C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch on

Introduction

Person of the Prophet.—The circumstances of Malachi’s life are so entirely
unknown, that it is a disputed point whether éëÄSìëÀîÇ in the heading (Malachi
1:1) is the name of a person, or merely an ideal name given to the prophet who
foretels the sending of the messenger of Jehovah (éëÄSìÀîÇ, Malachi 3:1), and
whose real name has not been handed down. The LXX rendered the éëÄSìÀîÇ ãé‡a�
of the heading by dí ÷åéñr PããÝëïõ ášôï™, and therefore either had or
conjectured as their reading  åëÊSìÀîÇ : and the Targumist Jonathan, who adds to
éëÄSìÀîÇ ãé‡a� cujus nomen appellatur Esra scriba, has also taken
éëàìî in an ideal sense, and given the statement that Ezra the scribe is the
prophetic author of our book, as a conjecture founded upon the spirit and
contents of the prophecy. The notion that Malachi is only an official name is
therefore met with in many of the fathers, and has been vigorously defended in
the most recent times by Hengstenberg, who follows the lead of Vitringa, whilst
Ewald lays it down as an established truth. But the arguments adduced in support
of this, especially by Hengstenberg in his Christology, are not conclusive. The
circumstance “that the heading does not contain any further personal description,
whether the name of his father or the place of his birth,” is not more striking in
our book than in the writings of Obadiah and Habakkuk, which also contain only
the name of the prophet in the heading, without any further personal descriptions.
It is a striking fact, no doubt, that the LXX and the Targumist have taken the name
as an appellative; at the same time, it by no means follows from this “that nothing
was known in tradition of any historical person of the name of Malachi,” but
simply that nothing certain had been handed down concerning the circumstances
of the prophet’s life. The recollection, however, of the circumstances connected
with the personal history of the prophet might easily have become extinct during
the period of at least 150 or 200 years which intervened between the lifetime of
the prophet and the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, if his life was not
distinguished by any other facts than the prophecies contained in his book. And
Jonathan lived, at the earliest, 400 years after Malachi. That all recollection of
the person of Malachi was not lost, however, is evident both from the notice in
the Talmud to the effect that Malachi was one of the men of the great synagogue,
as Haggai and Zechariah had been, and also from the statements made by Ps.
Doroth., Epiph., and other fathers, to the effect that he was a Levite of the tribe of
Zebulun, and was born in Supha, or ÓïöÜ, or ÓïöéñÜ (see the passages in
Koehler, Mal. pp. 10, 11), although all these statements show that nothing certain
was known as to the circumstances of his life.

But the principal reason for taking the name not as a nomen proprium, but
simply as a name adopted by the prophet for this particular prophecy, is to be
found, according to Hengstenberg, in the character of the name itself, viz., in the
fact that it is not formed from CSìÀîÇ and äåˆäÊéŠ = déˆ, and cannot be explained by
angelicus. But neither the one nor the other can be regarded as established. The
formation of proper names by adding the termination é to appellative nouns is
by no means unusual, as the long list of examples of words formed in this
manner, given by Olshausen (Heb. Gramm. 218, b), clearly shows; and the
remark that “this formation only serves to denote descent or occupation”
(Hengstenberg) is beside the mark, since it does not apply to such names as  ,éîÄøŠb‡
éø„ëÀæ„, and others. The interpretation of the name as a contraction of äiˆëÄSìÀîÇ,
messenger of Jehovah, is quite as possible as this derivation. We have an
unquestionably example of a contraction of this kind in éáà in 2 Kings 18:2, as
compared with äiˆáà in 2 Chronicles 29:1. And just as the déˆ is there omitted
altogether in éáàÂ, so is the other name of God, ìàÅ, omitted in éèÄìÀôÇ in 1 Samuel
25:44, which is written ìàÅéèÄìÀtÇ in 2 Samuel 3:15. This omission of the name of
God is by no means rare. “The Hebrews very often drop the names of God at the
end of proper names” (Simonis, p. 11). The formation of such a name as éëÄSìÀîÇ
would be perfectly analogous to these cases; and no objection whatever can be
brought against such a name, since the é need not be taken as a suffix of the first
person (my messenger is Jehovah), but is rather to be taken as Yod compaginis,
like äiˆ÷æ€çéŠ formed from é÷æ€çéŠ (for ÷�æ€çéŠ) and äéˆ, “messenger of Jehovah.” This
name might very well have been given by parents to a son whom God had given
them, or sent to them in fulfilment of their wishes. Which of these two
derivations deserves the preference, cannot be determined with certainty; at the
same time, there is more probability in the latter than in the former, partly
because of the obvious play upon His name in the words éëÄSìÀîÇ çìÅLÊ éð„ð€ä
(Malachi 3:1), and partly because of the Greek form of the name Ìáëá÷ßáò in
the heading of the book. Since, then, there is no valid argument that can be
brought against the formation of such a name, there is all the more reason for
regarding the name in the heading (Malachi 1:1) as the real name of the prophet,
from the fact that the idea explanation would be without any distinct analogy.
“All the prophets whose writings have come down to us in the canon, have given
their own names in the headings to their books, that is to say, the names which
they received at their birth; and the names of the rest of the prophets of the Old
Testament are also their real names” (Caspari, Micha, p. 28). Even in the case of
the names Agur (Proverbs 30:1) and Lemuel (Proverbs 31:1), which
Hengstenberg cites as analogies, it is still doubtful whether the first, Agur the son
of Jakeh, is not a historical name; and even if the ideal use of the two were
established beyond all doubt, no conclusion could be drawn from a collection of
proverbs bearing upon a prophetic writing. A collection of proverbs is a poetical
work, whose ethical or religious truth is not dependent upon the person of the
poet. The prophet, on the contrary, has to guarantee the divinity of his mission
and the truth of his prophecy by his own name or his own personality.

The period of Malachi is also a disputed point, although all are agreed that he
lived and prophesied after the captivity. We may gather from his prophecy, not
only that he commenced his prophetic labours after Haggai and Zechariah, since,
according to Malachi 1:6ff. and 3:10, the temple had been rebuilt and the temple-
worship had been restored for a considerable time, but also, as Vitringa has
shown in his Observ. ss. ii. lib. 6, that he did not prophesy till after the first
arrival of Nehemiah in Jerusalem, i.e., after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes
Longimanus. The chief reason for this is to be found in the agreement between
Malachi and Nehemiah (ch. 13), in the reproof administered for the abuses
current among the people, and even in the priesthood,—namely, the marriage of
heathen wives (compare Malachi 2:11ff. with Nehemiah 13:23ff.), and the
negligent payment of the tithes (compare Malachi 3:8-10 with Nehemiah 13:10-
14). The first of these abuses—namely, that many even of the priests and Levites
had taken heathen wives—found its way among the people even on Ezra’s first
arrival in Jerusalem; and he succeeded in abolishing it by vigorous measures, so
that all Israel put away the heathen wives within three months (Ezra 9 and 10).
But it is evidently impossible to refer the condemnation of the same abuse in
Malachi to this particular case, because on the one hand the exhortation to be
mindful of the law of Moses (Malachi 3:22), as well as the whole of the contents
of our book which are founded upon the authority of the law, apply rather to the
time when Ezra had already put forth his efforts to restore the authority of the
law (Ezra 7:14, 25-26), than to the previous time; whilst, on the other hand, the
offering of unsuitable animals in sacrifice (1:7ff.), and unfaithfulness in the
payment of the tithes and heave-offerings (Malachi 3:8), can evidently be only
explained on the supposition that Israel had to provide for the necessities of the
temple and the support of the persons engaged in the worship; whereas in Ezra’s
time, or at any rate immediately after his arrival, as well as in the time of Darius
(Ezra 6:9-10), the costs of worship were defrayed out of the royal revenues (Ezra
7:15-17, 20-24). But after the abolition of the heathen marriages by Ezra, and
after his reformatory labours as a whole, such breaches of the law could not have
spread once more among the people in the short interval between the time of Ezra
and the first arrival of Nehemiah, even if Ezra had not continued his labours up to
that time, as is evident from Nehemiah 8-10. Moreover, Nehemiah would no
doubt have attacked these abuses at that time, as he did at a later period, if he had
detected them. Consequently the falling back into the old sin that had been
abolished by Ezra cannot have taken place before the period of Nehemiah’s
return to the king’s court, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah
13:6). If, therefore, Malachi condemns and threatens with the punishment of God
the very same abuses which Nehemiah found in Jerusalem on his second arrival
there, and strove most energetically to exterminate, Malachi must have
prophesied at that time; but whether immediately before Nehemiah’s second
arrival in Jerusalem, or during his presence there, so as to support the
reformatory labours of Nehemiah by his prophetic testimony, cannot be decided
with certainty. What Malachi says in Malachi 1:8 concerning the attitude of the
people towards the Persian governor does not necessarily presuppose a non-
Israelitish vicegerent, but might also apply to Nehemiah, since the prophet’s
words may be understood as relating to free-will gifts or presents, whereas
Nehemiah (Nehemiah 5:14-15) simply says that he has not required from the
people the governor’s supplies, and has not burdened them with taxes. The
circumstance, however, that Nehemiah finds the abuses still existing in
undiminished force, renders the assumption that Malachi had already prophesied
improbable, and favours rather the contemporaneous labours of the two; in which
case the work of Malachi bore the same relation to that of Nehemiah as the work
of Haggai and Zechariah to that of Zerubbabel and Joshua; and the reformatory
labours of Nehemiah, which were chiefly of an outward character, were
accompanied by the more inward labours of Malachi, as was very frequently the
case in the history of Israel; for example, in the case of Isaiah and Hezekiah, or of
Jeremiah and Josiah (see Hengstenberg, Christology, iv. p. 157).

2. The Book of Malachi contains one single prophecy, the character of which is
condemnatory throughout. Starting with the love which the Lord has shown to
His people (1:2-5), the prophet proves that not only do the priests profane the
name of the Lord by an unholy performance of the service at the altar (1:6; 2:9),
but the people also repudiate their divine calling both by heathen marriages and
frivolous divorces (2:10-16), and by their murmuring at the delay of the
judgment; whereas the Lord will soon reveal Himself as a just judge, and before
His coming will send His messenger, the prophet Elijah, to warn the ungodly and
lead them to repentance, and then suddenly come to His temple as the expected
angel of the covenant, to refine the sons of Levi, punish the sinners who have
broken the covenant, and by exterminating the wicked, as well as by blessing the
godly with salvation and righteousness, make the children of Israel the people of
His possession (2:17-4:6). The contents of the book, therefore, arrange
themselves in three sections: Malachi 1:6-2:9, 10-16; 2:17-4:6. These three
sections probably contain only the leading thoughts of the oral addresses of the
prophet, which are so combined as to form one single prophetic address.
Throughout the whole book we meet with the spirit which developed itself
among the Jews after the captivity, and assumed the concrete forms of
Phariseeism and Saduceeism. The outward or grosser kind of idolatry had been
rendered thoroughly distasteful to the people by the sufferings of exile; and its
place was taken by the more refined idolatry of dead-work righteousness, and
trust in the outward fulfilment of the letter of the divine commands, without any
deeper confession of sin, or penitential humiliation under the word and will of
God. Because the fulness of salvation, which the earlier prophets had set before
the people when restored to favour and redeemed from captivity, had not
immediately come to pass, they began to murmur against God, to cherish doubts
as to the righteousness of the divine administration, and to long for the judgment
to fall upon the Gentiles, without reflecting that the judgment would begin at the
house of God (Amos 3:2; 1 Peter 4:17). Malachi fights against this spirit, and the
influence of the time in which he lived is apparent in the manner in which he
attacks it. This style is distinguished from the oratorical mode of address adopted
by the earlier prophets, and not unfrequently rises into a lyrico-dramatical
diction, by the predominance of the conversational form of instruction, in which
the thought to be discussed is laid down in the form of a generally acknowledged
truth, and developed by the alternation of address and reply. In this mode of
developing the thought, we can hardly fail to perceive the influence of the
scholastic discourses concerning the law which were introduced by Ezra; only we
must not look upon this conversational mode of instruction as a sign of the
defunct spirit of prophecy, since it corresponded exactly to the practical wants of
the time, and prophecy did not die of spiritual exhaustion, but was extinguished
in accordance with the will and counsel of God, as soon as its mission had been
fulfilled. Malachi’s language, considering the later period in which he lived and
laboured, is still vigorous, pure, and beautiful. “Malachi,” as Nägelsbach says in
Herzog’s Cyclopaedia, “is like a late evening, which brings a long day to a close;
but he is also the morning dawn, which bears a glorious day in its womb.”

For the exegetical literature, see my Lehrbuch der Einleitung, p. 318; also Aug.
Koehler’s Wiessagungen Maleachi’s erklärt, Erl. 1865.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament Vol. 10: Minor Prophets

Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F.

Malachi 1:1

MALACHI 1:1-5

The first verse contains the heading (see the introduction), “The burden of the
word of the Lord,” as in Zechariah 9:1 and 12:1. On massa’ (burden), see Nahum
1:1. The prophet commences his address in v. 2, by showing the love for which
Israel has to thank its God, in order that on the ground of this fact he may bring
to the light the ingratitude of the people towards their God. V. 2. “I have loved
you, saith Jehovah; and ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? Is not Esau a
brother of Jacob? is the saying of Jehovah: and I loved Jacob, V. 3. And I hated
Esau, and made his mountains a waste, and his inheritance for jackals of the
desert. V. 4. If Edom says, We are dashed to pieces, but will build up the ruins
again, thus saith Jehovah of hosts: They will build, but I will pull down: and men
will call them territory of wickedness, and the people with whom Jehovah is
angry for ever. V. 5. And your eyes will see it; and ye will say, Great is Jehovah
over the border of Israel.” These four verses form neither an independent
address, nor merely the first member of the following address, but the
introduction and foundation of the whole book. The love which God has shown
to Israel ought to form the motive and model for the conduct of Israel towards its
God. áäS denotes love in its expression or practical manifestation. The question
asked by the people, “Wherein hast Thou shown us love?” may be explained
from the peculiarities of Malachi’s style, and is the turn he regularly gives to his
address, by way of introducing the discussion of the matter in hand, so that we
are not to see in it any intention to disclose the hypocrisy of the people. The
prophet proves the love of Jehovah towards Israel, from the attitude of God
towards Israel and towards Edom. Jacob and Esau, the tribe-fathers of both
nations, were twin brothers. It would therefore have been supposed that the
posterity of both the Israelites and the Edomites would be treated alike by God.
But this is not the case. Even before their birth Jacob was the chosen one; and
Esau or Edom was the inferior, who was to serve his brother (Genesis 25:23, cf.
Romans 9:10-13). Accordingly Jacob became the heir of the promise, and Esau
lost this blessing. This attitude on the part of God towards Jacob and Esau, and
towards the nations springing from them, is described by Malachi in these words:
I (Jehovah) have loved Jacob, and hated Esau. The verbs áäS, to love, and àð…NÜ,
to hate, must not be weakened down into loving more and loving less, to avoid
the danger of falling into the doctrine of predestination. àð…NÜ, to hate, is the
opposite of love. And this meaning must be retained here; only we must bear in
mind, that with God anything arbitrary is inconceivable, and that no explanation
is given here of the reasons which determined the actions of God. Malachi does
not expressly state in what the love of God to Jacob (i.e., Israel) showed itself;
but this is indirectly indicated in what is stated concerning the hatred towards
Edom. The complete desolation of the Edomitish territory is quoted as a proof of
this hatred. V. 3b does not refer to the assignment of a barren land, as Rashi,
Ewald, and Umbreit suppose, but to the devastation of the land, which was only
utterly waste on the western mountains; whereas it was by no means barren on
the eastern slopes and valleys (see at Genesis 27:39). Tannoôth is a feminine
plural form of tan = tannΙm (Micah 1:8; Isaiah 13:22, etc.), by which,
according to the Syrio-Aramaean version, we are to understand the jackal. The
meaning dwelling-places, which Gesenius and others have given to tannoôth,
after the LXX and Peshito, rests upon a very uncertain derivation (see Roediger at
Ges. Thes. p. 1511). “For jackals of the desert:” i.e., as a dwelling-place for these
beasts of the desert (see Isaiah 34:13). It is a disputed point when this devastation
took place, and from what people it proceeded. Jahn, Hitzig, and Koehler are of
opinion that it is only of the most recent date, because otherwise the Edomites
would long ago have repaired the injury, which, according to v. 4, does not
appear to have been done. V. 4, however, simply implies that the Edomites would
not succeed in the attempt to repair the injury. On the other hand, vv. 2, 3
evidently contain the thought, that whereas Jacob had recovered, in consequence
of the love of Jehovah, from the blow which had fallen upon it (through the
Chaldaeans), Esau’s territory was still lying in ruins from the same blow, in
consequence of Jehovah’s hatred (Caspari, Obad. p. 143). It follows from this,
that the devastation of Idumaea emanated from the Chaldaeans. On the other
hand, the objection that the Edomites appear to have submitted voluntarily to the
Babylonians, and to have formed an alliance with them, does not say much, since
neither the one nor the other can be raised even into a position of probability; but,
on the contrary, we may infer with the greatest probability from Jeremiah 49:7ff.,
as compared with 25:9, 21, that the Edomites were also subjugated by
Nebuchadnezzar. Maurer’s assumption, that Idumaea was devastated by the
Egyptians, Ammonites, and Moabites, against whom Nebuchadnezzar marched
in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, is perfectly visionary. The
threat in v. 4, that if Edom attempts to rebuild its ruins, the Lord will again
destroy that which is built, is equivalent to a declaration that Edom will never
recover its former prosperity and power. This was soon fulfilled, the
independence of the Edomites being destroyed, and their land made an eternal
desert, especially from the times of the Maccabees onwards. The construction of
íBãàÁ as a feminine with øîÇàzÊ may be explained on the ground that the land is
regarded as the mother of its inhabitants, and stands synecdochically for the
population. Men will call them (ïäìÈ, the Edomites) äòÈLÔø„ ìeáb€, territory, land
of wickedness,—namely, inasmuch as they will look upon the permanent
devastation, and the failure of every attempt on the part of the nation to rise up
again, as a practical proof that the wrath of God is resting for ever upon both
people and land on account of Edom’s sins.

Malachi 1:5

Malachi 1:5

These ineffectual attempts on the part of Edom to recover its standing again
will Israel see with its eyes, and then acknowledge that Jehovah is showing
Himself to be great above the land of Israel. ìeáâ€ìÄ ìòÇîÅ does not mean “beyond
the border of Israel” (Drus., Hitzig, Ewald, and others). ìÀ ìòÇîÅ does not mean
this, but simply over, above (cf. Nehemiah 3:28; Ecclesiastes 5:7). ìcžâ…P is not a
wish, “Let Him be great, i.e., be praised,” as in Psalm 35:27; 40:17, etc. The
expression é ìeáâ€ìÄ ìòÇîÅ does not suit this rendering; for it is an unnatural
assumption to take this as an apposition to äåˆäÊéŠ, in the sense of: Jehovah, who is
enthroned or rules over the border of Israel. Jehovah is great, when He makes
known His greatness to men, by His acts of power or grace.

Malachi 1:6

MALACHI 1:6-9

The condemnation of that contempt of the Lord which the priests displayed by
offering bad or blemished animals in sacrifices, commences with the following
verse. V. 6. “A son honoureth the father, and a servant his master. And if I am a
father, where is my honour? and if I am a master, where is my fear? saith
Jehovah of hosts to you, ye priests who despise my name, and yet say, Wherein
have we despised Thy name? V. 7. Ye who offer polluted bread upon my altar,
and yet say, Wherewith have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of
Jehovah, it is despised. V.8. And if ye offer what is blind for sacrifice, it is no
wickedness; and if ye offer what is lame and diseased, it is no wickedness. Offer
it, now, to thy governor: will he be gracious to thee, or accept thy person? saith
Jehovah of hosts. V. 9. And now, supplicate the face of God, that He may have
compassion upon us: of your hand has this occurred: will He look upon a person
on your account? saith Jehovah of hosts.” This reproof is simply directed against
the priests, but it applies to the whole nation; for in the times after the captivity
the priests formed the soul of the national life. In order to make an impression
with his reproof, the prophet commences with a generally acknowledged truth,
by which both priests and people could and ought to measure their attitude
towards the Lord. The statement, that the son honours the father and the servant
his master, is not to be taken as a moral demand. ãaëÇéŠ is not jussive (Targ.,
Luth., etc.); for this would only weaken the prophet’s argument. The imperfect
expresses what generally occurs, individual exceptions which are sometimes met
with being overlooked. Malachi does not even appeal to the law in Exodus 20:12,
which enjoins upon children reverence towards their parents, and in which
reverence on the part of a servant towards his master is also implied, but simply
lays it down as a truth which no one will call in question. To this he appends the
further truth, which will also be admitted without contradiction, that Jehovah is
the Father and Lord of Israel. Jehovah is called the Father of Israel in the song of
Moses (Deuteronomy 32:6), inasmuch as He created and trained Israel to be His
covenant nation; compare Isaiah 63:16, where Jehovah is called the Father of
Israel as being its Redeemer (also Jeremiah 31:9 and Psalm 100:3). As Father,
God is also Lord (�aõdoônŒôm: plur. majest.) of the nation, which He has made His
possession. But if He is a Father, the honour which a son owes to his father is due
to Him; and if a Lord, the fear which a servant owes to his lord is also due to
Him. The suffixes attached to éãBákÀ and éàÄøˆBî are used in an objective sense, as
in Genesis 9:2; Exodus 20:17, etc. In order now to say to the priests in the most
striking manner that they do the opposite of this, the prophet calls them in his
address despisers of the name of Jehovah, and fortifies this against their reply by
proving that they exhibit this contempt in their performance of the altar service.
With regard to the construction of the clauses in the last members of v. 6, and
also in v. 7, the participle íéLØéb„îÇ is parallel to éîÄLÔ éæ…Ba, and the reply of the
priests to the charge brought against them is attached to these two participial
clauses by “and ye say;” and the antithesis is exhibited more clearly by the
choice of the finite tense, than it would have been by the continuation of the
participle.

V. 7aa is not an answer to the question of the priests, “Wherein have we
despised Thy name?” for the answer could not be given in the participle; but
though the clause commencing with maggΙshΙm does explain the previous
rebuke, viz., that they despise the name of Jehovah, and will not even admit that
this is true, it is not in the form of an answer to the reply of the opponents, but by
a simple reference to the conduct of the priests. The answer is appended by
íëÆøŠîÈàÁa in v. 7b to the reply made to this charge also; and this answer is
explained in v. 8 by an allusion to the nature of the sacrificial animals, without
being followed by a fresh reply on the part of the priests, because this fact cannot
be denied. The contempt on the part of the priests of the name of Jehovah, i.e., of
the glory in which God manifested Himself in Israel, was seen in the fact that
they offered polluted bread upon the altar of Jehovah. Lechem, bread or food,
does not refer to the shew-bread, for that was not offered upon the altar, but is the
sacrificial flesh, which is called in Leviticus 21:6, 8, 17, the food (lechem) of
God (on the application of this epithet to the sacrifices, see the remarks in our
comm. on Leviticus 3:11, 16). The prophet calls this food ìSâÉîÀ, polluted,
blemished, not so much with reference to the fact, that the priests offered the
sacrifices in a hypocritical or impure state of mind (Ewald), as because,
according to v. 8, the sacrificial animals were affected with blemishes (muôm), or
had something corrupt (moshchaòth) about them (Leviticus 22:20-25). The
reply, “Wherewith have we defiled Thee?” is to be explained from the idea that
either touching or eating anything unclean would defile a person. In this sense
they regard the offering of defiled food to God as defiling God Himself. The
prophet answers: In that ye represent the table of Jehovah as something
contemptible. The table of Jehovah is the altar, upon which the sacrifices (i.e.,
the food of God) were laid. äæ†á�ð„ has the force of an adjective here: contemptible.
They represent the altar as contemptible not so much in words or speeches, as in
their practice, viz., by offering up bad, despicable sacrificial animals, which had
blemishes, being either blind, lame, or diseased, and which were unfit for
sacrifices on account of these blemishes, according to the law in Leviticus
22:20ff. Thus they violated both reverence for the altar and also reverence for
Jehovah. The words òøˆ ïéàÅ are not to be taken as a question, but are used by the
prophet in the sense of the priests, and thus assume the form of bitter irony. òøˆ,
bad, evil, as a calumniation of Jehovah. In order to disclose to them their wrong
in the most striking manner, the prophet asks them whether the governor (äçtÆ:
see at Haggai 1:1) would accept such presents; and then in v. 9 draws this
conclusion, that God also would not hear the prayers of the priests for the people.
He clothes this conclusion in the form of a challenge to supplicate the face of
Jehovah (éð…ôÀ älÈç: see at Zechariah 7:2), that God would have compassion upon
the nation; but at the same time he intimates by the question, whether God would
take any notice of this, that under the existing circumstances such intercession
would be fruitless. ìàÅ éð…tÀ is selected in the place of äåˆäÊéŠ éð…tÀ, to lay the greater
emphasis upon the antithesis between God and man (the governor). If the
governor would not accept worthless gifts graciously, how could they expect a
gracious answer to their prayers from God when they offered such gifts to Him?
The suffix in eðp…çéŠ refers to the people, in which the prophet includes himself.
The clause “from your hand has úàæÉ (this: viz., the offering of such
reprehensible sacrifices) proceeded” (cf. Isaiah 50:11), is inserted between the
summons to pray to God and the intimation of the certain failure of such
intercession, to give still further prominence to the unlawfulness of such an act.
The question åâå àOÜPä is appended to the principal clause  àðˆÎelç , and   íkÆîÄ
íéð„tÈ  does not stand for  íëÆéð…tÀ: will He lift up your face, i.e., show you favour?
but íkÆîÄ is causal, “on your account” (Koehler): “will He regard a person, that is
to say, will He show favour to any one, on your account, viz., because ye pray to
Him for compassion, when these are the actions ye perform?” The view of
Jerome, Grotius, and Hitzig, that the challenge to seek the face of God is an
earnest call to repentance or to penitential prayer, is at variance with the context.
What follows, for example, is opposed to this, where the prophet says it would be
better if the temple were closed, since God does not need sacrifices.

Malachi 1:10

MALACHI 1:10-13

V. 10. “O that there were one among you, who would shut the doors, that ye
might not light mine altar to no purpose! I have no pleasure in you, saith
Jehovah of hosts, and sacrificial offering does not please me from your hand. V.
11. For from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof my name is great among
the nations, and in every place incense is burned and sacrifice offered, and
indeed a pure sacrifice to my name; for my name is great among the nations,
saith Jehovah of hosts. V. 12. And ye desecrate it with your saying: the table of
Jehovah, it is defiled, and its fruit—contemptible is its food. V. 13. And ye say:
behold what a plague! and ye blow upon it, saith Jehovah of hosts, and ye bring
hither what is robbed and the lame and the sick, and thus ye bring the sacrificial
gift; shall I take pleasure in this from your hand? saith Jehovah.” The
construction øbÉñ�PåŠ íëÆá éîÄ is to be explained in accordance with Job 19:23:
“Who is among you and he would shut,” for “who is there who would shut?” and
the question is to be taken as the expression of a wish, as in 2 Samuel 15:4;
Psalm 4:7, etc.: “would that some one among you would shut!” The thought is
sharpened by gam, which not only belongs to íëÆa, but to the whole of the
clause: “O that some one would shut,” etc. The doors, the shutting of which is to
be desired, are the folding doors of the inner court, in which the altar of burnt-
offering stood; and the object of the wish is that the altar might no more be
lighted up, not “by lights which burned by the side of the altar” (Ewald), but by
the shining of the sacrificial fire which burned upon the altar. ípˆç, in vain, i.e.,
without any object or use, for Jehovah had no pleasure in such priests or such
worthless sacrifices. Minchaòh here is not the meat-offering as distinguished
from the slain-offering, but sacrifice generally, as in 1 Samuel 2:17; Isaiah 1:13;
Zephaniah 3:10, etc. Such sacrifices God does not desire, for His name proves
itself to be great among all the nations of the earth, so that pure sacrifices are
offered to Him in every place. This is the simple connection between vv. 10, 11,
and one in perfect harmony with the words. Koehler’s objection, that such a line
of argument apparently presupposes that God needs sacrifices on the part of man
for His own sake, and is only in a condition to despise the sacrifices of His nation
when another nation offers Him better ones, has no force, because the expression
“for His own sake,” in the sense of “for His sustenance or to render the
perpetuation of His being possible,” with the conclusion drawn from it, is neither
to be found in the words of the text, nor in the explanation referred to. God does
indeed need no sacrifices for the maintenance of His existence, and He does not
demand them for this purpose, but He demands them as signs of the dependence
of men upon Him, or of the recognition on the part of men that they are indebted
to God for life and every other blessing, and owe Him honour, praise, and
thanksgiving in return. In this sense God needs sacrifices, because otherwise He
would not be God to men on earth; and from this point of view the argument that
God did not want to receive the reprehensible sacrifices of the Israelitish priests,
because sacrifices were offered to Him by the nations of the earth in all places,
and therefore His name was and remained great notwithstanding the desecration
of it on the part of Israel, was a very proper one for attacking the delusion, that
God needs sacrifices for His own sustenance; a delusion which the Israelitish
priests, against whom Malachi was contending, really cherished, if not in thesi, at
all events in praxi, when they thought any sacrificial animal good enough for
God. Koehler’s assumption, that v. 11 contains a subordinate parenthetical
thought, and that the reason for the assertion in v. 10b is not given till vv. 12, 13,
is opposed to the structure of the sentences, since it necessitates the insertion of
“although” after ékÄ in v. 11.

It is must more difficult to decide the question whether v. 11 treats of what was
already occurring at the time of the prophet himself, as Hitzig, Maurer, and
Koehler suppose (after the LXX, Ephr., Theod. Mops., etc.), or of that which
would take place in the future through the reception of the heathen into the
kingdom of God in the place of Israel, which would be rejected for a time (Cyr.,
Theod., Jerome, Luther, Calvin, and others, down to Hengstenberg and
Schmieder). Both of these explanations are admissible on grammatical grounds;
for such passages as Genesis 15:14 and Joel 3:4 show very clearly that the
participle is also used for the future. If we take the words as referring to the
present, they can only mean that the heathen, with the worship and sacrifices
which they offer to the gods, do worship, though ignorantly yet in the deepest
sense, the true and living God (Koehler). But this thought is not even expressed
by the Apostle Paul in so definite or general a form, either in Romans 1:19-20,
where he teaches that the heathen can discern the invisible being of God from His
works, or in Acts 17:23ff. in his address at Athens, where he infers from the
inscription upon an altar, “to the unknown God,” that the unknown God, whom
the Athenians worshipped, is the true God who made heaven and earth. Still less
is this thought contained in our verse. Malachi does not speak of an “unknown
God,” whom all nations from the rising to the setting of the sun, i.e., over all the
earth, worshipped, but says that Jehovah’s name is great among the nations of the
whole earth. And the name of God is only great among the Gentiles, when
Jehovah has proved Himself to them to be a great God, so that they have
discerned the greatness of the living God from His marvellous works and thus
have learned to fear Him (cf. Zephaniah 2:11; Psalm 46:9-11; Exodus 15:11, 14-
16). This experience of the greatness of God forms the substratum for the
offering of sacrifices in every place, since this offering is not mentioned merely
as the consequence of the fact that the name of Jehovah is great among the
nations; but in the clause before the last, “the latter is also expressly placed
towards the former in the relation of cause to effect” (Koehler). The idea,
therefore, that the statement, that incense is burned and sacrifice offered to the
name of Jehovah in every place, refers to the sacrifices which the heathen offered
to their gods, is quite inadmissible. At the time of Malachi the name of Jehovah
was not great from the rising to the setting of the sun, nor were incense and
sacrifice offered to Him in every place, and therefore even Hitzig looks upon the
expression íB÷îÈÎìëÈa� as “saying too much.” Consequently we must understand
the words prophetically as relating to that spread of the kingdom of God among
all nations, with which the worship of the true God would commence “in every
place.” íB÷îÈÎìëÈa� forms an antithesis to the one place, in the temple at
Jerusalem, to which the worship of God was limited during the time of the old
covenant (Deuteronomy 12:5-6). øèÈ÷�îË is not a partic. nominasc., incense,
suffimentum, for this could not signify the burnt-offering or slain-offering as
distinguished from the meat-offering (minchaòh), but it is a partic. verbale, and
denotes not the kindling of the sacrificial flesh upon the altar, but the kindling of
the incense (suffitur); for otherwise LbˆîË would necessarily stand before
øèÈ÷�îË, since the presentation preceded the burning upon the altar. The two
participles are connected together asyndetos and without any definite subject (see
Ewald, 'a7295, a). It is true that minchaòh t^ehoôraòh does actually belong to
muggaòsh as the subject, but it is attached by Vav explic. in the form of an
explanatory apposition: offering is presented to my name, and indeed a sacrificial
gift (minchaòh covering every sacrifice, as in v. 10). The emphasis rests upon
t^ehoôraòh, pure, i.e., according to the requirements of the law, in contrast to
sacrifices polluted by faulty animals, such as the priests of that day were
accustomed to offer.

(Note: In Malachi 1:11 the Romish Church finds a biblical foundation for its
doctrine of the bloodless sacrifice of the New Testament, i.e., the holy
sacrifice of the mass (see Canones et decreta concil. Trident. sess. 22),
understanding by minchaòh the meat-offering as distinguished from the
bloody sacrifices. But even if there were any ground for this explanation of
the word, which there is not, it would furnish no support to the sacrifice of the
mass, since apart from the fact that the sacrifice of the mass has a totally
different meaning from the meat-offering of the Old Testament, the literal
interpretation of the word is precluded by the parallel “burning incense” or
“frankincense.” If burning incense was a symbol of prayer, as even Reincke
admits, the “sacrificial offering” can only have denoted the spiritual surrender
of a man to God (Romans 12:1).)

In the allusion to the worship, which would be paid by all nations to the name of
the Lord, there is an intimation that the kingdom of God will be taken from the
Jews who despise the Lord, and given to the heathen who seek God. This
intimation forms the basis for the curse pronounced in v. 14 upon the despisers of
God, and shows “that the kingdom of God will not perish, when the Lord comes
and smites the land with the curse (Malachi 4:6), but that this apparent death is
the way to true life” (Hengstenberg).

To this allusion to the attitude which the heathen will assume towards Jehovah
when He reveals His name to them, the prophet appends as an antithesis in vv.
12, 13 a repetition of the reproof, that the priests of Israel desecrate the name of
the Lord by that contempt of His name, which they display by offering faulty
animals in sacrifice. V. 12 is only a repetition of the rebuke in v.7. ìlÅç is really
equivalent to íLÙ äæˆa and ìTbˆ in vv. 6 and 7, and ìSâÉîÀ to äæ†á�ð„ in v. 7, which
occurs in the last clause of v. 12 as synonymous with it. The additional words
åâå Báéð„åŠ serve to strengthen the opinion expressed by the priests concerning the
table of the Lord. Báéð„ is placed at the head absolutely, and is substantially
resumed in áéð„ .BìëÀS, proventus, produce, income; the suffix refers to
shulchan Y^ehoôvaòh (the table of the Lord). The revenue of the table of the
Lord, i.e., of the altar, consisted of the sacrifices offered upon it, which are also
called its food. The assumption is an erroneous one, that the sentence contains
any such thought as the following: “The revenue drawn by the priests from the
altar, i.e., the sacrificial flesh which fell to their share, was contemptible;”
according to which the priests would be represented as declaring, that they
themselves could not eat the flesh of the sacrifices offered without disgust; for
they could not possibly speak in this way, since it was they themselves who
admitted the faulty animals. If the flesh of blind, lame, or diseased animals had
been too bad for food in their estimation, they would not have admitted such
animals or offered them in sacrifice (Koehler). Even in v. 13 this thought is not
implied. äSìÈz�îÇ is a contraction of äSìÈz�ÎäîÇ (cf. Ges. 'a720, 2, a): What a
weariness it is! The object, which the priests declare to be a burdensome and
troublesome affair, can only be inferred from the following expression,
v^ehippachtem �oôthoô. Hippeôaõch signifies here to blow away, like  çéôÄä
á� in Psalm 10:5, which is radically connected with it, i.e., to treat
contemptuously. The suffix BúBà does not refer to BìëÀS, but to éé ïçìÀLÝ. The
table of Jehovah (i.e., the altar) they treat contemptuously. Consequently the
service at the altar is a burden or a trouble to them, whereas this service ought to
be regarded as an honour and a privilege. Jerome thinks that instead of BúBà, we
might read éúBà, which is found in a good number of codices; and according to
the Masora, BúBà has found its way into the text as Tikkune Sopherim
(compare the remarks at Habakkuk 1:12 on the Tikkune Sopherim). But in this
case also the reading in the text is evidently original and correct. They manifest
their contempt of the altar by offering in sacrifice that which has been stolen, etc.
(cf. v. 8). The first íúàáä is to be understood as referring to the bringing of the
animals upon the altar; and äçð€nÄäÎúàÆ íúàáäå‡ is to be interpreted thus: “And
having brought such worthless animals to the slaughter, ye then offer the
sacrificial gift.” There is indeed no express prohibition in the law against offering
gaòzuôl, or that which has been stolen; but it was shut out from the class of
admissible sacrifices by the simple fact, that robbery was to be visited with
punishment as a crime. The reproof closes with the question, which is repeated
from v. 8 (cf. v. 10), whether God can accept such sacrifices with pleasure. The
prophet then utters the curse in the name of God upon all who offer bad and
unsuitable sacrifices.

Malachi 1:14

MALACHI 1:14

“And cursed is he who deceives whilst there is in his flock a male animal, and
he who vows and sacrifices to the Lord that which is corrupt; for I am a great
King, saith Jehovah of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.” This
verse is not attached adversatively to v. 13b, but Vav is the simple copula, for the
question in v. 13b has a negative sense, or is to be answered by “No.” To this
answer there is attached the curse upon all the Israelites who offer such sacrifices
to God as have not the characteristics required by the law. Two cases are
mentioned. In the first place, that when according to the law a male animal ought
to have been sacrificed, the person offering the sacrifice offered a female, i.e.,
one of less value, under the pretence that he did not possess or could not procure
a male. The prophet calls this naòkhal, cheating. The second case refers to
votive sacrifices; for which as zebhach sh^elaòmŒôm (Leviticus 22:21) both
male and female animals could be used, though only such as were free from
faults, inasmuch as animals having any moshchaòth are declared in Leviticus
22:25 to be not acceptable. Moshchaòth, according to the Masoretic pointing, is
the feminine of the hophal participle for z�ú�çLÔîÈ, like úø‡LÜîÀ for úúø†LÜîÀ in 1
Kings 1:15 (cf. Ewald, 'a7188, b, and Olshausen, p. 393), according to which we
should have to think of a female animal in bad condition. This pointing, however,
is probably connected with the view still defended by Ewald, Maurer, and Hitzig,
that the words çáæÉåŠ øãðÉåŠ are a continuation of the circumstantial clause åâå Lé…åŠ,
and that v. 14 only refers to votive sacrifices: Cursed is the deceiver who has in
his flock a male, but vows and sacrifices a corrupt female. This view, however, is
evidently opposed to the meaning of the words. If øãðÉåì were a circumstantial
clause, we should expect øãðÉ àeäåŠ. Moreover, since even female animals were
admissible for votive sacrifices, the vowing and offering of a female animal
could not be blamed in itself, and therefore what was reprehensible was not that a
female animal was vowed and offered in sacrifice by any one, but that, instead of
offering a faultless animal (taòmŒôm), he presented a blemished one. We must
therefore follow the ancient translators and many commentators, who read
moshchaòth (masc.), according to which the curse is pronounced upon any one
who vowed a sacrifice and afterwards redeemed his vow with a faulty and
unsuitable animal. An animal was moshchaòth, corrupt, when it had any fault,
which rendered it unsuitable for sacrifice. The reason for the curse is explained
by reminding them of the greatness of God. Because Jehovah is a great King and
His name is feared among the nations, to offer a corrupt animal in sacrifice is an
offence against His majesty.

Malachi 2:1

Malachi 2

Malachi 2:1

MALACHI 2:1-4

The rebuke administered to the priests for their wicked doings is followed by
an announcement of the punishment which they will bring upon themselves in
case they should not observe the admonition, or render to the Lord the reverence
due to His name when discharging the duties of their office. V. 1. “And now, ye
priests, this commandment comes to you. V. 2. If ye do not hear and lay it to
heart, to give glory to my name, saith Jehovah of hosts, I send against you the
curse and curse your blessings, yea I have cursed them, because ye will not lay it
to heart. V. 3. Behold I rebuke your arm, and scatter dung upon your face, the
dung of your feasts, and they will carry you away to it. V. 4. And ye will perceive
that I have sent this commandment to you, that it may be my covenant with Levi,
saith Jehovah of hosts.” V. 1. introduces the threat; this is called mitsvaòh, a
command, not as a commission which the prophet received, for the speaker is not
the prophet, but Jehovah Himself; nor as “instruction, admonition, or warning,”
for mitsvaòh has no such meaning. Mitsvaòh is rather to be explained from
tsivvaòh in Nahum 1:14. The term command is applied to that which the Lord
has resolved to bring upon a person, inasmuch as the execution or
accomplishment is effected by earthly instruments by virtue of a divine
command.

The reference is to the threat of punishment which follows in vv. 2 and 3, but
which is only to be carried out in case the priests do not hear and lay to heart,
namely, the warning which the Lord has addressed to them through Malachi
(Malachi 1:6-13), and sanctify His name by their service. If they shall not do this,
God will send the curse against them, and that in two ways. In the first place He
will curse their blessings; in fact, He has already done so. B^eraòkhoôth,
blessings, are obviously not the revenues of the priests, tithes, atonement-money,
and portions of the sacrifices (L. de Dieu, Ros., Hitzig), but the blessings
pronounced by the priests upon the people by virtue of their office. These God
will curse, i.e., He will make them ineffective, or turn them into the very
opposite. äéúBøS íâ‡åŠ is not a simple, emphatic repetition, but éúBøS is a perfect,
which affirms that the curse has already taken effect. The emphatic v^egam, and
also, and indeed, also requires this. The suffix ä attached to éúBøS is to be taken
distributively: “each particular blessing.” In the second place God will rebuke
òø‡f†äÎúàÆ, i.e., the seed. But since the priests did not practise agriculture, it is
impossible to see how rebuking the seed, i.e., causing a failure of the corps, could
be a punishment peculiar to the priests. We must therefore follow the LXX,
Aquila, Vulg., Ewald, and others, and adopt the pointing òÇøÊf€ä, i.e., the arm.
Rebuking the arm does not mean exactly “laming the arm,” nor manifesting His
displeasure in any way against the arm, which the priests raised to bless
(Koehler). For it was not the arm but the hand that was raised to bless (Lev. 9:22;
Luke 24:50), and rebuking signifies something more than the manifestation of
displeasure. It is with the arm that a man performs his business or the duties of
his calling; and rebuking the arm, therefore, signifies the neutralizing of the
official duties performed at the altar and in the sanctuary. Moreover, God will
also deliver them up to the most contemptuous treatment, by scattering dung in
their faces, namely, the dung of their feasts. ChaggΙm, feasts, is used
metonymically for festal sacrifices, or the sacrificial animals slain at the festivals
(cf. Psalm 118:27). The dung of the sacrificial animals was to be carried away to
an unclean place outside the camp and burned there, in the case of the sin-
offerings, upon an ash-heap (Leviticus 4:12; 16:27; Exodus 29:14). Scattering
dung in the face was a sign and figurative description of the most ignominious
treatment. Through the expression “dung of your festal sacrifices,” the festal
sacrifices offered by these priests are described as being themselves dung; and
the thought is this: the contempt of the Lord, which they show by offering blind
or lame animals, or such as are blemished in other ways, He will repay to them
by giving them up to the greatest ignominy. The threat is strengthened by the
clause åéìÈàÅ íëÆú�àÆ àNÜðˆåŠ, which has been interpreted, however, in different
ways. The Vulgate, Luther (“and shall remain sticking to you”), Calvin, and
others take peresh as the subject to àNÜðˆ: “the dung will draw the priests to
itself, so that they will also become dung.” But àNÜðˆ has no such meaning; we
must therefore leave the subject indefinite: they (man) will carry you away, or
sweep you away to it, i.e., treat you as dung. When they should be treated in this
ignominious manner, then would they perceive that the threatening had come
from the Lord. “This commandment (mitsvaòh) is the mitsvaòh mentioned in
v. 1. The infinitive clause which follows announces the purpose of God, in
causing this threat to come to pass. But the explanation of these words is a
disputed point, since we may either take b^erΙthΙ (my covenant) as the subject,
or supply hammitsvaòh (the commandment) from the previous clause. In the
first case (“that my covenant may be with Levi”) the meaning could only be, that
the covenant with Levi may continue. But although haòyaòh does indeed mean to
exist, it does not mean to continue, or be maintained. We must therefore take
hammitsvaòh as the subject, as Luther, Calvin, and others have done (“that it,
viz., my purpose, may be my covenant with Levi”). Koehler adopts this, and has
explained it correctly thus: “They will perceive that just as Jehovah has hitherto
regulated His conduct towards Levi by the terms of His covenant, which was
made with it at the time of its departure from Egypt, so will He henceforth let it
be regulated by the terms of the decree of punishment which He has resolved
upon now, so that this decree of punishment takes the place, as it were, of the
earlier covenant.” LeôvŒô is the tribe of Levi, which culminated in the priesthood.
The attitude of God towards the priests is called a covenant, inasmuch as God
placed them in a special relation to Himself by choosing them for the service of
the sanctuary, which not only secured to them rights and promises, but imposed
duties upon them, on the fulfilment of which the reception of the gifts of divine
grace depended (vid., Deuteronomy 10:8-9; 33:8-10; Numbers 18:1ff., 25:10ff.).

Malachi 2:5

MALACHI 2:5-7

To explain and show the reason for this thought, the real nature of the covenant
made with Levi is described in vv. 5-7; and vv. 8 and 9 then show how the priests
have neutralized this covenant by forsaking the way of their fathers, so that God
is obliged to act differently towards them now, and deliver them up to shame and
ignominy. V. 5. “My covenant was with him life and salvation, and I lent them to
him for fear, and he feared me and trembled before my name. V. 6. Law of truth
was in his mouth and there was no perversity on his lips, he walked with me in
salvation and integrity, and brought back many from guilt. V. 7. For the priest’s
lips should keep knowledge, and men seek law from his mouth, because he is a
messenger of Jehovah.” In v. 5a íBìMÜäåŠ íéi„çä are the nominative of the
predicate. “My covenant was with him life,” etc., means, my covenant consisted
in this, that life and salvation were guaranteed and granted to him. The elliptical
mode of explaining it, viz., “my covenant was a covenant of life and salvation,”
gives the same sense, only there is no analogous example by which this ellipsis
can be vindicated, since such passages as Numbers 25:12; Genesis 24:24, and
Hosea 14:3, which Hitzig adduces in support of it, are either of a different
character, or different in their meaning. Shaòloôm, salvation (peace), is the sum of
all the blessings requisite for wellbeing. Jehovah granted life and salvation to
Levi, i.e., to the priesthood, for fear, viz., as the lever of the fear of God; and
Levi, i.e., the priesthood of the olden time, responded to this divine intention.
“He feared me.” Nichath is the niphal not of naòchath, he descended, i.e.,
humbled himself (Ewald, Reincke), but of chaòthath, to terrify, to shake, which
is frequently met with in connection with   (e.g., Deuteronomy 31:8; Joshua 1:9;
Jeremiah 1:17). Vv. 5 and 6 state how Levi preserved this fear both officially and
in life. Toôrath �eõmeth (analogous to mishpat �eõmeth in Zechariah 7:9)
is instruction in the law consisting in truth. Truth, which had its roots in the law
of Jehovah, was the rule not only of his own conduct, but also and more
especially of the instruction which he had to give to the people (cf. v. 7). The
opposite of �eõmeth is €avlaòh, perversity, conduct which is not regulated by
the law of God, but by selfishness or sinful self-interest. Grammatically
considered, the feminine €avlaòh is not the subject to àöÈîÀð„, but is construed as
the object: “they found not perversity” (cf. Ges. 'a7143, 1, b; Ewald, 'a7295, b).
Thus he walked in peace (salvation) and integrity before God. B^eshaòloôm is not
merely in a state of peace, or in peaceableness, nor even equivalent to  ááìÅa�
2( íìÅLÜ Kings 20:3), but according to v. 5, “equipped with the salvation
bestowed upon him by God.” The integritas vitae is affirmed in  .øBLéîÄa�
ééÎúàÆ CìÇä, to walk with Jehovah, denotes the most confidential intercourse
with God, or walking as it were by the side of God (see at Genesis 5:22).
Through this faithful discharge of the duties of his calling, Levi (i.e., the
priesthood) brought many back from guilt or iniquity, that is to say, led many
back from the way of sin to the right way, viz., to the fear of God (cf. Daniel
12:3). But Levi did nothing more than what the standing and vocation of the
priest required. For the lips of the priest should preserve knowledge. úòÇãž is the
knowledge of God and of His will as revealed in the law. These the lips of the
priest should keep, to instruct the people therein; for out of the mouth of the
priest men seek toôraòh, law, i.e., instruction in the will of God, because he is a
messenger of Jehovah to the people. CSìÀîÇ, the standing epithet for the angels as
the heavenly messengers of God, is here applied to the priests, as it is in Haggai
1:13 to the prophet. Whilst the prophets were extraordinary messengers of God,
who proclaimed to the people the will and counsel of the Lord, the priests, by
virtue of their office, were so to speak the standing or ordinary messengers of
God. But the priests of that time had become utterly untrue to this vocation.

Malachi 2:8

MALACHI 2:8-9

V. 8. “But ye have departed from the way, have made many to stumble at the
law, have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith Jehovah of hosts. V. 9. Thus I
also make you despised and base with all the people, inasmuch as ye do not keep
my ways, and respect person in the law.” Cø†c�ä is the way depicted in vv. 6 and
7, in which the priests ought to have walked. äøˆBza ízìÀLÛëÀä does not mean
“ye have caused to fall by instruction” (Koehler); for, in the first place,
hattoôraòh (with the article) is not the instruction or teaching of the priests, but
the law of God; and secondly, á with ìLÛkÈ denotes the object against which a
man stumbles and which causes him to fall. Hitzig has given the correct
explanation: ye have made the law to many a ìBLëÀîÄ, instead of the light of their
way, through your example and through false teaching, as though the law
allowed or commanded things which in reality are sin. In this way they have
corrupted or overthrown the covenant with Levi. éå„lÅä, with the article, is not the
patriarch Levi, but his posterity, really the priesthood, as the kernel of the
Levites. Hence Jehovah also is no longer bound by the covenant, but withdraws
from the priests what He granted to the Levi who was faithful to the covenant,
viz., life and salvation (v. 5), and makes them contemptible and base with all the
people. This is simply a just retribution for the fact, that the priests depart from
His ways and have respect to men. Battoôraòh, in the law, i.e., in the
administration of the law, they act with partiality. For the fact itself compare
Micah 3:11.

Malachi 2:10

CONDEMNATION OF MARRIAGES WITH HEATHEN WOMEN AND OF
DIVORCES
MALACHI 2:10-16

This section does not stand in any close connection with the preceding one. It
does not furnish an example of the stumbling upon the law mentioned in v. 8; nor
is the violation of the covenant of the fathers (v. 10) or of the marriage covenant
(v. 14) appended to the neutralizing of the covenant of Levi on the part of the
priests (vv. 8 and 4). For there is no indication in vv. 10-16 that the priests gave
any impulse through their bad teaching to the breaches of the law which are here
condemned; and the violation of the covenant of the fathers and of the marriage
covenant forms no more a thought by which the whole is ruled, than the violation
of the covenant with Levi in the previous section (Koehler). The prophet rather
passes over with v. 10 to a perfectly new object, namely, the condemnation of
marriages with heathen women (vv. 10-12), and of the frivolous dissolution of
marriages with Israelitish women, which was the natural consequence of the
former (vv. 13-16). This sin the priests have only so far participated in, that they
set a bad example to the people in their own unprincipled treatment of the law,
which might easily lead to contempt of the divine ordinance of marriage.

MALACHI 2:10-12

V. 10. “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? wherefore
are we treacherous one towards another, to desecrate the covenant of our
fathers? V. 11. Judah acts treacherously, and abomination has taken place in
Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has desecrated the sanctuary of Jehovah,
which He loves, and marries the daughter of a strange god. V. 12. Jehovah will
cut off, to the man that doeth this, wakers and answerers out of the tents of
Jacob, and him that offereth sacrifices to Jehovah of hosts.” Malachi adopts the
same course here as in the previous rebuke, and commences with a general
clause, from which the wrongfulness of marriages with heathen women and of
frivolous divorces necessarily followed. The one father, whom all have, is neither
Adam, the progenitor of all men, nor Abraham, the father of the Israelitish
nation, but Jehovah, who calls Himself the Father of the nation in Malachi 1:6.
God is the Father of Israel as its Creator; not, however, in the general sense,
according to which He made Israel the people of His possession. By the two
clauses placed at the head, Malachi intends not so much to lay emphasis upon the
common descent of all the Israelites, by virtue of which they form one united
family in contrast with the heathen, as to say that all the Israelites are children of
God, and as such spiritual brethren and sisters. Consequently every violation of
the fraternal relation, such as that of which the Israelite was guilty who married a
heathen woman, or put away an Israelitish wife, was also an offence against God,
a desecration of His covenant. The idea that the expression “one father” refers to
Abraham as the ancestor of the nation (Jerome, Calvin, and others), is precluded
by the fact, that not only the Israelites, but also the Ishmaelites and Edomites
were descended from Abraham; and there is no ground whatever for thinking of
Jacob, because, although he had indeed given his name to Israel, he is never
singled out as its ancestor. Nibhgad is the first pers. plur. imperf. kal,
notwithstanding the fact that in other cases baògad has cholem in the imperfect;
for the niphal of this verb is never met with. The Israelite acted faithlessly
towards his brother, both when he contracted a marriage with a heathen woman,
and when he put away his Israelitish wife, and thereby desecrated the covenant of
the fathers, i.e., the covenant which Jehovah made with the fathers, when He
chose them from among the heathen, and adopted them as His covenant nation
(Exodus 19:5-6; 24:8).

The reason for this rebuke is given in v. 11, in a statement of what has taken
place. In order the more emphatically to describe this as reprehensible, baòg^edaòh
(hath dealt treacherously) is repeated and applied to the whole nation. Y^ehuôdaòh
(Judah), construed as a feminine, is the land acting in its inhabitants. Then what
has taken place is described as äáòÅBz, abomination, like idolatry, witchcraft, and
other grievous sins (cf. Deuteronomy 13:15; 18:9ff.), in which the name Israel is
intentionally chosen as the holy name of the nation, to indicate the contrast
between the holy vocation of Israel and its unholy conduct. In addition to Israel
as the national name (= Judah) Jerusalem is also mentioned, as is frequently the
case, as the capital and centre of the nation. What has occurred is an
abomination, because Judah desecrates éé Lã�÷Ê, i.e., neither the holiness of
Jehovah as a divine attribute, nor the temple as the sanctuary, still less the holy
state of marriage, which is never so designated in the Old Testament, but Israel as
the nation which Jehovah loved. Israel is called qoôdesh, a sanctuary or holy
thing, as LBã÷® íòÇ, which Jehovah has chosen out of all nations to be His
peculiar possession (Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; Jeremiah 2:3; Psalm 114:2; Ezra
9:2: see Targ., Rashi, Ab. Ezra, etc.). Through the sin which it had committed,
Judah, i.e., the community which had returned from exile, had profaned itself as
the sanctuary of God, or neutralized itself as a holy community chosen and
beloved of Jehovah (Koehler). To this there is appended, though not till the last
clause, the statement of the abomination: Judah, in its individual members, has
married the daughter of a strange god (cf. Ezra 9:2ff.; Nehemiah 13:23ff.). By the
expression øëÈð… ìàÅ úa the person married is described as an idolatress (bath,
daughter = dependent). This involved the desecration of the holy calling of the
nation. It is true that in the law it is only marriages with Canaanites that are
expressly forbidden (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3), but the reason assigned
for this prohibition shows, that all marriages with heathen women, who did not
give up their idolatry, were thereby denounced as irreconcilable with the calling
of Israel (see at 1 Kings 11:1-2). This sin may God punish by cutting off every
one who commits it. This threat of punishment (v. 12) is indeed only expressed in
the form of a wish, but the wish has been created by the impulse of the Holy
Spirit. Very different and by no means satisfactory explanations have been given
of the expression äð†òÊåŠ øòÅ, the waking one (øòÅ the participle of øeò) and the
answering one, a proverbial description of the wicked man formed by the
combination of opposites (on the custom of expressing totality by opposites, see
Dietrich, Abhandlung zur hebr. Gramm. p. 201ff.), in which, however, the
meaning of the word øòÅ still continues a matter of dispute. The rabbinical
explanation, which is followed by Luther, viz., teacher and scholar, is founded
upon the meaning excitare given to the verb øeò, and the excitans is
supposed to be the teacher who stimulates by questioning and admonishing. But
apart from all other reasons which tell against this explanation, it does not suit
the context; for there is not a single word to indicate that the prophet is speaking
only of priests who have taken foreign wives; on the contrary, the prophet
accuses Judah and Jerusalem, and therefore the people generally, of being guilty
of this sin. Moreover, it was no punishment to an Israelite to have no rabbi or
teacher of the law among his sons. The words are at any rate to be taken more
generally than this. The best established meaning is vigil et respondens,
in which øòÅ is taken transitively, as in Job 41:2 in the chethib, and in the
Chaldee øòÄ, watcher (Dan. 4:10-13 and 14-17), in the sense of vivus
quisque. In this case the proverbial phrase would be taken from the night-
watchman (J. D. Mich., Ros., Ges. Thes. p. 1004). It is no conclusive objection to
this, that the words which follow, äçð€îÄ Léb„îÇe, evidently stand upon the same
line as äð†òÊåŠ øòÅ and must form part of the same whole, and therefore that  øòÅ
äð†òÊåŠ cannot of itself embrace the whole. For this conclusion is by no means a
necessary one. If the two expressions referred to portions of the same whole, they
could not well be separated from one another by á÷ÊòÂé‡ éìÅäSîÅ. Moreover, the
limitation of äð†òÊåŠ øòÅ to the age of childhood founders upon the artificial
interpretation which it is necessary to give to the two words. According to
Koehler øòÅ denotes the child in the first stage of its growth, in which it only
manifests its life by occasionally waking up from its ordinary state of deep, death-
like slumber, and äð†òÊ the more advanced child, which is able to speak and
answer questions. But who would ever think of calling a child in the first weeks
of its life, when it sleeps more than it wakes, a waker? Moreover, the sleep of an
infant is not a “deep, death-like slumber.” The words “out of the tents of Jacob,”
i.e., the houses of Israel, belong to úø…ëÀé‡. The last clause adds the further
announcement, that whoever commits such abominations shall have no one to
offer a sacrificial gift to the Lord. These words are not to be taken as referring to
the priestly caste, as Hitzig supposes; but Jerome has given the correct meaning:
“and whoever is willing to offer a gift upon the altar for men of this description.”
The meaning of the whole verse is the following: “May God not only cut off
every descendant of such a sinner out of the houses of Israel, but any one who
might offer a sacrifice for him in expiation of his sin.”

Malachi 2:13

MALACHI 2:13-16

V. 13. “And this ye do a second time: cover the altar of Jehovah with tears,
with weeping and signs, so that He does not turn any more to the sacrifice, and
accept the well-pleasing thing at your hand. V. 14. And ye say, Wherefore?
Because Jehovah has been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth,
towards whom thou hast acted treacherously; whereas she is nevertheless thy
companion, and the wife of thy covenant. V. 15. And not one did so who had still
a remnant of spirit. And what (did) the one? He sought seed of God. Therefore
shall ye take heed for your spirit, and deal not faithlessly to the wife of thy youth.
V. 16. For I hate divorce, saith Jehovah, the God of Israel; and he will cover
wickedness over his garment, saith Jehovah of hosts. Thus shall ye take heed to
your spirit, and not deal treacherously.” In these verses the prophet condemns a
second moral transgression on the part of the people, viz., the putting away of
their wives. By sheônŒôth (as a second thing, i.e., for the second time) this sin is
placed in the same category as the sin condemned in the previous verses. Here
again the moral reprehensibility of the sin is described in v. 11, before the sin
itself is named. They cover the altar of Jehovah with tears, namely, by
compelling the wives who have been put away to lay their trouble before God in
the sanctuary. The inf. constr. introduces the more minute definition of úàæÉ; and
ä÷®ðˆàÂå‡ éëÄa� is a supplementary apposition to äòÈîÀc  , added to give greater
force to the meaning. ãBò ïéàÅîÅ, so that there is no more a turning (of Jehovah) to
the sacrifice, i.e., so that God does not graciously accept your sacrifice any more
(cf. Numbers 16:15). The following infinitive úç÷­ìÈåŠ is also dependent upon
ïéàÅîÅ, but on account of the words which intervene it is attached with  ïBöøˆ  . ìÀ , 
the good pleasure or satisfaction, used as abstractum pro concreto for
the well-pleasing sacrifice. V. 14. This sin also the persons addressed will not
recognise. They inquire the reason why God will no more graciously accept their
sacrifices, whereupon the prophet discloses their sin in the plainest terms.  ékÄÎìòÇ
øLÚàÂÎìòÇ =, as in Deuteronomy 31:17; Judges 3:12, etc. The words, “because
Jehovah was a witness between thee and the wife of thy youth,” cannot be
understood as Ges., Umbreit, and Koehler assume, in accordance with Malachi
3:5, as signifying that Jehovah had interposed between them as an avenging
witness; for in that case ãéòÄä would necessarily be construed with á�, but they
refer to the fact that the marriage took place before the face of God, or with
looking up to God; and the objection that nothing is known of any religious
benediction at the marriage, or any mutual vow of fidelity, is merely an
argumentum a silentio, which proves nothing. If the marriage was a b^erΙth
�EloôhŒôm (a covenant of God), as described in Proverbs 2:17, it was also
concluded before the face of God, and God was a witness to the marriage. With
the expression “wife of thy youth” the prophet appeals to the heart of the
husband, pointing to the love of his youth with which the marriage had been
entered into; and so also in the circumstantial clause, through which he brings to
the light the faithless treatment of the wife in putting her away: “Yet she was thy
companion, who shared thy joy and sorrow, and the wife of thy covenant, with
whom thou didst made a covenant for life.”

In v. 15a the prophet shows still further the reprehensible character of the
divorce, by rebutting the appeal to Abraham’s conduct towards Hagar as
inapplicable. The true interpretation of this hemistich, which has been explained
in very different, and to some extent in very marvellous ways, is obvious enough
if we only bear in mind that the subordinate clause åG çeø øSLÔe, from its very
position and from the words themselves, can only contain a more precise
definition of the subject of the principal clause. The affirmation “a remnant of
spirit is (was) to him” does not apply to God, but only to man, as L. de Dieu has
correctly observed. Ruôaõch denote here, as in Numbers 27:18; Joshua 5:1; 1
Kings 10:5, not so much intelligence and consideration, as the higher power
breathed into man by God, which determines that moral and religious life to
which we are accustomed to give the name of virtue. By �echaòd (one),
therefore, we cannot understand God, but only a man; and ãçàÆ àG (not any one
= no one, not one man) is the subject of the sentence, whilst the object to äNÜòÈ
must be supplied from the previous sentence: “No man, who has even a remnant
of reason, or of sense for right and wrong, has done,” sc. what ye are doing,
namely, faithlessly put away the wife of his youth. To this there is appended the
objection: “And what did the one do?” which the prophet adduces as a possible
exception that may be taken to his statement, for the purpose of refuting it. The
words ãçàÆä äîÈe are elliptical, the verb äNÜòÈ, which may easily be supplied
from the previous clause, being omitted (cf. Ecclesiastes 2:12). ãçàÆä, not
unus aliquis, but the well-known one, whom it was most natural to think of
when the question in hand was that of putting away a wife, viz., Abraham, who
put away Hagar, by whom he had begotten Ishmael, and who was therefore also
his wife (Genesis 21). The prophet therefore replies, that Abraham sought to
obtain the seed promised him by God, i.e., he dismissed Hagar, because God
promised to give him the desired posterity, not in Ishmael through the maid
Hagar, but through Sarah in Isaac, so that in doing this he was simply acting in
obedience to the word of God (Genesis 21:12). After meeting this possible
objection, Malachi warns his contemporaries to beware of faithlessly putting
away their wives. The Vav before nishmartem is the Vav rel., through which
the perfect acquires the force of a cohortative as a deduction from the facts
before them, as in úéNòå in 1 Kings 2:6 (see Ewald, 'a7342, c). Bçeøa� øîÇLÔð„ is
synonymous with BLôÀð‡a� øîÇLÔð„ in Jeremiah 17:21, and this is equivalent to  øîÇLÔð„
BLôÀð‡ìÀ in Deuteronomy 4:15 and Joshua 23:11. The instrumental view of á� (“by
means of the Spirit:” Koehler) is thus proved to be inadmissible. “Take heed to
your spirit,” i.e., beware of losing your spirit. We need not take ruôaõch in a
different sense here from that in which it is used in the clause immediately
preceding; for with the loss of the spiritual and moral vis vitae, which has been
received from God, the life itself perishes. What it is that they are to beware of is
stated in the last clause, which is attached by the simple copula (Vav), and in
which the address passes from the second person into the third, to express what is
affirmed as applying to every man. This interchange of thou (in wife of thy
youth) and he (in ãbÉá�P) in the same clause appears very strange to our mode of
thought and speech; but it is not without analogy in Hebrew (e.g., in Isaiah 1:29;
cf. Ewald, 'a7319, a), so that we have no right to alter ãbÉá�P into ãbÉá�z, since the
ancient versions and the readings of certain codices do not furnish sufficient
critical authority for such a change. The subject in ãbÉá�P is naturally thought of as
indefinite: any one, men. This warning is accounted for in v. 16, first of all in the
statement that God hates putting away. çlÇLÛ is the inf. constr. piel and the object
to àð…NÜ: “the sending away (of a wife), divorce.” àð…NÜ is a participle, the
pronominal subject being omitted, as in maggΙd in Zechariah 9:12, because it
may easily be inferred from the following words: éé øîÇS (saith the Lord of
hosts). The thought is not at variance with Deuteronomy 24:1ff., where the
putting away of a wife is allowed; for this was allowed because of the hardness
of their hearts, whereas God desires that a marriage should be kept sacred (cf.
Matthew 19:3ff. and the comm. on Deuteronomy 24:1-5). A second reason for
condemning the divorce is given in the words ì ìòÇ ñîÈç äqëÄåŠ, which do not
depend upon àð…NÜ ékÄ, but form a sentence co-ordinate to this. We may either
render these words, “he (who puts away his wife) covers his garment with sin,”
or “sin covers his garment.” The meaning is the same in either case, namely, that
wickedness will adhere irremoveably to such a man. The figurative expression
may be explained from the idea that the dress reflects the inward part of a man,
and therefore a soiled garment is a symbol of uncleanness of heart (cf. Zechariah
3:4; Isaiah 64:5; Revelation 3:4; 7:14). With a repetition of the warning to
beware of this faithlessness, the subject is brought to a close.

Malachi 2:17

DAY OF THE LORD—MALACHI 2:17-4:6

In this section the prophet’s words are directed against the spirit of discontent
and murmuring which prevailed among the people, who lost faith in all the
promises of God, because the expected manifestation of the glory of the Lord for
the good of His people did not take place at once, and in their despair called even
the holiness and justice of God in question, and began to deny the coming of the
Lord to judge the world. The prophet lets the feelings of the people express
themselves in Malachi 2:17, for the purpose of meeting them with an
announcement of the day of the Lord and its true nature, in ch. 3 and 4. Before
His coming the Lord will send a messenger, to prepare the way for Him. He
Himself will then suddenly come, and that to refine His people by the fire of
judgment and to exterminate the sinners (Malachi 3:1-6). The people are
retarding the revelation of the promised salvation through their unfaithfulness to
God (vv. 7-12), and preparing destruction for themselves by their impatient
murmuring; for in the day of judgment none but the righteous find mercy: the
judgment will make manifest the distinction between the righteous and the
wicked (vv. 13-18), and bring destruction to the wicked, and salvation to the
godly (Malachi 4:1-3). The prophecy then closes with the admonition to lay to
heart the law of Moses, and with an announcement that the Lord will send the
prophet Elijah before the day of His coming, to call the degenerate nation to
repentance, in order that when He appears the land may not be smitten with the
curse (vv. 4-6).

MALACHI 2:17

“Ye weary Jehovah with your words, and say, Wherewith do we weary? In that
ye say, Every evil-doer is good in the eyes of Jehovah, and He takes pleasure in
them, or where is the God of judgment?” The persons who are introduced as
speaking here are neither the pious Israelites, who were not only pressed down by
the weight of their heavy afflictions, but indignant at the prosperity of their
godless countrymen, and were thus impelled to give utterance to despairing
complaints, and doubts as to the justice of God (Theodoret); nor a middle class
between the truly pious and perfectly godless, consisting of those who were led
by a certain instinctive need to adopt the faith inherited from the fathers, and
sought to fulfil the commandments of the moral law of God, but the foundations
of whose faith and piety were not deep enough for them humbly to submit
themselves to the marvellous ways of God, so that whenever the dealings of God
did not correspond to their expectations, they lost their faith in Him and turned
their backs upon Him (Koehler). The whole of the contents of this section are
opposed to the first assumption. Those who murmured against God were,
according to Malachi 3:7ff., such as had departed like the fathers from the law of
God and defrauded God in the tithes and heave-offerings, and with whom those
who feared God are contrasted in vv. 16ff. Moreover, the reproach brought
against them in Malachi 2:17, “Ye weary Jehovah with your words,” and in ch.
3:13, “Your words put constraint upon me,” show that they do not belong to the
righteous, who, while bending under the burden of temptation, appear to have
raised similar complaints; as we read for example in Psalm 37; 49, 73. The
second view is precluded by the absence, not only of every trace of the nation
being divided into three classes, but also of every indication that those who
murmured thus had endeavoured to fulfil the commandments of the moral law of
God. The answer of the Lord to this murmuring is addressed to the whole nation
as one which had departed from His commandments, and defrauded God with the
tithes and sacrifices (Malachi 3:7-8). The judgment which they wanted to see
would fall, according to Malachi 3:5, upon the sorcerers, adulterers, and other
gross sinners; and in ch. 3:16-18 the only persons distinguished from these are
the truly righteous who remember the name of the Lord. It clearly follows from
this, that the feelings expressed in Malachi 2:17 and 3:13 were not cherished by
the whole nation without exception, but only by the great mass of the people, in
contrast with whom the small handful of godly men formed a vanishing minority,
which is passed over in the attack made upon the spirit prevailing in the nation.
This disposition vents itself in the words: Every one who does evil is good in the
eyes of God, and Jehovah takes pleasure in the wicked. By òøˆ äNÚòÊ the
murmurers mean, not notorious sinners in their midst, but the heathen who
enjoyed undisturbed prosperity. To give a reason for this fancy, they inquire,
Where is the God of judgment? Bà, “or,” i.e., if this be not the case, as in Job
16:3; 22:11, why does not God punish the ungodly heathen? why does He not
interpose as judge, if He has no pleasure in the wicked? Such speeches as these
the prophet calls òâ‡Bä, a wearying of God (cf. Isaiah 43:23-24).

Malachi 3:1

Malachi 3

Malachi 3:1

MALACHI 3:1

Coming of the Lord to judgment. V. 1. “Behold, I send my messenger, that he
may prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come
to His temple, and the angel of the covenant, whom ye desire; behold he comes,
saith Jehovah of hosts.” To the question, Where is or remains the God of
judgment? the Lord Himself replies that He will suddenly come to His temple,
but that before His coming He will send a messenger to prepare the way for Him.
The announcement of this messenger rests upon the prophecy in Isaiah 40:3ff., as
the expression Cø†ã� äpˆôÄe, which is borrowed from that passage, clearly shows.
The person whose voice Isaiah heard calling to make the way of Jehovah in the
desert, that the glory of the Lord might be revealed to all flesh, is here described
as CSìÀîÇ, whom Jehovah will send before Him, i.e., before His coming. This
mal^eaòkh is not a heavenly messenger, or spiritual being (Rashi, Kimchi), nor
the angel of Jehovah êáôE dîï÷Þí, who is mentioned afterwards and called
mal^eakh habb^erΙth, but an earthly messenger of the Lord, and indeed the
same who is called the prophet Elijah in Malachi 4:5, and therefore not “an ideal
person, viz., the whole choir of divine messengers, who are to prepare the way
for the coming of salvation, and open the door for the future grace” (Hengst.), but
a concrete personality—a messenger who was really sent to the nation in John
the Baptist immediately before the coming of the Lord. The idea view is
precluded not only by the historical fact, that not a single prophet arose in Israel
during the whole period between Malachi and John, but also by the context of the
passage before us, according to which the sending of the messenger was to take
place immediately before the coming of the Lord to His temple. It is true that in
Malachi 2:7 the priest is also called a messenger of Jehovah; but the expression
çìÅLÊ éð„ð€ä (behold I send) prevents our understanding the term mal^eaòkh as
referring to the priests, or even as including them, inasmuch as “sending” would
not apply to the priests as the standing mediators between the Lord and His
people. Moreover, it was because the priests did not fulfil their duty as the
ordinary ambassadors of God that the Lord was about to send an extraordinary
messenger. Preparing the way (Cø†ã� äðˆtÄ, an expression peculiar to Isaiah:
compare Isaiah 40:3; also, Isaiah 57:14 and 62:10), by clearing away the
impediments lying in the road, denotes the removal of all that retards the coming
of the Lord to His people, i.e., the taking away of enmity to God and of
ungodliness by the preaching of repentance and the conversion of sinners. The
announcement of this messenger therefore implied, that the nation in its existing
moral condition was not yet prepared for the reception of the Lord, and therefore
had no ground for murmuring at the delay of the manifestation of the divine
glory, but ought rather to murmur at its own sin and estrangement from God.
When the way shall have been prepared, the Lord will suddenly come. íàÊú�tÄ,
not statim, immediately (Jerome), but unexpectedly. “This suddenness is
repeated in all the acts and judgments of the Lord. The Lord of glory always
comes as a thief in the night to those who sleep in their sins” (Schmieder). “The
Lord” (haò�aòdoôn) is God; this is evident both from the fact that He comes to His
temple, i.e., the temple of Jehovah, and also from the relative clause “whom ye
seek,” which points back to the question, “Where is the God of judgment?”
(Malachi 2:17). The Lord comes to His temple (heôkhaòl, lit., palace) as the God-
king of Israel, to dwell therein for ever (cf. Ezekiel 43:7; 37:26-27). And He
comes as the angel of the covenant, for whom the people are longing. The
identity of the angel of the covenant with the “Lord” (haò�aòdoôn) is placed
beyond the reach of doubt by the parallelism of the clauses, and the notion is
thereby refuted that the “covenant angel” is identical with the person previously
mentioned as éëÄSìÀîÇ (Hitzig, Maurer, etc.). This identity does not indeed exclude
a distinction of person; but it does exclude a difference between the two, or the
opinion that the angel of the covenant is that mediator whom Isaiah had promised
(Isaiah 42:6) as the antitype of Moses, and the mediator of a new, perfect, and
eternally-enduring covenant relation between God and Israel (Hofmann,
Schriftbeweis, i. p. 183). For it was not for a second Moses that the people were
longing, or for a mediator of the new covenant, but for the coming of God to
judgment. The coming of the Lord to His temple is represented as a coming of
the covenant angel, with reference to the fact that Jehovah had in the olden time
revealed His glory in His Mal^eakh in a manner perceptible to the senses, and
that in this mode of revelation He had not only redeemed Israel out of the hand of
Egypt (Exodus 3:6ff.), gone before the army of Israel (Exodus 14:19), and led
Israel through the desert to Canaan (Exodus 23:20ff., 33:14ff.), but had also
filled the temple with His glory. The covenant, in relation to which the
Mal^eakh, who is of one essence with Jehovah, is here called the angel of the
covenant, is not the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31ff., but the
covenant of Jehovah with Israel, according to which Jehovah dwells in the midst
of Israel, and manifests His gracious presence by blessing the righteous and
punishing the ungodly (cf. Exodus 25:8; Leviticus 25:11-12; Deuteronomy 4:24;
Isaiah 33:14): (Koehler). The words “Behold he (the covenant angel) cometh”
serve to confirm the assurance, and are still further strengthened by ö éé øîÇS
(saith Jehovah of hosts). This promise was fulfilled in the coming of Christ, in
whom the angel of the covenant, the Logos, became flesh, and in the sending of
John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Him. (See also at Malachi 4:6)

Malachi 3:2

MALACHI 3:2-4

With the coming of the Lord the judgment will also begin; not the judgment
upon the heathen, however, for which the ungodly nation was longing, but the
judgment upon the godless members of the covenant nation. V. 2. “And who
endures the day of His coming? and who can stand at His appearing? for He is
like the smelter’s fire, and like washers’ lye: V. 3. And will sit smelting and
purifying silver, and will purify the children of Levi, and refine like gold and
silver, that they may be offering to Jehovah His sacrifice in righteousness. V. 4.
And the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant, as in the days of the
olden time, and as in the years of the past.” The question “who endures the day”
has a negative meaning, like éîÄ in Isaiah 53:1: no one endures it (for the fact
itself compare Joel 2:11). The prophet is speaking to the ungodly. The second
clause is synonymous. ãîÇòÈ, to remain standing, in contrast with falling, or
sinking under the burden of the judgment. The reason for this is given in the
second hemistich. The Lord when He comes will be like a smelter’s fire, which
burns out all the corrupt ingredients that are mixed with the gold and silver (cf.
Zechariah 13:9), and like the lye or alkaline salt by which clothes are cleansed
from dirt (cf. Isaiah 4:4). The double figure has but one meaning; hence only the
first figure is carried out in v. 3, a somewhat different turn being given to it, since
the Lord is no longer compared to the fire, but represented as a smelter. As a
smelter purifies gold and silver from the dross adhering to it, so will the Lord
refine the sons of Levi, by whom the priests are principally intended. The
yaòshabh (sit) serves as a pictorial description, like €aòmad (stand) in Micah
5:3. The participles m^etsaòreôph and m^etaheôr describe the capacity in which
He sits, viz., as a smelter and purifier of silver. ÷w­æ„: to strain, or filter; a term
transferred to metals, because in smelting the pure metal is allowed to flow off,
so that the earthy ingredients are left in the crucible (Psalm 12:7; Job 28:1, etc.).
The fact that the sons of Levi are named, as the object of the refining action of
the Lord, is to be explained from what is mentioned in Malachi 1:6ff. concerning
their degeneracy. Since they, the supporters and promoters of the religious life of
the nation, were quite corrupt, the renovation of the national life must begin with
their purification. This purification, however, does not consist merely in the fact,
that the individuals who are displeasing to God will be cut off from among them
(Koehler), nor merely in their being cleansed from the sins and crimes adhering
to them (Hitzig), but in both, so that those who are corrigible are improved, and
the incorrigible cut off. This is implied in the idea of purification, and is
confirmed by the result of the refining work of the Lord, as given in the last
clause of the verse. They are to become to the Lord offerers of sacrifices in
righteousness. Bits^edaòqaòh does not refer to the nature of the sacrifices, viz.,
righteous sacrifices, i.e., such as correspond to the law, but to the moral character
of the offerers, viz., that they will attend to the offering of sacrifice in a proper
state of heart, as in Psalm 4:6. éLÙéb„îÇ eéä is a constructio periphr. to denote the
permanence of the action (cf. Ewald, 'a7168, c). The tsaqeph-qaton does not
compel us to separate äåˆäÊéìÇ eéä (compare, on the contrary, Genesis 1:6b for
example). Then, namely when the priests offer sacrifices in righteousness again,
will the sacrificing of the whole nation be pleasant to the Lord, as was the case in
the olden time. The days of the olden time and years of the past are the times of
Moses, or the first years of the sojourn in the desert (Jeremiah 2:2), possibly also
the times of David and of the first years of the reign of Solomon; whereas now,
i.e., in the time of Malachi, the sacrifices of the nation were displeasing to God,
not merely on account of the sins of the people (Malachi 2:13), but chiefly on
account of the badness of the sacrificing priests (1:10, 13). Moreover, we must
not infer from vv. 3 and 4, that Malachi imagined that the Old Testament worship
would be continued during the Messianic times; but his words are to be explained
from the custom of the prophets, of using the forms of the Old Testament
worship to depict the reverence for God which would characterize the new
covenant.

Malachi 3:5

MALACHI 3:5-6

V. 5. “And I will draw near to you to judgment, and will be a swift witness
against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against those who swear
for deceit, and those who press down the wages of the hireling, the widow and
the orphan, and bow down the foreigner, and fear not me, saith Jehovah of hosts.
V. 6. For I Jehovah, I change not; and ye sons of Israel, ye are not consumed.”
The refining which the Lord will perform at His coming will not limit itself to the
priests, but become a judgment upon all sinners. This judgment is threatened
against those who wanted the judgment of God to come, according to Malachi
2:17. To these the Lord will draw near to judgment, and rise up as a swift witness
against all the wicked who do not fear Him. The word ézá�ø‡÷® does not imply that
the judgment announced will actually commence at once. The drawing near to
judgment takes place in the day of His coming (v. 2), and this is preceded by the
sending of the messenger to prepare the way. The words affirm nothing as to the
time of the coming, because this was not revealed to the prophet. Nor is there any
intimation on this point in the word øäîÇîÀ, but simply the announcement that the
Lord will come with unexpected rapidity, in contrast with the murmuring of the
people at the delay of judgment (Malachi 2:17). øäîÇîÀ answers substantially to
íàÊú�tÄ in v. 1. God comes as a practical witness against the wicked, convicting
them of their guilt by punishing them. The particular sins mentioned here are
such as were grievous sins in the eye of the law, and to some extent were
punishable with death. On sorcerers and adulterers see Exodus 22:17; Leviticus
20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22. That sorcery was very common among the Jews after
the captivity, is evident from such passages as Acts 8:9; 13:6, and from Josephus,
Ant. xx. 6, de bell. Jud. ii. 12, 23; and the occurrence of adultery may be inferred
from the condemnation of the marriages with heathen wives in Malachi 2:10-16.
On false swearing compare Leviticus 19:12. The expression to press the wages of
the labourer is unusual, since the only other passage in which ÷LÛòÈ is construed
with a neuter object is Micah 2:2, and in every other case it is applied to persons;
for øéëÄNÜ ÷LÛòÈ compare Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:14-15, to which
the reproof refers. íBúéˆåŠ äðˆîÈìÀT are not genitives dependent upon øëÇNÔ, but
further objects to é÷«LÔòÊ. For the fact itself compare Exodus 22:21-23;
Deuteronomy 24:17; 27:19. To øâ… éhÅîÇ we are not to supply ètÇLÔîÄ, after
Deuteronomy 24:17 and 27:19; but ähÈä is used of the person as in Amos 5:12:
to bow down the stranger, i.e., to oppress him unjustly. The words, “and fear not
me,” point to the source from which all these sins flowed, and refer to all the
sinners mentioned before. This threat of judgment is explained in v. 6 in the
double clause: that Jehovah does not change, and the sons of Israel do not perish.
Because Jehovah is unchangeable in His purposes, and Israel as the people of
God is not to perish, therefore will God exterminate the wicked out of Israel by
means of judgment, in order to refine it and shape it according to its true calling.
The perfects are used to express established truths. The unchangeableness of God
is implied in the name Jehovah, “who is that He is,” the absolutely independent
and absolutely existing One (see at Genesis 2:4). For the fact itself compare
Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; James 1:17. Jehovah is in apposition to �aõnŒô
(I), and not a predicate in the sense of “I am Jehovah” (Luther, Hengstenberg,
etc.); this is evident from the parallel á÷ÊòÂé‡ éð…a� ízTåŠ (and ye, the sons of Jacob),
where no one thinks of taking ÷òé éðá (sons of Jacob) as a predicate. Kaòlaòh, to
come to an end, to be destroyed, as the parallel passage, Jeremiah 30:11, which
floated before the prophet’s mind, clearly shows. The name “sons of Jacob”
(poetical for sons of Israel) is used emphatically, denoting the true members of
the people of God, who rightly bear the name of Israel. These do not perish,
because their existence rests upon the promise of the unchangeable God (cf.
Romans 11:28-29).

Malachi 3:7

MALACHI 3:7-9

After the Lord has announced to the murmuring people that He will suddenly
draw near to judgment upon the wicked, He proceeds to explain the reason why
He has hitherto withheld His blessing and His salvation. V. 7. “From the days of
your fathers ye have departed from mine ordinances, and have not kept them.
Return to me, and I will return to you, saith Jehovah of hosts; and ye say,
Wherein shall we return? V. 8. Dare a man indeed defraud God, that ye have
defrauded me? and ye say, In what have we defrauded Thee? In the tithes and the
heave-offering. V. 9. Ye are cursed with the curse, and yet ye defraud me, even
the whole nation.” The reason why Israel waits in vain for the judgment and the
salvation dawning with it, is not to be found in God, but in the people, in the fact,
that from time immemorial they have transgressed the commandments of God
(see Isaiah 43:27; Ezekiel 2:3; Hosea 10:9). And yet they regard themselves as
righteous. They reply to the call to repentance by saying, áeLðˆ änÆa, wherein,
i.e., in what particular, shall we turn? The prophet thereupon shows them their
sin: they do what no man should presume to attempt—they try to defraud God in
the tithe and heave-offering, namely, by either not paying them at all, or not
paying them as they should into the house of God. òá÷®, which only occurs here
and at Proverbs 22:23, signifies to defraud, to overreach. øúâå øNÙòÂnÇä is either
an accusative of free subordination, or else we must supply the preposition á
from the question itself. On the tithe see Leviticus 27:30ff., Numbers 18:20ff.,
and Deuteronomy 14:22ff. (see also my Bibl. Ant. i. p. 337ff.); and on the heave-
offering (t^eruômaòh), the portion of his income lifted off from the rest, for the
purposes of divine worship, see my Bibl. Ant. i. p. 245. And this they do,
notwithstanding the fact that God has already visited them with severe
punishment, viz., with the curse of barrenness and of the failure of the harvest.
We may see from vv. 10-12, that the curse with which they were smitten
consisted in this. éúàÊåŠ is adversative: yet ye defraud me, and indeed the whole
nation, and not merely certain individuals.

Malachi 3:10

MALACHI 3:10-12

V. 10. “Bring ye all the tithe into the treasure-house, that there may be
consumption in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith Jehovah of hosts, if
I do not open you the sluices of heaven, and pour you out a blessing to
superabundance. V. 11. And I will rebuke the devourer for you, that he may not
destroy the fruit of your ground; and your vine will not miscarry in the field,
saith Jehovah of hosts. V. 12. And all nations will call you blessed; for ye will be
a land of good pleasure, saith Jehovah of hosts.” In v. 10a the emphasis lies
upon kol: the whole of the tithe they are to bring, and not merely a portion of it,
and so defraud the Lord; for the tithe was paid to Jehovah for His servants the
Levites (Numbers 18:24). It was delivered, at least after the times of the later
kings, at the sanctuary, where store-chambers were built for the purpose (cf. 2
Chronicles 31:11ff.; Nehemiah 10:38-39; 12:44; 13:12). Tereph signifies here
food, or consumption, as in Proverbs 31:15; Psalm 111:5. úàæÉa, through this,
i.e., through their giving to God what they are under obligation to give Him, they
are to prove God, whether in His attitude towards them He is no longer the holy
and righteous God (Malachi 2:17; 3:6). Then will they also learn, that He causes
the promised blessing to flow in the richest abundance to those who keep His
commandments. àG íàÄ is not a particle of asseveration or oath (Koehler), but an
indirect question: whether not. Opening the sluices of heaven is a figure,
denoting the most copious supply of blessing, so that it flows down from heaven
like a pouring rain (as in 2 Kings 7:2). é㟠éìÄa� ãòÇ, till there is no more need, i.e.,
in superabundance. This thought is individualized in v. 11. Everything that could
injure the fruits of the land God will take away. øòÇbˆ, to rebuke practically, i.e., to
avert the intention. ìëÅàÊ, the devourer, is here the locust, so called from its
insatiable voracity. Shikkeôl, to miscarry, is affirmed of the vine, when it has
set a good quantity of grapes, which perish and drop off before they ripen. In
consequence of this blessing, all nations will call Israel blessed (v. 12), because
its land will be an object of pleasure to every one (cf. Zechariah 7:14; 8:13, 23).

Malachi 3:13

MALACHI 3:13-15

The impatient murmuring of the nation.—V. 13. “Your words do violence to
me, saith Jehovah; and ye say, What do we converse against Thee? V. 14. Ye say,
It is vain to serve God; and what gain is it, that we have kept His guard, and
have gone about in deep mourning before Jehovah of hosts? V. 15. And now we
call the proud blessed: not only have the doers of wickedness been built up, but
they have also tempted God and have been saved.” After the Lord has disclosed
to the people the cause of His withholding His blessing, He shows them still
further, that their murmuring against Him is unjust, and that the coming day of
judgment will bring to light the distinction between the wicked and those who
fear God. ÷æ‡ç with ìòÇ, to be strong over any one, does not mean to be harsh or
burdensome, but to do violence to a person, to overpower him (cf. Exodus 12:33;
2 Samuel 24:4, etc.). The niphal nidbar has a reciprocal meaning, to converse
with one another (cf. Ezekiel 33:30). The conversations which they carry on with
one another take this direction, that it is useless to serve God, because the
righteous have no advantage over sinners. For BzøŠîÇLÔîÄ øîÇLÜ see the comm. on
Genesis 26:5. Haòlakh q^edoôrannŒôth, to go about dirty or black, either with
their faces and clothes unwashed, or wrapped in black mourning costume (saq),
is a sign of mourning, here of fasting, as mourning for sin (cf. Psalm 35:13-14;
38:7; Job 30:28; 1 Maccabees 3:48). äåˆäÊéŠ éð…tÀîÄ, from awe of Jehovah. The
fasting, and that in its external form, they bring into prominence as a special sign
of their piety, as an act of penitence, through which they make reparation for
certain sins against God, by which we are not to understand the fasting
prescribed for the day of atonement, but voluntary fasting, which was regarded as
a special sign of piety. What is reprehensible in the state of mind expressing itself
in these words, is not so much the complaint that their piety brings them no gain
(for such complaints were uttered even by believing souls in their hours of
temptation; cf. Psalm 73:13), as the delusion that their merely outward worship,
which was bad enough according to what has already been affirmed, is the
genuine worship which God must acknowledge and reward. This disposition to
attribute worth to the opus operatum of fasting it attacked even by Isaiah, in
Isaiah 58; but after the captivity it continued to increase, until it reached its
culminating point in Pharisaism. How thoroughly different the persons speaking
here are from the believing souls under temptation, who also appeal to their
righteousness when calling upon God in their trouble, is especially clear from
their further words in v. 15. Because God does not reward their fasting with
blessing and prosperity, they begin to call the proud sinners, who have happiness
and success, blessed. äzòÇåŠ is the particle of inference. The participle íéø„MÔTîÀ
has the force of a futurum instans (cf. Ewald, 'a7306, d), denoting what men
prepare to do. ZeôdŒôm, the haughty or proud, are the heathen, as in Isaiah 13:11,
who are called äòÈLÔø„ éNÙòÊ in the following clause. The next two clauses are
placed in a reciprocal relation to one another by gam … gam (cf. Jeremiah 12:16-
17; Exodus 1:21), and also, notwithstanding the fact that they have tempted God,
are delivered when they fall into misfortune. Baòchan Elohim, to prove or test
God, i.e., to call out His judgment through their wickedness.

Malachi 3:16

MALACHI 3:16-18

With these foolish speeches the prophet proceeds in vv. 16ff. to contrast the
conduct of those who fear God, pointing to the blessing which they derive from
their piety. V. 16. “Then those who feared Jehovah conversed with one another,
and Jehovah attended and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before
Him, for those who fear Jehovah and reverence His name. V. 17. And they will
be to me as a possession, saith Jehovah of hosts, for the day that I create, and I
will spare them as a man spareth his son that serveth him. V. 18. And ye will
again perceive the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him
that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.” æS, then, indicates that the
conversation of those who feared God had been occasioned by the words of the
ungodly. The substance of this conversation is not described more minutely, but
may be gathered from the context, namely, from the statement as to the attitude
in which Jehovah stood towards them. We may see from this, that they
strengthened themselves in their faith in Jehovah, as the holy God and just Judge
who would in due time repay both the wicked and the righteous according to
their deeds, and thus presented a great contrast to the great mass with their
blasphemous sayings. This description of the conduct of the godly is an indirect
admonition to the people, as to what their attitude towards God ought to be. What
was done by those who feared Jehovah ought to be taken as a model by the whole
nation which called Jehovah its God. Jehovah not only took notice of these
conversations, but had them written in a book of remembrance, to reward them
for them in due time. Writing in a book of remembrance recals to mind the
custom of the Persians, of having the names of those who deserved well of the
king entered in a book with a notice of their merits, that they might be rewarded
for them at some future time (Esther 6:1); but it rests upon the much older idea,
that the names and actions of the righteous are written in a book before God (cf.
Psalm 56:9; Daniel 7:10). This book was written åéðˆôÈìÀ, before Jehovah, i.e., not
in His presence, but in order that it might lie before Jehovah, and remind Him of
the righteous and their deeds. éàÅøŠPìÀ is a dat. com.: “for those who fear God,”
i.e., for their good. íLÙ áLÛç, to consider or value the name of the Lord (cf. Isaiah
13:17; 33:8). This writing was done because the Lord would make them His own
on the day of His coming, and show them mercy. Layyoôm: for the day = on the
day; the lamed denoting the time, as in Isaiah 10:3; Genesis 21:2, etc. The day
which Jehovah makes is the day of the judgment which attends His coming.
S^egullaòh is the object, not to €oôseh, as we might suppose according to the
accents, but to haòyuô: they will be my possession on the day which I create. This
is evident partly from a comparison of v. 3, where the words äNÚòÊ éð„à øLÚà íBé
recur, and partly from the original passage in Exodus 19:5: ye will be to me
s^egullaòh, i.e., a valued possession (see the comm.). The righteous will then be
a possession for Jehovah, because on that day the glory of the children of God
will first be revealed, and the Israel of God will reach the mark of its heavenly
calling (see Col 3:4). The Lord will spare them in the judgment as a father spares
his son who serves him. The expression to spare may be explained from the
contrast to the punishment of the ungodly. In v. 18 the prophet bids the
murmurers consider what has been said concerning the righteous, by telling them
that they will then see the difference between the righteous who serve God, and
the wicked who do not serve Him, that is to say, will learn that it is always
profitable to serve God. ízá�LÛ before íúéàÄøŠ is to be taken adverbially: ye will
see again. The expression “again” presupposes that the difference between those
who feared God and the ungodly was to be seen before, and that the Lord had
already made it manifest by former judgments. This had been the case in Egypt,
where the Lord had caused such a separation to be made (Exodus 11:7). The
words do not imply that the persons addressed had previously stood in a different
relation to this question from that in which they were standing then (Koehler).
ïéá äSøˆ does not mean to look in between (Hitzig), but ïéa is used in the sense
of a substantive, signifying that which is between the two, the difference between
the two. That ïéa was originally a noun is evident from the dual íPð‡éaä in 1
Samuel 17:4, 23.

Malachi 4:1

Malachi 4

Malachi 4:1

MALACHI 4:1-3

This admonition to the ungodly is explained in Malachi 4:1ff. by a picture of
the separation which will be effected by the day of judgment. V. 1. “For behold
the day cometh burning like a furnace, and all the proud and every doer of
wickedness become stubble, and the coming day will burn them, saith Jehovah of
hosts, so that it will not leave them root or branch. V. 2. But to you who fear my
name, the sun of righteousness will rise and healing in its wings, and ye will go
out and skip like stalled calves, V. 3. And will tread down the ungodly, for they
will be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I create, saith Jehovah of
hosts.” The day of judgment will be to the ungodly like a burning furnace. “A
fire burns more fiercely in a furnace than in the open air” (Hengstenberg). The
ungodly will then resemble the stubble which the fire consumes (cf. Isaiah 5:24;
Zephaniah 1:18; Obadiah 18, etc.). íéãæ… and äòÈLÔø„ äNÙòÊ point back to v. 15.
Those who are called blessed by the murmuring nation will be consumed by the
fire, as stubble is burned up, and indeed all who do wickedness, and therefore the
murmurers themselves. øLÚà before áæ„òÇé‚ àG is a conjunction, quod; and the
subject is not Jehovah, but the coming day. The figure “root and branch” is
borrowed from a tree—the tree is the ungodly mass of the people (cf. Amos
2:9)—and denotes total destruction, so that nothing will be left of them. To the
righteous, on the other hand, the sun of righteousness will arise. Ts^edaòqaòh is an
epexegetical genitive of apposition. By the sun of righteousness the fathers, from
Justin downwards, and nearly all the earlier commentators understand Christ,
who is supposed to be described as the rising sun, like Jehovah in Psalm 84:12
and Isaiah 60:19; and this view is founded upon a truth, viz., that the coming of
Christ brings justice and salvation. But in the verse before us the context does not
sustain the personal view, but simply the idea that righteousness itself is regarded
as a sun. Ts^edaòqaòh, again, is not justification or the forgiveness of sins, as
Luther and others suppose, for there will be no forgiving of sins on the day of
judgment, but God will then give to every man reward or punishment according
to his works. Ts^edaòqaòh is here, what it frequently is in Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah 45:8;
46:13; 51:5, etc.), righteousness in its consequences and effects, the sum and
substance of salvation. Malachi uses ts^edaòqaòh, righteousness, instead of òLÛé†,
salvation, with an allusion to the fact, that the ungodly complained of the absence
of the judgment and righteousness of God, that is to say, the righteousness which
not only punishes the ungodly, but also rewards the good with happiness and
salvation. The sun of righteousness has àtÅøŠîÇ, healing, in its wings. The wings
of the sun are the rays by which it is surrounded, and not a figure denoting
swiftness. As the rays of the sun spread light and warmth over the earth for the
growth and maturity of the plants and living creatures, so will the sun of
righteousness bring the healing of all hurts and wounds which the power of
darkness has inflicted upon the righteous. Then will they go forth, sc. from the
holes and caves, into which they had withdrawn during the night of suffering and
where they had kept themselves concealed, and skip like stalled calves (cf. 1
Samuel 28:24), which are driven from the stall to the pasture. On puôsh, see at
Habakkuk 1:8. And not only will those who fear God be liberated from all
oppression, but they will also acquire power over the ungodly. They will tread
down the wicked, who will then have become ashes, and lie like ashes upon the
ground, having been completely destroyed by the fire of the judgment (cf. Isaiah
26:5-6).

Malachi 4:4

MALACHI 4:4-6

Concluding Admonition.—V. 4. “Remember ye the law of Moses, my servant,
which I commanded him upon Horeb for all Israel, statutes and rights.

(Note: The LXX have put v. 4 at the end of the book, not to call attention to
its great importance, but probably for the very same reason for which the
Masora observes, at the close of our book, that in the ÷Ê÷ÊúÊéÉ, i.e., in the books
of Isaiah, the twelve prophets, the Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes, the last
verse but one of these books was to be repeated when they were read in the
synagogue, namely, because the last verse had too harsh a sound. The
transposition is unsuitable, inasmuch as the promise in vv. 5 and 6 does not
fit on to the idea expressed in vv. 2 and 3, but only to that in v. 4. According
to the Masora, the æ in eøëÀæ„ should be written as litera majusc., although in
many codd. it has the usual form; and this also is not to show the great
importance of the verse, since these Masoretic indications have generally a
different meaning, but in all probability it is simply to indicate that this is the
only passage in the book of the twelve prophets in which the word is
pronounced eøëÀæ„ (cf. BøëÀæ„ in Hosea 12:6; 14:8), whereas in the other books,
with the exception of Job 18:17, this is the only pronunciation that is met
with.)

V. 5. Behold, I send you Elijah the prophet before the day of Jehovah comes, the
great and terrible one. V. 6. And he will turn the heart of the fathers to the sons,
and the heart of the sons to their fathers, that I may not come and smite the land
with the curse” (mit dem Banne, with the ban). The admonition, “Remember
ye the law of Moses,” forms the conclusion not only of the last section (Malachi
3:13-4:3), but of the whole of the book of Malachi, and cannot be connected with
v. 3 in the sense of “Remember what Moses has written in the law concerning
Christ, or concerning the judgment,” as Theod. Mops. and others maintain; nor
must it be restricted to the time previous to the coming of the Messiah by the
interpolation of interim (v. Til and Mich.). It is rather a perfectly general
admonition to lay to heart and observe the law. For this is referred to here, “not
according to its casual and transient form, but according to its real essence as
expressing the holiness of God, just as in Matthew 5:17” (Hengstenberg).
Malachi thus closes by showing to the people what it is their duty to do, if on the
day of judgment they would escape the curse with which transgressors are
threatened in the law, and participate in the salvation so generally desired, and
promised to those who fear God. By the expression “my servant,” the law is
traced back to God as its author. At the giving of the law, Moses as only the
servant of Jehovah. BúBà éúée„öÄ øLÚà is not to be rendered “whom (BúBà øLÚàÂ) I
charged with statutes and rights to all Israel” (Ewald, Bunsen), for we do not
expect any further explanation of the relation in which Moses stood to the law,
but “which I commanded him upon (to) all Israel.” Tsivvaòh is construed with a
double accusative, and also with ìòÇ governing the person to whom the command
refers, as in Ezra 8:17; 2 Samuel 14:8; Esther 4:5. The words chuqqΙΙm
uômishpaòtŒôm are an epexegetical definition belonging to øLÚàÂ: “which I
commanded as statutes and rights,” i.e., consisting of these; and they recall to
mind Deuteronomy 4:1 and 8:14, where Moses urges upon the people the
observance of the law, and also mentions Horeb as the place where the law was
given. The whole of the admonition forms an antithesis to the rebuke in v. 4, that
from the days of their fathers they went away from the ordinances of Jehovah.
These they are to be mindful to observe, that the Lord when He comes may not
smite the land with the ban.

In order to avert this curse from Israel, the Lord would send the prophet Elijah
before His coming, for the purpose of promoting a change of heart in the nation.
The identity of the prophet Elijah with the messenger mentioned in v. 1, whom
the Lord would send before Him, is universally acknowledged. But there is a
difference of opinion as to the question, who is the Elijah mentioned here? The
notion was a very ancient one, and one very widely spread among the rabbins
and fathers, that the prophet Elijah, who was caught up to heaven, would
reappear (compare the history of the exposition of our verse in Hengstenberg’s
Christology, vol. iv. p. 217 translation). The LXX thought of him, and rendered
àéápˆä äiˆìÄàÅ by EÇëßáí ô’í Èåóâßôçí; so also did Sirach (48:10) and the Jews
in the time of Christ (John 1:21; Matthew 17:10); and so have Hitzig, Maurer,
and Ewald in the most recent times. But this view is proved to be erroneous by
such passages as Hosea 3:5; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24, and Jeremiah 30:9, where the
sending of David the king as the true shepherd of Israel is promised. Just as in
these passages we cannot think of the return or resurrection of the David who had
long been dead; but a king is meant who will reign over the nation of God in the
mind and spirit of David; so the Elijah to be sent can only be a prophet with the
spirit or power of Elijah the Tishbite. The second David was indeed to spring
from the family of David, because to the seed of David there had been promised
the eternal possession of the throne. The prophetic calling, on the other hand, was
not hereditary in the prophet’s house, but rested solely upon divine choice and
endowment with the Spirit of God; and consequently by Elijah we are not to
understand a lineal descendant of the Tishbite, but simply a prophet in whom the
spirit and power of Elijah are revived, as Ephr. Syr., Luther, Calvin, and most of
the Protestant commentators have maintained. But the reason why this prophet
Elijah is named is to be sought for, not merely in the fact that Elijah was called to
his work as a reformer in Israel at a period which was destitute of faith and of the
true fear of Jehovah, and which immediately preceded a terrible judgment
(Koehler), but also and more especially in the power and energy with which
Elijah rose up to lead back the ungodly generation of his own time to the God of
the fathers. The one does not exclude but rather includes the other. The greater
the apostasy, the greater must be the power which is to stem it, so as to rescue
those who suffer themselves to be rescued, before the judgment bursts over such
as are hardened. For v. 5b, compare Joel 3:4. This Elijah, according to v. 6, is to
lead back the heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their
fathers. The meaning of this is not that he will settle disputes in families, or
restore peace between parents and children; for the leading sin of the nation at
the time of our prophet was not family quarrels, but estrangement from God. The
fathers are rather the ancestors of the Israelitish nation, the patriarchs, and
generally the pious forefathers, such as David and the godly men of his time. The
sons or children are the degenerate descendants of Malachi’s own time and the
succeeding ages. “The hearts of the godly fathers and the ungodly sons are
estranged from one another. The bond of union, viz., common love to God, is
wanting. The fathers are ashamed of their children, the children of their fathers”
(Hengstenberg). This chasm between them Elijah is to fill up. Turning the heart
of the fathers to the sons does not mean merely directing the love of the fathers to
the sons once more, but also restoring the heart of the fathers, in the sons, or
giving to the sons the fathers’ disposition and affections. Then will the heart of
the sons also return to their fathers, turn itself towards them, so that they will be
like-minded with the pious fathers. Elijah will thereby prepare the way of the
Lord to His people, that at His coming He may not smite the land with the ban.
The ban involves extermination. Whoever and whatever was laid under the ban
was destroyed (cf. Leviticus 27:28-29; Deuteronomy 13:16-17; and my Bibl.
Arch'e4ol. i. 'a770). This threat recals to mind the fate of the Canaanites who
were smitten with the ban (Deuteronomy 20:17-18). If Israel resembles the
Canaanites in character, it will also necessarily share the fate of that people (cf.
Deuteronomy 12:29).

The New Testament gives us a sufficient explanation of the historical allusion
or fulfilment of our prophecy. The prophet Elijah, whom the Lord would send
before His own coming, was sent in the person of John the Baptist. Even before
his birth he was announced to his father by the angel Gabriel as the promised
Elijah, by the declaration that he would turn many of the children of Israel to the
Lord their God, and go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the
hearts of the fathers to the children, and the unbelieving to the wisdom of the just
(Luke 1:16-17). This address of the angel gives at the same time an authentic
explanation of vv. 5 and 6 of our prophecy: the words “and the heart of the
children to their fathers” being omitted, as implied in the turning of the heart of
the fathers to the sons, and the explanatory words “and the unbelieving to the
wisdom of the just” being introduced in their place; and the whole of the work of
John, who was to go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah, being
described as “making ready a prepared people for the Lord.” The appearance and
ministry of John the Baptist answered to this announcement of the angel, and is
so described in Matthew 3:1-12, Mark 1:2-8; Luke 3:2-18, that the allusion to our
prophecy and the original passage (Isaiah 40:3) is obvious at once. Even by his
outward appearance and his dress John announced himself as the promised
prophet Elijah, who by the preaching of repentance and baptism was preparing
the way for the Lord, who would come after him with the winnowing shovel to
winnow His floor, and gather the wheat into His granary, but who would burn up
the chaff with unquenchable fire. Christ Himself also not only assured the people
(in Matthew 11:10ff., Luke 7:27ff.) that John was the messenger announced by
Malachi and the Elijah who was to come, but also told His disciples (Matthew
17:1ff.; Mark 9:1ff.) that Elijah, who was to come first and restore all things, had
already come, though the people had not acknowledged him. And even John 1:21
is not at variance with these statements. When the messengers of the Sanhedrim
came to John the Baptist to ask whether he was Elias, and he answered, “I am
not,” he simply gave a negative reply to their question, interpreted in the sense of
a personal reappearance of Elijah the Tishbite, which was the sense in which they
meant it, but he also declared himself to be the promised forerunner of the Lord
by applying to his own labours the prophecy contained in Isaiah 40:3.

And as the prophet Elijah predicted by Malachi appeared in John the Baptist,
so did the Lord come to His temple in the appearing of Jesus Christ. The opinion,
which was very widely spread among the fathers and Catholic commentators, and
which has also been adopted by many of the more modern Protestant theologians
(e.g., Menken and H. Olshausen), viz., that our prophecy was only provisionally
fulfilled in the coming of John the Baptist and the incarnation of the Son of God
in Jesus Christ, and that its true fulfilment will only take place at the second
coming of Christ to judge the world, in the actual appearance of the risen Elijah
by which it will be preceded, is not only at variance with the statements of the
Lord concerning John the Baptist, which have been already quoted, but as no
tenable foundation in our prophecy itself. The prophets of the Old Testament
throughout make no allusion to any second coming of the Lord to His people.
The day of the Lord, which they announce as the day of judgment, commenced
with the appearance on earth of Christ, the incarnate Logos; and Christ Himself
declared that He had come into the world for judgment (John 9:39, cf. 3:19 and
12:40), viz., for the judgment of separating the believing from the ungodly, to
give eternal life to those who believe on His name, and to bring death and
condemnation to unbelievers. This judgment burst upon the Jewish nation not
long after the ascension of Christ. Israel rejected its Saviour, and was smitten
with the ban at the destruction of Jerusalem in the Roman war; and both people
and land lie under this ban to the present day. And just as the judgment
commenced at that time so far as Israel was concerned, so does it also begin in
relation to all peoples and kingdoms of this earth with the first preaching of
Christ among them, and will continue throughout all the centuries during which
the kingdom spreads upon earth, until it shall be ultimately completed in the
universal judgment at the visible second coming of the Lord at the last day.

With this calling to remembrance of the law of Moses, and this prediction that
the prophet Elijah will be sent before the coming of the Lord Himself, the
prophecy of the Old Testament is brought to a close. After Malachi, no other
prophet arose in Israel until the time was fulfilled when the Elijah predicted by
him appeared in John the Baptist, and immediately afterwards the Lord came to
His temple, that is to say, the incarnate Son of God to His own possession, to
make all who received Him children of God, the s^egullaòh of the Lord. Law
and prophets bore witness of Christ, and Christ came not to destroy the law or the
prophets, but to fulfil them. Upon the Mount of Christ’s Transfiguration,
therefore, there appeared both Moses, the founder of the law and mediator of the
old covenant, and Elijah the prophet, as the restorer of the law in Israel, to talk
with Jesus of His decease which He was to accomplish in Jerusalem (Matthew
17:1ff.; Mark 9:1ff.; Luke 9:28ff.), for a practical testimony to the apostles and to
us all, that Jesus Christ, who laid down His life for us, to bear our sin and redeem
us from the curse of the law, was the beloved Son of the Father, whom we are to
hear, that by believing in His name we may become children of God and heirs of
everlasting life.

This document in rich text (.rtf)

In Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) to read Hebrew, Greek & Latin

E-Sword