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 or 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. LXX reads "The words of the Lord to Israel by the hand of His messenger", asking us to connect with the message about the messenger of the covenant in Mal. 3:1.
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-
This repeats the language of the new covenant: "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer. 31:3). But Judah had rejected that offer of a new covenant made to them by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and tried to return to the old covenant- which Zechariah had explained was now broken. They shied away from God's pure love, just as many do today. They like spoilt children wanted to think that "love" means the gift of material prosperity here and now. Although they had rejected the new covenant, God's love for them was unchangeable (Mal. 3:6). The gifts and calling of God to Israel were unchangeable (Rom. 11:29) and as such, a parade example of His grace. For Israel were chosen as God's beloved child not because of their goodness, but simply because He loved them- and no real explanation is given for that choice of love. "For the fathers' sakes" still only throws the question one stage further back. And certainly with our calling and predestination likewise.
And yet for all the focus of the returnees upon separation from others, the temple and the ritualism of the old covenant, they are presented here as not really believing God loved them and offering Him the cheapest of their sacrifices. Their words are not what they actually said, but how their attitudes were read by God. And so it can be with us today. It's why Paul prayed on his knees that the converts would know the love of Christ that passes knowledge. It's quite possible to have a religious approach to faith that leaves us not feeling the love of God, and therefore uninfluenced by it. For we love only because He first loved us; as loved children we also walk in love (Eph. 5:1,2).
Isaiah speaks of this same inability of Judah to believe in
God's love. "The LORD comforts his people and will have compassion on his
afflicted ones. But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me, the Lord has
forgotten me” . Can a mother forget the baby at her breast
and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget,
I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands;
your walls are ever before me" (Is. 49:14-16). And the marks on God's
palms look ahead to the marks left in the Lord's palms by the nails of the
cross. So often the exiles were dejected because the restoration
prophecies hadn't worked out as they had hoped- because of their wrong
attitudes. They returned to the land expecting personal material blessing,
and turned against God when that didn't happen. Just as so many turn away
from God today after coming to Him with wrong expectations of immediate
blessing. God doesn't just shrug and make no further response. He appeals
to them on the basis that His love for Israel is eternal and is shown by
how He has chosen, taken hold of and called them: "But you, Israel My
servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend,
you whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth and
called from its corners and said to you, ‘You are My servant, I have
chosen you and not cast you away’; don’t you be afraid, for I am
with you" (Is. 41:8-10). We too cannot surely deny that we have been
chosen, taken hold of and called. We find the same in Jer. 33:24-26:
"Don’t consider what this people has spoken saying, The two families which
Yahweh chose, has He not cast them off? Thus do they despise My people,
that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus says Yahweh: If My
covenant of day and night fails, if I have not appointed the ordinances of
heaven and earth; then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob". This was
in response to the feeling of the dry bones of Judah in captivity: "Our
bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are totally cut off" (Ez.
37:11). So God appeals to them, that He has not and will not cut them off.
At the beginning of the exile, they felt that "My strength is perished,
and my expectation from Yahweh" (Lam. 3:18). And the same mentality
continued in Malachi's time.
A sense that 'nobody loves me' is at the root of so much sin, addictions etc. It may quite possibly be true in this world, but the pain of being humanly unloved too easily leads people to believe that therefore, not even God loves them. Or at least, not very much. If our heart is melted by the love of another, then we are so hugely empowered. And we have that love... from God and the Lord Jesus. The New Testament defines the love of God and the love of Christ as specifically referring to the Lord's death on the cross. But we are too often up against the problem Malachi addressed- of religious people, believers in God, who feel somehow distant from God's love. Like them, we might never say in so many words "Wherein have You loved me?" but that is too often effectively our position.
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).
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-
We may ponder why God says He loves Israel but "hates" Esau. It has been truly said that 'hate' might be understood as meaning 'to love less'. But all the same, the Hebrew word translated "hate" means just that. It is used of how God hates child sacrifice (Dt. 12:31); idolatry (Dt. 16:22); of how a woman felt her husband "Hates me and doesn't love me" (Jud. 14:16); of how Amnon hated his rape victim more than he had once loved her (2 Sam. 13:15); of how Haman hated the Jews (throughout Esther this word is used). Love and this "hate" are presented as polar opposites (e.g. 2 Sam. 19:6; 2 Chron. 19:2); the "hate" is not simply a lower level of "love". I suggest God says that He loves sinful Jacob and hates Esau in order to shake Judah from their lethargy, from their sense that God just treats them like any other nation. His love for Jacob was so strong that anything other than that love looked like hatred. This statement of extreme love prefaces the forthcoming message that God notices and feels their disregard of Him and has emotions appropriate to that; but they are overarched by this eternal love for Israel.
But it is true that "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. The destruction of Edom / Esau was by the Babylonians, who also destroyed Judah (Jer. 49:17-22). But Judah simply bemoaned their lot whereas Edom rebuilt their ruins (:4).
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- Judah at this time were also "wicked"; the same word is used of them at Malachi's time 'working wickedness' (Mal. 3:15); 'doing wickedly' (Mal. 4:1). Just as the land was full of wickedness a generation before in the time of Zech. 5:8. 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 ["you will again discern the
distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve
God and those who do not"]; 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. Just as the Lord says that
the unbelieving Jews of His generation would "see" Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob in the Kingdom and themselves thrust out; they would not see Him
again until they did see Him at the resurrection and would say, all too
late, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord".
"Beyond the border of Israel" can as well be rendered "up until", right up to the Biblical definitions of "Israel" from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. This would be the same idea as Mic. 5:4 "for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth" / land promised to Abraham. It would continue the theme of Zech. 14:9: "the Lord will become king over all the earth" / land. And note that Malachi follows straight on from Zechariah in 'the book of the twelve' minor prophets. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi are all on the same physical scroll.
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).
Malachi 1:7 You offer polluted bread on My altar-
As teachers of God's law (Mal. 2:7), the priests ought to have refused such offerings from the people. But they didn't, and offered them on the altar. We note the love of Judah for the altar; it was the first thing they restored on return from exile and they covered it with tears (Mal. 2:13). But they offered sub-standard offerings upon it. This is typical of a religious approach to God, where the altar rather than the offering is seen as paramount.
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.
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
idea is that the people presented or offered a sick animal to the priests,
and the priests accepted it; this is not the word for "offer" in :7.
"Isn't that evil?" is as RV "It is no evil!", ironically, or quoting their
words. The offering of defective animals was likely encouraged by the poor
harvests, poverty and blight on animals which the returned exiles faced,
as detailed in Haggai. Indeed the economic situation was so bad by the
time of Neh. 5:1-5 that they were selling their children as slaves just to
get food to eat. But that was a result of their own sins and
wrong attitudes. 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.
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-
Zech. 7:13 had clearly stated that God was not open to hearing their prayers until they changed: "Just as, when I called, they would not hear, so, when they call, I will not hear, says the LORD". Despite the potential being that the rebuilt temple would be a "house of prayer for all nations" (Is. 56:7). Perhaps that's why prayer isn't ever really mentioned in Malachi, apart from here. And yet here Malachi still urges them to pray. He knew God's grace. And this is not the only time when Godly men have prayed when it appeared God had turned off. Jeremiah is a classic example.
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!-
"Oh that there were one..." suggests that there was not a single faithful priest. The idea seems to be that God felt it were better to close the temple, to shut the doors, than keep them open to offer sacrifices like these. We see how far the glorious potential for the restored temple had failed. As the Lord would later put it, better hot or cold than lukewarm.
God's desire for the temple to be closed down stands in sharp contrast to the glorious prophecies of the temple's restoration. He is moving towards a way of relating to people without the temple; as we will note on :11.
There were to be gate openers
in the restored temple (Ez. 46:12)
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.
The Gentiles are understood in Mal. 1:11 as being able to offer a pure offering "in every place". The Jerusalem temple was not required to make an acceptable offering. That had been the initial plan, as Ez. 48 had envisaged the Yahweh Name would be "there"; but the Jews had despised God's Name. So anyone who did make His Name "great" could offer an acceptable, pure offering- from wherever they are. And yet in Mal. 3:4 another scenario is given- the Levitical priesthood will be purged and "Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to Yahweh, as in the days of old" (Mal. 3:4). It never was purged. But Malachi's generation were still being given the opportunity to have that scenario. Mal. 1:11 makes it clear that He foresaw that their spurning of His holiness would actually lead to a situation where He was glorified by far more people over a far greater area.
The idea could be: “I will no longer accept the local and polluted offering, for I will substitute for it a pure and universal offering”. This looked forward to the Lord's sacrifice. And possibly the readjustment of these things would come to its fulfilment in the “spiritual sacrifices” of prayer and praise (Heb. 13:15), generous deeds (Heb. 13:16; Phil. 4:18) and self-dedication (Rom. 12:1).
Another option is that the present tenses could lead us to read this as speaking of the Jews and Israelites who had not returned to the land. They were offering acceptable incense without the temple, throughout the Persian empire. And this was acceptable, whereas the offerings made at the temple weren't. We recall how Ezekiel established a "little sanctuary" in exile and there likely were others. There are records of Jewish sacrifices being made in the Elephantine colony in Egypt, in Babylonia, and at the Jewish temple in Leontopolis in Lower Egypt. These and other sanctuaries may have been the referent of how "in every place [the Hebrew often refers to a holy place]" amongst the Gentiles in the territory of the land promised to Abraham, incense was being offered acceptably to Yahweh.
We see a number of different potential movements within God's
purpose. Jeremiah and Ezekiel had offered the captives a return from
exile, a new covenant and a restored Kingdom, with a new temple and a
Messianic "Prince" and conditions of great blessing in the land, with the
Gentiles becoming proselytes. But this was conditional upon their
repentance. They didn't repent and only a relatively few returned from
exile. They didn't build the temple as commanded by Ezekiel and sought to
return to the [now broken] old covenant. They didn't repent and were only
interested in their own properties and material betterment. Haggai and
Zechariah appealed for repentance, but it was only done on a surface
level. Through Zechariah, God offered them a new version of things- a
priest [Joshua] and a king [Zerubbabel], and offers to cleanse the
Levitical priesthood. And offered the blessings of the old covenant in
return for obedience to the old covenant. Jeremiah's prophecies of the new
covenant are alluded to in Zechariah 1-8 and parts of them are mixed in
with the new deal God was offering a people who still wanted the old
covenant, for reasons of preserving tradition. But even that wasn't
acceptable to them. God condemns them as "unclean" (Haggai) and
unacceptable (Malachi). After Zechariah 8, Zechariah refocuses the
possible futures upon the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. Yet Mal. 1: 11 is
clear that God enjoyed fellowship and worship from a faithful remnant of
exiles still in captivity, quite without a temple and sanctuary. And quite
possibly without a Levitical priesthood. Yet their offerings were "pure"
and they glorified Yahweh's Name, unlike those offered in the rebuilt
temple. Zech. 8:20-23 and other restoration prophecies speak of a
pilgrimage of nations to worship at the restored temple in Jerusalem. But
Malachi sees the possibility of individual Jews [initially] acceptably
worshipping God from a distance. And this merges with the wider
vision of individual Gentiles worldwide glorifying Him, without the temple
and restored Kingdom in the specific form envisaged by the restoration
prophets. This is confirmed by the way these words of Mal. 1:11 are quoted
in 1 Tim. 2:8 and applied to Christians praying to God: "I desire then
that men pray in every place". This would explain the clear feeling of
personal relationship with God which is so marked in Malachi: "Out of a
total of 55 verses in the book, 47 contain the first person address of
Yahweh to
Israel". In all this we see God's earnest desire to somehow work with
men, on whatever level.
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.
They are accused here of blaspheming God's Name, faithlessness (2:10-17), wearying the Lord with their words (2:17), failing to return to the Lord Almighty (3:6-7), saying "it is futile to serve God" and robbing God (3:8,13). Yet they covered the altar with tears (Mal. 2:13), such was their religious devotion. But still God assures them that He loves them.
Malachi 1:13 You say also, ‘Behold, what a weariness it is!’-
They considered serving God a "weariness" because they felt there weren't getting anything immediate and material out of it. The same word is used in Is. 43:22: “You have become weary of me, O Israel!”. There was a mutuality here: “Your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them” (Is. 1:14). God was wearied with their weariness, and so it is in the breakdown of relationship between God and men today. And yet despite this, God reaches out to them again and again.
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-
The cruel tragedy here is that a vow meant that you promised to make a sacrifice to God if He did something for you. God had answered their prayers, He came through for them as asked- but their gratitude was in offering a blemished animal even when it was in their power to offer Him what they had promised.
"Blemished thing" is feminine. Freewill vow offerings were to be male. We may ask, 'Who were the offerers deceiving?'. Not the priests, because they knew the blemishes of the animals they sacrificed. Like Ananias and Sapphira, 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.
Previous Chapter
