1AND NOW THIS admonition is for you, O priests. 2If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name,” says the LORD Almighty, “I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me.
3“Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it. 4And you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that my covenant with Levi may continue,” says the LORD Almighty. 5“My covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. 6True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many from sin.
7“For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty. 8But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi,” says the LORD Almighty. 9“So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.”
Original Meaning
THE PREVIOUS SECTION addressed priests (1:6), most directly their acceptance of the unsuitable offerings being brought to God. In this passage Malachi continues to address the priests (2:1), but his indictment is wider: Sacrifice is not mentioned, but other priestly functions such as instruction and legal interpretation are now brought under condemnation. It looks as if nothing the priests do is being done appropriately.1 The implications of Judah’s wrongdoings are expanded, and the resulting punishment spelled out.
This section is described as an “admonition, warning,” a word commonly translated “command, charge” (KJV; NASB; NLT; NRSV). While not stated in the form of an explicit imperative, Malachi’s message here is an implicit instruction warning for the priests to be more diligent in fulfilling their obligations. The admonition could refer to the entire following text section (vv. 2–9), but most likely it refers to the levitical covenant in v. 4, which has the same designation (“admonition, warning”).2
Yahweh strongly warns the priests in the form of a conditional sentence consisting of a double condition (“if … and if …”) and the consequence. Here the conditions are negated; the priests are not doing what is desired. The first thing they lack is listening. The Hebrew verb šmʾ has the range of meaning “hear, listen, obey.” God’s will regarding priestly duties has been presented numerous times previously, so they have indeed heard. What they lack is to render due honor to God through “setting their heart” toward him. This idiom, used twice in verse 2, occurs four more times in Scripture indicating an attitudinal position of caring about or understanding things of God (Isa. 42:25; 57:1, 11). The lack of this attitude results in destruction (Jer. 12:11).
If these connotations occur in Malachi, the prophet may be decrying the lack of two things: a higher level of expected response to God, namely, obedience, and a lower, less-demanding level, caring about what their attitude is. God may be saying to Judah: “You not only don’t obey me, you don’t even care about showing me any respect!” No honor is being given to Yahweh’s name (Mal. 2:2), a recapitulation and summary of the charges from chapter 1 (cf. 1:6).
The result of the noncompliance is a destructive curse (Mal. 2:2), probably having in mind those curses promised for those guilty of breach of covenant in Deuteronomy 28:15–68. This curse is not only anticipated but has already arrived. The object of the curse is the “blessings” of the priests. These can either be the blessings that they are to direct toward the people (e.g., Num. 6:24–26) or the ones which they receive as a consequence of their role in the national cult (e.g., Lev. 6:16–18; 7:6–10). The latter would be an ironic punishment for the priests: If they accept substandard animals for sacrifice, their consumable portions will also be only second rate. By repeating the conditions and curses a second time, the prophet certifies they are firm and sure.
The specific nature of the curse follows (Mal. 2:3). It comes about “because of you [priests].” An exclamatory particle (kî) opens the verse, indicating immediacy and describing the action God is about to undertake. The verb describing God’s response (gʿr) is usually translated “rebuke, speak disparagingly,” here against the “descendants” (lit., “seed”; 2:15; NASB; NIV; NRSV) of the serving priests. Some suggest a textual variant for the verb (gdʿ, “cut off”; cf. NIV text note), since a simple verbal response seems too light a punishment for the context. The term gʿr, however, is also used in Deuteronomy 28:20, where it is among the covenant curses on Israel.3 Some suggest that “seed” is literal (i.e., agricultural seed), cursed to impede its growth and so produce a famine.4 While there are such curses against grain listed (e.g., Deut. 28:18b, 23–24, 38–40, 42, 51), there are also ones against offspring (28:18a, 32, 41, 53–57). The priests’ own physical descendants must be the subject of the curse since they as a group were prohibited from owning land (Num. 26:62), so they could not produce their own grain. For this they were dependent on their portion of the sacrifices of the people (Josh. 13:14; cf. Lev. 6:16–18, 23).
God’s response is not simply verbal, however, since he acts in such a way as to make the recipients unclean and unable to partake in the cult. This involves the “offal” (better “dung” or the undigested food remaining in the stomach of a sacrificed animal), which was not fit for most sacrifices. It was rather removed to an unclean spot outside the Israelite camp (Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:11; 8:17; 16:27). This will be spread or scattered (cf. Lev. 26:33; 1 Kings 14:15) over the priests’ faces.5 Whether literal or (more likely) metaphorical, this is a clear and public display of their disgrace and inability to carry out the sacrificial functions of their office, just as unclean bones scattered around altars rendered them unsuitable in another context (Ezek. 6:5).
The offal is identified with “your festivals,” each of which includes sacrifices (e.g., 1 Kings 12:32, 33; Ezek. 45:17; Amos 5:21–22). Here the broader term (“festival”) is used in place of one of its constituent elements (“sacrifices”), a literary device known as metonymy in which a whole is identified by one of its parts. Rather than being pleasing to God (cf. the “lifted [nśʾ ] face” in 1:8), the priests themselves will be “carried off [nśʾ ] with it,” apparently referring to the offal. The punishment relates directly to who the priests are in their official capacity. As priests represent the people before God, they need to be holy and consecrated to God (cf. Lev. 8:1–9:14). Now no longer able to perform their functions, which require ritual purity, the priests are expelled from the camp, as is the unclean offal (so NIV).
Verse 4 reflects either events subsequent to the priests’ humiliation (“and you will know …”; KJV; NIV) or the consequence or result of the preceding (“so you will know …’; NASB; RSV; NLT). This verse also may be volitional, an implied command that the priests should now know as a result of what befalls them (“Know, then …”; NRSV).6 The phrase “you will know” is often used where God expects his people to respond to an experience of either his goodness (e.g., Ex. 6:7; 16:6, 8, 12), or his judgment (e.g., Ex. 7:17; 8:22; 11:7; Num. 16:28, 30). Knowledge here is not simply an intellectual exercise. The priests can be sure that the events accompanying this admonition or charge (Mal. 2:1) are not simply random but are sent by God himself, just as he sends the curse (2:2; 3:1, 23; cf. 2:16).
The charge’s purpose or result7 concerns a “covenant,” an important word in this prophecy (cf. 2:5, 8, 10, 14; 3:1, 2). The covenant here is between God (“my covenant,” v. 5) and Levi (2:8; 3:3), and, by implication, his descendants, the priests.8 Levi was the ancestor of the tribe set apart for sanctuary service (Num. 3–4), of which Aaron and his descendants are specifically designated as priests (Lev. 8). This particular covenant is mentioned only here and in Nehemiah 13:29 (“covenant of the priesthood and of the Levites”). There, like here, ritual defilement endangers it. Since a covenant is an arrangement of mutual obligation, it is best to see this as referring to the priestly and levitical obligations that are part of their heritage as a special group in God’s sight and service (see Num. 1:47–54; 3:5–13), even if these are not specifically termed “covenant” elsewhere. This is then equivalent of the “admonition” to obedience mentioned here and in verse 1. From the human perspective of the priests, the admonition/covenant involves cultic purity and ritual ministry, while from the perspective of Yahweh Almighty, it involves the blessings enumerated in the next verse.
The priests, as beneficiaries of the covenant relationship, are again reminded in verse 5 that while the covenant is with Levi, it originates with God alone (“my covenant”). The covenant consists of “life,” given and protected by God (Job 10:12; Ps. 21:4; 64:1; 66:9; 103:4; Lam. 3:58), and “peace,” wholeness and tranquility as granted by God (šālôm; 2:6; Lev. 26:6; Num. 6:26; Isa. 9:5, 6; 26:12; Jer. 29:7) to Levi. These two terms of favor occur together only here and in Proverbs 3:2, where they result from keeping God’s law and admonitions (Mal. 3:1), much as they do here. Levi does the wise and expected thing demanded by the covenant: showing a respect from the subject (Levi) toward his overlord (Yahweh, the master; cf. 1:6).
One text in particular mentions a covenant with a member of the priestly line. Phineas executed a couple for violating the Israelite camp, averting a punishing plague that had already killed 24,000 people (Num. 25:6–9). God entered a special covenant relationship with him because of his “passionate zeal” for God, a covenant described as a “covenant of peace” (25:12). This covenant, bringing life in the midst of judgmental death, may well be the referent for this covenant to which faithful priests, of which there are a woeful few, are called in Malachi.
God’s name (Mal. 2:5; cf. 1:6[2x], 11[3x], 14; 2:2; 3:16, 20) does the same for the founder of the line of priests and Levites. A second term for reverence (“stood in awe”) emphasizes this attitude, contrasting with that of the priestly contemporaries of Malachi. The two sides of the covenant are depicted here: God from his side gives his blessings (life and peace) and, from the other side, Levi gives appropriate honor (implying obedience) to his master. All three of these nouns are thus constituent of the covenant.
While priests played an active role in the cult, religious instruction of the people was another of their important functions. Called here “true instruction” (Mal. 2:6), it contrasts with something wickedly “false.”9 Truth characterized the speech of the priestly ancestor Levi. His very lifestyle, or customary behavior (“walk”; cf. Ps. 6:12; 15:2; Isa. 33:15), exemplifies covenantal peace and integrity or uprightness (Ps. 45:7; 67:5; Isa. 11:4).10 His walk is “with me [God],” showing the mutuality of a covenantal relationship, since Malachi 2:5 expresses the other side of the relationship: God’s covenant is “with him.”
As a result of this positive lifestyle,11 “many” (cf. v. 8) completely change their own negative lifestyle. This former way of life was characterized by “sin” (cf. Mic. 7:18, 19; Zech. 3:4, 9), a noun including in its meaning the guilt (Gen. 15:16; Jer. 50:20; Zech. 3:4) and punishment (Gen. 4:13; Ezek. 44:10, 12) deriving from these unacceptable actions. These folk “turned” or repented (cf. 3:7; Ezek. 18:8) of this lifestyle, returning to the position of covenant fellowship they had enjoyed some time previously. “Many” seems to be a technical term in Malachi, indicating the masses of lay Israelites in contrast to the priests.12
The ideal established by Levi is that his descendants, the priests, should live what they speak (Mal. 2:7). Priestly lips, eschewing falsehood, are to produce “knowledge,” and their mouth, “instruction” (see 2:6, with the two nouns in reverse order). Their calling as teachers is a lofty one. The verbs strengthen the situation as recorded in the previous verse. There the verbs designated existence/nonexistence, but here there is active care and superintendence on the part of the priests (cf. Gen. 41:35; Eccl. 3:6), and a purposeful searching on the part of the people (cf. 1 Kings 10:24; Amos 8:12). Who does the actual seeking is debated. The NIV adds the subject “men” to the clause (cf. NASB, “people”; NKJV, NLT, NRSV), which is not in the Hebrew (which simply reads “they seek”). The nearest antecedent masculine plural noun that can serve as subject of the verb is the “many” of verse 6.13
The particle kî at the beginning of verse 7 (“for”) may be used for emphasis (“indeed”), though it could also be simply a logical connecter (“because, for”), as later in the verse (NIV “because”). There it introduces a clause that explains the need for priestly knowledge and instruction, namely, because the priest is “the messenger of the LORD” (cf. 3:1), one charged with the transmission rather than the origination of the message. Elsewhere this description applies to prophets (e.g., 2 Chron. 36:15; Isa. 44:26; Hag. 1:13) and heavenly messengers (angels; Gen. 28:12; Isa. 63:9; Hos. 12:5); only here is it used of the priests.
The priests are in stark contrast to this ideal, however. The verb in verse 8 is preceded by a conjunction indicating a contrast plus an independent personal pronoun (“but, as for you”), so there is an explicit antithesis between the priests addressed by Malachi (“you”) and the dutiful priest of verse 7. These priests err, turning aside (sûr) from the path just as Moses turned aside (sûr) from his journey to see the burning bush (Ex. 3:3–4). Here the path is metaphorical, referring to God’s instructions and will (Mal. 2:9; 3:1), which the priesthood purposefully abandon and ignore (3:7).
Not only do the priests of Malachi’s day pervert themselves, they do so to those in their charge, in contrast to Levi. He restored “many” (2:6), while they “have caused many to stumble.” These common folk (the “many”), rather than finding the truth they seek, are mislead. While God seeks to lead his own on smooth paths so they may not trip (Jer. 31:9), the priests, their teachers and guides, actually impede their way (cf. Jer. 18:15; Hos. 5:5). Restoration is by means of “true instruction” (v. 6; cf. 7), while stumbling is caused (lit.) “in regards to the instruction/law.”
There is diversity of opinion regarding the identification of the “teaching” (tôrâ). The NIV and others supply an identifier “your” that does not occur in the Hebrew. This, coupled with an understanding of the preposition (be-) functioning instrumentally, interprets the faulty priestly instruction as the means by which people are made to stumble. A problem with this interpretation is that, apart from uses in Proverbs where “teaching” derives from the mother (e.g., Prov. 1:8; 6:20), in all other instances the word tôrâ refers to Yahweh’s instruction, never to that of the priests (e.g., 23 times in Ps. 119). A better interpretation, more closely following the actual text, is that tôrâ has its customary meaning of God’s law or instruction in which the common people stumble because of the priestly perfidy.14 They cannot keep it aright because they have not been properly taught how to do so.
In other words, the descendants of Levi have destroyed the special levitical covenant of blessing (Mal. 2:4–5) as surely as the Flood destroyed human life (Gen. 6:17; 9:11, 15), but like the remnant that remains and allows the reestablishment of life (8:1; 9:1), so the special place of Levi and his descendants will also be reconsecrated (Mal. 3:2–4). The covenantal relationship is seriously jeopardized, but not abrogated. For the fourth time in this section, the speaker is “the LORD Almighty” (cf. 2:2, 4, 7), God’s title of power, highlighting the seriousness of the charges being laid.
The results of the gross dereliction of duty are spelled out in verse 9, with heightened emphasis through changed word order. The word “and” (we) joined with gam (“so”) is emphatic, especially with the following pronoun, which also provides an explicit contrast or antithesis between what God (“I”) now does and what the priests (“and you”) have done (v. 8). Yahweh renders the priests despised or contemptible as they in their turn did to the altar (1:7, 12; cf. Isa. 53:3). They are also humiliated or made low and worth little (cf. 2 Sam. 6:22; Ezek. 29:15). This degradation takes place “before all the people.” Those in whose presence the humiliation occurs are most likely the same as the “many” of verses 6 and 8.
The prophet reiterates the reasons for bringing judgment by picking up terms used previously in the section. The linking form “because” (“inasmuch as,” NRSV) is unique, though the causal meaning is evident from the context. The priesthood was to preserve (v. 7) knowledge, but it had not kept (NIV “followed”) God’s ways; God’s ways and his will are to be protected, but the priests have abandoned them (cf. v. 8).
The last clause (lit., “and ones raising faces in the law”) is difficult, with several possible interpretations, though all of its vocabulary is reused from earlier verses. The conjunction can be contrastive and disjunctive (“but”; see LXX; KJV; NASB; NIV; NLT; NRSV). If so, the contrast is with the previous action, following God’s ways. Usually taken as an idiom, there are several other instances where “to raise the face” indicates showing partiality, diverting from an expected action (Gen. 32:21; Lev. 19:15; Deut. 10:17), in this case perverting the application of the law (tôrâ found in vv. 6 and 7, with this exact form in v. 8).
Another interpretation reads the syntax differently, seeing the negative term ʾênkem (used in “not followed”) as covering this last clause as well.15 This necessitates reading the idiom positively, since both clauses are then parallel (see v. 8, where “way” and “teaching” are also parallel), describing actions that the priests do not take. Priests are thus accused of not keeping to, nor in any way favoring, God’s instruction (cf. 1:8–9). The last action could also have an implicit direct object (i.e., the people mentioned earlier in the verse); the priests not only do not favor the law themselves, they do not show it to their congregation in a favorable light either, leading themselves and others astray (i.e., a conceptual repetition of 2:8).
Bridging Contexts
COVENANTS IN THE Old Testament and its world. Covenants or treaties were tools of diplomacy in the ancient Near East. Two or more sovereign nations allied themselves through a parity treaty, in which each party is of equal stature. A current example of this type of treaty is NATO, which exists for the mutual protection of each of its members. This is one of the purposes of a such a treaty in Bible times—for example, the treaty between the Syrian state Amurru and the king of the Hittites living in what is today Turkey.16
Another type of treaty is the vassal treaty or suzerainty treaty, done between two parties of different stature or power: the dominant party, usually represented by their “great king” (often called “my lord”), and the lesser party, whose representative often refers to himself as “your servant.”17 It is theologically significant that this covenant model was commonly used to depict the relationship between God and Israel (e.g., Gen. 15:18; 17; Ex. 2:24), and also, more broadly, between God and all of humanity (Gen. 9:8–10).
A major constituent of covenants in biblical times, and the reason why they were made in the first place, was the obligations or stipulations laid on each party. In order for the covenant to function, there were expectations on both sides. If these were breached, the covenant was in jeopardy, or at least open to some of the sanctions spelled out as part of the covenant document (e.g., Deut. 28:15–68). If the stipulations were kept, however, blessings were called down on the parties (28:3–14), and the relationship flourished.
The life of the Israelite nation is presented as a model of this blessing/curse progression, which looks almost like a sine wave, with blessing on the top of the wave and curse at the bottom (see Judg. 2:10–22). Here Malachi contrasts the two extremes, using faithful Levi as the top and the current priesthood as the bottom. Using their theology of history, he is calling the Judean priests to move back to the top, to the blessed position they once enjoyed but lost through their departure from the obligations placed on them.
One use of Israel’s covenant with God was to provide a teaching tool. Each new generation had be enculturated into society, and for Israel a foundational element of that covenant was knowing what it was to be God’s people. The existence of the covenant relationship and its responsibilities was passed down from parent to child through their teaching by word and example (Deut. 6:1–9). The new covenant also has its reminder, as Jesus indicated when initiating communion in his memory (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25). It serves not only as a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice, but also teaches us of our responsibilities as members of his new covenant.
Contemporary Significance
MODELING AS A teaching tool. We teach by our words, but we also teach by our lives. This is exemplified in a recent television advertisement that shows a young boy literally following in his father’s footsteps, wearing the oversized shoes of his dad, snoozing against a tree like his dad, and reaching for the cigarette pack of his dad. Too often our message becomes muted because our life gets in the way: “I can’t hear you because I see you.” Jesus notes the same dichotomy between words and actions in his teaching (Luke 6:46).
This truth is to be before the minds of the faithful priests in Malachi’s day, and it must be before ours as well, whether as professional teachers and preachers, or even as parents, aunts, or uncles. Malachi 2:6 explains several aspects of this teaching model. The priests are praised for passing on God’s truth, but of the manner in which this is done, no words are mentioned. The truth in the context of Malachi included correct ritual practices for maintaining and regaining holiness. Religious instruction is also in our purview as teachers, but since “all truth is God’s truth,”18 we should be mindful that teaching extends beyond religion to encompass all of life.
The teaching model presented by Malachi is to be through lifestyle, both negative (avoiding sin) and positive (living righteously according to God’s covenant). We hear the phrase that one must “talk the talk and walk the walk,” a concept that has its home here as well as in other places in the Bible (e.g., Ps. 119:1; 1 John 1:6–7). It is through living correctly rather than just mouthing the right words that people are led away from lives of sin (cf. Dan. 12:3).
This also happened following Pentecost in the life and experience of the newly born church, God’s new covenant people. Many were drawn to new life through Peter’s preaching (Acts 2:41), but many more came through the lived message of Christ’s followers (2:43–47). Later, when Paul wrote to Titus, he explains at least part of his understanding of what “sound doctrine” is by explaining it as matters of daily life for rather than as objective propositions of belief (Titus 2:1–10). This extends beyond teaching to daily life, since it is the inward heart as well as the outward actions that reflect our relationship with God (e.g., 1 Sam. 16:7; Ps. 51:16–17; Mic. 6:8; Matt. 12:34–35).19
This model also has negative implications. Many lives of faithful service have been ruined over a fleeting indiscretion, ruining the person’s witness. What takes so long to attain is so quickly lost. This is at heart the message of the definition of “integrity,” an unbroken wholeness where, in the matter under discussion, there is no gap at all between words and deeds. This must characterize the life of the Israelite priest as well as that of each Christian as a member of a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6; Rev. 1:6). This also sheds light on the saying attributed to St. Francis: “Preach the Gospel, and sometimes use words.”