Deeper Commentary

Malachi Chapter 1

Malachi 1:1 An oracle: the word of Yahweh to Israel by Malachi- "Malachi" is a form of malak, the word usually used for messenger of Angel. The appeal of the prophecy is to the priests, who are described in Mal. 2:7 as "the messenger of Yahweh of Armies". So it would seem that Malachi [s.w. "messenger"] was himself a priest who was modelling what a priest should be like by giving his prophecy. So we have here a priest rebuking priests; and this is always the most powerful way to preach, teach and pastor, when the teacher or pastor has commonality with the audience. It was and is why the Lord Jesus fully had our human nature. The priests were to ‘turn’ [s.w. ‘convert’] believers away from the life of sin and behind the way of God (Mal. 2:6 LXX); the priestly mission was to bring about the conversion which was required before the revelation of Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom. As explained on Haggai and Zechariah, the exiles who returned could have experienced Joshua and / or Zerubbabel as their Messianic rulers in God's restored Kingdom in Judah. But they didn't 'return' to Yahweh spiritually, and most of them preferred to remain in exile anyway. It could be that 'Malachi' was an appeal for repentance by a priest who was attempting to prepare the way for Messiah's coming. But still Judah refused to respond, and his fellow priests, perhaps his own relatives, refused to prepare that way; and Malachi as the messenger of the covenant was rejected by his people. And so Malachi's mission failed, but it would come true in the work of the future Elijah prophet. Hence he concludes by speaking about this. John the Baptist was the primary fulfilment of it, and the latter day Elijah prophet will be the main fulfilment. John the Baptist felt that the Elijah ministry was about being "a voice crying", and he gives no direct answer to the question "Who are you?". He was just a voice, he felt his name was irrelevant. This might explain why 'Malachi' is anonymous, simply the messenger- of a possible new covenant.

Malachi 1:2 I have loved you, says Yahweh. Yet you say, How have you loved us? Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother? says Yahweh, Yet I loved Jacob- Paul cites predestination as a parade example of God's grace. God's love of  Jacob over Esau was not because Jacob was better; in secular terms, he was not such a nice guy as Esau. But God's love was for Jacob, to demonstrate His grace and to thereby elicit the response of faith and devotion. But Jacob / Israel refused. In Malachi's time, Israel had greatly slacked in keeping the Law: "What a weariness is it!", they grumbled to each other. They divorced faithful wives so they could marry Gentiles, they practiced sorcery and sexual perversion (Mal. 2:14-16; Mal. 3:5). But the first problem which the Spirit addresses is their lack of appreciation that God really did love them deeply (Mal. 1:2). All the other immorality flowed from this. We need to constantly remind ourselves never to feel "Nobody loves me". God loves us, in His Son. Let us never ever forget that.

The clear parallel between the historical man Jacob and the people of Israel is brought out here. Had Israel appreciated God’s love for the man Jacob, and perceived that he was typical of them, then they would never have doubted God’s love for them. And the same is true of us, whom Jacob likewise represents. It can be demonstrated that the weakness of Jacob, morally and even doctrinally, runs far deeper than may be apparent on the surface. Even at the end, despite the level of spiritual maturity which Jacob doubtless achieved, he still had serious aspects of incompleteness in his character. And yet he is held up as a spiritual hero, a victor in the struggle against the flesh. This was (and is) all possible on account of the phenomenal imputation of righteousness which God gave to His Jacob. He was saved by grace, not works; and Malachi appeals to God's people to see in Jacob's salvation an eternal reminder of God's grace (Mal. 1:2; 3:6). Very often, the name Jacob is associated with the way that God sees His people of Jacob / Israel as righteous when in fact they are not (Num. 23:7,10,21; 24:5; Ps. 47:4; 105:6; 135:4; Is. 41:8).

The various questions and statements put into Judah's mouth in Malachi, such as "How have you loved us?", are unlikely citations of what they actually said. Rather do we see here how God perceives the thought as the word, and how He sees and traces to the end the implications of our positions. We note that these same people who questioned whether God loved them were at the same time intensely religious and emotional in their apparent devotions to Him, covering His altar with tears (Mal. 2:13). In this we see a challenge; we can very seriously go through the motions of religious devotion, and yet disbelieve the simple love of God toward us.

Malachi 1:3 But Esau I hated- "Hated" effectively means 'loved less' (as in Lk. 14:26 cp. Mt. 10:37; and Gen. 29:30,31 cp. Dt. 21:15,16). We read that Rebekah loved Jacob, but Isaac loved Esau; this isn't to say that each parent hated the other child, but that they loved them less. God seems to be saying that He too had (as it were) this kind of favouritism- by grace. And "Jacob" was to be awed by that grace; but they were not. In wrath God had said of Israel: “I hated them” (Hos. 9:15). Yet God loves Israel with an eternal love, and hates their enemies Esau (Mal. 1:3). He will “love them freely” ultimately (Hos. 14:14). These windows into God's internal struggles reveal that His love is far from cheap.

And made his mountains a desolation- Esau was judged for his sins; whereas so often, God didn't judge Jacob as he deserved.

And gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness- God gave Esau and inheritance and then took it away, giving it to the jackals. Jacob / Israel sinned even worse; their mountains were also made desolate, their heritage given to others- but despite a dearth of repentance, God had still restored them to their land in Malachi's time. This restoration was by grace alone; and Israel ought to have responded more and not questioned God's love.

Malachi 1:4 Whereas Edom says, We are beaten down, but we will return and build the waste places; thus says Yahweh of Armies, They shall build, but I will throw down- God challenges Judah’s indolence to rebuild the temple by drawing their attention to how zealously Edom had rebuilt their “desolate places”. If Edom can do it… why can’t you, Judah, with all God’s prophecies and support behind you? God threw down what the Edomites tried to rebuild, but was eager to confirm and magnify every stone laid by Judah. We too are challenged by the devotion and commitment of secular people to causes which are unspiritual and not Godly. If they can do so much for their causes; how much more should we devote every atom of our being to the things of the Kingdom.

And men will call them ‘The Wicked Land’, even the people against whom Yahweh shows wrath forever- The curses against Judah and Edom were similar (Is. 34:5); but God never lifted the curse upon Edom, whereas by grace He had done so upon Judah. Petra remains desolate to this day. The surrounding peoples throughout the generations were persuaded that Edom was a "Wicked land" and would not rebuild it. We see here how God can act directly upon the perceptions and hearts of people; and He can do so positively through His Spirit with us. God's wrath with Israel is described as eternal, but His grace to them was such that it was not.

Malachi 1:5 Your eyes will see, and you will say, Yahweh is great- even beyond the border of Israel!- "See" is s.w. "discern" in Mal. 3:18; as explained there and on Mal. 2:4, all too late, the rejected will perceive spiritual truths. The connection with Mal. 3:18 suggests the "Your eyes" in view are those of rejected Israel. They oppressed Gentiles (Mal. 3:5) and considered eretz Israel the sole dominion of God's kingship or kingdom. But they would realize all too late that His Kingdom included Gentiles. The context is God's grace poured out to Jacob but not to Esau; the Jews of Malachi's time who refused and despised that grace would be resurrected to judgment and then see Gentiles such as Edom glorifying the God of Israel.

Malachi 1:6 A son honours his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, then where is my honour?- Just as Judah questioned in their hearts whether God loved them (:2), so they acted as if they weren't the children of God, and therefore didn't need to give Him the response which a son does to a father,

 

And if I am a master, where is the respect due me?- One doesn’t give sub-standard service to their employer. One didn’t bring him a defective animal as a gift. And yet Israel gave their God the lame and the blind animals, they only served Him as far as it didn’t hurt them (Mal. 1:6-9). They gave Him what cost them nothing. And yet they should not only have served Him as they served their earthly masters; but, because He is the “great God”, they should have given Him even more. And so we must ask: the time we give to our careers and development in them, the thought we give to our secular lives, the respect we pay it… how does this compare to our attitude to Divine things?

Says Yahweh of Armies to you, priests- The appeal to the priests is made explicit in Mal. 2:1, but it begins here. As noted on :1, Malachi was a priest, and he was appealing to the priests, possibly his own family members. The criticism of the priests for offering defective animals was really a criticism of their keeping the best sacrifices for themselves, and also allowing the people to offer defective animals. This is why the mass of society were as culpable as the priests.

Who despise My name- To know the name of Yahweh is an imperative to serve Him (1 Chron. 28:9). The greatness of the Name should have led to full and costly sacrifices (Mal. 1:6-8,9-11,14; 2:2). Thinking upon the Name led the faithful to pay their tithes and fellowship with each other (Mal. 3:6,10). Giving unto Yahweh the glory due to His Name is articulated through giving sacrifice (Ps. 96:8). If we know God, we will act and judge as He does (Jer. 22:16). To perceive that Yahweh is indeed so righteous results in us humbling ourselves (2 Chron. 12:6), just as the declaration of the Name made Moses hide in the cleft of the rock, and as it will make men in the last days throw away all their vestige of human pride (Is. 2).

You say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’- The priests perhaps excused themselves by reasoning that it was the people bringing defective offerings. The fact is, God demands our all, our total best. Anything less than that is an excuse. The Hebrew for "despised" is used of Esau (Gen. 25:34). In the context we have just read of how Esau was worse than Jacob but God saved Jacob by grace. This ought to have elicited in Jacob / Israel a desire not to act as Esau, but to be transformed by that grace. But instead they acted like and even worse than Esau, also despising spiritual things. To despise the Name was the presumptuous sin (Num. 15:31). It was because of despising God that they had broken the covenant and gone into captivity (s.w. 2 Chron. 36:16; Ez. 16:59; 22:8). Now they had been restored by grace, but they were behaving the same way. They didn't deserve to be in the land, but rather to be sent away again into another captivity.

Malachi 1:7 You offer polluted bread on My altar- The abuses against “My altar” of Mal. 1:7,10 refer to the much-mentioned altar of Ez. 40-48, which was to be used in a way unlike the previous abuses of the pre-captivity period. Judah had made no difference between clean and unclean, and therefore had gone into captivity (Ez. 22:26); and therefore the temple was a command / prophecy to divide the clean from the unclean in the whole way the building was designed and was to be built and operated (Ez. 42:20). It was a “law” that the top of the house be “holy” (Ez. 43:12). See on :8. Malachi is primarily addressing the priesthood; they were already "polluted", unable to prove their genealogy as the records had been destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked, and were only allowed to serve by grace (Neh. 7:64). But they didn't respond to that grace; they themselves polluted God's service.

God had sworn not to allow His Name to be polluted or profaned, e.g. Is. 48:11 "For My own sake, for My own sake, will I do it; for how should My name be profaned? I will not give My glory to another"; also in Ez. 20:9. But He never forces, and so He 'allowed' Judah at this time to pollute it. God invites us to see His efforts to stop His Name being polluted as somehow defeated by the extent of Israel's pollutions. This theme comes out clearly in Ezekiel: they polluted Him, but He strove lest His Name should be polluted. Here is the extent of freewill which God gives man to sin- and also the extent of the hopefulness of God. It's as if He didn't imagine they would pollute Him as much as they did.

You say, ‘How have we polluted You?’ In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table contemptible’- “They shall come near to my table” (Ez. 44:16) in the restored temple. They did, but they despised it (Mal. 1:7,12), they found it such a weariness. Yet they covered the altar with tears of religious devotion (Mal. 2:13), when in reality they despised it. For God's table was His altar, He ate in fellowship with the offerers. We have here a powerful challenge to mere religiousity. "Contemptible" is s.w. despise" in :6. They despised God's Name by despising His table. Our attitude to His table, which in our day could refer to the breaking of bread service, is our attitude to His Name. If we treat it as mere religion, a weapon to control others with, a sign of local club membership, then we like Judah are despising His Name.

Malachi 1:8 When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil?- The excuse of the priests would have been that it was the people who offered these defective animals. But they were judged as responsible, as their acceptance of them encouraged the masses in their disrespect.

They offered blemished sacrifices, when it had been prophesied / commanded in the Ezekiel prophecies of the restored temple that Israel were not to do this (Ez. 43:23). Those prophecies were command more than prediction, and only conditional upon Israel's obedience- which was not forthcoming. So much prophetic potential was wasted, as it is in human life today. See on Mal. 1:7,10; 2:14; 3:8.

They offered the blemished sacrifices which Israel presented to them (:8,14). Thus they failed to speak out against the low spiritual standards of their flock, but instead went along with them. So the masses got the spiritual leadership they wanted, even if they despised them (:9). For this reason, both society and priesthood were equally to be condemned.

 Present it now to your governor!- A Persian term is here used, suggesting Malachi was speaking not long after the restoration, when the Jews were still influenced by Persian language.

Will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person? says Yahweh of Armies- Heb. "accept your face". Sitting at God's table / altar with acceptable sacrifice would have resulted in them meeting God face to face as it were, over the table.  

Malachi 1:9 Now, please entreat the favour of God, that He may be gracious to us- It appears that a minority did respond to Malachi's words. But as religious people tend to, they asked the priest [Malachi] to pray for them, rather than wanting to engage personally with God. They are perhaps alluding to the intercession of Moses for a faithless Israel.

With this, will He accept any of you? says Yahweh of Armies- The problem was that the nature of the failures was such that the whole society was implicated. The priests offered the defective sacrifices which the people brought. And yet despite this, God as it were changes His mind and does accept that minority in Mal. 3:16. Such was and is His enthusiasm to save at least some.

Malachi 1:10 Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on My altar in vain!- There were to be gate openers in the restored temple (Ez. 46:12). There were gate openers, but they demanded to be paid for their services (AV); or [LXX]  the gate openers were nowhere to be found. The difference in the translations reflects the Hebraism: if you won’t serve for nothing, then you haven’t served.

An indication that Nehemiah could have been a Messiah figure is to be found in Mal. 1:10 RV, which laments that even if one man could be found to shut the temple doors properly, then God’s pleasure would have returned to Israel. It was Nehemiah who shut the doors (Neh. 13:19- i.e. organized the temple services?), but presumably the implication is that he didn’t continue as required. See on Hag. 1:1; 2:7; Zech. 8:22.

The AV offers: "Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought". If this is legitimate, then we have an allusion to the book of Job, which appears to have been rewritten under inspiration with relevance to the return from exile. The satan in the book of Job expresses his serious doubt that any man would serve God for no prospect of reward in this life (Job 1:9). One of the themes of the book of Job is to show how a real believer will serve God for nothing. In fact, Job went beyond this. He says that he will still serve God even if he gets nothing from Him in this life and even if there is no future reward either,  and even if God treats Him unfairly; 'Even if', Job speculates, 'God slays me (not just 'kills' me)'   (consider Job 13:15; 14:7,14; 19:10). This was love of God, this was devotion to ones' creator, despite not understanding His ways. In Malachi's time, the Jews were expecting a reward from God for every little thing they did. They are rebuked in language which is full of allusion back to Job, and his willingness to serve God "for nought" (Mal. 1:10 AV).

I have no pleasure in you, says Yahweh of Armies, neither will I accept an offering at your hand- The glory of Yahweh as described at the end of Ezekiel could have appeared in Haggai’s time- but this wonderful possibility was held back by Israel’s petty minded, self-satisficing laziness. The same word is used in Ez. 43:27- then, when the temple of Ezekiel was built, Yahweh would “accept / take pleasure in” His people and temple. But because they built and served Him with such a mean spirit, He did not “accept” them at that time (Mal. 1:10,13 s.w.).

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same, My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the nations, says Yahweh of Armies- Note the conflict of tenses; His Name will be glorified, because it is right now great. The implication is that we glorify that Name now, and thereby live the Kingdom life now. This is the sense of the Lord's repeated offers of "life eternal" to be experienced right now. The exiles despised Gentiles (Mal. 3:5), but ultimately it was Gentiles who were to offer a more pure sacrifice than the Jews. Their "pure offering" contrasts with the defective offerings of the Jews at this time. And the Jews of that generation would be resurrected to see this, and then be condemned (see on :5). "Every place" uses maqom, the word for a holy place; the whole earth was to be full of such holy places, where incense could be offered acceptably; which meant that the Jerusalem temple would no longer be the only sacred space- a lesson the exiles ought to have learnt through their relationship with God in Babylon.

Malachi 1:12 But you profane it- The purpose of building the temple system was so that Yahweh’s Name would no longer be profaned by His people in that temple (Ez. 36:23; 44:7); but they had profaned it (also Mal. 1:12), in that they saw it all as mere religion, and the fire of a true relationship with the Almighty was smothered. Judah profaned the Sabbath too (Neh. 13:17,18). The potential kingdom situation of Ez. 40-48 was therefore precluded by their disobedience to it.

In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table is polluted, and its fruit, even its food, is contemptible’- This is typical of the prophets- to perceive the real implication of attitudes. For the Jews probably didn't actually say those words. But because those words didn't pass their lips and weren't formed by their tongue... this didn't mean that they didn't think that. The Lord brought all this into simple truth when He stated that the thought is the action and the words.

According to the LXX titles, there were certain Psalms which were written for the dedication of the rebuilt temple, and others written by Haggai and Zechariah. They include: Psalms 96,138,147,148. These all seem to speak as if the time of a glorious temple was to be the time of God’s Kingdom; this was the possibility, and it was the prevailing hope in the minds of the faithful minority. But the Psalms had to remain prophecies of the future day of Zion’s glory. Psalms 96 is very clear: “Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name [i.e.] bring an offering, and come into his courts” (:8). But Judah did not bring the right offerings, although the glory of Yahweh’s Name ought to have elicited them (Mal. 1:11-16).

 

Malachi 1:13 You say also, ‘Behold, what a weariness it is!’- What a contrast with David! The whole of Ps. 119 describes how he rejoiced at God's law, staying up late at night, straining his eyes into the candlelight to read it, getting up first thing in the morning to read some more (Ps. 119:147,148). "Travail" is the same word translated "weariness" here, used by Nehemiah as a summary of all the trouble that had come upon Judah in their history (Neh. 9:32). This is the mindset of so many- they have travail in the world, and they consider relationship with God to likewise be "travail". Anything apart from total commitment to God will result in this miserable mindset.

And you have sniffed at it, says Yahweh of Armies- "Sniffed" alludes to an animal snorting or 'breathing back' at food they don't like. It is the word used about how Yahweh "sniffed" or 'blew away' the harvest reaped by the exiles (Hag. 1:9). As noted on What a weariness it is, Judah had slumped to a situation where they sniffed or blew away at the idea of giving God the best, and He sniffed or blew away what they harvested. Only total devotion to Him of our very best will bring us out of this mire of mediocrity which grips unbelieving society.

And you have brought that which was taken by violence, the lame, and the sick; thus you bring the offering- The returned exiles were stealing cattle from each other, and then quickly using them as offerings before the theft would be discovered. And by so doing, they robbed God (Mal. 3:8). The Hebrew for "sick" is literally 'that which is worn away', and it is also one of the Hebrew words translated "prayer". It is used in :9; to pray to God with entreaty is as it were to wear Him down, as in the parable of the insistent widow. The play on words here is to reflect how God would not be 'worn down' by their prayers if their sacrifices were of worn down animals. The timeless message is that we are not to sacrifice to God that which costs us nothing, that which is in any case superfluous to our personal needs. And we need to examine all our giving to God in this light.

Should I accept this at your hand? says Yahweh- The prophetic intention was that God would "accept" the offerings of the restored exiles in the rebuilt temple (s.w. Ez. 20:41; 43:27). But He is saying that they were precluding the fulfilment of those prophecies by offering that which was clearly unacceptable. Again we see the open ended nature of God's purpose, and the extreme importance thereby attached to human freewill decisions.

Malachi 1:14 But the deceiver is cursed, who has in his flock a male, and vows, and sacrifices to the Lord a blemished thing- We may ask, 'Who were the offerers deceiving?'. Not the priests, because they knew the blemishes of the animals they sacrificed. Like Ananias and Saphira, the offerers were deceiving God. And they thought they could get away with it. They would naturally have recoiled at this being stated in such bald terms, but this is effectively what we are doing if we don't offer the best according to our potential. The law required male offerings (Lev. 1:3,10); the offerer was claiming that he had only a flock of females and hence couldn't offer a male. This was obviously untrue, but they thought they could thus deceive God, as if He wouldn't notice.

For I am a great King, says Yahweh of Armies- "The great king" is the title beloved by the kings of Assyria, Greece and Babylon (2 Kings 18:19,28; Jer. 25:14; Dan. 8:21). The emphasis is therefore upon "I". The restored exiles still felt that their imperial rulers were their great king, rather than throwing off the yoke of tribute and tithing to them and accepting Yahweh as the one and only "great king". We too can so easily fear man's greatness rather than God's.

And My name is awesome among the nations- It is a continual theme of Malachi that the Gentiles would ultimately serve God acceptably and better than Judah (see on :11). We note the present tense, "is awesome", as if this potential was already being developed.