Section III Sins of the Priesthood
Malachi 1:6—2:9
From the love of God for Israel, Malachi passes on to the nation's affront to the divine majesty. His indictment is specifically against the clergy. The priests were ordained to give spiritual instruction and guidance (2:6-7). Had they lived up to their high calling and given the laity a godly example and proper teaching, the nation would not have fallen into spiritual apathy and skepticism. Because the priests failed and set such a vicious example of hypocrisy and empty professionalism, they made God contemptible in the eyes of the people and became contemptible themselves (2:8-9).
This lengthy section falls into two divisions. First God indicts a slovenly priesthood (1:6-14) and then pronounces a curse upon them (2:1-9).
1. The Character of God (1:6a -6e)
The prophet opens with a statement of a general principle upon which there was widespread agreement. In so doing he employs two characteristic images of God's relation to Israel: His fatherhood and His lordship. A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name (6).
“We are so accustomed to associate with the Divine Fatherhood only ideas of love and pity that the use of the relation to illustrate not love but Majesty, and the setting of it in parallel to the Divine Kingship, may seem to us strange.”1 But to the Israelites this was very natural. In the Semitic world honor was due before love. “Honour thy father and thy mother,” the fifth commandment reads. And when God presents himself to Israel as their Father, it is to enhance His authority over them and to increase their reverence rather than to assure them of His love and pity. The accent is upon His creating the nation to be His obedient son (Exod. 4:22-23). The central idea is that God is Father of the nation: its Creator (2:10; Isa. 64:8; Jer. 31:9), its Redeemer (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16), its Guide and Guardian (Jer. 3:4; Hos. 11:1-4).
Certainly the idea of divine love is present in these concepts, but in the forefront is the thought of divine majesty. Even in the Book of Psalms, where we find the most intimate fellowship of the believer with God, there is only one passage in which His love is compared to that of a human father (Ps. 103:13). This tendency toward what we might regard as an austere view of God's fatherhood may have been necessary to preserve Israel's religion from the sensual ideas of divine fatherhood prevalent among their Canaanite neighbors. But whatever the reason, the severity of the Old Testament idea of God's fatherhood enables Malachi to employ the image as a proof of the majesty and holiness of God.2
The prophet next employs a second image: God is master and Israel a servant. Paul made this one of the dominant figures by which he described the Christian's relation to Christ (I Cor. 7:22; Gal. 5:13; Col. 3:24). The thought is of divine ownership and God's right to claim absolute obedience.
The majesty and holiness of God had been wronged by the priests of Israel. “If then I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My reverence?” (Berk.) To think of God as Father is to honor Him as our Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. To regard Him as Master is to reverence and obey Him as Lord. “By the fear of the Lord men depart from evil” (Prov.l6:6).
2. Despising God's Name (1:6/-10)
In making this indictment Malachi charges the priests with despising the name of God. Their querulous voices raise the question, Wherein have we despised thy name? (6) The prophet replies, Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar (7). The bread (lechem) here is not shewbread (this was not offered upon the altar), but the flesh of sacrificial victims (cf. Lev. 3:11, 16; 21:6; 22:25). This offering was polluted by not being offered in accord with the stipulations of the ceremonial law, as explained in v. 8. By disregarding God's plain commandment to bring only unblemished animals they were saying, The table of the Lord is contemptible. The expression Ye say here has the sense of “say to oneself” or “say by one's actions.” By the table of the Lord is meant the altar of sacrifice.
Verse 8 specifies the charges. Blind, sick, and lame animals were being devoted to God. This was a clear violation of the law, which read: “And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it Unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 15:21). In its purest form sacrifice meant offering to God something as valuable as possible as a symbol of one's willing self-consecration. By offering sickly and lame animals the priests were making a mockery of the institution of sacrifice.
The priests, however, were apparently saying, “No harm!” Since a sacrifice is only a symbol, they were probably rationalizing that one kind of offering was as good as another. But God asks
And when you bring the blind to sacrifice, is there no harm?
And when you bring the lame and the sick, is there no harm? (8, Smith-Goodspeed)
No harm? “Present that to your governor,” Malachi suggests; “will he be pleased with you or show you favor?” (8, RSV) The reference here to the governor proves that Malachi was writing during the Persian period, when Judah was ruled by appointees of the Persian monarch. The Hebrew word is the same as used of the governorships of Zerubbabel (Hag. 1:1) and Nehemiah (Neh. 5:14).
W. J. Deane has paraphrased the ninth verse: “Come now and ask the favour of God with your polluted sacrifices; intercede, as is your duty, for the people. Will he accept you? Will he be gracious to the people for your sakes?” 3 This hath been by your means is an awkward sentence. The Berkeley Version has given a plausible rendering of 9b: “With such a gift from your hand, will He show favor to any of you?” Better that sacrifice should cease than that offerings should be made in such a spirit! Moffatt clarifies the first part of 10 thus: “Will no one close the temple-doors, to keep you from kindling useless fires upon my altar?”
3. God Honored Among the Gentiles (1:11-12)
A remarkable and disputed statement follows in v. 11: For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. From the days of the Church Fathers this verse has been understood as a prophecy of the Messianic age and the universal worship of the Christian Church.4 Deane writes: “The course of the thought is this: God does not need the worship of the Jews and their impious priests; he needs not their maimed sacrifices; his majesty shall be recognized throughout the wide world, and pure worship shall be offered to him from every nation under heaven.”5 This interpretation requires that the reference to the Jewish ritual be understood metaphorically: “The pure oblation is a symbol of the Christian sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and the prophet, rising superior to Jewish prejudices, announces that this prayer and sacrifice shall no longer be confined to one specifically favoured country, but be universal, worldwide.”6 Many have gone even further and seen in the verse a prophecy of the Christian Eucharist, the “pure offering” commemorating Christ's sacrifice, which is offered wherever the name of Christ is adored.
The above interpretation rests upon the verbs shall be which occur twice in the verse, both times in italics in both the KJV and ASV. This indicates that the verb is lacking in the original. The Hebrew construction, while admitting a future, is most naturally understood as present. Pusey comments, “It is a vivid present, such as is often used to describe the future. But the things spoken of shew it to be future.”7 The Septuagint translates it, “My name has been and is glorified.” The RSV translates “is” instead of “shall be.” If there were no theological problem, the verse would be most easily interpreted as applying to the contemporary scene in Malachi's world. W. H. Lowe has posed the problem for the Christian interpreter:
If we take the words as referring to the present, we are met by the unsurmountable difficulty that in no sense, at the time of Malachi, could the Lord's name be great over all the earth, or pure sacrifices be offered to Him in every place. Nor can we … suppose that heathen rites are here referred to as being offered ignorantly to the one true God. … We are compelled therefore to take the words as a prophetic announcement of the future rejection of Israel and calling of the Gentiles.8
The conservative New Bible Commentary, however, adopts the view that Malachi is describing the contemporary situation. “In the prophet's day the very Gentiles were offering worship which was more sincere than that in Jerusalem.”9 If this is a possible interpretation, Malachi is making a generous statement somewhat similar to St. Paul's on Mars’ Hill: “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you” (Acts 17:23). On this view all forms of heathen worship are ignorant gropings after the one true and living God and are therefore a witness to the great name of the Lord. All men worship because God is and every religion bears witness to God in this sense.
The very sincerity of some heathen worship, Malachi seems to be saying, is a stinging rebuke to the disgraceful hypocrisy of the Jewish priests. If the heathen are magnifying God's name, the priests of Jerusalem are profaning it by their contempt of the Lord's table (12). “The prophet's purpose is of course not to praise the heathen but to shame the Jews. The heathen by their carefulness and munificence are honoring God, while the Jews by their indifference are dishonoring him.”10
4. A Curse on Insincere Religion (1:13-14)
Despising the altar, and performing their duties without heart or faith, the priests found their duties an intolerable burden. What a weariness is it! (13) They moan, and “have sniffed” (Berk.) at the altar. Many interpreters think this should read “sniff at me.” This is on the supposition that the scribes corrected the verse to read at it in order to avoid the appearance of irreverence. For torn The Berkeley Version follows the Septuagint in translating “taken by violence,” i.e., stolen animals. This verse has the priests chiefly in mind, who as corrupt officials allow this practice to go on. The next verse condemns those who bring such offerings.
The laity was corrupted by the priesthood. In this case it was “like priest, like people” (contra, Hos. 4:9). Following the example of their priests the worshippers were stingy and deceitful. But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing (14). In a time of sickness or distress a man prayed to God and vowed a perfect male from his flock. But when he recuperated and the time came to perform his vow, his stinginess took over and he decided to offer an injured or sickly animal (cf. Lev. 3:1, 6). God's curse is upon such irreverence and halfheartedness. It is more devout to ignore God altogether than thus to trifle with Him, for He is a great King, and (His) name is dreadful among the heathen.
In the name of the Lord the prophet now proceeds to pronounce judgment upon the priesthood: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you (1). “As God said of old, upon obedience, I will command my blessing upon you, so now He would command … a curse.”11 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart (my rebukes), to give glory unto my name … I will even send a curse upon you (2). Yet, like all prophetic messages of doom, this word is conditional: “If you continue in your hypocrisy and heartless indifference, I will send my curse upon you.” Clearly, God desires their repentance so that the curse will be stayed.12 I will curse your blessings, God says. These blessings are not their priestly benedictions which they pronounced upon the people, but the benefits they enjoyed as ministers of the Temple (cf. Num. 18:8-19). These benefits God will withdraw. The latter part of the verse may mean that the curse had already gone forth and had begun to settle upon them from the moment they began to despise God's name.
The nature of this curse is indicated in v. 3: I will corrupt ( “rebuke,” ASV and RSV) your seed, or “your offspring” (Berk.). And spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts, or “of your offerings” (RSV). Here “dung” does not mean the excrement of the animals but the contents of the bowels of the slain victims. The last clause, and one shall take you away with it, may mean the priests will be removed from the city along with the dung of the sacrifice (cf. Lev. 4:12). Thus the priests shall be utterly degraded. As God said to Eh, “Them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (I Sam. 2:30).
The performance of God's curse upon the priests was to be a proof of His justice and therefore a warning to those who would presume (4). Pusey notes: “God willed to punish those who at that time rebelled against Him, that He might spare those who should come after them.”13 This is because He is a covenant God (cf.Deut. 7:9-11).
God's covenant… with Levi (4) is not explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament. However, the idea of covenant here is not necessarily technical, and Deut. 33:8-11 clearly stands behind this claim of Malachi. God's covenant was intended to be a blessing to Levi and his descendants, as v. 5 indicates: “My covenant with him was a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him, that he might stand in awe; and he stood in awe of Me and regarded My name with reverence” (Berk.). Throughout this section Levi must be understood as a personification of the priestly order rather than as the Hebrew patriarch. This usage is characteristic of the Old Testament. Malachi's point is that the priesthood originally fulfilled its ministry with sincerity and faithfulness.
In vv. 6-7 the nature of true priestly service is portrayed in beautiful language. Remembering that Levi personifies the ideal priesthood, we read: The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity (6). The priest in Israel was more than an expert in the ritual sacrifice; his duty was to give instruction in the law (torah.) of truth. He was to be a man of peace and equity (uprightness), whose instruction would convert many from sin. “For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and men should seek the law from his mouth” (7, Berk.). What a lofty ideal! G. A. Smith exclaims, “In all the range of prophecy there is not any saying more in harmony with the prophetic ideal. … Every priest of God is a priest of truth.”14 This is because the priest is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. The word messenger here is the word applied to the prophet himself (1:1) and to the figure who should usher in the day of the Lord (3:1). It is also the word often translated “angel” in the Old Testament.
How pathetically the priests of Malachi's time fell below the divine standard! Instead of walking humbly with the Lord, they departed out of the way (8). Rather than converting the sinful from their wickedness, by their own mischief they caused many to stumble at the law. Like the religious teachers of Jesus’ day, they were blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14). Moreover, they thereby corrupted the covenant of Levi. Since a covenant must be observed by both parties, the covenant which should have brought blessing upon them (v. 5) had been annulled and they were made … contemptible and base before all the people (9) who should have sought instruction from their lips. The final clause means that the priests had been partial to the wealthy upper class in their application of the law.