Malachi · Chapter 1

Verse 1. The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.] This prophet is undoubtedly the last of the Jewish prophets. He lived after Zechariah and Haggai; for we find that the temple, which was begun in their time, was standing complete in his. See Malachi 3:10. Some have thought that he was contemporary with Nehemiah; indeed, several have supposed that Malachi, is no other than Ezra under the feigned name of angel of the Lord, or my angel. John the Baptist was the link that connected Malachi with Christ. According to Abp. Usher he flourished B.C. 416, but the authorized version, which we have followed in the margin, states this event to have happened nineteen years later. Both the Hebrew language and poetry had declined in his days.

Israel.—Here means the Jewish people in general.

Verses 1-3. The burden of the Lord — The word burden is here, as often elsewhere, equivalent to prophecy; to Israel — To those of all the tribes that were returned from captivity. I have loved you, saith the Lord — That is, in a particular and extraordinary degree; not only as men, but above the rest of men, and above the other posterity, both of Abraham and Isaac. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? — That is, wherein does thy particular love to us appear? What proofs hast thou given of loving us in an extraordinary degree? Us, who have been captives, and have groaned under the miseries of captivity, and bondage all our days till of late? Is this a proof of thy love to us?

Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord — Did not one father beget them, and one mother bear them? Yet I loved Jacob — Namely, more than Esau; I preferred him to the honour and privileges of the birthright, and this of free love. I loved his person and his posterity. Here God is introduced as answering the question, which, in the preceding clause, they are represented as asking, namely, wherein his particular regard to them appeared. But it must be well observed, that Jacob and Esau, as elsewhere Israel and Edom, are put to signify the whole posterity arising from these two persons, namely, the Israelites and Idumeans. And in asking, Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? God reminds them that the Idumeans, as they themselves very well knew, were descended from Abraham as well as they, and from a progenitor who was own brother to their progenitor Jacob. And I hated Esau — I loved not Esau’s posterity as I loved Jacob’s. By hating here is only meant, having a less degree of love, for in this sense the expression is frequently used. Thus, Genesis 29:31, Jacob’s loving Leah less than Rachel is termed hating her; and Luke 14:26, the loving father and mother, wife and children, less than we love Christ, is termed the hating of them. That this is the meaning of the expression hating, there, is evident from the parallel text, Matthew 10:37, 38, where we read, He that loveth father or mother MORE than me, is not worthy of me, &c. From these, and other passages that might be produced, it is evident that the expression, hating, is frequently used to signify no more than loving in a less degree, or showing less regard or favour to one than another. Indeed, as it may be further added, it would be doing a high dishonour to the nature of God to suppose that the expression, as here applied to Jacob and Esau, is to be taken in the strict sense of the word hating. And laid his mountains and his heritage waste — In these words the Lord shows in what sense he had hated Esau, that is, his posterity; he had given him a lot inferior to that which he had conferred on Jacob. Idumea had been laid waste by the arms of Nebuchadnezzar, five years after the taking of Jerusalem; and whereas Jacob’s captivity, or that of the Israelites, were restored to their own land, and their cities rebuilt, Esau’s never were. For the dragons of the wilderness — Creatures which delight in desolate places, by which the utter desolation of Idumea is signified. The Hebrew word µnt, or twnt, here rendered dragons, signifies any large creature of the creeping kind, whether by land or sea. In this place it is taken for a great serpent, such as are commonly found in deserts and desolate places.

Verse 1. The word of the Lord by Malachi, my angel, my messenger, or the messenger of the Lord. Malachi flourished after the second temple was built, and about four hundred and twenty years before the christian era. He succeeded Zechariah in the higher walks of inspiration. His style is more uncouth than that of Isaiah, who flourished in the Augustinian age of Hebrew poësy.

Verse 1 contains the title, which is similar to that in Zechariah 12:1 (compare also the common translation of Zechariah 9:1, but see comment there). Burden — See on Nahum 1:1. Word of Jehovah — See on Hosea 1:1. Israel — Not in the narrow sense, the northern kingdom (Amos 1:1), but the entire postexilic community, whether descendants of the northern tribes or of Judah. By Malachi — Literally, by the hand of Malachi (compare Haggai 1:1). See Introduction, p. 687.

V. 2. Loved you-Both personally considered and relatively, in progenitors. Us-Who have been captives, and groaned under it all our days ‘till of late. Was not Esau-Did not one father beget them, and one mother bear them? I loved Jacob-I preferred him to the birthright, and this of free love. I loved his person, and his posterity.

Verse 2. Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?] Have I not shown a greater partiality to the Israelites than I have to the Edomites? I loved Jacob] My love to Jacob has been proved by giving him greater privileges and a better inheritance than what I have given to Esau.

Verses 1-3. The burden of the Lord — The word burden is here, as often elsewhere, equivalent to prophecy; to Israel — To those of all the tribes that were returned from captivity. I have loved you, saith the Lord — That is, in a particular and extraordinary degree; not only as men, but above the rest of men, and above the other posterity, both of Abraham and Isaac. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? — That is, wherein does thy particular love to us appear? What proofs hast thou given of loving us in an extraordinary degree? Us, who have been captives, and have groaned under the miseries of captivity, and bondage all our days till of late? Is this a proof of thy love to us?

Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord — Did not one father beget them, and one mother bear them? Yet I loved Jacob — Namely, more than Esau; I preferred him to the honour and privileges of the birthright, and this of free love. I loved his person and his posterity. Here God is introduced as answering the question, which, in the preceding clause, they are represented as asking, namely, wherein his particular regard to them appeared. But it must be well observed, that Jacob and Esau, as elsewhere Israel and Edom, are put to signify the whole posterity arising from these two persons, namely, the Israelites and Idumeans. And in asking, Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? God reminds them that the Idumeans, as they themselves very well knew, were descended from Abraham as well as they, and from a progenitor who was own brother to their progenitor Jacob. And I hated Esau — I loved not Esau’s posterity as I loved Jacob’s. By hating here is only meant, having a less degree of love, for in this sense the expression is frequently used. Thus, Genesis 29:31, Jacob’s loving Leah less than Rachel is termed hating her; and Luke 14:26, the loving father and mother, wife and children, less than we love Christ, is termed the hating of them. That this is the meaning of the expression hating, there, is evident from the parallel text, Matthew 10:37, 38, where we read, He that loveth father or mother MORE than me, is not worthy of me, &c. From these, and other passages that might be produced, it is evident that the expression, hating, is frequently used to signify no more than loving in a less degree, or showing less regard or favour to one than another. Indeed, as it may be further added, it would be doing a high dishonour to the nature of God to suppose that the expression, as here applied to Jacob and Esau, is to be taken in the strict sense of the word hating. And laid his mountains and his heritage waste — In these words the Lord shows in what sense he had hated Esau, that is, his posterity; he had given him a lot inferior to that which he had conferred on Jacob. Idumea had been laid waste by the arms of Nebuchadnezzar, five years after the taking of Jerusalem; and whereas Jacob’s captivity, or that of the Israelites, were restored to their own land, and their cities rebuilt, Esau’s never were. For the dragons of the wilderness — Creatures which delight in desolate places, by which the utter desolation of Idumea is signified. The Hebrew word µnt, or twnt, here rendered dragons, signifies any large creature of the creeping kind, whether by land or sea. In this place it is taken for a great serpent, such as are commonly found in deserts and desolate places.

Ver. 2-4. Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau. A father was said to hate his eldest son, when he gave the better inheritance to a younger brother. In like manner, when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, he gave the greater blessing to Ephraim, whose tribe nearly equalled Judah in strength. This was done by a prophetic spirit, as future ages proved. The prophet therefore charges the jews with base ingratitude to God, in profaning his worship, seeing he had restored their temple and city, while the mountains of Edom, or of Esau, lay waste for the dragons of the wilderness.—Edom said, we will return and build too, like Jerusalem; but the Lord answered I will pull down. The wars made by the kings of Syria, as foretold in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, prevented Edom from rising to his former power. An apostle cites this passage in its true sense, showing that God had exalted believing gentiles to sit in heavenly places, while he had cast off the carnal jews in their state of unbelief, yet not without hope; for God was able to graft them in again, if they remained not in unbelief. Romans 9. How intoxicated then must those be with their system, who wrest such passages of scripture to personal and eternal election and reprobation! Hear St. Paul speak for himself: “Behold the goodness and severity of God. On them which fell, severity, but towards thee, oh christian, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” Romans 11:22.

JEHOVAH’S LOVE OF ISRAEL, 2-5.

The contents of these verses form the basis of all subsequent appeals, for they emphasize the fatherly love of Jehovah toward the Hebrews, which entitles him to their gratitude and devotion. The prophet points out that they do not have to go far to find proofs of the divine love. Jacob and Esau were brothers, hence one would naturally expect their descendants to be treated alike by God; but what contrast between the fortunes of the two! Israel, after many ups and downs, restored to its old home, there to remain forever; the territory of Edom doomed to be a perpetual desolation. There can be but one reason for all this — Jehovah loved Jacob, but Esau he hated. This love of Jehovah for Israel, the prophet thinks, should be the motive and model for Israel’s attitude toward him.

2, 3. I have loved you — In his emphasis of the divine love which manifested itself throughout the entire history of Israel, Malachi resembles Hosea (see p. 30). Yet ye say — These words give the first illustration of the dialectical and didactic character of the literary style of Malachi (compare Malachi 1:6, 7; 2:17; 3:13, 14). The author states a simple thesis, in this case “I have loved you.” Over against it he sets an objection which may have been raised at some previous time, or which he suspects may be in the mind of some one. This gives to him an opportunity to elaborate and prove the truth which in the beginning he simply affirmed. Wherein hast thou loved us? — These words express the objection. During the postexilic period doubts of this sort arose in the minds of many Jews, who were disappointed because the bright visions of the pre-exilic prophets were not realized; and this skepticism increased when it was seen that the expectations of Haggai and Zechariah also were not being fulfilled (see pp. 553f. and pp. 695). The prophet introduces his answer by another question. Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? — The two earliest of the Minor Prophets, Amos (Amos 1:11) and Hosea (Hosea 12:3), call attention to this relationship. As the succeeding verses show, the prophet is thinking primarily of the descendants of the two, but he traces the history back to the ancestors, because in their lives the difference in the attitude of Jehovah could already be seen. Everything else being equal, twin brothers might be expected to have similar experiences in life, and their descendants might be expected to enjoy similar fortunes. In the case of these two a vast difference could be seen. Yet — Though they were twin brothers. I loved Jacob,… hated Esau — Keil is right in insisting that the meaning of these words “must not be weakened down into loving more and loving less… To hate is the opposite of love. And this meaning must be retained here.” At the same time the meaning must not be pressed too literally. The expression is an anthropomorphism like repent (see on Joel 2:13) and swear (Amos 4:2), used by the prophet to present to his listeners or readers an idea in a form which they could easily understand. The great mass of Jews considered prosperity an infallible proof of the divine love and favor, adversity of the divine hatred. But if they explained their own present prosperity as an evidence of the divine favor, they must explain the affliction of Esau as an evidence of the divine wrath. The prophet says nothing concerning the ground of distinction, for to judge the motive was outside of his sphere. So far as his words are concerned Jehovah might have had good grounds for his action or he might have been arbitrary; but when we bear in mind the date of Malachi we must consider it very probable, to say the least, that he possessed a sufficiently lofty conception of the character of Jehovah to exclude arbitrariness (compare verse 4). R.V. renders the rest of verse 3, “and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness.” These words and verse 4 supply the proof of the divine hatred against Edom, and by implication the divine love for the Jews. Mountains — The territory of Edom was rocky and mountainous (see on Amos 1:11; Obadiah 1:3, 4), therefore the whole country might be called mountain. Heritage — Denotes the territory of the Edomites as a possession inherited from their ancestors and from their god (compare Judges 11:23, 24). For the dragons of the wilderness — R.V., “to the jackals.” The meaning of the Hebrew word translated dragon or jackal is not quite certain, since it occurs nowhere else in this form. It is related to a word ordinarily translated sea-monster (compare Genesis 1:21), which is used in an oracle against Edom in Isaiah 34:13, where it is translated jackals. The idea is that Edom has been wasted so completely that now only beasts of the desert live there. LXX. and Peshitto read, “into dwellings of the wilderness.” A similar expression, to which Stade proposes to change the phrase in this verse, “pastures of the wilderness,” occurs in Jeremiah 9:10; but here it would be no improvement, and unless a more serious corruption is assumed the translation of R.V. is preferable. If an emendation is thought necessary, that suggested by Marti is the most satisfactory, “and made his heritage to a wilderness.”

When the devastation of Edom took place is not stated; however, verse 4 suggests that it occurred quite recently, for at the time of the utterance the damage had not yet been repaired, nor had there been made any attempt in that direction. In all probability Malachi has in mind the expulsion of the Edomites from their territory by the Nabatean Arabs, which began during the period of the exile and reached its culmination during the early part of the fifth century B.C. (compare Amos 1:11; Joel 3:20; Obadiah 1:1-15).

But, some one might say, the Israelites also passed through a period of oppression and homelessness, and yet they were restored to their old home, and prosperity is returning; may not the Edomites enjoy a similar restoration? This objection is met in verse 4 by the declaration that the desolation of Edom will continue forever, that every attempt to restore its fortunes will prove futile. We are impoverished — R.V., “beaten down.” This the Edomites admit, but they are not disheartened, for they expect to rebuild the waste places. We will return and build — If the calamity alluded to is the expulsion of the Edomites from their home land (see on verse 3), this translation should be retained. They expect to recover the territory, and then to rebuild the desolate places. The Hebrew idiom also permits the translation “we will build again,” which does not imply an expulsion or a hope of return. Jehovah will prevent the execution of their plans (compare Isaiah 9:8-10), for his hatred against Edom will continue, and he will keep it in ruins forever. I will throw down — Bring to naught all attempts of restoration. They shall call — Better, R.V., “men shall call.” The subject is indefinite. Whoever observes the vain struggle will pass the judgment expressed in the rest of the verse. The border of wickedness,… The people against whom Jehovah hath indignation — The continued desolation and the failure of every attempt to rebuild the waste places would constitute conclusive evidence that the wrath of Jehovah is resting upon Edom, but that presupposed, according to popular belief, the commission of some great crime by the Edomites. If they or men include people outside of the Jewish community the expression “Jehovah hath indignation” implies that Malachi assumes the recognition of Jehovah as the true God by people other than the Jews (compare 1:11). Forever — See on Joel 3:20.

V. 3. I hated-I loved not Esau’s posterity as I loved Jacob’s. His heritage-Mount Seir with the neighbouring mountains. Waste-By Nebuchadnezzar’s arms five years after the sacking of Jerusalem, and whereas Jacob’s captivity returned, and their cities were rebuilt, Esau’s never were. The dragons-Creatures which delight in desolate places, by which the utter desolation of Esau is signified.

Verse 3. And I hated Esau] I have shown him less love; Genesis 29:30, 31. I comparatively hated him by giving him an inferior lot. And now, I have not only laid waste the dwelling-place of the Edomites, by the incursions of their enemies; but (Malachi 1:4) they shall remain the perpetual monuments of my vengeance. On the subject of loving Jacob and hating Esau, see the notes on Genesis 27:21-46, and Romans 9:13. Let it be remembered, 1. That there is not a word spoken here concerning the eternal state of either Jacob or Esau. 2. That what is spoken concerns merely their earthly possessions. And, 3. That it does not concern the two brothers at all, but the posterity of each.

Verses 1-3. The burden of the Lord — The word burden is here, as often elsewhere, equivalent to prophecy; to Israel — To those of all the tribes that were returned from captivity. I have loved you, saith the Lord — That is, in a particular and extraordinary degree; not only as men, but above the rest of men, and above the other posterity, both of Abraham and Isaac. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? — That is, wherein does thy particular love to us appear? What proofs hast thou given of loving us in an extraordinary degree? Us, who have been captives, and have groaned under the miseries of captivity, and bondage all our days till of late? Is this a proof of thy love to us?

Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord — Did not one father beget them, and one mother bear them? Yet I loved Jacob — Namely, more than Esau; I preferred him to the honour and privileges of the birthright, and this of free love. I loved his person and his posterity. Here God is introduced as answering the question, which, in the preceding clause, they are represented as asking, namely, wherein his particular regard to them appeared. But it must be well observed, that Jacob and Esau, as elsewhere Israel and Edom, are put to signify the whole posterity arising from these two persons, namely, the Israelites and Idumeans. And in asking, Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? God reminds them that the Idumeans, as they themselves very well knew, were descended from Abraham as well as they, and from a progenitor who was own brother to their progenitor Jacob. And I hated Esau — I loved not Esau’s posterity as I loved Jacob’s. By hating here is only meant, having a less degree of love, for in this sense the expression is frequently used. Thus, Genesis 29:31, Jacob’s loving Leah less than Rachel is termed hating her; and Luke 14:26, the loving father and mother, wife and children, less than we love Christ, is termed the hating of them. That this is the meaning of the expression hating, there, is evident from the parallel text, Matthew 10:37, 38, where we read, He that loveth father or mother MORE than me, is not worthy of me, &c. From these, and other passages that might be produced, it is evident that the expression, hating, is frequently used to signify no more than loving in a less degree, or showing less regard or favour to one than another. Indeed, as it may be further added, it would be doing a high dishonour to the nature of God to suppose that the expression, as here applied to Jacob and Esau, is to be taken in the strict sense of the word hating. And laid his mountains and his heritage waste — In these words the Lord shows in what sense he had hated Esau, that is, his posterity; he had given him a lot inferior to that which he had conferred on Jacob. Idumea had been laid waste by the arms of Nebuchadnezzar, five years after the taking of Jerusalem; and whereas Jacob’s captivity, or that of the Israelites, were restored to their own land, and their cities rebuilt, Esau’s never were. For the dragons of the wilderness — Creatures which delight in desolate places, by which the utter desolation of Idumea is signified. The Hebrew word µnt, or twnt, here rendered dragons, signifies any large creature of the creeping kind, whether by land or sea. In this place it is taken for a great serpent, such as are commonly found in deserts and desolate places.

Ver. 2-4. Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau. A father was said to hate his eldest son, when he gave the better inheritance to a younger brother. In like manner, when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, he gave the greater blessing to Ephraim, whose tribe nearly equalled Judah in strength. This was done by a prophetic spirit, as future ages proved. The prophet therefore charges the jews with base ingratitude to God, in profaning his worship, seeing he had restored their temple and city, while the mountains of Edom, or of Esau, lay waste for the dragons of the wilderness.—Edom said, we will return and build too, like Jerusalem; but the Lord answered I will pull down. The wars made by the kings of Syria, as foretold in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, prevented Edom from rising to his former power. An apostle cites this passage in its true sense, showing that God had exalted believing gentiles to sit in heavenly places, while he had cast off the carnal jews in their state of unbelief, yet not without hope; for God was able to graft them in again, if they remained not in unbelief. Romans 9. How intoxicated then must those be with their system, who wrest such passages of scripture to personal and eternal election and reprobation! Hear St. Paul speak for himself: “Behold the goodness and severity of God. On them which fell, severity, but towards thee, oh christian, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” Romans 11:22.

JEHOVAH’S LOVE OF ISRAEL, 2-5.

The contents of these verses form the basis of all subsequent appeals, for they emphasize the fatherly love of Jehovah toward the Hebrews, which entitles him to their gratitude and devotion. The prophet points out that they do not have to go far to find proofs of the divine love. Jacob and Esau were brothers, hence one would naturally expect their descendants to be treated alike by God; but what contrast between the fortunes of the two! Israel, after many ups and downs, restored to its old home, there to remain forever; the territory of Edom doomed to be a perpetual desolation. There can be but one reason for all this — Jehovah loved Jacob, but Esau he hated. This love of Jehovah for Israel, the prophet thinks, should be the motive and model for Israel’s attitude toward him.

2, 3. I have loved you — In his emphasis of the divine love which manifested itself throughout the entire history of Israel, Malachi resembles Hosea (see p. 30). Yet ye say — These words give the first illustration of the dialectical and didactic character of the literary style of Malachi (compare Malachi 1:6, 7; 2:17; 3:13, 14). The author states a simple thesis, in this case “I have loved you.” Over against it he sets an objection which may have been raised at some previous time, or which he suspects may be in the mind of some one. This gives to him an opportunity to elaborate and prove the truth which in the beginning he simply affirmed. Wherein hast thou loved us? — These words express the objection. During the postexilic period doubts of this sort arose in the minds of many Jews, who were disappointed because the bright visions of the pre-exilic prophets were not realized; and this skepticism increased when it was seen that the expectations of Haggai and Zechariah also were not being fulfilled (see pp. 553f. and pp. 695). The prophet introduces his answer by another question. Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? — The two earliest of the Minor Prophets, Amos (Amos 1:11) and Hosea (Hosea 12:3), call attention to this relationship. As the succeeding verses show, the prophet is thinking primarily of the descendants of the two, but he traces the history back to the ancestors, because in their lives the difference in the attitude of Jehovah could already be seen. Everything else being equal, twin brothers might be expected to have similar experiences in life, and their descendants might be expected to enjoy similar fortunes. In the case of these two a vast difference could be seen. Yet — Though they were twin brothers. I loved Jacob,… hated Esau — Keil is right in insisting that the meaning of these words “must not be weakened down into loving more and loving less… To hate is the opposite of love. And this meaning must be retained here.” At the same time the meaning must not be pressed too literally. The expression is an anthropomorphism like repent (see on Joel 2:13) and swear (Amos 4:2), used by the prophet to present to his listeners or readers an idea in a form which they could easily understand. The great mass of Jews considered prosperity an infallible proof of the divine love and favor, adversity of the divine hatred. But if they explained their own present prosperity as an evidence of the divine favor, they must explain the affliction of Esau as an evidence of the divine wrath. The prophet says nothing concerning the ground of distinction, for to judge the motive was outside of his sphere. So far as his words are concerned Jehovah might have had good grounds for his action or he might have been arbitrary; but when we bear in mind the date of Malachi we must consider it very probable, to say the least, that he possessed a sufficiently lofty conception of the character of Jehovah to exclude arbitrariness (compare verse 4). R.V. renders the rest of verse 3, “and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness.” These words and verse 4 supply the proof of the divine hatred against Edom, and by implication the divine love for the Jews. Mountains — The territory of Edom was rocky and mountainous (see on Amos 1:11; Obadiah 1:3, 4), therefore the whole country might be called mountain. Heritage — Denotes the territory of the Edomites as a possession inherited from their ancestors and from their god (compare Judges 11:23, 24). For the dragons of the wilderness — R.V., “to the jackals.” The meaning of the Hebrew word translated dragon or jackal is not quite certain, since it occurs nowhere else in this form. It is related to a word ordinarily translated sea-monster (compare Genesis 1:21), which is used in an oracle against Edom in Isaiah 34:13, where it is translated jackals. The idea is that Edom has been wasted so completely that now only beasts of the desert live there. LXX. and Peshitto read, “into dwellings of the wilderness.” A similar expression, to which Stade proposes to change the phrase in this verse, “pastures of the wilderness,” occurs in Jeremiah 9:10; but here it would be no improvement, and unless a more serious corruption is assumed the translation of R.V. is preferable. If an emendation is thought necessary, that suggested by Marti is the most satisfactory, “and made his heritage to a wilderness.”

When the devastation of Edom took place is not stated; however, verse 4 suggests that it occurred quite recently, for at the time of the utterance the damage had not yet been repaired, nor had there been made any attempt in that direction. In all probability Malachi has in mind the expulsion of the Edomites from their territory by the Nabatean Arabs, which began during the period of the exile and reached its culmination during the early part of the fifth century B.C. (compare Amos 1:11; Joel 3:20; Obadiah 1:1-15).

But, some one might say, the Israelites also passed through a period of oppression and homelessness, and yet they were restored to their old home, and prosperity is returning; may not the Edomites enjoy a similar restoration? This objection is met in verse 4 by the declaration that the desolation of Edom will continue forever, that every attempt to restore its fortunes will prove futile. We are impoverished — R.V., “beaten down.” This the Edomites admit, but they are not disheartened, for they expect to rebuild the waste places. We will return and build — If the calamity alluded to is the expulsion of the Edomites from their home land (see on verse 3), this translation should be retained. They expect to recover the territory, and then to rebuild the desolate places. The Hebrew idiom also permits the translation “we will build again,” which does not imply an expulsion or a hope of return. Jehovah will prevent the execution of their plans (compare Isaiah 9:8-10), for his hatred against Edom will continue, and he will keep it in ruins forever. I will throw down — Bring to naught all attempts of restoration. They shall call — Better, R.V., “men shall call.” The subject is indefinite. Whoever observes the vain struggle will pass the judgment expressed in the rest of the verse. The border of wickedness,… The people against whom Jehovah hath indignation — The continued desolation and the failure of every attempt to rebuild the waste places would constitute conclusive evidence that the wrath of Jehovah is resting upon Edom, but that presupposed, according to popular belief, the commission of some great crime by the Edomites. If they or men include people outside of the Jewish community the expression “Jehovah hath indignation” implies that Malachi assumes the recognition of Jehovah as the true God by people other than the Jews (compare 1:11). Forever — See on Joel 3:20.

V. 4. Throw down-So he did in the times of the Maccabees. The border of wickedness-They will be a most wicked people, and so notorious, that all their neighbours shall brand them for it. Hath indignation-They will so highly provoke God, that his indignation will be kindled against them for ever.

Verse 4. They shall build, but I will throw down] We have already seen enough of the wickedness of the Edomites to justify the utmost severity of Divine justice against them. The pulling down predicted here was by Judas Maccabeus; see 1Mac 5:65; and by John Hyrcanus; see Joseph. Antiq., lib. xiii. c. 9. s. 1.

They shall call them, The border of wickedness] A wicked land. Among this people scarcely any trace of good could ever be noted.

Verses 4, 5. Edom saith, We are empoverished, [or, brought low,] but we will return and build the desolate places — This they accordingly did, as we learn from the history of those times; and undoubtedly thought to become a flourishing people again, and to continue so. But God had determined otherwise, as is here declared. Thus saith the Lord, They shall build, but I will throw down — This was accordingly done by God’s giving success, first to the arms of Judas Maccabæus, and afterward to those of Hyrcanus, by whom Edom was spoiled and laid waste again. And they shall call them, The border of wickedness — They shall be called, or accounted by others, a wicked nation, or a country of wicked men, and therefore deservedly laid waste. And ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified — Or, rather, Let the Lord be magnified; from the border of Israel — Namely, from that border which extended even to Idumea.

Ver. 2-4. Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau. A father was said to hate his eldest son, when he gave the better inheritance to a younger brother. In like manner, when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, he gave the greater blessing to Ephraim, whose tribe nearly equalled Judah in strength. This was done by a prophetic spirit, as future ages proved. The prophet therefore charges the jews with base ingratitude to God, in profaning his worship, seeing he had restored their temple and city, while the mountains of Edom, or of Esau, lay waste for the dragons of the wilderness.—Edom said, we will return and build too, like Jerusalem; but the Lord answered I will pull down. The wars made by the kings of Syria, as foretold in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, prevented Edom from rising to his former power. An apostle cites this passage in its true sense, showing that God had exalted believing gentiles to sit in heavenly places, while he had cast off the carnal jews in their state of unbelief, yet not without hope; for God was able to graft them in again, if they remained not in unbelief. Romans 9. How intoxicated then must those be with their system, who wrest such passages of scripture to personal and eternal election and reprobation! Hear St. Paul speak for himself: “Behold the goodness and severity of God. On them which fell, severity, but towards thee, oh christian, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” Romans 11:22.

JEHOVAH’S LOVE OF ISRAEL, 2-5.

The contents of these verses form the basis of all subsequent appeals, for they emphasize the fatherly love of Jehovah toward the Hebrews, which entitles him to their gratitude and devotion. The prophet points out that they do not have to go far to find proofs of the divine love. Jacob and Esau were brothers, hence one would naturally expect their descendants to be treated alike by God; but what contrast between the fortunes of the two! Israel, after many ups and downs, restored to its old home, there to remain forever; the territory of Edom doomed to be a perpetual desolation. There can be but one reason for all this — Jehovah loved Jacob, but Esau he hated. This love of Jehovah for Israel, the prophet thinks, should be the motive and model for Israel’s attitude toward him.

2, 3. I have loved you — In his emphasis of the divine love which manifested itself throughout the entire history of Israel, Malachi resembles Hosea (see p. 30). Yet ye say — These words give the first illustration of the dialectical and didactic character of the literary style of Malachi (compare Malachi 1:6, 7; 2:17; 3:13, 14). The author states a simple thesis, in this case “I have loved you.” Over against it he sets an objection which may have been raised at some previous time, or which he suspects may be in the mind of some one. This gives to him an opportunity to elaborate and prove the truth which in the beginning he simply affirmed. Wherein hast thou loved us? — These words express the objection. During the postexilic period doubts of this sort arose in the minds of many Jews, who were disappointed because the bright visions of the pre-exilic prophets were not realized; and this skepticism increased when it was seen that the expectations of Haggai and Zechariah also were not being fulfilled (see pp. 553f. and pp. 695). The prophet introduces his answer by another question. Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? — The two earliest of the Minor Prophets, Amos (Amos 1:11) and Hosea (Hosea 12:3), call attention to this relationship. As the succeeding verses show, the prophet is thinking primarily of the descendants of the two, but he traces the history back to the ancestors, because in their lives the difference in the attitude of Jehovah could already be seen. Everything else being equal, twin brothers might be expected to have similar experiences in life, and their descendants might be expected to enjoy similar fortunes. In the case of these two a vast difference could be seen. Yet — Though they were twin brothers. I loved Jacob,… hated Esau — Keil is right in insisting that the meaning of these words “must not be weakened down into loving more and loving less… To hate is the opposite of love. And this meaning must be retained here.” At the same time the meaning must not be pressed too literally. The expression is an anthropomorphism like repent (see on Joel 2:13) and swear (Amos 4:2), used by the prophet to present to his listeners or readers an idea in a form which they could easily understand. The great mass of Jews considered prosperity an infallible proof of the divine love and favor, adversity of the divine hatred. But if they explained their own present prosperity as an evidence of the divine favor, they must explain the affliction of Esau as an evidence of the divine wrath. The prophet says nothing concerning the ground of distinction, for to judge the motive was outside of his sphere. So far as his words are concerned Jehovah might have had good grounds for his action or he might have been arbitrary; but when we bear in mind the date of Malachi we must consider it very probable, to say the least, that he possessed a sufficiently lofty conception of the character of Jehovah to exclude arbitrariness (compare verse 4). R.V. renders the rest of verse 3, “and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness.” These words and verse 4 supply the proof of the divine hatred against Edom, and by implication the divine love for the Jews. Mountains — The territory of Edom was rocky and mountainous (see on Amos 1:11; Obadiah 1:3, 4), therefore the whole country might be called mountain. Heritage — Denotes the territory of the Edomites as a possession inherited from their ancestors and from their god (compare Judges 11:23, 24). For the dragons of the wilderness — R.V., “to the jackals.” The meaning of the Hebrew word translated dragon or jackal is not quite certain, since it occurs nowhere else in this form. It is related to a word ordinarily translated sea-monster (compare Genesis 1:21), which is used in an oracle against Edom in Isaiah 34:13, where it is translated jackals. The idea is that Edom has been wasted so completely that now only beasts of the desert live there. LXX. and Peshitto read, “into dwellings of the wilderness.” A similar expression, to which Stade proposes to change the phrase in this verse, “pastures of the wilderness,” occurs in Jeremiah 9:10; but here it would be no improvement, and unless a more serious corruption is assumed the translation of R.V. is preferable. If an emendation is thought necessary, that suggested by Marti is the most satisfactory, “and made his heritage to a wilderness.”

When the devastation of Edom took place is not stated; however, verse 4 suggests that it occurred quite recently, for at the time of the utterance the damage had not yet been repaired, nor had there been made any attempt in that direction. In all probability Malachi has in mind the expulsion of the Edomites from their territory by the Nabatean Arabs, which began during the period of the exile and reached its culmination during the early part of the fifth century B.C. (compare Amos 1:11; Joel 3:20; Obadiah 1:1-15).

But, some one might say, the Israelites also passed through a period of oppression and homelessness, and yet they were restored to their old home, and prosperity is returning; may not the Edomites enjoy a similar restoration? This objection is met in verse 4 by the declaration that the desolation of Edom will continue forever, that every attempt to restore its fortunes will prove futile. We are impoverished — R.V., “beaten down.” This the Edomites admit, but they are not disheartened, for they expect to rebuild the waste places. We will return and build — If the calamity alluded to is the expulsion of the Edomites from their home land (see on verse 3), this translation should be retained. They expect to recover the territory, and then to rebuild the desolate places. The Hebrew idiom also permits the translation “we will build again,” which does not imply an expulsion or a hope of return. Jehovah will prevent the execution of their plans (compare Isaiah 9:8-10), for his hatred against Edom will continue, and he will keep it in ruins forever. I will throw down — Bring to naught all attempts of restoration. They shall call — Better, R.V., “men shall call.” The subject is indefinite. Whoever observes the vain struggle will pass the judgment expressed in the rest of the verse. The border of wickedness,… The people against whom Jehovah hath indignation — The continued desolation and the failure of every attempt to rebuild the waste places would constitute conclusive evidence that the wrath of Jehovah is resting upon Edom, but that presupposed, according to popular belief, the commission of some great crime by the Edomites. If they or men include people outside of the Jewish community the expression “Jehovah hath indignation” implies that Malachi assumes the recognition of Jehovah as the true God by people other than the Jews (compare 1:11). Forever — See on Joel 3:20.

V. 5. From the border of Israel-Let Israel from all his borders give God praise.

Verse 5. Your eyes] Ye Israelites shall see, in your succeeding generations, that—

The Lord will be magnified] By his kindness in Israel, and his judgments beyond.

Verses 4, 5. Edom saith, We are empoverished, [or, brought low,] but we will return and build the desolate places — This they accordingly did, as we learn from the history of those times; and undoubtedly thought to become a flourishing people again, and to continue so. But God had determined otherwise, as is here declared. Thus saith the Lord, They shall build, but I will throw down — This was accordingly done by God’s giving success, first to the arms of Judas Maccabæus, and afterward to those of Hyrcanus, by whom Edom was spoiled and laid waste again. And they shall call them, The border of wickedness — They shall be called, or accounted by others, a wicked nation, or a country of wicked men, and therefore deservedly laid waste. And ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified — Or, rather, Let the Lord be magnified; from the border of Israel — Namely, from that border which extended even to Idumea.

5. When the Jews see with their own eyes the fulfillment of these threats upon Edom they will be convinced of the divine majesty and love. Your eyes shall see — They need not depend upon hearsay, for with their own eyes will they witness the humiliation of Edom. Ye shall say — Convinced by the fulfillment of the threats. Jehovah will be magnified from the border of Israel — R.V., “Jehovah be magnified beyond the border of Israel”; margin R.V., “Jehovah is great beyond the border of Israel.” Of these three translations the last is the best. The treatment accorded to the Edomites will prove to the Jews that Jehovah is supreme even over the nations outside of Israel. However, the force of the preposition is not quite clear; literally it is “from upon,” which may be used in the sense of above or over, “Jehovah is great over the borders of Israel,” that is, the contrast between the fortunes of Edom and those of Israel is proof that Jehovah’s great powers are exercised especially on behalf of the Jews — in other words, that he loves them. This thought would seem to fit even better into the context.

ISRAEL’S NEGLECT OF JEHOVAH, Malachi 1:6-2:9.

Throughout the entire history of Israel Jehovah showed himself a loving father and kind master; this would seem to entitle him to the people’s gratitude and reverence, but they fail to give him his dues (6), as is clearly shown by the fact that they offer to Jehovah gifts which a human governor would reject with scorn (7, 8). No wonder that Jehovah refuses to listen to their prayers (9). It would be far better to close the temple and extinguish the altar fires than to continue this sort of service (10). The service rendered to Jehovah among the nations is preferable to that of the Jews, for it is pure and generous, while that of the Jews is corrupt and heartless; the offerings are small, the sacrificial animals diseased and worthless, and the little they do give they give grudgingly (11-13). Cursed be everyone who dares to insult Jehovah in this manner (14). If the priests do not heed the warning and render unto Jehovah the service acceptable to him he will send his curse upon them, that they may understand his purpose to maintain the ancient covenant with Levi (Malachi 2:1-4). According to this covenant Jehovah promised to Levi life and peace, while Levi promised to fear Jehovah. Both parties kept the covenant faithfully; Levi served God, and by his faithfulness turned many to righteousness (5, 6). Similar conduct is expected of all his priests (7), but how far short of the ideal do they come (8)! Therefore disgrace and contempt will be their portion (9). Rebuke of the faithless priests and people, 6-14.

V. 6. O priests-Had undutifulness been found among the ignorant people, it might have been a little excusable. But you, O priests, whose business is to know me, have like Eli’s sons despised me yourselves, and made others do so too.

Verse 6. A son honoureth his father] I am your Father—where, then, is my honour? Where your filial obedience?

If I be a master, where is my fear?] The respect due to me.

Verse 6. A son honoureth his father, &c. — Since it is evident I am not only your Lord, and have a right to govern and command you by my creation of you, but also may be esteemed your Father, on account of the extraordinary benefits I have bestowed upon you, where are those proper dispositions which I might expect to find in you in return? namely, reverence for me, and fear of offending me, as your Lord and Master, and love and honour toward me as your Father. Unto you, O priests, &c. — What is here said is addressed in particular to you priests, because, being chosen and appointed, according to your office, to honour and glorify me, you ought to have been the first and most forward to do it; but, instead of that, you have been the first to dishonour me. Had undutifulness been found among the ignorant people, it might have been, in some measure, excusable; but you, whose calling and business it is to know, love, and serve me, are without excuse, because, like Eli’s sons, you have despised me yourselves, and made others do so too. The prophet adds, that perhaps they would have the assurance to pretend they had not done it, and to ask in what particular such a charge could be alleged against them? if so, he would enumerate the particulars to them, which he does accordingly in the following verses.

Ver. 6. A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master. But by offering polluted beasts on the altar, they in fact accounted the altar polluted. A man who dishonours God in his worship, does a double wrong to his own soul. He loses the great reward, which is the gift of grace, and entails upon himself a curse.

6. The prophet starts from a generally recognized truth. Son… servant Every one would admit that a son owes loving reverence to his father or that a servant should regard his master with respect and honor. But though Jehovah was the father of Israel (Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1; Jeremiah 31:9) and his master, Israel being his servant (Isaiah 41:8; 42:1; 44:1), the nation has failed to render to him that which rightfully belongs to him. Fear — Better, reverence (compare Isaiah 8:13). O priests — Though the priests are addressed as the “soul of the national life,” the reproof applies with equal force to the whole people. Despise my name — See on Amos 2:7; Micah 4:5. In the place of honor and reverence they bestow upon Jehovah insult and shame. Wherein have we despised? — The prophet knows that this question might be raised by those who were accustomed to pass through the forms of religion but were unable to enter into the spirit of it (see on verse 2); hence he immediately proceeds to answer it.

V. 7. Bread-Either the meal-offerings, or rather in a more large sense, all sacrifices and oblations. Ye say-Perhaps in words; at least your deeds speak your thoughts. The table-This comprehends all that was offered to God.

Verse 7. Ye offer polluted bread] The priests, probably to ingratiate themselves with the people, took the refuse beasts, &c., and offered them to God; and thus the sacrificial ordinances were rendered contemptible.

Verses 7, 8. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar — By this seems to be meant, the bread-offering, or the cake of fine flour, which was to be offered with the continual sacrifice in the morning and evening of every day. By being polluted is to be understood, that it was not such as the law required. They diminished something, either in the quality or quantity of what the law commanded them to offer; either the bread was not made of good flour, or mixed with the required quantity of good oil. And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? — Or dishonoured, or had thee in contempt? The answer is ready, In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible — You pretend, as a cover for your avarice, that the table or altar of the Lord is despised among the people, and that therefore they do not bring to it, by way of offering, that quantity of flour and oil which they should. Or the meaning is, By your actions you declare how little value you have for the worship of God, since you care not in how slight and contemptuous a manner it is performed. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? — The beasts to be offered were required to be perfect and without blemish, Leviticus 22:21, 22. Offer it now to thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? — Wilt thou be acceptable or welcome unto him, bringing him such a worthless present? It argues a great contempt of Almighty God, when men are less careful in maintaining the decencies of his worship than they are in giving proper respect to their superiors.

Ver 7. Ye offer polluted bread upon my altar. Hebrews µjl Lechem signifies the bread of God, meat of all kinds, the mincha or meat-offerings. This worldly wise people thought that the damaged part would do very well to be burnt on the altar, while they retained the choice parts for their own feasts. Christians also are often cruel towards their ministers. The situation of the clergy would be deplorable, if they were left to the mercy of the farmers; others of us also, who have served our people for half a century, have but a bare subsistence in hoary age. The remark of our prophet in the tenth verse is just, that the doorkeepers had a right to bread for their labour. The faithful minister who works night and day for his people, is often not appreciated till after his death. Then money is made of his remains, and his writings praise him in the gate.

7, 8. The insult consists in the presentation upon Jehovah’s altar of gifts and sacrifices which they would not dare to offer to an earthly ruler. Ye offer — The priests. They should have refused to accept improper offerings from the worshipers (Leviticus 22:17-25), and should have instructed them in their duties (Malachi 2:7), but they did not guard the interests of Jehovah. Bread — Or, food. Here in the more specific sense of food of the Deity, that is, sacrifice, which is called bread of God (Leviticus 21:6, 8; Ezekiel 44:7). Polluted — Or, unclean. The sacrifice is so called because (1) it was offered in a spirit of hypocrisy; (2) the animals presented were blemished and therefore unfit for sacrifice (verses 8, 12; compare Leviticus 22:17-25). This accusation also is resented. Wherein have we polluted thee? — The idea underlying the question is that to touch or eat anything unclean makes a person unclean (compare Ezekiel 13:19; Haggai 2:13). The question does not follow naturally upon the preceding accusation, which already supplies an answer to it, nor is the succeeding clause a suitable answer. LXX. gives a preferable reading, “Wherewith have we polluted it?” that is, the bread which the prophet has called polluted. To which the prophet replies, By saying that the table of Jehovah is contemptible. This they have said not in words but by the actions described in verse 8. Table — As sacrifice is called food, so the altar may be called a table. Contemptible — In the sense that anything is good enough for it.

In 8a the prophet points out how they show their contempt for the altar and for Jehovah. If — Better, R.V., “when.” Ye offer the blind — Therefore unfit for sacrifice (Leviticus 22:22). Is it not evil? — Better, R.V., “it is no evil!” The words are used ironically; according to their own notions it is no evil. Lame and sick — Also unfit for sacrifice (Leviticus 22:20-25; Deuteronomy 15:21). Would they dare to present such gifts to an earthly governor? But if not, how can they justify themselves for presenting them to one greater than he? Offer — R.V., “Present,” as a gift. The sacrifices are gifts presented to Jehovah. Thy governor — At this time probably a Persian, whose favor might be bought; but he would refuse to have anything to do with a present of little or no value, and with the person presenting such gift.

V. 8. Evil-Is it not against the express command of God.

Verse 8. Offer it now unto thy governor] tjp pechath, a word signifying a lieutenant, or viceroy, among the Chaldeans, Syrians, and Persians; for neither at this time, nor ever after, was there a king in Israel.

Verses 7, 8. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar — By this seems to be meant, the bread-offering, or the cake of fine flour, which was to be offered with the continual sacrifice in the morning and evening of every day. By being polluted is to be understood, that it was not such as the law required. They diminished something, either in the quality or quantity of what the law commanded them to offer; either the bread was not made of good flour, or mixed with the required quantity of good oil. And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? — Or dishonoured, or had thee in contempt? The answer is ready, In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible — You pretend, as a cover for your avarice, that the table or altar of the Lord is despised among the people, and that therefore they do not bring to it, by way of offering, that quantity of flour and oil which they should. Or the meaning is, By your actions you declare how little value you have for the worship of God, since you care not in how slight and contemptuous a manner it is performed. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? — The beasts to be offered were required to be perfect and without blemish, Leviticus 22:21, 22. Offer it now to thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? — Wilt thou be acceptable or welcome unto him, bringing him such a worthless present? It argues a great contempt of Almighty God, when men are less careful in maintaining the decencies of his worship than they are in giving proper respect to their superiors.

7, 8. The insult consists in the presentation upon Jehovah’s altar of gifts and sacrifices which they would not dare to offer to an earthly ruler. Ye offer — The priests. They should have refused to accept improper offerings from the worshipers (Leviticus 22:17-25), and should have instructed them in their duties (Malachi 2:7), but they did not guard the interests of Jehovah. Bread — Or, food. Here in the more specific sense of food of the Deity, that is, sacrifice, which is called bread of God (Leviticus 21:6, 8; Ezekiel 44:7). Polluted — Or, unclean. The sacrifice is so called because (1) it was offered in a spirit of hypocrisy; (2) the animals presented were blemished and therefore unfit for sacrifice (verses 8, 12; compare Leviticus 22:17-25). This accusation also is resented. Wherein have we polluted thee? — The idea underlying the question is that to touch or eat anything unclean makes a person unclean (compare Ezekiel 13:19; Haggai 2:13). The question does not follow naturally upon the preceding accusation, which already supplies an answer to it, nor is the succeeding clause a suitable answer. LXX. gives a preferable reading, “Wherewith have we polluted it?” that is, the bread which the prophet has called polluted. To which the prophet replies, By saying that the table of Jehovah is contemptible. This they have said not in words but by the actions described in verse 8. Table — As sacrifice is called food, so the altar may be called a table. Contemptible — In the sense that anything is good enough for it.

In 8a the prophet points out how they show their contempt for the altar and for Jehovah. If — Better, R.V., “when.” Ye offer the blind — Therefore unfit for sacrifice (Leviticus 22:22). Is it not evil? — Better, R.V., “it is no evil!” The words are used ironically; according to their own notions it is no evil. Lame and sick — Also unfit for sacrifice (Leviticus 22:20-25; Deuteronomy 15:21). Would they dare to present such gifts to an earthly governor? But if not, how can they justify themselves for presenting them to one greater than he? Offer — R.V., “Present,” as a gift. The sacrifices are gifts presented to Jehovah. Thy governor — At this time probably a Persian, whose favor might be bought; but he would refuse to have anything to do with a present of little or no value, and with the person presenting such gift.

V. 9. I pray you-O priests. Beseech-Intercede with God for his sinful people. This-This contempt of God.

Verse 9. Beseech God] There were evident marks of God’s displeasure in the land, and it was occasioned by these pollutions through the priests. And now he exhorts them to pray to God that they may be pardoned: for, if this practice be persisted in, God will not accept any offering made by them.

Verses 9, 10. And now, I pray you, beseech God, &c. — And now I beseech you, (for you cannot deny that ye have done as I have said,) that you would supplicate God to pardon the nation in general, as well as yourselves, for what offences have been committed against his laws; for ye have been the principal cause of them, by the disregard you had for God’s service. Will he regard your persons? — This ought rather to be rendered, If, perhaps, he may regard your persons. Who among you would shut the doors for naught? — All those pretences which you make use of to excuse yourselves, for presenting unto God improper and worthless offerings, are quite vain, for it is plain that a general avarice prevails, and is practised among you; for even the officers, or ministers, whose duty it is to open and shut the doors of the temple, and to kindle fire on the altar, will not perform their office without making a gain of it, or receiving fees for it. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord — I cannot take pleasure in men so intent upon their own profit as ye are; and under the gospel I will put an end both to your priesthood and the sacrifices which you offer. This is implied in the next verse.

9. They know well enough that the favor of an earthly governor cannot be secured in this way; let them now see if Jehovah is pleased with such things. Beseech God — Literally, the face of God (compare Zechariah 7:2). Not a call to repentance, but an ironical challenge to supplicate Jehovah with gifts and prayers. In other great crises he heard intercessory prayer (Genesis 18:22ff.; Exodus 32:11). This hath been by your means — Literally, from your hands was this; that is, the offering of unclean animals. These words interrupt the thought; the question following is the real continuation of the ironical exhortation; therefore many commentators omit them as a later gloss. As they stand now, they can serve only to emphasize the illegitimacy and hypocrisy of their conduct. What can they expect under these circumstances? Will he regard your persons? — R.V., “accept any of your persons?” margin, “accept any because of you?” The Hebrew is ambiguous, but in view of the exhortation, which seems to imply intercessory prayer, the marginal translation is to be preferred. The priests were mediators between Jehovah and the people, they offered sacrifice as servants of Jehovah and of the people, to secure the divine favor for the latter; but since they have proved faithless their service is no longer acceptable, they can no longer secure the favor of Jehovah for the people. Jehovah of hosts — See on Hosea 12:5.

Verse 10. Who is-among you] From this we learn that there was not one sincere or honest priest among them. They were selfish and worldly; and so basely so, that not one of them would even kindle a fire on the hearth of the altar unless he were paid for it.

Verses 9, 10. And now, I pray you, beseech God, &c. — And now I beseech you, (for you cannot deny that ye have done as I have said,) that you would supplicate God to pardon the nation in general, as well as yourselves, for what offences have been committed against his laws; for ye have been the principal cause of them, by the disregard you had for God’s service. Will he regard your persons? — This ought rather to be rendered, If, perhaps, he may regard your persons. Who among you would shut the doors for naught? — All those pretences which you make use of to excuse yourselves, for presenting unto God improper and worthless offerings, are quite vain, for it is plain that a general avarice prevails, and is practised among you; for even the officers, or ministers, whose duty it is to open and shut the doors of the temple, and to kindle fire on the altar, will not perform their office without making a gain of it, or receiving fees for it. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord — I cannot take pleasure in men so intent upon their own profit as ye are; and under the gospel I will put an end both to your priesthood and the sacrifices which you offer. This is implied in the next verse.

10. The translators of A.V. misunderstood the force of 10a. R.V. expresses the thought much more clearly, though in some respects it is less literal than A.V.: “Oh that there were one among you that would shut the doors, that ye might not kindle fire on mine altar in vain!” The sense of the passage is: It were better that the doors of the temple be closed, and that sacrifices would cease entirely, than that the present condition be continued. Oh that there were one (R.V.) — Literally, Who is there even among you? This question has the force of a wish (compare 2 Samuel 15:4; Psalm 4:6): Is there not even one among you? — Would that some one were among you (G.-K., 151a)! Shut the doors — Of the temple, so that all worshipers will be excluded, and in consequence all sacrifices will cease. Kindle fire on mine altar — Literally, light my altar, with sacrificial fires (Isaiah 27:11; 50:11). In vain (R.V.) — To no purpose, for it does not secure for them the divine favor (verse 9). I have no pleasure in you — Primarily the priests, but also the worshipers in general, because they leave undone the things pleasing to him, and for the things which they do he does not care (compare Isaiah 1:10-17; Amos 5:21-24). An offering — The word is ordinarily used to denote the meal offering (see on Joel 1:9); here it stands for sacrifice or offering of every sort (compare Zephaniah 3:10).

V. 11. Incense-A law term for a gospel duty, and under this type are contained the prayers and praises, nay, the whole gospel-worship. A pure offering-Both sincere, in opposition to hypocrisy, and holy, in opposition to impurity, superstition and idolatry.

Verse 11. From the rising of the sun] The total abolition of the Mosaic sacrifices, and the establishment of a spiritual worship over the whole earth, is here foretold. The incense of praise, and the pure offering of the Lamb without spot, and through him a holy, loving heart, shall be presented everywhere among the Gentiles; and the Jews and their mock offerings shall be rejected.

Verse 11. For from the rising of the sun, &c., my name shall be great among the Gentiles — You may perhaps think, if I will not accept an offering from your hands, that I shall have none; but in this you err greatly; for know that my name shall be great, or highly reverenced, among all the nations of the earth, who will worship me, not as you do, as if it were a labour for which they ought to be paid; but with pure minds, inflamed with love toward me and zeal for my glory. And in every place incense shall be offered to my name — Prayers and praises shall be presented before me as incense. For here the prophet describes the Christian sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving by the outward rites of the Jewish worship: see note on Zechariah 14:16. Indeed, incense was considered by the Jews themselves as a figure or emblem of prayer and praise: see Psalm 141:2; Luke 1:10. This spiritual service, the prophet says, shall be offered in every place, whereas the Jewish worship was confined to the temple. The words of Christ, John 4:21, 22, are a good commentary upon this text; where to worship in spirit is opposed to the carnal ordinances of the Jewish service, such as meats and drinks and bloody sacrifices, or to mere external worship; and in truth, to the types and ceremonies of the Mosaic law, which were only shadowy representations of things to come. And a pure offering — Namely, the offering of prayer and praise, of faith, love and obedience, of the heart and life, the body and soul, to be dedicated to and employed for God. Such, also are the oblations of real Christians for the support of God’s worship, the maintenance of a gospel ministry, or the relief of the poor. Thus, in this verse, two important points of our religion are declared in the fullest manner: the abolition of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the ancient law, and the pure and spiritual nature of the Christian worship and service.

Ver. 11. From the rising of the sun, to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the gentiles. A pure offering of sweet incense, defined in Revelation 8:3 to be the prayers of the saints, shall be presented on the golden altar by the angel of the covenant. Then the legal sacrifice of beasts should cease, when Christ assumes his mediatorial glory.

Verse 11 has been and still is the subject of much discussion. The chief point of controversy is the question whether the verse points to the prophet’s present or future. The Hebrew, apart from the context, permits either translation. LXX. refers it to the present, so also a few of the early church fathers; A.V., A.R.V., and margin of English R.V. refer it to the future; English R.V. and margin A.R.V., to the present. Interpreted of the present, the translation is, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered unto my name, even a pure offering: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts.” Until quite recently commentators were about equally divided, but the most recent writers are inclined toward interpreting the words of the present; and this seems to be the most natural interpretation in the light of the context, because (1) both verse 10 and verse 12 refer to the present, and in verse 12 at least the same grammatical construction is used as in verse 11; (2) the prophet’s argument requires this interpretation. That it is the present conduct of the Jews that he condemns is quite evident (verse 12), but in order to make the contrast effective he must place over against the present conduct of the Jews the present conduct of the nations.

But granting that verse 11 refers to the prophet’s present, what does it mean? Some have thought that the prophet has in mind the worship rendered by Jewish proselytes among the nations, or by Jews scattered among the nations. Neither interpretation is quite satisfactory, because (1) the number of proselytes technically so called must have been very small during the first half of the fifth century B.C., and the dispersion had not proceeded very far at that time. (2) Neither does justice to the prophet’s language, which seems to imply that members of foreign nations rendered in some way acceptable service to Jehovah. Against this interpretation that the prophet is thinking of foreigners, several objections have been raised:

(1) “It would be unheard of that a prophet who holds such strict views of the law, and abominates foreign wives on account of their heathen deities as a pollution of the holy nation (Malachi 2:11, 12), would apply the predicate pure to heathen offerings.” (2) This view “contradicts the definite assertion that the knowledge of the name of Jehovah forms the postulate of such service.” (3) The teaching of the New Testament is said to be explicit: “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God” (1 Corinthians 10:20).

A New Testament statement cannot be used to prove what an Old Testament writer may or may not have written, for it is universally admitted that the coming of Jesus has resulted in religious thinking along new lines. But even the New Testament permits the interpretation suggested. Though Romans 1:19, 20, and Acts 17:23ff., do not express the identical thought, they move in the direction of the statement in Malachi when they assert that even nations other than Jews may do things acceptable to God.

The force or weakness of the second objection depends upon the interpretation of the expression name of Jehovah. As stated in other connections, it means practically Jehovah in manifestation (see on Amos 2:7; Micah 4:5). In the interpretation of the clause “my name is great among the nations” we may readily follow Keil, who, however, interprets verse 11 of the future. “And the name of God,” says he, “is only great among the Gentiles when Jehovah has proved himself to them a great God, so that they have discerned the greatness of the living God from his marvelous works and thus have learned to fear him.” That this will happen at some future time, and in some cases in the immediate future from the standpoint of the speakers, is taught in several passages in the Old Testament (for example, Zephaniah 2:11; Exodus 15:14-16; Psalm 46:9-11), but the Old Testament goes beyond this. There are several passages in the Old Testament which assert with an emphasis not surpassed in verse 11 that the nations have already “discerned the greatness of the living God from his marvelous works” and, in some cases at least, have “learned to fear him”; for example, Psalm 126:2, which is dated by many in the period of Malachi’s activity; the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, especially the decrees ascribed to the Persian kings, which deal with the period beginning with the return in 537 and end, generally speaking, with the second visit of Nehemiah, about 432, in the latter part of which period falls the activity of our prophet; also the Book of Daniel. The testimony of these passages is of value, whatever the date of the composition of the books, for there can be no doubt that from the very beginning the pious Jews attributed the permission to return from Babylon to the direct interference of Jehovah, a view which implies the belief in a recognition on the part of the Persian rulers of the greatness and supremacy of Jehovah (compare also Isaiah 11:12; 49:22). It is seen, then, that the second and the third objections find no support in Scripture. There remains the first objection, that the idea of Malachi calling the heathen offerings pure is absurd and “unheard of.” Is this statement true?

(1) A recognition of the presence of Jehovah worship among the nations does not necessarily exclude opposition to marriage alliances with those who have not yet come to serve Jehovah properly. In Hebrew as in English the term everywhere does not include every individual or community, or even every nation. The prophet says “among the nations.” (2) The opposition to mixed marriages, like the hostility toward the Samaritans in the days of Jesus, was based upon racial as well as upon religious feelings; therefore the prophet might recognize the presence of true worship among the surrounding nations and yet, because of this racial prejudice, be opposed to alliances with these very nations. It would not be difficult to find analogies even in the twentieth century A.D. (3) With few exceptions the development of the religious thought of Israel, at least from the eighth century onward, proceeded in the direction of the statement of Malachi. Amos recognized that the nations possessed a certain amount of moral and religious light, and he condemned them for not living up to it (Malachi 1:3-2:3; compare Malachi 3:9, 10); Isaiah condemned the Assyrians for disregarding the commission of Jehovah (Isaiah 10:5-7); but all this implies the possibility of rendering acceptable service to Jehovah. Aside from these implications the statements in later books (for example, Daniel 4:34ff.; 6:25ff.; compare Jonah 1:14-16) must not be overlooked. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah also imply the belief in a recognition of Jehovah as the true God by the Persian kings and a desire to serve him in a proper manner. These allusions, though not expressing the thought exactly as it is expressed in verse 11, certainly make it possible to think of Malachi as believing that in his days an acceptable worship was rendered to Jehovah among the nations of the earth. (4) Sacrificial terms came to be used in Israel in a metaphorical sense of acts and expressions of devotion other than the literal offering of sacrifice (Psalm 51:17). The terms of verse 11 might be understood in this wider sense, though in addressing the Jews the prophet would use the same terms primarily in a literal sense. If so, the thought of verse 11 would be that people in every clime, even without the special revelation granted to the Jews, had come to recognize Jehovah as the true God as a result of his mighty works for Israel, and that at the time of the prophet they were rendering to him a purer service than the Jews, whom alone Jehovah had known among all the families of the earth (Amos 3:2).

This does not mean, however, that the prophet recognized the presence of monotheism in the heathen religions, or that he regarded all the sacrifices that were offered to different deities as offered in reality, though perhaps unconsciously, to the one true God. The true view, it seems to the present writer, is expressed by Schultz in these words: “The prophet is pointing out, in contrast to the selfishness and petty avarice of the inhabitants of the Holy Land in regard to sacrifices, that far more valuable sacrifices are being offered all round about to the Great God who is proving himself more and more the God of the nations.” Though, as stated above, we cannot speak here of proselytes in the technical sense of that term, the observation by the Jews of this turning to Jehovah among the nations would create and encourage a spirit of proselyting.

V. 12. But ye-O priests! And the people by your examples. Ye say-By your deportment. Is polluted-Not a sacred thing. His meat-Either the meat which fell to the priest’s share, or the portion which was laid upon the altar.

Verse 12. Ye have profaned it] Ye have desecrated God’s worship; is it any wonder that God should cast you off, and follow you with his judgments?

Verses 12, 13. But ye — O priests, and the people, by your example; have profaned it — Namely, my great name. You have used it as a common thing, and as of no importance or consideration. In that ye say — Namely, by your deportment; The table of the Lord is polluted — Not a sacred thing, or a thing to be revered; and the fruit thereof, his meat, is contemptible — Either the meat which fell to the priests’ share, or the portion which was laid upon the altar. They were neither pleased with that which the Lord reserved for himself, nor with that which he gave to them, but they found fault with both; the latter, in particular, they termed contemptible, a poor, sordid allowance, scarce fit for meaner persons and less service. Ye said also — To the sins before mentioned, the priests chiefly, and the people with them, added this also, that they openly complained of God’s service. Behold what a weariness — What a toil and drudgery is it to observe every point of the law! Ye have complained of the constant attendance upon my altar as a wearisome employment. And ye have snuffed — Have expressed your disgust, at it. And ye have brought that which was torn — Ye have brought into the temple, for victims, that which had been torn by wild beasts, &c. It was forbidden even to eat in common that which had been torn, Exodus 22:31, and therefore nothing could show higher contempt than to bring such things for offerings to God.

Verse 12 is a repetition of the rebuke in verse 7. In sharp contrast to the honor which Jehovah receives among the nations stand the contempt and insult he suffers from his own people. But ye — Who have enjoyed special privileges and advantages. Have profaned it — That is, the name of Jehovah (see on Amos 2:7; Micah 4:5). Better, R.V., “ye profane it,” continually. The same idea is expressed by despise (verse 6) and pollute (verse 7). The rest of verse 12 indicates how they profane the name of Jehovah. In that ye say — By their actions more than by their words. The table of Jehovah is polluted — Literally, the table of Jehovah, polluted is it. Polluted here is identical in meaning with contemptible in verse 7. They consider anything good enough for the table, that is, for the altar of Jehovah. The fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible — Literally, the fruit thereof, contemptible is its eating. Fruit is that which is laid upon the altar, the sacrifice or offering. The clause, when interpreted naturally, expresses the thought that the portion of the sacrifices belonging to the priests is not considered good enough to serve them as food and is therefore despised. If the sacrificial animals were as poor and diseased as the prophet points out, such thought does not appear strange; and yet some take exception to this interpretation on the ground that “If the flesh… had been too bad for food in their estimation, they would not have admitted such animals or offered them in sacrifice.” Those who take this latter view consider “his eating” equivalent to its meat or food (R.V.), in apposition to “the fruit thereof.” Its food would then be the sacrifices placed upon the altar, which would be the food of Jehovah (verse 7), therefore A.V. “his meat.” The Hebrew does not favor this interpretation, and if the present text is correct the first view is preferable. It is not impossible, however, that the word translated his fruit — a peculiar designation for sacrifice — has arisen through dittography, and that the original read simply “and contemptible is his food,” that is, the food of Jehovah (see on verse 7). If the word is omitted the thought of the two clauses of verse 12 becomes practically identical. Altar and sacrifice they esteem lightly, and they consider anything good enough to be offered to Jehovah.

V. 13. What a weariness-What a toil and drudgery to observe every point of the law. This-With such minds snuffing at my service, and with such sacrifices, unfit for mine altar.

Verse 13. Ye have snuffed at it] A metaphor taken from cattle which do not like their fodder. They blow strongly through their nose upon it; and after this neither they nor any other cattle will eat it. Ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick] There had never been such abominations in the Divine worship before. What was of no worth in itself, and what could not be used by its owner, was brought to God’s altar, and offered for sacrifice! Was not the punishment of these wretches less than their crimes?

Verses 12, 13. But ye — O priests, and the people, by your example; have profaned it — Namely, my great name. You have used it as a common thing, and as of no importance or consideration. In that ye say — Namely, by your deportment; The table of the Lord is polluted — Not a sacred thing, or a thing to be revered; and the fruit thereof, his meat, is contemptible — Either the meat which fell to the priests’ share, or the portion which was laid upon the altar. They were neither pleased with that which the Lord reserved for himself, nor with that which he gave to them, but they found fault with both; the latter, in particular, they termed contemptible, a poor, sordid allowance, scarce fit for meaner persons and less service. Ye said also — To the sins before mentioned, the priests chiefly, and the people with them, added this also, that they openly complained of God’s service. Behold what a weariness — What a toil and drudgery is it to observe every point of the law! Ye have complained of the constant attendance upon my altar as a wearisome employment. And ye have snuffed — Have expressed your disgust, at it. And ye have brought that which was torn — Ye have brought into the temple, for victims, that which had been torn by wild beasts, &c. It was forbidden even to eat in common that which had been torn, Exodus 22:31, and therefore nothing could show higher contempt than to bring such things for offerings to God.

Verse 13 continues the thought of verse 12. Their faithlessness and corruption is seen in their attitude toward the entire sacrificial service. The tenses should be translated, with R.V., as present tenses, for the prophet condemns present sacrifices. What a weariness is it! — Not the eating of their portion of the sacrificial meat, but the priestly office and the service at the sanctuary. It they consider a trouble and a burden instead of an honor and a privilege, as they should. Ye have snuffed at it — At the service or table of Jehovah. An expression of contempt. Here is found one of the emendations of the scribes (see on Habakkuk 1:12); and following the Masoretic suggestion that at it is a change from an original at me, some commentators read “ye have snuffed at me,” but the thought remains essentially the same. The contempt finds expression in the offering of unfit animals as sacrifices. Torn — Better, R.V., “taken by violence”; that is, something stolen. They were too selfish to give of their own (compare 2 Samuel 12:1ff.), and when they did give of their own they gave only what was of no use to them. An additional thought may be implied, namely, that by giving stolen goods to Jehovah they would make him a participant in the crime, and thus make it impossible for him to punish them. Some scholars, following verse 8, read “blind.” Lame,… sick — See on verse 8. The rebuke closes with a question similar to the one in verse 8. Should I accept this of your hand? — Simply because you are priests. He cannot do this. Sacrifice of this sort is an abomination to him (compare Amos 5:21-24; Isaiah 1:10-15).

V. 14. The deceiver-The hypocrite that would seem to offer a sacrifice of the best, but puts God off with the worst. A male-A perfect male, such as God requireth.

Verse 14. Cursed be the deceiver] Those who act thus, as they cannot elude God’s notice, so neither shall they escape his curse. And voweth, and sacrificeth—a corrupt thing] The history of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:1, &c., is a complete comment on this. It was high time to break up this corrupt service; and after this time God does not appear to have paid any regard to it, for he sent them no other prophet. MALACHI

Verse 14. But cursed be the deceiver — The hypocrite, that deceives man, and seems as if he would be glad to deceive God; the false heart, that intends one thing and pretends another, would appear to offer a sacrifice of the best, but puts God off with the worst. Which hath in his flock a male — A perfect male, such as God requireth; and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing — Such as the Lord hath declared he will not accept. The former reproofs related only to the priests; here the prophet reproves those in general who showed a contempt of God by vowing unto him, upon any occasion, the worst of their flock. It seems to be spoken of such offerings as any of the people, of their own accord, vowed to God: see Leviticus 22:19. And if they did not think fit to vow such things as God directed, they would have done less dishonour to him not to have vowed at all. For I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is, or shall be, dreadful — As God is the great King over all the earth, and will be acknowledged as such among the Gentiles under the gospel, (verse 11,) so men’s religious services ought to be performed with a reverence suitable to the greatness of his majesty.

14. To the specific condemnation of the priests is added a curse upon all Israelites whose worship is insincere. The deceiver — One who seeks to deceive Jehovah in the manner described in the succeeding clauses. Keil sees here two kinds of deception: (1) when according to the law a male animal should have been sacrificed, and the person offering the sacrifice substituted a female, that is, one of less value, under the pretense that he did not have a male; (2) when one made a vow that demanded a perfect sacrifice, but offered one that was faulty and therefore unfit. To get this distinction from the present text requires considerable stretching of the Hebrew as well as of the imagination. Was there any occasion on which a diseased animal could be vowed? It is better, therefore, to understand the words of only one kind of deception. The thought becomes clearer if, following LXX., the pronominal suffix is added to the verb voweth, “who hath in his flock a male and voweth it, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a blemished thing.” Voweth — Only perfect animals could be offered in fulfillment of a vow (Leviticus 22:21). A corrupt thing — R.V., “blemished.” Instead of the perfect animal, which, though vowed, he retains in the flock. Such hypocrisy the great and terrible God of the universe cannot endure (compare Isaiah 1:13). A great King — Over all the earth. As such he has the right to demand the best. My name — See on verse 6, and references there. Is dreadful among the heathen — R.V., “terrible among the Gentiles” (see on Zephaniah 2:11); but here the word seems to be used rather in the sense of “is feared” — held in reverence. Jehovah who is reverenced even among the nations (verse 11), cannot, in justice to himself and to the nations, permit himself to be treated with contempt by his own people.