!! Course Assignment – Koinonia Institute – Haggai & Malachi !! Discussion Questions !!

The next course I selected as part of my Unschooled Master of Theology program was the KI course, Haggai and Malachi, which are two later prophets. All of the discussion questions are included in this post.

As a reminder, you can find all of my course assignments for the uThM here.

So, let’s get started….

What do I Already Know?

I know next to nothing about Haggai and only know about Malachi and the misappropriation of Malachi 3:10 to justify the principle of tithing in modern churches.

What do I Want to Learn?

1. Why is this verse used, and is there anything else in Scripture that supports this modern idea of tithing?
2. Why is it that Christians do not spend very much time in Old Testament books like these?
3. Who was Haggai, and who was Malachi?

Lecture 1

1. How would you describe the significance of the Book of Haggai and its relevance to us today?

When I look at Haggai, I see a very specific moment in history that exposes something much broader. These people came back under Zerubbabel to rebuild what God told them to rebuild. They actually started. They laid the foundation. But then they stopped. Not because they rejected God outright, but because life took over—pressure, discouragement, comfort, routine. And over time, that delay became normal. That’s the part that stands out to me. This wasn’t rebellion at the beginning—it was drift that hardened into justification.

That’s where this hits me directly. I can be fully convinced I’m “about God,” doing things that look right, saying the right things, even building something that appears spiritual, and still be completely misaligned with what He actually called me to do. As Chuck Missler points out, this is a priority issue, not an activity issue. And Michael Heiser makes it even sharper—the temple isn’t just a building, it represents God’s presence and order. So the real question for me is not what I’m doing, but whether my life is actually ordered around God, or quietly reorganized around myself.

2. What does the phrase “give careful thought to your ways” mean to you as a Christian?

When I look at that phrase—Τάξατε δὴ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς ὑμῶν—I don’t see a suggestion. I see a command. It’s telling me to deliberately set my heart on examining my life. Not casually, not emotionally, not assuming I’m fine—but intentionally stepping back and evaluating what I’m actually doing and where it’s leading. This is not “think about it.” This is “order your inner life toward an honest assessment of your outward life.”

That forces me into a place where I can’t rely on instinct or assumption. I have to test myself against reality, and more importantly, against God’s Word. Missler frames this as a diagnostic—if something is off, I need to stop and figure out why. Heiser pushes it deeper—it’s not just behavior, it’s allegiance. Where is my heart actually aligned? That’s uncomfortable, because I can be convinced I’m on the right path and still be completely wrong. This command strips that illusion away. It forces me to confront whether my life actually reflects what I claim to believe.

3. Discuss the historical background and mediating circumstances for which God called Haggai to prophesy to these post-exile people.

When I look at the timeline, it becomes very clear what happened. The people returned around 538 BC under the decree of Cyrus. They got started around 536 BC—they rebuilt the altar and laid the foundation. That’s important—they weren’t inactive at first. They took real steps of obedience. But then opposition came, pressure came, discouragement came, and they stopped. And what followed wasn’t a short delay—it was about 16 years of nothing. They shifted into normal life, into survival, into building their own houses, and over time, that became their new standard.

That’s the part I recognize. This wasn’t a dramatic fall—it was gradual. It moved from delay to justification to normalization. What started as “we’ll get back to it” turned into “this isn’t the time.” And eventually, they didn’t even question it anymore. Missler highlights that this is what happens when obedience is postponed—it doesn’t stay neutral, it decays. Heiser would frame it as a failure to reestablish God’s order among His people. Either way, the result is the same: they started strong, but they didn’t finish. And that pattern is not ancient—it’s constant.

4. Discuss why Haggai’s first prophetic message was a warning to his people expressing the reasons for God’s displeasure with them. How is this relevant to the calling upon your life?

Haggai starts with a warning because the people didn’t recognize what was happening. They were living in the consequences of their choices—lack, frustration, instability—but they hadn’t connected it to their disobedience. That’s the danger. If I don’t understand why things are happening, I can’t correct course. That’s why Scripture constantly says, “Do not be deceived.” Deception isn’t obvious—it feels justified. The people in Haggai weren’t confused about what they were supposed to do—they had just convinced themselves it wasn’t time yet.

That lands directly on me. I can delay what God has already made clear and convince myself it’s wisdom, timing, or prudence. Missler makes this point clearly—delayed obedience is still disobedience. Heiser would say this is covenant failure—they were no longer living in alignment with God’s rule. For me, the warning is not theoretical. It’s practical. I have to constantly evaluate what I’ve put off, what I’ve rationalized, and what I’ve quietly replaced with something easier or more comfortable. If I don’t, I’ll drift the same way they did.

5. How does disobedience render even priestly sacrifice and worship unacceptable? How could this lesson apply to you and your “ministry”?

This is where things get uncomfortable. I can do everything that looks right—say the right things, build the right things, produce work that appears meaningful—and still be completely out of alignment. That’s what Haggai exposes. The issue isn’t activity—it’s integrity between what I say and what I actually do. If those don’t match, then everything I’m doing becomes hollow. It doesn’t matter how consistent or visible it is.

Missler emphasizes that worship without obedience is empty—it’s form without substance. Heiser goes further with the idea of defilement—once there is misalignment, it spreads. It contaminates everything else. That hits me directly. I can write books, teach, build a platform, and claim it’s all for God. But if my life contradicts it—if I abandon what I’m responsible for, if I fail where it actually matters—then none of it carries weight. The work doesn’t validate life. Life validates the work.

6. Discuss the reasons and implications of the phrase, “you earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it”. How does this apply to you?

This is the tendency for many people. They strive, they scrape, they claw at success, but they perpetuallys seem incapable of getting ahead. There is always something that comes up. And the circumstances get blamed. I used to live like these people did. I used to make money and it would disappear. I was in debt. I had collectors after me. But I finally learned and started making good choices and that turned the corner. Once I did and I spent more time making better choices it started to compound. I was able to get out of debt. I was able to buy a house. I always had a good running car. I was able to buy my dream property on the lake. I was able to pay cash for my honeymoon. And the outpouring that God has given has not stopped. We sold a house which paid off more debts. We sold my house with allowed us to buy needed tools for projects, and then save $40k emergency fund. We received a death settlement for my father which went to pay off debts and buy the house we currently live in and love. My good credit that I built up over several years of making good financial choices allowed us to get a brand new boat. It also allowed us to get medical procedures done for my wife at the time she needed it.

I do think God confounds the wise of this world, those who reject him. They can never get ahead. Some do. But most don’t. But the believer, they are in the unique situation where God has already said, everything we do and ecerything that is done to us is ultimately for our benefit. Nothing is outside of God’s will and it is for our benefit. Even the calamity.

7. K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.

Nothing to add.

Lecture 2

1. Explain what might be the modern equivalent of animal sacrifices and how that is applicable to us?

The sacrificial system was never the substance—it was always a shadow pointing forward to transformation. What it ultimately represents is not ritual compliance but the transition of our very being before God: from mortality to immortality, from one state to another, culminating in the revealing of the sons of God. The sacrifices themselves did not save; they illustrated what God was doing and would do. In the same way, modern equivalents—church attendance, good works, ministry—carry no inherent value. They are shadows as well. When disconnected from Christ, they are empty forms. But when they are rooted in Christ and empowered through the Holy Spirit, they become meaningful expressions—tools through which we participate in and observe what God is accomplishing.

2. Discuss how you would evaluate the quality of your service to God?

The evaluation of service is not primarily about quality in a performance sense, but about submission and alignment. The central question is whether the action originates from alignment with Christ and the message of Scripture, or from personal ambition and self-driven motives. True service flows from the work of the Holy Spirit, not from independent human effort. Anything outside of that, regardless of how it appears externally, is ultimately an expression of the flesh. Within a fully predestined framework, this becomes even more precise: what we do is not self-generated but walked out. The measure, then, is not what we produce, but whether what is being lived reflects alignment with Christ rather than resistance or illusion of autonomy.

3. Share a time when you doubted God’s love.

The tension is not so much about doubting that God can love as about questioning whether that love extends fully and personally. The doubt centers on worth—whether there is anything in oneself that corresponds to or justifies that love. It becomes less a theological doubt about God’s nature and more an internal conflict about reception. This reveals the ongoing struggle between grace and self-assessment. Even within a framework where all things are ordained, the experience of that tension remains real. It exposes the gap between what is known intellectually and what is believed or accepted at a personal level.

4. Explain what was wrong with the offering the people and the priests were giving to the Lord. How is this similar to us today, in a spiritual sense?

The issue was not that offerings were absent, but that they were diminished. The people and priests were giving what was blind, lame, and diseased—what cost them little. It was compliance without devotion, form without substance. They withheld the first and the best, offering instead what was convenient or leftover. This is the offering of Cain. The system remained intact externally, but internally, it was misaligned. This parallels modern expressions of faith where activity continues—attendance, service, outward structure—but the underlying posture is compromised. The problem is not the act itself but what it reveals: a misalignment of priorities, values, and reverence. These then become an empty outer shell, and those are all inherently works of the flesh.

5. Briefly explain why God has rejected the Edomites? What does the future hold for the Edomites?

The rejection of Edom is rooted in a long-standing pattern of pride, hostility, and opposition—particularly against Israel. From their origin in Esau, the two lines are distinguished, a distinction later reinforced by consistent behavior. Edom’s actions—violence, betrayal, and refusal to align—demonstrate not a momentary failure but a sustained posture. Scripturally, this is seen in passages such as Malachi 1:2–4 and Obadiah 1:10–18, and is further interpreted in Romans 9:10–13. Within a predestined framework, this rejection is not reactionary but part of a larger authored structure. The future of Edom is desolation—loss of identity and enduring judgment—serving as an example of opposition to God’s purposes carried to its end. These are quintescential vessels of wrath, similar in shape and kind to Pharaoh and the collective lost at judgment.

6. Share how this session impacted your life.

The session reinforces that the issues addressed in the text are not bound to a specific time or culture. The same patterns—misalignment, diminished offering, outward structure without inward reality—persist across generations. This continuity highlights that Scripture is not merely historical but diagnostic. What was happening then is still happening now, only expressed through different forms. The impact is less about new information and more about recognition: the realization that these patterns are ongoing, and that what appears stable externally can still be fundamentally misaligned beneath the surface.

7. K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.

Nothing to add.

Lecture 3

1. Share how you have heeded the divine call to an authenticity that rises above the current fashions, slogans, or eddies of our day.

When I look back, this started when I was 17, when God pulled me out of Buddhism and martial arts (which both were my religion) and set me on a path that, at the time, made no sense to me or to anyone around me. For 30 years, I lived in the Scriptures, often outside of what the church considered the norm. I was seen as strange by the world and, in many cases, out of place in the church itself, which seemed more concerned with tradition and structure than with the Word. For most of that time, I assumed the problem was me—that my faith was malformed and that God had simply set me aside. But what I have come to understand in the last few years is that none of that was wasted. It was preparation. It aligns with what Chuck Missler emphasizes—that truth is not shaped by culture but revealed—and with Michael Heiser’s framework, which holds that the issue is allegiance, not appearance. My life has not conformed to the systems around me because it was never meant to.

Authenticity, for me, has not been about expression or fitting into a category—it has been about obedience. It has meant continuing forward in what God has called me to do, even when it made no sense, even when it cost me, and even when it isolated me. I measure my life against Scripture, not against what is currently accepted or celebrated. That has kept me from drifting into the eddies of the day, even when I didn’t fully understand why I was being kept there.

2. In what way(s) have your indifferences, carelessness, and half-heartedness blocked God’s ability to demonstrate His love fully toward you?

For much of my life, the issue has not been outright rebellion but self-doubt and double-mindedness. I was trained by my environment to believe that I was not worthy of serving, of being happy, of having a family, or of doing anything of real value. That belief followed me for decades and caused me to step away from writing multiple times. In that sense, my indifference wasn’t apathy—it was hesitation rooted in disbelief. And that hesitation affected how I experienced what God was doing in my life. Like in Book of Haggai 1:4–9, the issue was misalignment, not absence.

I don’t think God’s love itself was ever diminished—Scripture is clear on that—but my participation in it was limited by my lack of trust (John 14:21). Missler frames this as a matter of obedience, and that holds. Heiser would take it further and say this is a breakdown in my role as an image-bearer (I would disagree with him, because I do not accept that fallen humanity bears the image of God, only his likeness). Either way, the result is the same: when I hesitate, delay, or doubt what God has already made clear, I step out of alignment with what He is doing, and that affects everything downstream.

3. Explain why there will be offerings during the millennial era? Use Scripture to support your thesis.

Scripture is explicit that there will be offerings in the millennial kingdom—Book of Ezekiel 40–48 outlines a functioning temple system with sacrifices (Ezekiel 43:18–27). The question is not whether they exist, but why. While Missler suggests these are memorial in nature, I see them more as demonstrations of what perfection would require if man were to stand before God on his own merits. Hebrews 10:10–14 makes it clear that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient and final, so these offerings are not for salvation. Instead, they reveal the standard—absolute perfection—which man cannot uphold.

The millennium is the clearest picture of theocracy the world will ever see—Christ ruling, judging, and present—yet even then, humanity rebels (Revelation 20:7–9). That tells you everything. Heiser’s framework of restored sacred space is helpful here, but the outcome reinforces the point: even under perfect conditions, man fails. So these offerings function as a living demonstration of God’s justice and man’s inability. If man were to approach God apart from Christ, this is the system he would be under—and it would still not be enough.

4. Share the standards you demand when God’s work is involved.

I don’t approach God’s work casually, but I also don’t impose external standards. If God has not convicted me to do something, I don’t do it. But when He does, the work comes naturally and completely. It is not a matter of “good enough.” It either aligns with what it is supposed to be, or it is not finished. That has been especially true in my writing. It flows out of me in a way that is difficult to explain, and I know when it is done and when it is not. Anything less would be a compromise.

This aligns with the warning in the Book of Malachi 1:7–8—offering what is blemished or partial is not acceptable. Missler’s point that partial obedience is disobedience applies here directly. Heiser would frame this as maintaining what is sacred. Either way, the standard is not set by me—it is set by God, and my responsibility is to follow through with what He has already established.

5. Share in what way(s) you are a good steward of God’s resources.

For much of my life, stewardship was exercised amid scarcity. During my years in monastic isolation, I lived on a fraction of my income, intentionally reducing my needs so I could focus on study and contemplation. I structured my life in a way that allowed me to sustain that long-term, even planning for retirement with minimal resources. Looking back, that season was not just about simplicity—it was about proving faithful with what I had. Scripture speaks to this directly (Deuteronomy 8:18; 1 Corinthians 4:2).

What is striking is how that has shifted in the last few years. My life now is the opposite—marriage, a large and growing family, and financial provision beyond anything I expected. But I see it as the same principle, only extended and increased. I was faithful with little, so God entrusted more. That provision is not the goal—it is the context for what I am now doing in writing and ministry. Heiser’s idea of stewardship as participation in God’s order fits here. It is not just management—it is alignment with what He is building.

6. Share how your life reflects the name, reputation, characteristics, and majesty of our King.

This is not something I can fully assess on my own. That belongs more to my wife, my children, and those who know me. What I can say is that I have consistently placed Christ first in my life, even when I did not understand what He was doing. I have made mistakes, and I am not without my own issues, but I do not see my life as something I control. It’s already written, and I am walking it out. My role is to submit to the Lordship of Christ, to the direction of the Holy Spirit, and to what has been set before me (Ephesians 1:13).

Missler emphasizes that bearing God’s name carries responsibility (Exodus 20:7), and that is not something I take lightly. Heiser would frame this as image-bearing—representing God in the world. For me, that plays out in surrender. I do not trust my own instincts or conclusions apart from Him. This life is not what it appears to be, and it rarely unfolds the way I expect. But I cling to Christ alone, by faith alone. That is the only ground I stand on.

7. K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.

Nothing to add.

Lecture 4

1. Share how you guard against misrepresenting God.

I try to guard against misrepresenting God by constantly analyzing myself—my actions, my motives, and what I believe He is asking of me. I don’t assume that just because something feels right or aligns with what I want, that it is actually from Him. I ask myself directly: Is this just you, or is there real evidence that this is from God? That question forces me to slow down and examine whether I’m attributing my own desires to Him. Scripture warns about the heart being deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9), and I’ve seen enough in my own life to know that I’m capable of convincing myself of almost anything if I’m not careful. So I try to bring everything back under the authority of the Word and test it there.

At the same time, I understand that this is not just about getting the right answer—it’s about alignment. To bear His name is to represent Him (Exodus 20:7), and that goes beyond what I say into how I live. I don’t want to present a version of God that is shaped by my preferences or softened for acceptance. My responsibility is not to make Him easier to follow, but to remain faithful to what He has revealed. That means resisting the urge to adjust, reinterpret, or filter truth through my own lens. The moment I do that, I stop representing Him and start representing myself.

2. In what way(s) has your nation polluted the name of God through its misconduct of those whose responsibility is to honor it?

I don’t know that I can say it is the responsibility of the government or even non-believers to honor God, because most do not truly believe in Him to begin with. And even among believers, I’m not sure I would frame it as a responsibility the way we typically think of it. We respond to what God is doing in our lives. He initiates, and we respond. In that sense, whatever people do is ultimately within His sovereignty. That doesn’t remove accountability, but it does change how I view the situation. God is not reacting to human behavior—He is orchestrating all things according to His will.

That said, Scripture is clear that when those who claim to represent God live in contradiction to Him, His name is misrepresented (Romans 2:24). So even if I don’t place the burden on national systems or unbelievers, I do see how a nation can reflect a distorted view of God through those who claim His name but do not align with Him. When truth is compromised or redefined, when people speak for God but act contrary to Him, that creates confusion about who He is. It’s not just rejection that pollutes His name—it’s misrepresentation.

3. Share in what way(s) you are the priest in your house?

This is something I still struggle to fully understand and apply. I know the call is to lay my life down for my family, and I try to operate in that daily. But in practice, it’s not always straightforward. I often try to involve my wife in decisions because I don’t want to move forward in a direction she disagrees with, knowing that it can create tension or resentment later. But she sees that at times as me avoiding responsibility rather than leading. So I’m learning that being the priest in my house may not mean deferring every decision, but making decisions that are in the best interest of the family as a whole, even when that’s difficult.

At the same time, I do take responsibility for the spiritual direction of my home, even if I don’t always execute it well. I try to expose my children to the Word, to help them understand what it means to follow God, and to identify whether there is a calling on their lives. That includes things I personally struggle with, like encouraging church involvement and Christian community, because I recognize their value to them at this time in their discipleship. I don’t want to mislead them or give them a shallow or distorted understanding of faith. So I keep trying different approaches, even when they resist it, because I know that part of my role is to establish a foundation they can build on later.

4. How does the early history of the leaders of your nation compare with those of today?

When I look at the early leaders of this nation, I see men who, while not perfect, operated with some level of moral accountability. There was an expectation of integrity, and that expectation mattered in determining whether someone could lead. It was not just about power or influence—it was about character, at least to a degree. That doesn’t mean they always lived up to it, but the standard was there and carried weight.

Today, that has largely inverted. There doesn’t seem to be a consistent moral standard anymore, and in many cases, moral compromise is expected rather than avoided. It is often said that if you enter politics, it is only a matter of time before you are compromised. That reflects a broader cultural shift away from accountability to anything higher than the individual. It aligns with what Scripture describes when people begin to operate according to their own judgment (Judges 21:25). The comparison is not about idealizing the past, but recognizing the direction things have moved.

5. Why do you believe many ministers today are intimidated to a point of silence on issues with regard to promiscuity, extramarital “affairs,” and divorce among their congregants?

There are multiple pressures at work. First, the culture itself has normalized these behaviors to the point that speaking out against them feels like shouting into the void. It becomes a voice in the wilderness, and after a while, it seems like no one is listening. That alone can wear down a leader. But beyond that, there are practical concerns—many ministers depend on their congregations for their livelihood, and confronting these issues directly risks alienating people, reducing attendance, and ultimately threatening their position.

There is also a deeper issue of how these topics have been handled. In many cases, they have been shaped more by tradition and dogma than by clear, consistent biblical teaching. When that happens, people begin to reject the message altogether, not because Scripture is unclear, but because it has been presented poorly or inconsistently. Over time, silence becomes easier than confrontation, and what was once resisted becomes normalized. And once it becomes normal, it is rarely challenged.

6. In what way(s) may God be withholding blessings from your nation as a result of believers walking in self-will?

We need to be careful in how we apply this. There are clear instances in Scripture where God withholds blessing or brings difficulty in response to disobedience (as in Haggai 1:5–11), but I’m not convinced we can draw a direct line from that to our current situation in a simplistic way. As believers, we are under a different framework. We are told that everything that happens to us ultimately works for our good (Romans 8:28). That means what we experience is not punishment in the sense of judgment, but correction, discipline, and instruction.

So rather than seeing it as God withholding blessings, I see it as God shaping outcomes for a purpose. Even what appears to be a lack, hardship, or failure is part of that process. That applies individually and, to some extent, collectively. If believers are walking in self-will, the result is not necessarily withheld blessing, but rather misalignment with what God is doing. And that misalignment produces consequences—not because God is reacting, but because we are no longer operating within the structure He has established. Even then, those consequences are still used for growth, refinement, and ultimately for good.

7. K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.

Nothing to add.

Lecture 5

1. Why is love such an integral part of who we are, as image-bearers of God, as well as fellow human beings on this planet?

We were created by God to reflect Him in this respect—to love as we are loved and to look out for others over ourselves. In the beginning, mankind bore the image of God, but I would argue that this image was lost at the fall, and what remains is the likeness, not the full image. The restoration of that image is something for the future, tied to transformation, not something we currently hold in fullness. Even so, the design remains—we are oriented toward relationship, and love is the expression of that orientation.

In the Book of Haggai and the Book of Malachi, love is not treated as an emotion but as a priority and obedience. When the people neglected the temple or offered blemished sacrifices, it revealed a failure of love. Love, then, is integral because it shows whether we are aligned with God or misaligned. It is the visible indicator of whether we are reflecting Him at all.

2. What are some basic definitions our culture gives to love? How do these definitions affect how we live?

Most often, our culture defines love as transactional—if you do x for me, I will love you, and if you fail to meet my needs, that love is withdrawn. It is also reduced to a feeling or sensation rather than a commitment. That shifts love from something stable into something conditional and fragile, dependent on circumstances rather than grounded in anything enduring.

The result is shallow commitments, especially in marriage. What should be covenantal becomes temporary, leading to poor choices, broken relationships, and instability that affects entire families. Malachi exposes this same mindset: people claimed devotion but offered God what cost them nothing. When love is defined this way, it erodes into convenience, and life begins to reflect that erosion in every relationship.

3. Why, when we constantly offend Him and are so unlovable, does God persist in loving us?

God persists in loving us because it is His nature. His love is not based on our worthiness but on who He is. We may not fully understand His purposes, but we do know that He is faithful even when we are not. That faithfulness is not reactive—it is established, consistent, and independent of our behavior.

Malachi opens with the declaration that God has loved His people, even when they question it. Haggai shows that even after neglect and misalignment, God re-engages and calls His people back. His love is not passive—it is corrective and purposeful. It exists to restore alignment, not simply to comfort, and that is why it persists.

4. Are we in love with God, or just the “ stuff” He provides for us? Explain the difference.

God does provide, but not necessarily in the way the world expects. What He gives is provision for His purposes—everything needed to accomplish what He has called us to do. That includes resources, skills, opportunities, and circumstances. The mistake we make is assuming those things exist for us, rather than recognizing they are given for His will.

Haggai makes this distinction clear: the people invested in their own houses while neglecting God’s house. They wanted the benefits but not the alignment. Loving God means recognizing that what we have is not for our own ends, but for His. The difference is whether we see provision as something to consume or something to steward.

5. What is the right motive for loving God?

We love Him because He first loved us, but that is not transactional. His love is already established and does not depend on our response. Our love, then, is not a condition placed on Him but a response to who He is—His character, His faithfulness, and His authority.

Malachi frames this in terms of honor: if He is Father and Lord, then He is owed honor and reverence. The right motive is not what we receive, but recognition of His worth. Loving God rightly means loving Him because He is God, not because of what He gives.

6. Discuss what it means to “fear” the Lord. Share how you “fear” Him in your daily life.

The fear of the Lord is both reverence and real awareness. It is not only respect but an informed understanding of who God is—the living Creator—and who we are in relation to Him. That produces both awe and a legitimate sense of fear, not in the sense of panic, but in the sense of recognizing His authority and holiness.

In Haggai, the people feared the Lord when they heard His word and responded in obedience. In Malachi, fear is tied to properly honoring His name. In daily life, this means ordering decisions, priorities, and actions with the understanding that God sees and evaluates everything. It is not passive—it is lived out in alignment, restraint, and obedience.

7. K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.

Nothing to add.

Lecture 6

1. Discuss how the book of Malachi applies to Christians today.

The Book of Malachi applies directly to Christians today because it exposes the tendency of religious people to maintain outward activity while drifting inwardly. You see people offering sacrifices, keeping structure, and continuing routine, yet God calls it defiled (Mal 1:7–10). That same pattern exists now—half-hearted service, external obedience, and the assumption that activity equals faithfulness. As you noted, even in the New Testament, people can persecute in the name of God and believe they are doing His will (John 16:2). The issue is not sincerity, but alignment with truth.

The Book of Haggai reinforces this by exposing misplaced priorities. The people built their own houses while neglecting God’s (Hag 1:4–9), showing that love is revealed by what we prioritize, not what we claim. Missler emphasizes that God evaluates not just actions but motives, and Heiser highlights that covenant loyalty is the real measure of relationship. Malachi, then, applies as a diagnostic: it reveals whether our worship is substance or performance.

2. Explain how the book of Malachi will apply to Jews at the beginning of the Last Seven Years?

Malachi anticipates a future return to covenant awareness, but also exposes the same failures that will reappear. At the beginning of the Last Seven Years, the issues Malachi identifies—compromised leadership, corrupted worship, and failure to honor God’s name—will surface again. As you pointed out, there will likely be a return to the land, a renewed national identity, and the reestablishment of temple sacrifice. These actions mirror the desire to correct past failure, but Malachi warns that external restoration without internal alignment remains incomplete.

Missler’s framework places this in an eschatological context, in which Israel returns to covenant structures, while Heiser would emphasize that the covenant relationship remains the core issue. Malachi’s call to “return to Me” (Mal 3:7) becomes central. The danger is attempting to fix spiritual failure through structure alone. The resolution must be deeper—true covenant fidelity, not merely restored ritual.

3. Explain in what way(s) the book of Malachi is a link between the Old and New Testaments.

Malachi serves as a bridge because it shows that humanity—whether in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the present—is fundamentally the same. The people in Malachi are no different than believers today: they rationalize, compromise, and maintain outward religion while drifting inwardly. This continuity explains why the message of repentance carries directly into the New Testament. The problem is not the era—it is the condition of the human heart.

At the same time, Malachi points forward with specific expectation: the coming messenger and the return of Elijah (Mal 3:1; 4:5). This links directly to the ministry of John the Baptist and the arrival of Christ. Missler highlights this as a prophetic hinge, while Heiser frames it as covenant continuity. The Old Testament does not end—it transitions, carrying unresolved tension into the New.

4. Explain how Enoch may be a model of the Rapture.

In the Book of Genesis 5:24, Enoch was taken by God and did not experience death. This provides a clear pattern of removal prior to judgment. As you stated, he was effectively “raptured,” and this becomes a model for understanding the Church’s future removal. The key point is that Enoch walked with God—his relationship with God preceded his removal.

Missler often points to Enoch as a typological model rather than a direct fulfillment, showing that God has already demonstrated this pattern in history. The connection to Haggai and Malachi is indirect but important: both books emphasize alignment with God. The removal of Enoch is not arbitrary—it reflects a covenant relationship. The same principle applies to the Church being taken when it is complete.

5. Do you believe John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy about Elijah? Defend your position with Scripture.

There is clearly a connection between John the Baptist and Elijah, as Jesus Himself affirms (Matt 11:14), but it is not a complete fulfillment. John came in the “spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), meaning he fulfilled the role in a typological sense. However, Malachi 4:5 speaks of Elijah coming before the Day of the Lord, which points to a future, more literal fulfillment.

As you noted, this aligns with the expectation that Elijah may be one of the two witnesses in the end times. Missler supports this view by connecting Malachi to Revelation, while Heiser emphasizes the prophetic pattern of roles being fulfilled in stages. John fulfills the preparatory aspect, but the final fulfillment remains future.

6. Explain the purpose of the Transfiguration of Christ? How does this event link to the end times?

The Transfiguration reveals Christ in His glorified state and confirms His identity as more than a teacher or prophet. The presence of Moses and Elijah connects Jesus directly to the God of the Old Testament, showing continuity between the Law, the Prophets, and His ministry. As you noted, it places Him in direct relation to these figures, affirming that His mission is not separate but the fulfillment of what came before.

At the same time, the event functions as a preview of the Kingdom. It links to the end times by depicting Christ in glory and including Elijah, who is associated with Malachi’s prophecy. Missler views this as a prophetic glimpse of the coming Kingdom, while Heiser would emphasize the divine council imagery—heaven intersecting earth. The Transfiguration is both a confirmation and a preview of who Christ is and of what is coming.

7. K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.

Nothing to add.

Conclusion

This course sharpened the same warning from two angles: God does not accept hollow religious motions as faithfulness. Haggai confronts misplaced priorities, while Malachi exposes corrupted worship, careless leadership, and love reduced to words without reverence. Together, they forced me to look past activity and ask whether my life, work, family, and ministry are actually ordered around God—or merely decorated with spiritual language. That is the lasting lesson: obedience, honor, and alignment matter because God’s name is not something we use; it is something we bear.

Until my next post…..

---

---