"When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil?" (a paraphrase of Malachi 1:8).

The Lord had commanded that offerings be "without blemish," but the post-exilic priests were offering animals that were blind, lame, and sick. They dishonored the Lord by not giving Him their best. God challenged them by asking whether they would give such an offering to their governor. And if they would never think of giving a blemished gift to a human ruler, how could they give such an offering to their far greater Master, the Lord God?

Friends, we are clearly no longer under the Law of Moses. We have no requirement to bring unblemished sacrifices to the Lord, for Jesus was the one, only, and final unblemished sacrifice for us. However, we ourselves are living sacrifices to God (Romans 12:1). And He has called us to be "holy and blameless before him" (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:16).

In the New Covenant there is not the same emphasis on outward appearance that there was in the many detailed regulations for worship under the Old Covenant. Instead, humility, purity, and sober, alert thinking are emphasized in Christian worship.

That said, should we wear shabby, dirty clothes when we gather to worship the Lord? Should we be careless about hygiene? No. Even though God is more concerned with our spiritual condition than our outward appearance, and there is no specific command to wear our best clothes in the congregation, this is not a license to wear our worst.

Since there is no specific command, we would do well to dress in a way that most honors God and best serves His purposes. For me, this means neither overdressing nor underdressing — not drawing too much attention to myself one way or the other. When we gather for worship, we should direct attention to God. Being dirty and unkempt will distract from that. Being dressed too immaculately may also distract. So I dress simply and cleanly, in a way that neither offends nor impresses. Our dress should fit the occasion, whether a funeral or a wedding, a gathering among the wealthy or among the poor, witnessing to the homeless or on the steps of the Capitol.

The sin of the priests in Malachi was that they were careless and despised the Lord. God had given them specific instructions, and they disobeyed. We do not have specific instructions about dress, but we are commanded to understand the Lord's will and to do all things for His praise; so it behooves us to be thoughtful rather than negligent in how we present ourselves in the Lord's service.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Malachi 1 opens with God's declaration, "I have loved you," and the people's weary reply, "How have you loved us?" (1:2). The blemished sacrifices of 1:6–14 are the practical fruit of that weariness: the priests found God's service tiresome — "What a weariness this is," they said, and snorted at it (1:13). The heart of the problem was not the quality of the animals but the attitude behind them. God's answer points beyond Israel: "my name will be great among the nations" (1:11) — a promise many Christians see fulfilled in the worship of believers from every nation.

The comment's application to dress for worship is a reasonable personal conviction, and it addresses both extremes wisely. James 2:1–4 warns against honoring the well-dressed and dishonoring the poor in the assembly, and 1 Peter 3:3–4 and 1 Timothy 2:9–10 emphasize inner beauty over outward adornment. Across cultures, Christians dress very differently for worship; the underlying principle the comment identifies — offering God our best in heart and not distracting from Him — applies everywhere.

“I have loved you,” says the Lord.

But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’

“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Malachi 1:2–3).

God's sovereign choice for the object of His love was Jacob over Esau even before they were born and hadn't done anything yet. People may say, “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” (Romans 9:19) The apostle Paul's logical(?) answer to the question of those who see the seeming absence of fairness in God's choice was,

Who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:20–21).

It is a hard saying of God, and the apostle Paul's explanation for it is even harder to accept! This makes me fear God and at the same time love God more because my salvation was not my choice but His! Praise be to Him!

AI-Expanded Reflection

Malachi’s opening question arises from a discouraged community asking how God has loved them. The answer points to the contrasting histories of Jacob’s and Esau’s peoples, Israel and Edom (Malachi 1:2–5). The context is corporate and historical: the aftermath of judgment, the persistence of God’s covenant, and the limits placed upon Edom’s rebuilding. The language should therefore not be read first as a psychological report about God’s feelings toward two infants.

Paul brings the Jacob-and-Esau material into his argument about God’s promise in Romans 9. He explicitly considers the twins before their birth and before their works, emphasizing the priority of divine calling (Romans 9:10–13). The author receives this through a Reformed understanding of individual election. Other Christian interpreters emphasize election for covenantal roles, corporate identity in Christ, or the relation of grace and human response. Acknowledging that range does not make the text less serious; it encourages readers to explain how their interpretation accounts for Paul’s whole argument rather than one sentence.

The protest in Romans 9:19 is not ignored. Paul answers with the Creator-creature distinction and the potter’s freedom, then speaks of patience, mercy, and the calling of people from both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:20–26). The imagery challenges the assumption that God must distribute covenant privilege according to human claims. Yet it should not become a general rule that sincere questions are forbidden. Scripture contains faithful lament and argument, and Paul himself writes from anguish for his people (Romans 9:1–3). The posture being confronted is presumptuous accusation, not every troubled attempt to understand.

Nor does sovereign election remove the call to respond. Romans 10 speaks of confession, faith, proclamation, and the need for messengers. Romans 11 warns against conceit and concludes with mercy as the horizon of the discussion. These chapters must interpret one another. A doctrine that turns the hearer toward speculation about secret destinies while neglecting the public invitation of the gospel has lost something of Paul’s purpose.

The original’s movement from fear toward gratitude captures an important pastoral effect of grace. Salvation cannot become a trophy awarded for being more perceptive or morally promising than one’s neighbor. Nevertheless, saying that God’s initiative is decisive need not deny that the believer truly trusts, loves, and obeys. The human response is real even when understood as enabled and sustained by grace. God’s action does not make the life of discipleship fictional.

The fitting practice is grateful humility. Receive the promises given in Christ, pray for others without assuming their rejection, and speak the gospel without sorting people into imagined categories of elect and nonelect. The mystery that humbles the mind should also soften the manner of witness. If salvation rests in mercy, its recipients have strong reasons for assurance and no reason to despise those who have not yet shared their confession.

Malachi should be read alongside Nehemiah 13, for on many counts they read like parallel accounts.

Malachi speaks against the men of Judah because they divorced their wives and married the foreign women, whose God was not the LORD, and with whom God said not to intermarry (cf. Malachi 2:10–16):

Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord which He loves and has married the daughter of a foreign god (Malachi 2:11).

Nehemiah also indicts the men of Judah for marrying the foreign women against the LORD's command (cf. Nehemiah 13:23–27):

Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah... Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women? (Nehemiah 13:23–24,27).

Again, Malachi wrote of how the whole tithe was not being brought into the storehouse, which supplied food to the Levites who worked at the Temple.

Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house (Malachi 3:8–10).

We find a very similar indictment in Nehemiah:

I also learned that the portions assigned to the Levites had not been given to them, and that all the Levites and musicians responsible for the service had gone back to their own fields. So I rebuked the officials and asked them, “Why is the house of God neglected?” Then I called them together and stationed them at their posts. All Judah brought the tithes of grain, new wine and olive oil into the storerooms. I put Shelemiah the priest, Zadok the scribe, and a Levite named Pedaiah in charge of the storerooms and made Hanan son of Zakkur, the son of Mattaniah, their assistant, because they were considered trustworthy. They were made responsible for distributing the supplies to their fellow Levites (Nehemiah 13:10–13).

Here we learn that the portions assigned to the Levites were not being given to them. As a result, they left the service of the Temple and went back to their own fields to get food for themselves. Nehemiah then assigns some reliable priests to bring the tithes of the people into the storerooms and to make sure that they get properly distributed to their fellow Levites. It appears that the sin here was not in the giving of the tithes per se but in the bringing them into the storerooms and the distribution of them to the Levites. Thus, the indictment was specifically against the priests in charge of this storing and distribution.

Again, Malachi writes about how the priests have despised God's Name by bringing defiled, stolen, lame, and sick offerings. He also accuses them of corrupting "the covenant of Levi," because they have shown partiality in their practice of the law.

A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’ You are presenting defiled food upon My altar... and you bring what was taken by robbery and what is lame or sick; so you bring the offering! Should I receive that from your hand? (Malachi 1:6–7,13).

But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi,” says the Lord of hosts. “So I also have made you despised and abased before all the people, just as you are not keeping My ways but are showing partiality in the instruction (Malachi 2:8–9).

In the same way, Nehemiah discovers that the priests, being related to the foreigners Tobiah and Sanballat, perpetual enemies of the post-exilic community of Israel, turned the storerooms, which were reserved for the tithes to be distributed to the Levites, into private quarters for Tobiah. Thus, they disobeyed God's command and defiled the Temple at the same time:

Before this, Eliashib the priest had been put in charge of the storerooms of the house of our God. He was closely associated with Tobiah, and he had provided him with a large room formerly used to store the grain offerings and incense and temple articles, and also the tithes of grain, new wine and olive oil prescribed for the Levites, musicians and gatekeepers, as well as the contributions for the priests.. (Nehemiah 13:4–5).

Here I learned about the evil thing Eliashib had done in providing Tobiah a room in the courts of the house of God. I was greatly displeased and threw all Tobiah’s household goods out of the room. I gave orders to purify the rooms, and then I put back into them the equipment of the house of God, with the grain offerings and the incense (Nehemiah 13:7–9).

One of the sons of Joiada son of Eliashib the high priest was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite. And I drove him away from me. Remember them, my God, because they defiled the priestly office and the covenant of the priesthood and of the Levites. So I purified the priests and the Levites of everything foreign, and assigned them duties, each to his own task (Nehemiah 13:28–30).

As you read the account in Nehemiah, you should notice something here that is related to the indictment with respect to the tithes not being brought into the storehouses. Eliashib the priest was in charge of the storerooms. He turned these storerooms into the private quarters of Tobiah. No wonder the tithe was not being collected there. No wonder the Levites were not getting their share of the food put there.

Friends, both Malachi and Nehemiah address the post-exilic community; therefore, they provide a near historical context for understanding the principles being taught in either book. And as we saw, there are many parallels.

As I have mentioned before, context is critical to understanding any passage of Scripture. When this context is not observed, the Scriptures are distorted and wrong applications proceed from it.

Anyone, preacher or layman, can wax eloquently over a word or phrase or even a passage of Scripture. But that is not what God has called us to do. He has called us to correctly divide the word of truth - not simply to give nice-sounding sermons:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Reading Malachi alongside Nehemiah 13 is fruitful because both expose failures within the restored community. The return from exile and rebuilding of religious structures have not automatically produced faithful conduct. Worship, marriage, instruction, and material provision remain vulnerable to self-interest. These parallels help recover the social realities behind passages sometimes reduced to isolated slogans about giving or leadership.

Nehemiah’s account makes the misuse of institutional resources particularly concrete. A room intended for temple supplies has been assigned to Tobiah, and Levites have returned to their fields because their provision has failed (Nehemiah 13:4–13). The problem is not solved merely by telling those workers to have greater faith. Nehemiah restores the room’s purpose, reestablishes their service, and appoints people regarded as trustworthy to distribute supplies. Accountability and competent administration are part of religious faithfulness.

The original’s conclusion that the whole tithe indictment therefore concerns only corrupt priests goes beyond what the parallel establishes. Malachi 3:9 addresses the whole nation, and Nehemiah 13:12 describes Judah bringing the tithe after correction. Failures of collection, giving, and distribution may interact. A clear example of one failure should not be used to exclude every other responsibility when the passages do not do so. This is itself an important lesson in contextual reading: historical parallels illuminate a text without making its own words disappear.

The marriage passages also require precision. Their concern is covenant unfaithfulness, including union with worship associated with another god and betrayal of a wife described as a companion and covenant partner (Malachi 2:10–16). They are not a doctrine of racial purity. Ruth’s place within Israel’s story makes that distinction especially important. Nor can the postexilic measures be imported unchanged into Christian marriages: Paul specifically instructs a believer not to divorce an unbelieving spouse willing to remain (1 Corinthians 7:12–16).

The priestly indictment in Malachi joins worship and teaching. Defective offerings express contempt, while partial instruction causes others to stumble (Malachi 1:6–14; 2:7–9). A leader can corrupt the community both by mishandling its resources and by reshaping God’s word to accommodate influential people. The contemporary application therefore includes transparent finances, fair pastoral care, and teaching that does not give the wealthy or powerful a different moral standard.

Second Timothy 2:15 calls the worker to handle the word of truth rightly; the following context warns against empty controversy and false teaching. Contextual diligence is not merely intellectual technique but accountable service. Before drawing an application, identify the speaker, audience, covenant setting, actual wording, and the ways later Scripture develops the subject. A church need not reproduce every administrative feature of the temple to learn its lessons. It should ensure that gifts reach their intended purposes, that those serving are treated fairly, and that an appeal to biblical authority is supported by the passage being cited.

It is you priests who show contempt for my name (Malachi 1:6).

And now, you priests, this warning is for you (Malachi 2:1).

Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands (Malachi 2:13).

He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness (Malachi 3:3).

While Malachi is an oracle against Israel, particularly those that have returned from exile, the focus of Malachi is against the priesthood, as the above sign-post verses reveal. The first two verses give direct reference. The third gives indirect reference to priests by virtue of their exclusive access to the altar. The fourth gives a general context of the priesthood by directly mentioning the Levites, of whom the priesthood is a subset. Most importantly, from Malachi 1:6 to the end of the book the only group clearly and consistently identified with the second-person direct address "you" is the priesthood.

Why is this important? The indictments with respect to the blemished offerings, wrongful teaching, marital unfaithfulness and divorce, sorcery, adultery, perjury, unjust wages, and oppression of widows, the fatherless and foreigners are addressed to the priesthood. Therefore, first application is made to them before any broad principles can be drawn for others. Nehemiah 13 may provide the best historical context for these indictments against the priesthood in Malachi, as many of the indictments against them are repeated there.

Why is this important for us? Understanding the context will keep you from misapplying principles from the book. Oftentimes, these indictments against the priesthood are applied to people in general (i.e. the laity). While general principles may be broadly applied, it should first be noted and emphasized that priests were in view.

For example, understanding the context helps us to see that the command to "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse" applies specifically to the priests. Apparently, along with the other things amiss in their offerings (e.g. bringing blemished offerings in Malachi 1), they may have been keeping some of the tithe for themselves rather than sharing them with the other Levites, who ministered with them. This was the problem in Nehemiah (Nehemiah 13:10). And if there is any parallel idea in the New Testament, perhaps one could compare this to Paul's rebuke of those that were self-serving and neglecting of others during the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17–22). Although I believe the Bible clearly teaches that Christians are no longer obligated to tithe on the basis that the Old Covenant was made obsolete by Christ on the cross and replaced by a New Covenant (Hebrews 8:7–13; Romans 7:6), it should also be noted that even if some tithing principle carried over into the New Testament, Malachi 3 would still be more appropriately applied to ministers rather than to laymen. It was an indictment of the priests for misappropriating the tithes given to them. Here's a more detailed treatment on the topic:

http://dailyqt.org/docs/ShouldTheChurchTeachTithing3rdRev.pdf

I have shared this very thoughtful and comprehensive paper showing how a lot of the modern teaching on tithing is just plain wrong. I encourage you to take the time to read it. If the article seems a bit too long for a single day's reading, I encourage you to start with chapters 12 and 13, which directly apply to today's reading in Malachi.

I need to add here that some may not agree with the perspectives presented here. My view on tithing is likely one of those areas of disagreement. I humbly pray that sharing differing perspectives will not be a cause for discord but rather encourage deeper reading and careful study of the Bible and more enlightened discussion of issues, so that every member may grow up in their knowledge of Christ and their maturity in Him (Ephesians 4:14–15).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Malachi places severe responsibility on the priests. They dishonor God through unacceptable offerings, fail in instruction, and cause others to stumble (1:6–2:9). The original is right to insist that readers identify an oracle’s audience before applying it indiscriminately. Leadership failure is not a minor background detail. Those charged with guarding worship and teaching have helped corrupt the very relationship they were appointed to serve. A modern application that rebukes only ordinary worshipers while exempting their leaders would miss a central force of the book.

The further claim that the priesthood remains the exclusive audience through the end of Malachi is harder to sustain. Malachi 2:10 speaks broadly of the community’s common Father and covenant, while 3:9 explicitly indicts the whole nation. The address expands beyond the priests even though priestly corruption remains important. The tithe passage therefore cannot be assigned exclusively to ministers merely because earlier sections addressed them. Malachi 3:9 in several translations.

Nehemiah 13:10 also deserves precision. It reports that the Levites had not received their portions and had returned to their fields. Nehemiah rebukes the officials, restores the provision, and appoints reliable people to distribute it. The passage supports concern about neglected ministry support and administrative faithfulness, but it does not explicitly establish the precise scenario proposed in the original—that priests were retaining the tithe for themselves. That may be considered as a reconstruction; it should not be presented as what the cited verse directly states.

These qualifications do not settle the larger Christian debate over tithing. Whether a fixed percentage carries into the new covenant must be argued from the relationship between Israel’s covenant arrangements and the New Testament’s teaching. Second Corinthians 8–9 emphasizes willing, proportionate generosity and freedom from compulsion; 1 Corinthians 9 affirms appropriate support for gospel ministry. These themes place real demands on both giver and steward without making Malachi a shortcut for every fundraising claim. The original’s position against a binding Christian tithe can be evaluated on those broader grounds rather than depending on an exclusive-priestly reading that the book does not consistently support.

The pastoral goal should be a trustworthy and generous community. Members should be free to ask how resources are used, leaders should handle them transparently, and neither side should use a disputed interpretation to evade love or responsibility. The final appeal for thoughtful disagreement is therefore fitting. A discussion that preserves fellowship need not avoid correction; it should make correction intelligible and charitable. We honor God’s name when our financial teaching, giving, and administration reflect the truthfulness and care that Malachi found missing.

My thoughts after Malachi 3 and the tithing issue.

How much do you steal from God?

If you calculated from your income would it be 10% or more? If not you should assess your faith.

Does 10% scare you? Would it shroud you with doubt for tomorrow’s provisions? If so then I pray for your faith (Luke 22:32). If God proposes that you change your income so you pay yourself 10 times what you pay him what changes would you have to do? What if he helped you and said, first pay yourself 20 times what you pay me? Perhaps you are an infant in Christ, he might recommend 100 times. Whether you give 10%, 5%, or 1% remember that fear is not from God. Test yourself to see that you are truly his (2 Corinthians 13:5). If you are growing I would expect your "tithe" would grow too.

Remember if you are giving and feel it is not enough... you are on a good track what we do is only pleasing with a contrite heart.

Isaiah 64:5 You meet him who joyfully works righteousness, those who remember you in your ways.

To the rest....

If you calculated from your income would it be 10% or more? If so, great! How does it feel!

If you feel righteous because you give 10% or more, you should assess your faith. You may be stealing from God.

Are you secure because you obeyed the law? Are you crowned with accomplishment because you did like Abraham? You may be giving 50% or 100% but you may be like Saul (1 Samuel 13:9) handling something that is not for you, God's glory; making you (Isaiah 64:6) like one who is unclean, and all your righteous deeds like a polluted garment.

Test yourself to see that you are truly his (2 Corinthians 13:5). If you are growing I would expect your "tithe" would not be enough. For how could you repay the Father for his Son! But with only a contrite heart.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The reflection addresses two opposite ways money can conceal unbelief. One person withholds because financial reserves appear more dependable than God; another gives conspicuously and treats the amount as evidence of superior righteousness. Both can leave the self at the center. Malachi's charge of robbery challenges covenant unfaithfulness, while the New Testament's teaching on giving repeatedly addresses the willing heart and the neighbor's need. The original's movement from the fearful giver to the self-satisfied giver makes an important pastoral point: the same outward percentage can express very different loyalties.

Malachi 3:8–12 concerns Israel's tithes and contributions within the covenant economy, including provision associated with the temple. Christians disagree over whether a ten-percent obligation continues unchanged, but Paul's instructions in 2 Corinthians 8–9 provide direct guidance for churches: willingness, proportionality, concern for others, and freedom from coercion. These principles demand serious generosity without turning a financial threshold into a test that automatically identifies the saved. A household's obligations and capacity matter. Paul expressly says that acceptability is measured according to what someone has, not what someone lacks (2 Corinthians 8:12).

The comparison with Saul usefully challenges religious action that displaces obedience, although 1 Samuel 13 identifies Saul's particular offense as failing to keep the command delivered through Samuel. The text does not explicitly diagnose it as taking God's glory; that is the reflection's broader application. Similarly, Isaiah 64 is a communal confession amid sin and devastation. Its image of polluted righteousness should expose self-justification, not teach believers that Spirit-enabled obedience is inherently worthless or that they must always feel guilty after giving. God receives the willing service of his children even while their acceptance ultimately rests on Christ.

The final question—how could anyone repay the Father for the Son?—is answered by recognizing that grace cannot be repaid as a debt. Giving is a grateful response, not an installment on salvation. This releases the Christian from both pride and endless inadequacy. A helpful examination therefore considers whether spending reflects love, whether fear is governing decisions, and whether generosity remains open to correction. Growth may involve a larger gift; it may also involve quiet consistency, fair treatment of dependents, or relinquishing the desire to be admired. A contrite heart can learn joyful generosity without measuring God's love by the balance remaining in the account.

Let's not profane God's holy name by serving Him only partially. I've been thinking about what it would mean, in my own current circumstances, to say "yes, Lord" to the question Jesus asked the rich young man. God rightfully demands wholehearted devotion from us, since there's no room for anything to come before Him. The highest honor is justly due Him, because He's both our Father and our Master.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The specific framing this comment uses — imagining Jesus's question to the rich young man directed personally at one's own current circumstances — is worth extending as a genuinely useful spiritual exercise, since the rich young man's actual failure wasn't a lack of general devotion; by his own account, he'd kept the commandments faithfully. His specific gap was one particular area he wasn't willing to surrender. That's a more searching question than simply asking whether one is generally devoted to God — the more precise version of this comment's own question might be: what's the specific "one thing" Jesus would name for me, the one area partial devotion is still quietly protecting?