a blood relative of Elizabeth, who was earlier stated to be a descendent of Aaron (Luke 1:5, 36)... Luke thus merges the expectations of a priestly messiah and a royal messiah into the single figure of Jesus, the latter established through Joseph's marriage to his mother (1:27, 32; 3:23, 31).

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

I wouldn't interpret that that the Messenger is necessarily a Levitical priest. Seems like a stretch.

The author of the text could not be more clear on this matter:

Know, then, that I have sent his command to you, that my covenant with Levi may hold, says the LORD of Hosts. My covenant with him was a covenant of life and well-being, which I gave him; this called for reverence, and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in integrity and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of Hosts. But you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by your instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the LORD of Hosts. (Mal 2:4-8)

See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight -- indeed, he is coming, says the LORD of Hosts. (Mal 3:1)

A Levitical priest is explicitly said to be "the messenger of the LORD of Hosts" at 2:7 and the messenger of 3:1 belongs to this same speaking subject, "the LORD of Hosts" --- he is further connected to the covenant, which is contextually a covenant made with Levi as ideal priest (2:4, 8). What more could this author possibly say to convince you?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

Your opinion is duly noted, but you are actually arguing in a circle... assuming reference to some new and future covenant and reading this back into the Malachi text where none is referenced

I think I was conflating the two passages from Isa 40 and Mal 3:1.

I'm taking the interpretations of the Isaiah 40:3-5 from Matthew and Luke, who say that the messenger who is the voice in the wilderness that is preparing the way of the LORD, even a highway for our God is John the Baptist. John testifies of this himself and points to Jesus as the one for whom he is paving the way.

The Malachi text supports the Isaiah text as both speak of a messenger who will prepare the way of the LORD. Thus Jesus is the LORD, the long awaited Messiah, the one who brings a new covenant and the second messenger spoken of in Mal 3:1. This is how the authors of Matthew and Luke would have understood the prophetic words of Malachi 3:1. They were all waiting for the Messiah. Some thought that John might be the Messiah but John pointed to Jesus.

Is their hermeneutic wrong? I don't think so because the disciples were taught by Jesus himself. Jesus didn't renew the old Mosaic covenant but brought in a new covenant which was spoken of by Jeremiah in 31:31-34. Isa 40:1-11, Matt 3:1-3, Luke 2:68-79, Luke 3:2-17, John 1:19-34

I read that Malachi was contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah.

A renewed emphasis on the Mosaic covenant is the job of the forerunner and Luke does, in fact, craft John's preaching in loose conformity with stipulations drawn from the Mosaic law as specifically presented in the Malachi text (compare Luke 3:10-14, 19 with Mal 3:5).

John is from the tribe of Levi. But he was not trying to restore the Mosaic covenant although he did preach how right actions reflect a repentant heart. (As you noted-Luke 3:10-14, Mal 3:5 but he didn't preach the decalogue from Ex 34) The temple in Jerusalem had already been rebuilt. John came to lead the Israelites to repentance and introduce the Messiah. John 1:19-34, Matt 3:1-12

While Jesus is not, in Luke's estimation, the priestly messenger of the Malachi text, it should be noted he does imply Levite lineage on his maternal side by referring to Mary, through the angel who appears to her, as a blood relative of Elizabeth, who was earlier stated to be a descendent of Aaron (Luke 1:5, 36)... Luke thus merges the expectations of a priestly messiah and a royal messiah into the single figure of Jesus, the latter established through Joseph's marriage to his mother (1:27, 32; 3:23, 31).

I agree that Jesus is not the priestly messenger in Mal 3:1a. He is the divine messenger in Mal 3:1b who brings in a new covenant.

 

[Caroljeen]

nt

 

[Caroljeen]

See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight -- indeed, he is coming, says the LORD of Hosts. (Mal 3:1)

A Levitical priest is explicitly said to be "the messenger of the LORD of Hosts" at 2:7 and the messenger of 3:1 belongs to this same speaking subject, "the LORD of Hosts" --- he is further connected to the covenant, which is contextually a covenant made with Levi as ideal priest (2:4, 8). What more could this author possibly say to convince you?

More importantly how would Jesus's disciples understand these words?

 

[GeneZ]

I wouldn't interpret that that the Messenger is necessarily a Levitical priest. Seems like a stretch.

Yet.. keep in mind. John the Baptist was the son of the High Priest. John rejected his position as a Levitical priest.

 

[En Hakkore]

I'm taking the interpretations of the Isaiah 40:3-5 from Matthew and Luke, who say that the messenger who is the voice in the wilderness that is preparing the way of the LORD, even a highway for our God is John the Baptist.

All four gospel writers invoke Isa 40:3 (Luke alone extends the citation through verse 5) and apply this to John... we are agreed on this --- it adds nothing in support of the idea that Jesus is the "messenger of the covenant" in Malachi, which is the point of contention.

The Malachi text supports the Isaiah text. Thus Jesus is the LORD, the long awaited Messiah...

I read that Malachi was contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah.

I have no objection to a fifth century BCE date for Malachi, roughly contemporaneous with Ezra and Nehemiah... this would mean that the author had access, theoretically, to the Isaiah text (whether we date it to the time of the historical Isaiah or during the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BCE) --- as such, that the author has Isa 40:3 in mind and is supplementing it in accordance with his own rhetorical program is probable. A number of early Christian writers certainly made the connection based on shared phraseology and thus understand Jesus as the deity of both texts preceded by a messenger... again, this is not a point of contention.

the one who brings a new covenant and the second messenger spoken of in Mal 3:1. This is how the authors of Matthew and Luke would have understood the prophetic words of Malachi 3:1.

This is where we part company and you have no evidence whatsoever that the authors of Matthew and Luke understood the messenger of Mal 3:1b as (1) a distinct messenger from that of 3:1a and (2) Jesus. This is your interpretation, which has been foisted not only onto the source text, but now also onto the New Testament gospels.

Is their hermeneutic wrong?

The gospel authors are not beyond reproach and sometimes they present interpretations that have little to nothing to do with what their source texts are actually talking about... their use of the Malachi text and its surrounding context, however, is not one of those times --- the application of the priestly messenger persona to John does no violence to the original intent of the oracle. Indeed, Luke fashions his story about John to more closely conform with elements of the text... at the same time, he makes no effort whatsoever to link Jesus to the covenant messenger --- that he thinks this is thus purely speculation on your part.

I don't think so because the disciples were taught by Jesus himself.

This has nothing to do with the gospel texts, which are not written by any disciples taught by Jesus, but rather Christians of the second and third generations... have you made any progress on this subject, which we were discussing earlier in the year?

John is from the tribe of Levi. But he was not trying to restore the Mosaic covenant although he did preach how right actions reflect a repentant heart. (As you noted-Luke 3:10-14, Mal 3:5 but he didn't preach the decalogue from Ex 34) The temple in Jerusalem had already been rebuilt. John came to lead the Israelites to repentance and introduce the Messiah.

The Mosaic law is not confined to or reducible to just the Decalogue (whether that of Exodus 34 or that of Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5)... Luke presents a summary of John's preaching in conformity with the Malachi text, elements of which are clearly linked to the Mosaic covenant, and also states that "with many other exhortations, he proclaimed the good news to the people" (Luke 3:18) so we cannot claim to have anything close to a comprehensive accounting of John's preaching --- what is presented links him to the Mosaic covenant through Malachi and there is no other standard but this law by which the people are judged sinful and in need of repentance.

I agree that Jesus is not the priestly messenger in Mal 3:1a. He is the divine messenger in Mal 3:1b who brings in a new covenant.

We may have to agree to disagree... I stand by what I have already offered --- the context of Malachi makes it crystal clear who the messenger of 3:1b is (ie. the same as that of 3:1a, the priestly messenger of YHWH of Hosts) and what covenant is being referred to (ie. the covenant referred to multiple times in chapter 2 and connected with Levi, from whom Moses descended).

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

John the Baptist was the son of the High Priest.

John is said to be the son of a priest (Luke 1:5; 3:2), not the High Priest. The high priest at the time John seems to have been born (ie. late in Herod's reign in temporal proximity to Jesus' birth) would probably have been Simon son of Boethus.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[GeneZ]

John is said to be the son of a priest (Luke 1:5; 3:2), not the High Priest. The high priest at the time John seems to have been born (ie. late in Herod's reign in temporal proximity to Jesus' birth) would probably have been Simon son of Boethus.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Others do not agree.... https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/09/was-zechariah-father-of-john-baptist.html

Note the third paragraph.

 

[En Hakkore]

Others do not agree....

Note the third paragraph.

Please summarize whatever argument is made or even cut and paste the specific paragraph to which you refer seeing as you've properly documented where you're getting it from... I'm not here to dialogue with your links.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

All four gospel writers invoke Isa 40:3 (Luke alone extends the citation through verse 5) and apply this to John... we are agreed on this --- it adds nothing in support of the idea that Jesus is the "messenger of the covenant" in Malachi, which is the point of contention.

okay

I have no objection to a fifth century BCE date for Malachi, roughly contemporaneous with Ezra and Nehemiah... this would mean that the author had access, theoretically, to the Isaiah text (whether we date it to the time of the historical Isaiah or during the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BCE) --- as such, that the author has Isa 40:3 in mind and is supplementing it in accordance with his own rhetorical program is probable. A number of early Christian writers certainly made the connection based on shared phraseology and thus understand Jesus as the deity of both texts preceded by a messenger... again, this is not a point of contention.

Okay

This is where we part company and you have no evidence whatsoever that the authors of Matthew and Luke understood the messenger of Mal 3:1b as (1) a distinct messenger from that of 3:1a and (2) Jesus. This is your interpretation, which has been foisted not only onto the source text, but now also onto the New Testament gospels.

I agree. It is my interpretation of Malachi that there are two messengers. One who paves the way for the LORD by bringing his people to repentance because of the same terminology in Isa 40:3. The messenger in Mal 3:1b is the LORD, even the messenger of the covenant, to whom John to waiting to point out to the people. John points out Jesus after his baptism.

The gospel authors are not beyond reproach and sometimes they present interpretations that have little to nothing to do with what their source texts are actually talking about... their use of the Malachi text and its surrounding context, however, is not one of those times --- the application of the priestly messenger persona to John does no violence to the original intent of the oracle. Indeed, Luke fashions his story about John to more closely conform with elements of the text... at the same time, he makes no effort whatsoever to link Jesus to the covenant messenger --- that he thinks this is thus purely speculation on your part.

How do you know that Luke used the text from Malachi to influence what he wrote?
Are you sure that Luke wasn't thinking about what Jesus said at the last supper when he was writing the earlier portion of his gospel?
Luke 22:20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

This has nothing to do with the gospel texts, which are not written by any disciples taught by Jesus, but rather Christians of the second and third generations... have you made any progress on this subject, which we were discussing earlier in the year?

None beside what I had read at the time we were discussing this. I still think a traveling companion of Paul wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. I don't believe they were written by third generation Christians. It's a subject I still need to research.

The Mosaic law is not confined to or reducible to just the Decalogue (whether that of Exodus 34 or that of Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5)... Luke presents a summary of John's preaching in conformity with the Malachi text, elements of which are clearly linked to the Mosaic covenant, and also states that "with many other exhortations, he proclaimed the good news to the people" (Luke 3:18) so we cannot claim to have anything close to a comprehensive accounting of John's preaching --- what is presented links him to the Mosaic covenant through Malachi and there is no other standard but this law by which the people are judged sinful and in need of repentance.

Mal 3:1 definitely links to John the Baptist. Malachi had an emphasis on judgment for sin especially for the priest and John taught repentance and reconciliation to God or else judgment. The good news in Malachi is very limited. As for the Mosaic law, I agree with you.

We may have to agree to disagree... I stand by what I have already offered --- the context of Malachi makes it crystal clear who the messenger of 3:1b is (ie. the same as that of 3:1a, the priestly messenger of YHWH of Hosts) and what covenant is being referred to (ie. the covenant referred to multiple times in chapter 2 and connected with Levi, from whom Moses descended).

We will have to disagree. Maybe we will agree on the angel of the LORD.

 

[GeneZ]

Please summarize whatever argument is made or even cut and paste the specific paragraph to which you refer seeing as you've properly documented where you're getting it from... I'm not here to dialogue with your links.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I tried. I was not able to copy and paste, because of the page's type of format.

All you need is to look at the third paragraph down. It will show you how concerning John the Baptist's father, was the high priest, and why he was simply referred to as a priest.

https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/09/was-zechariah-father-of-john-baptist.html

 

[En Hakkore]

How do you know that Luke used the text from Malachi to influence what he wrote?

Luke 3:10-14 contains exchanges between John and three groups of people (the crowd, tax collectors, soldiers) that is without parallel in the other gospels... John's preaching includes imperatives to share clothing and food with those who have none (ie. the destitute) and for the tax collectors and soldiers not to overtax or extort money respectively, to be content with their wages. He also relocates to 3:19 reference to John's condemnation of Herod for his marriage to Herodias from where it appears later on in Mark and Matthew... the particular problem is that she divorced her first husband who was Herod's brother. Adulterers and those who oppress workers, widows and orphans (these latter two the most destitute groups), with specific mention of wages, are among those who the Lord who comes will judge (Mal 3:5) --- that Luke crafts John's preaching in such terms as he does is quite a coincidence if he is not doing so with an eye on the text of Malachi and making sure those thee singled out for judgment are presented with a call to repentance (Luke 3:7-9) followed by a model for ethical living.

Are you sure that Luke wasn't thinking about what Jesus said at the last supper when he was writing the earlier portion of his gospel?
Luke 22:20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

I've pointed out there is no evidence at those points in his narrative that Luke appeals to the Malachi text that he links Jesus to the "messenger of the covenant" --- this is all I can or need to offer in defense of my position. It is actually incumbent on you, as the one making the positive claim concerning this equation, to provide the evidence of such... for example, similar to what I do above for the positive claim I made about Luke's reliance on Mal 3:5 for the unique content of John's preaching he provides. Of course, if there were any evidence supporting the idea that Luke (or any of the other gospel writers) viewed Jesus as "the messenger of the covenant" in Mal 3:1, I would already have acknowledged it and be arguing that such is the position of Luke or other early Christian authors...

None beside what I had read at the time we were discussing this. I still think a traveling companion of Paul wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. I don't believe they were written by third generation Christians. It's a subject I still need to research.

Alright.

We will have to disagree. Maybe we will agree on the angel of the LORD.

Alright.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

I tried. I was not able to copy and paste, because of the page's type of format.

Alright, thanks for trying.

All you need is to look at the third paragraph down. It will show you how concerning John the Baptist's father, was the high priest, and why he was simply referred to as a priest.

While it would be preferable if you just summarized as I asked, I will check it out when I have a moment and respond...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Dizerner]

A Levitical priest is explicitly said to be "the messenger of the LORD of Hosts" at 2:7 and the messenger of 3:1 belongs to this same speaking subject, "the LORD of Hosts" --- he is further connected to the covenant, which is contextually a covenant made with Levi as ideal priest (2:4, 8). What more could this author possibly say to convince you?

He is not saying priests are the only messengers of the Lord, the strict correspondence you are making can only literally mean that. Under that interpretation God would have to be sending them to themselves to purify them, which makes zero sense. It's quite clear from context it's a new messenger, not the old one.

 

[GeneZ]

He is not saying priests are the only messengers of the Lord, the strict correspondence you are making can only literally mean that. Under that interpretation God would have to be sending them to themselves to purify them, which makes zero sense. It's quite clear from context it's a new messenger, not the old one.

Maybe you will not find it too exhausting to read the third paragraph down on this page.
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2014/09/was-zechariah-father-of-john-baptist.html

Its format does not allow for copy and paste.

I believe it explains the misunderstanding ....

 

[En Hakkore]

He is not saying priests are the only messengers of the Lord, the strict correspondence you are making can only literally mean that.

The strict correspondence is established by the author... how far that should be pushed is an intriguing question with no firm answer. I earlier suggested an angelic messenger could be implied with the first person to third person switch in the wording of the divine oracle in 3:1, though one could argue this author conceptualized priests as having no such intermediaries, receiving oracles directly from the deity and thus speaking themselves on his behalf. What does seem firm is that, among humans and for this author, priests are the preeminent if not only legitimate messengers of the deity. As you know, I am not a canonical reader and I reject the notion of biblical inerrancy so it does not matter to me that this conflicts with other writings... it reflects a contextually-sound reading of Malachi.

Under that interpretation God would have to be sending them to themselves to purify them, which makes zero sense. It's quite clear from context it's a new messenger, not the old one.

There are three priestly messengers in view... first, the ideal messenger (2:4-7); second, the abased messengers (2:8-9; note the second person plurals in the Hebrew); third, the coming messenger who, by his commitment to the covenant in imitation of the ideal messenger, will purify the Levites (3:1-4).

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

Luke 3:10-14 contains exchanges between John and three groups of people (the crowd, tax collectors, soldiers) that is without parallel in the other gospels... John's preaching includes imperatives to share clothing and food with those who have none (ie. the destitute) and for the tax collectors and soldiers not to overtax or extort money respectively, to be content with their wages. He also relocates to 3:19 reference to John's condemnation of Herod for his marriage to Herodias from where it appears later on in Mark and Matthew... the particular problem is that she divorced her first husband who was Herod's brother. Adulterers and those who oppress workers, widows and orphans (these latter two the most destitute groups), with specific mention of wages, are among those who the Lord who comes will judge (Mal 3:5) --- that Luke crafts John's preaching in such terms as he does is quite a coincidence if he is not doing so with an eye on the text of Malachi and making sure those thee singled out for judgment are presented with a call to repentance (Luke 3:7-9) followed by a model for ethical living.

What if Luke crafted John's preaching according to what John actually preached? Since he wasn't there personally perhaps he had heard first hand stories of JB and what he preached as he traveled with Paul. It sounds like your are saying that Luke (who was possibly a gentile) cherry-picked from some of what he had heard that John had taught to mimic the text of Malachi. If Luke was a gentile wouldn't he have to have had knowledge of the writings of the Jewish prophets? Would that be a stretch for a gentile to have such knowledge during that time?

I've pointed out there is no evidence at those points in his narrative that Luke appeals to the Malachi text that he links Jesus to the "messenger of the covenant" --- this is all I can or need to offer in defense of my position. It is actually incumbent on you, as the one making the positive claim concerning this equation, to provide the evidence of such... for example, similar to what I do above for the positive claim I made about Luke's reliance on Mal 3:5 for the unique content of John's preaching he provides. Of course, if there were any evidence supporting the idea that Luke (or any of the other gospel writers) viewed Jesus as "the messenger of the covenant" in Mal 3:1, I would already have acknowledged it and be arguing that such is the position of Luke or other early Christian authors...

But Luke does have the quote from Isaiah and if Luke was an intimately related to the text of Malachi as you suggest then I think it is reasonable that Luke could put the similar texts of Malachi 3 and Isaiah 40 together to draw other corollaries and conclude that Jesus is, indeed, a messenger of YHWH.

The first would be that a voice/messenger who is preparing the way of the LORD.

The second would be that in each text a messenger is preparing the way for YHWH to come and that the people will see YHWH.

The third would not be a corollary but a difference in punctuation between the NSRV and the NET bible. The NSRV put a period between the Lord coming to his temple and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight but the NET bible did not put the punctuated it differently. I think without the period, the passage is easily understood that the LORD whom you seek 1. will appear in his temple and 2. is the messenger of covenant in whom they delight.

John the baptist isn't the messenger of the covenant neither is he someone in whom the nation of Israel had their hopes pinned on. They are anticipating the Messiah to show up just as was Herod around the time Jesus and John were both born.
The LORD is the one who is the messenger of the covenant and the one the nation is longing for. Luke 3:15


Isa 40:3 A voice cries out: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.
5 Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Mal 3:1 See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight -- indeed, he is coming, says the LORD of Hosts. NRSV

Mal 3:1 I am about to send my messenger, who will clear the way before me. Indeed, the Lord you are seeking will suddenly come to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you long for, is certainly coming,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. NET

Jesus was a messenger/prophet of his Father's words. He only spoke what his Father told him to speak regarding the kingdom and the good news and other aspects of his messages to the crowds and the leaders.

John 3:34 34 He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.
John 7:16-17 16 Then Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me. 17 Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own.
John 8:28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me.
John 12:49-50 for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.”
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Lastly the disciples see the Lord Jesus in just about everything in the OT. The entire OT is about Jesus Christ to them. They would surely understand Malachi 3:1 as I do.

In Luke 1 both Mary and Zechariah mention the promises that God made to their ancestors and are now announcing its fulfillment in the baby that will be born. Moses spoke of a promise YHWH made that the Lord would raise up a prophet like himself. Deut 18:15-18
Jesus was that prophet and just like Moses, Jesus would be involved in forming a covenant with the nation of Israel. The disciples knew all of these things and understood them as fulfilled in Jesus. And later in Luke 20 Jesus states that the glass of wine they drink is symbolically "... the new covenant in my blood."

 

[Dizerner]

The LORD is the one who is the messenger of the covenant and the one the nation is longing for. Luke 3:15

Yeah, only he qualifies for what this represents, he is the one with whom the covenant was made, and enacting final judgment.

It does really make sense that there are two messengers in Mal. 3:1, I can see that now.

 

[Caroljeen]

Yeah, only he qualifies for what this represents, he is the one with whom the covenant was made, and enacting final judgment.

It does really make sense that there are two messengers in Mal. 3:1, I can see that now.

I'm just not as good at connecting the dots as En Harkorre is. Nor am I as eloquent as he is. But I like discussing these things with him because he pushes me to read the texts more critically and not be lazy.