Text -- Malachi 1:7 (NET)

1:7 You are offering improper sacrifices on my altar, yet you ask, ‘How have we offended you?’ By treating the table of the Lord as if it is of no importance!

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Mal 1:7

Either the meal-offerings, or rather in a more large sense, all sacrifices and oblations.

Wesley: Mal 1:7

Perhaps in words; at least your deeds speak your thoughts.

Wesley: Mal 1:7

This comprehends all that was offered to God.

JFB: Mal 1:7

God's answer to their challenge (Mal 1:6), "Wherein have we despised?"

JFB: Mal 1:7

Namely, blemished sacrifices (Mal 1:8, Mal 1:13-14; Deu 15:21). So "the bread of thy God" is used for "sacrifices to God" (Lev 21:8).

JFB: Mal 1:7

That is, offered to thee "polluted bread."

JFB: Mal 1:7

That is, the altar (Eze 41:22) (not the table of showbread). Just as the sacrificial flesh is called "bread."

JFB: Mal 1:7

(Mal 1:12-13). Ye sanction the niggardly and blemished offerings of the people on the altar, to gain favor with them. Darius, and probably his successors, had liberally supplied them with victims for sacrifice, yet they presented none but the worst. A cheap religion, costing little, is rejected by God, and so is worth nothing. It costs more than it is worth, for it is worth nothing, and so proves really dear. God despises not the widow's mite, but he does despise the miser's mite [MOORE].

Clarke: Mal 1:7

Ye offer polluted bread - The priests, probably to ingratiate themselves with the people, took the refuse beasts, etc., and offered them to God; and thus the sacrificial ordinances were rendered contemptible.

Calvin: Mal 1:7

It was indeed the office of the priests to place bread daily on the table; but whence could bread be obtained except some were offered? Now nothing was lost to the priests, when they daily set bread before God, for they presently received it; and thus they preferred, as it was more to their advantage, to offer bread well approved, made of fine flour: but as I have said, their own convenience interposed, for they thought that they could not prevail with the people — “If we irritate these men, they will deny that they have anything to offer; and thus the temple will be empty, and our own houses will be empty; it is then better to take coarse bread from them than nothing; we shall at least feed our families and servants with this bread, after having offered it to the Lord.” We hence see how the fault belonged to the priests, when the people offered polluted bread, and unapproved victims.

Defender: Mal 1:7

This is the fifth of at least ten rhetorical questions placed by Malachi on the lips of those he was rebuking. This dialectic method of argumentation, adopted for the first time in Scripture here by Malachi, was appropriated by later Jewish teachers as a popular instructional method."

TSK: Mal 1:7

Ye offer : etc. or, Bring unto my, etc

polluted : Lev 2:11, Lev 21:6; Deu 15:21

The table : Mal 1:12; 1Sa 2:15-17; Eze 41:22; 1Co 10:21, 1Co 11:21, 1Co 11:22, 1Co 11:27-32

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mal 1:7

Offering polluted bread upon Mine altar - This, continuing on the words, "despisers of My Name,", is the answer to their question, "Wherein have we despised Thy Name?""Bread"might stand, in itself, either for the showbread, or for the מנחה minchāh , meal-offering, which was the necessary accompaniment of sacrifices and sometimes the whole.

But here the "polluted bread"cannot be the showbread, since this was not put upon the altar, but upon its own table; and although the altar is, as here, also called "a table", in regard to the sacrifice hereon consumed, "the table"of the showbread is nowhere called "altar."The prophet then means by "bread,"either the meal-offering, as representing the sacrifice, or the offerings by fire altogether, as in Ezekiel Eze 44:7, "When ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood;"and in Leviticus "the offerings of the Lord, made by fire, the bread of their God, do they offer;"and of the "peace-offering Lev 3:11, the priest shall burn it upon the altar; the bread of the offering made by fire unto the Lord:"and specifically, of animals with blemish, as these, it is forbidden Lev 22:25, "Neither from a stranger’ s hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, blemishes in them: they shall not be accepted for you."It was, as it were, a feast of God with man, and what was withdrawn from the use of man by fire, was, as it were, consumed by God, to whom it was offered.

It was "polluted,"in that it was contrary to the law of God which forbade to sacrifice any animal, "lame or blind"or with "any ill blemish,"as being inconsistent with the typical perfection of the sacrifice. Even the Gentiles were careful about the perfection of their sacrifices.

"Blind is the sacrifice of the soul, which is not illumined by the light of Christ. Lame is his sacrifice of prayer, who comes with a double mind to entreat the Lord.""He offereth one weak, whose heart is not established in the grace of God, nor by the anchor of hope fixed in Christ. These words are also uttered against those who, being rich, offer to the Creator the cheaper and least things, and give small alms."

"And ye say, Wherewith have we polluted Thee?"It is a bold expression. Yet a word, to which we are but too ill-accustomed, which expresses what most have done, "dishonor God,"comes to the same. Though less bold in expression, they are yet like in meaning Eze 13:19. "Will ye pollute Me anymore among My people?"or Eze 20:9, Eze 20:14, Eze 20:22, "that My Name should not be polluted before the pagan Eze 43:7. My holy Name shall Israel no more defile Eze 39:7, "I will not let them pollute My Name anymore.""Much more in the new law, in which the Sacrifice is Christ Himself our God, whence the Apostle says expressly 1Co 11:27, "Whoso eateth this bread and drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.""For when the sacraments are violated, Himself, whose sacraments they are, is violated."God speaks of our acts with an unveiled plainness, which we should not dare to use. "As we are said to sanctify God, when we minister to Him in holiness and righteousness, and so, as far as in us lies, show that He is holy; so we are said to pollute Him, when we conduct ourselves irreverently and viciously before Him, especially in His worship, and thereby, as far as in us lies, show that He is not holy and is to be dishonored."

"In that ye say, the table of the Lord is contemptible,"literally "contemptible is it,", and so any contemptible thing might be offered on it. They said this probably, not in words, but in deeds. Or, if in words, in plausible words. "God doth not require the ornamenting of the altar, but the devotion of the offerers.""What good is it, if we offer the best? Be what we offer, what it may, it is all to be consumed by fire.""The pretext at once of avarice and gluttony!"And so they kept the best for themselves. They were poor, on their return from the captivity. Anyhow, the sacrifices were offered. What could it matter to God? And so they dispensed with God’ s law.

"So at this day we see some priests and prelates, splendid in their tables and feasts, sordid in the altar and temple; on the table are costly napkins and wine; on the altar torn linen and wine-mace rather than wine.""We pollute the bread, that is, the Body of Christ, when we approach the altar unworthily, and, being defiled, drink that pure Blood, and say, ‘ The table of the Lord is contemptible;’ not that anyone dareth to say this, but the deeds of sinners pour contempt on the table of God."

Poole: Mal 1:7

Ye offer polluted bread you through covetousness take any the people bring, whether such as the law requires or no. If it answer not the perfection of the law, yet you first make it serve me, through your contempt of me, and then to serve your turn to feed you and yours.

Polluted either by ill-managing it, and misordering what is good and allowable, or accepting what is disallowed and forbidden, because of its blemishes.

Bread either the shew-bread, of which Exo 25:30 ; or meat-offerings, Exo 29:41 Le 2 Nu 28:5 ; or, in a more large sense, all that was to be offered unto God, sacrifices and oblations.

Upon mine altar: by this it appears bread is to be expounded here of sacrifices, and not to be confined to the narrow bounds of this one kind.

And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? they stand upon their own justification, and proudly contend with God, either implying they did not offer such polluted things, or if they were defective, and in law sense polluted, yet that this did redound to God, or affect him no more than the perfection of them could add to him.

In that ye say perhaps in words, however by your deeds you speak your thoughts and judgment; you think so, and then act so.

The table before it was altar, now it is table, not to be opposed each to other, but comprehending both, and all that was offered unto God on both.

Is contemptible as if they measured sacrifice and oblation by the splendour and riches of the temple and altar; the first were more pompous than the second, and these priests probably thought they might abate in the qualities of the offerings, as this temple abated in its splendour; they contemned this, and then contemn those offerings.

Haydock: Mal 1:7

Bread, including all the victims, &c., Leviticus iii. 11., and Numbers xxviii. 2. (Calmet) ---

By vile presents they shew their contempt of God. (Worthington)

Gill: Mal 1:7

Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar,.... Which some understand of the shewbread, mention being afterwards made of a "table", as Jerom; who observes that it was made of wheat, which the priests themselves sowed, reaped, ground, and baked, and so could take what they would out of it: as for their sowing it, it does not seem likely that they should be employed in such service, whatever may be said for their reaping; since the sheaf of the first fruits was reaped by persons deputed from the sanhedrim ^w; though of the reaping of that for the shewbread, I find no mention made; but as for grinding, sifting, kneading, and making it into loaves, and baking it, and taking it out of the oven, and putting it upon the table of shewbread, all this was the work of the priests ^x; and those of the house of Garmu ^y were appointed over that work: now, this bread might be said to be polluted, when they set upon the table such as was not made of fine wheat flour, and had not pure frankincense put upon or by each row, as the law required, Lev 24:5 nor is it any material objection to this sense, that it is an altar, and not a table, on which this bread was offered; since, as the altar is called a table, Eze 41:22, as this is in a following clause, the table may be called an altar; though it may be observed, that the shewbread is never said to be offered, but to be set, or put upon the table: indeed the burning of the frankincense set by it is called an offering made by fire unto the Lord, Lev 24:7 wherefore others interpret this of the daily meat offering, which went along with the daily sacrifice of the lambs, and part of which was burnt on the altar, Exo 29:40 or rather this designs sacrifice in general, sometimes called "bread", Lev 3:11 and so the Targum here,

"ye offer upon my altar an abominable offering;''

such as had blemishes in them, were blind or lame, as after mentioned; and had not the requisites of a sacrifice in them; or were offered not in a right manner, or by bad men, and with a wicked mind:

and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? thy bread offering or altar; as if their offerings were pure, and they themselves, and their consciences pure from sin. The answer is,

In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible; either the shewbread table, which yet was covered with gold, and all the vessels of it made of gold; or the altar, as in Eze 41:22 their actions spoke so loud, and declared that the table or altar of the Lord was a contemptible thing, since they cared not what was offered upon it: or the reason why it was had in contempt, as some think, was because there was not that holiness in the second temple as in the first: or, as Abarbinel and Kimchi say, because of the fat and the blood which were offered on the altar, which they esteemed contemptible things; not observing the end for which the Lord commanded them to be offered.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mal 1:7

¹ sn The word table, here a synonym for “altar,” has overtones of covenant imagery in which a feast shared by the covenant partners was an important element (see Exod 24:11). It also draws attention to the analogy of sitting down at a common meal with the governor (v. 8).

Geneva Bible: Mal 1:7

Ye offer ^{( f )} polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of

the LORD [is] ^{( g )} contemptible.

^{( f )} You receive all types of offerings for your own greediness, and do not examine whether they are according to my Law or not.

^{( g )} Not that they said this, but by their doings they declared it.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mal 1:1-14

1 Malachi complains of Israel's unkindness;

2 of their irreligiousness and profaneness.

Maclaren: Mal 1:6-7

A Dialogue With God

A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a Father, where is Mine honour? and if I be a master, where is My fear? saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, O priests, that despise My Name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised Thy Name? 7. Ye offer polluted bread upon Mine altar. And ye say, Wherein have we polluted Thee? '--Malachi 1:6-7.

A CHARACTERISTIC of this latest of the prophets is the vivacious dialogue of which our text affords one example. God speaks and the people question His word, which in reply He reiterates still more strongly. The other instances of its occurrence may here be briefly noted, and we shall find that they cover all the aspects of the divine speech to men, whether He charges sin home upon them or pronounces threatenings of judgment, or invites by gracious promises the penitent to return. His charges of sin are repelled in our text and in the following verse by the indignant question, Wherein have we polluted Thee?' And similarly in the next chapter the divine accusation, Ye have wearied the Lord with your words,' is thrown back with the contemptuous retort, Wherein have we wearied Him?' And in like manner in the third chapter, Ye have robbed Me,' calls forth no confession but only the defiant answer,' Wherein have we robbed Thee?' And in a later verse, the accusation, Your words have been stout against Me,' is traversed by the question, What have we spoken so much against Thee?' Similarly the threatening of judgment that the Lord will cut off' the men that profane the holiness of the Lord' calls forth only the rebutting question, Wherefore?' (Malachi 2:14). And even the gracious invitation, Return unto Me, and I will return unto you,' evokes not penitence, but the stiff-necked reply, Wherein shall we return?' (Malachi 3:7). In this sermon we may deal with the first of these three cases, and consider, God's Indictment, and man's plea of Not guilty.'

I. God's Indictment.

The precise nature of the charge is to be carefully considered. The Name is the sum of the revealed character, and that Name has been despised. The charge is not that it has been blasphemed, but that it has been neglected, or under-estimated, or cared little about. The pollution of the table of the Lord is the overt act by which the attitude of mind and heart expressed in despising His Name is manifested; but the overt act is secondary and not primary--a symptom of a deeper-lying disease. And herein our Prophet is true to the whole tenor of the Old Testament teaching, which draws its indictment against men primarily in regard to their attitude, and only as a manifestation of that, to their acts. The same deed may be, if estimated in relation to human law, a crime: if estimated in relation to godless ethics, a wrong; and if estimated in the only right way, namely, the attitude towards God which it reveals, a sin. The despising of His Name' may be taken as the very definition of sin. It is usual with men to-day to say that Sin is selfishness'; but that statement does not go deep enough unless it be recognised that self-regard only becomes sin when it rears its puny self in opposition to, or in disregard of, the plain will of God. The New Theology,' of course, minimises, even where it does not, as it to be consistent should, deny the possibility of sin: for, if God is all and all is God, there can be no opposition, there can be no divine will to be opposed, and no human will to oppose it. But the fact of sin certified by men's own consciences is the rock on which Pantheism must always strike and sink. A superficial view of human history and of human nature may try to explain away the fact of sin by shallow talk about heredity' and' environment,' or about ignorance' and mistakes'; but after all such euphemistic attempts to rechristen the ugly thing by beguiling names, the fact remains, and conscience bears sometimes unwilling witness to its existence, that men do set their own inclinations against God's commands, and that there is in them that which is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.' The root of all sin is the despising of His Name.

And as sin has but one root, it has many branches, and as working backwards from deed to motive, we find one common element in all the various acts; so working outwards from motive to deed, we have to see one common character stamped upon a tragical variety of acts. The poison-water is exhibited in many variously coloured and tasted draughts, but however unlike each other they may be, it is always the same.

The great effort of God's love is to press home this consciousness of despising His Name upon all hearts. The sorrows, losses, and disappointments which come to us all are not meant only to make us suffer, but through suffering to lead us to recognise how far we have wandered from our Father, and to bring us back to His heart and our home. The beginning of all good in us is the contrite acknowledgment of our evil. Christ's first preaching was the continuation of John's message, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'; and His tenderest revelation of the divine love incarnated in Himself was meant to arouse the penitent confession, I am no more worthy to be called Thy son,' and the quickening resolve, I will arise and go to my Father.' There is no way to God but through the narrow gate of repentance. There is no true reception of the gift of Christ which does not begin with a vivid and heart-broken consciousness of my own sin. We can pass into, and abide in, the large room of joyous acceptance and fellowship, but we must reach it by a narrow path walled in by gloomy rocks and trodden with bleeding feet. The penitent knowledge of our sin is the first step towards the triumphant knowledge of Christ's righteousness as ours. Only they who have called out in the agony of their souls,' Lord, save us, we perish,' have truly learned the love of God, and truly possess the salvation that is in Christ.

II. Man's Plea Of Not Guilty.'

That such an answer should be given to such a charge is a strange, solemn fact, which tragically confirms the true indictment. The effect of all sin is to make us less conscious of its presence, as persons in an unventilated room are not aware of its closeness. It is with profound truth that the Apostle speaks of being hardened by the deceitfulness' of sin. It comes to us in a cloud and enfolds us in obscure mist. Like white ants, it never works in the open, but makes a tunnel or burrows under ground, and, hidden in some piece of furniture, eats away all its substance whilst it seems perfectly solid. The man's perception of the standard of duty is enfeebled. We lose our sense of the moral character of any habitual action, just as a man who has lived all his life in a slum sees little of its hideousness, and knows nothing of green fields and fresh air. Conscience is silenced by being neglected. It can be wrongly educated and perverted, so that it may regard sin as doing God's service; and the only judgment in which it can be absolutely trusted is the declaration that it is right to do right, while all its other decisions as to what is right may be biassed by self-interest; but the force with which it pronounces its only unalterable decision depends on the whole tenor of the life of the man. The sins which are most in accordance with our characters, and are therefore most deeply rooted in us, are those which we are least likely to recognise as sins. So, the more sinful we are, the less we know it; therefore there is need for a fixed standard outside of us. The light on the deck cannot guide us; there must be the lighthouse on the rock. This sad answer of the heart untouched by God's appeal prevents all further access of God's love to that heart. That love can only enter when the reply to its indictment is, I have despised Thy name.'

Let us not forget the New Testament modification of the divine accusation. In Christ' is the Name of God fully and finally revealed to men. For us who live in the blaze of the ineffable brightness of the revelation, our attitude towards Him who brings it is the test of our hallowing of the Name' which He brings. He Himself has varied Malachi's indictment when He said, He that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.' Our sin is now to be measured by our under-estimate and neglect of Him, and chiefly of His Cross. That Cross prevents our consciousness of sin from becoming despair of pardon. Judas went out, and with bitter weeping, himself ended his traitorous life. If God's last word to us were, Ye have despised My Name,' and it sank into our souls, there would be no hope for any of us. But the message which begins with the universal indictment of sin passes into the message which holds forth forgiveness and freedom as universal as the sin, and God hath concluded all in unbelief that He may have mercy upon all.'

MHCC: Mal 1:6-14

We may each charge upon ourselves what is here charged upon the priests. Our relation to God, as our Father and Master, strongly obliges us to fear and honour him. But they were so scornful that they derided reproof. Sinners ruin themselves by trying to baffle their convictions. Those who live in careless neglect of holy ordinances, who attend on them without reverence, and go from them under no concern, in effect say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. They despised God's name in what they did. It is evident that these understood not the meaning of the sacrifices, as shadowing forth the unblemished Lamb of God; they grudged the expense, thinking all thrown away which did not turn to their profit. If we worship God ignorantly, and without understanding, we bring the blind for sacrifice; if we do it carelessly, if we are cold, dull, and dead in it, we bring the sick; if we rest in the bodily exercise, and do not make heart-work of it, we bring the lame; and if we suffer vain thoughts and distractions to lodge within us, we bring the torn. And is not this evil? Is it not a great affront to God, and a great wrong and injury to our own souls? In order to the acceptance of our actions with God, it is not enough to do that which, for the matter of it, is good; but we must do it from a right principle, in a right manner, and for a right end. Our constant mercies from God, make worse our slothfulness and niggardliness, in our returns of duty to God. A spiritual worship shall be established. Incense shall be offered to God's name, which signifies prayer and praise. And it shall be a pure offering. When the hour came, in which the true worshippers worshipped the Father in Spirit and in truth, then this incense was offered, even this pure offering. We may rely on God's mercy for pardon as to the past, but not for indulgence to sin in future. If there be a willing mind, it will be accepted, though defective; but if any be a deceiver, devoting his best to Satan and to his lusts, he is under a curse. Men now, though in a different way, profane the name of the Lord, pollute his table, and show contempt for his worship.

Matthew Henry: Mal 1:6-14

The prophet is here, by a special commission, calling the priests to account, though they were themselves appointed judges, to call the people to an account. Let the rulers in the house of God know that there is one above them, who will reckon with them for their mal-administrations. Thus saith the Lord of hosts to you, O priests! Mal 1:6. God will have a saying to unfaithful ministers; and it concerns those who speak from God to his people to hear and heed what he says to them, that they may save themselves in the first place, otherwise how should they help to save those that hear them? It is a severe, and no doubt a just reproof, that is here given to the priests, for the profanation of the holy things of God, with which they were entrusted; and, if this was the crime of the priests, we have reason to fear the people also were guilty of it: so that what is said to the priests is said to all, nay, it is said to us, who, as Christians, profess ourselves, not only the people of God, but priests to him. Observe here,

I. What it was that God expected from them, and with what good reason he expected it (Mal 1:6): A son honours his father, because he is his father; nature has written this law in the hearts of children, before God wrote it at Mount Sinai; nay, a servant, though his obligation to his master is not natural, but by voluntary compact, yet thinks it his duty to honour him, to be observant of his orders, and true to his interests. Children and servants pay respect to their parents and masters; every one cries out shame on them if they do not, and their own hearts cannot but reproach them too; the order of families is thus kept up, and it is their beauty and advantage. But the priests, who are God's children and his servants, do not fear and honour him. They were fathers and masters to the people, and expected to be called so (Jdg 18:19, Mat 22:7, Mat 22:10) and to be reverenced and obeyed as such; but they forgot their Father and Master in heaven, and the duty they owed to him. We may each of us charge upon ourselves what is here charged upon the priests. Note, 1. We are every one of us to look upon God as our Father and Master, and upon ourselves as his children and servants. 2. Our relation to God as our Father and Master strongly obliges us to fear and honour him. If we honour and fear the fathers of our flesh, much more the Father and Master of our spirits, Heb 12:9. 3. It is a thing to be justly complained of, and lamented, that God is so little feared and honoured even by those that own him for their Father and Master. Where is his honour? Where is his fear?

II. What the contempt was which the priests put upon God.

1. This is that, in general, which is charged upon them: - (1.) They despised God's name; their familiarity with it, as priests, bred contempt of it, and served them only to gain a veneration by it for themselves and their own name, while God's name was of small account with them. God's name is all that whereby he has made himself known - his word and ordinances; these they had low thoughts of, and vilified that which it was their business to magnify; and no wonder that when they despised it themselves they did that which made it despicable to others, causing even the sacrifices of the Lord to be abhorred, as Eli's sons did. (2.) They profaned God's name, Mal 1:12. They polluted it, Mal 1:7. They not only made no account of sacred things, but they made an ill use of them, and perverted them to the service of the worst and vilest purposes - their own pride, covetousness, and luxury. There cannot be a greater provocation to God than the profanation of his name; for it is holy and reverend. His purity cannot be polluted by us, for he is unspotted, but his name may be profaned; and nothing profanes it more than the misconduct of priests, whose business it is to do honour to it. This is the general charge exhibited against them. To this they plead Not guilty, and challenge God to prove it upon them, and to make good the charge, which added daring impudence to their daring impiety: You say, Wherein have we despised thy name? (Mal 1:6), and wherein have we polluted thee? Mal 1:7. It is common with proud sinners, when they are reproved, to stand thus upon their own justification. These priests had most horridly profaned sacred things, and yet, like the adulterous woman, they said that they had done no wickedness; they were so inobservant of themselves that they remembered not or reflected not upon their own acts, or they were so ignorant of the divine law that they thought there was no harm in them, and that what they did could not be construed into despising God's name, or they were so atheistical as to imagine that though they knew their own guilt yet God did not, or they were so scornful in their conduct towards God and his prophets that they took a pride in bantering a serious and just reproof, and turning it off with a jest. They either laugh at the reproof, as those that despise it, and harden their hearts against it, or they laugh it off, as those that resolve they will not be touched by it, or will not seem to be so. Which way soever we take it, their defence was their offence, and, in justifying themselves, their own tongues condemned them, and their saying, Wherein have we despised thy name? proved them proud and perverse. Had they asked this question with a humble desire to be told more particularly wherein they had offended, it would have been an evidence of their repentance, and would have given hopes of their reformation; but to ask it thus in disdain and defiance of the word of God argues their hearts fully set in them to do evil. Note, Sinners ruin themselves by studying to baffle their own convictions; but they will find it hard to kick against the pricks.

2. Justly might they have been convicted and condemned upon the general charge, and their plea thrown out as frivolous; but God will not only overcome, but will be clear, will be justified when he judges, and therefore he shows them very particularly wherein they had despised his name, and what the contempt was that they cast upon him. As formerly, when he charged them with idolatry, so now, when he charges them with profaneness, he bids them see their way in the valley and know what they have done, Jer 2:23.

(1.) They despised God's name in what they said, in the low opinion they had of his institutions: " You say in your hearts, and perhaps speak it out when you priests get together over your cups. out of the hearing of the people, The table of the Lord is contemptible "(Mal 1:7), and again (Mal 1:12), "You say, The table of the Lord is polluted; it is to be no more regarded than any other table."Either the table in the temple, on which the show-bread was placed, is that which they reflect upon (not understanding the mystery of it, they despised it as an insignificant thing), or rather the altar of burnt-offerings is here called the table, for there God, and his priests, and his people, did, as it were, feast together upon the sacrifices, in token of friendship. This they thought was contemptible. Formerly, in the days of superstition, it was thought contemptible in comparison with the idolatrous alters that the heathen had, and was set aside to make room for a new-fashioned one (2Ki 16:14, 2Ki 16:15); now it is thought contemptible in comparison with their own tables, and those of their great men: The fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible. Those who served at the altar were to live upon the altar; but they complained that they lived poorly and meanly, and that it was not worth while to attend the service of the altar for the fruit and meat of it, for it was very ordinary and always the same again; they had no dainties, no varieties, no nice dishes. Nay, that part of the sacrifices which was given to God, the blood and the fat, they looked upon with contempt, as not worthy the multitude of laws God had made about it; they asked, "What need is there of so much ado about burning the fat and pouring out the blood?"Note, Those greatly profane and pollute God's name who despise the business of religion, though it is very honourable, as not worth taking pains in, and the advantages of religion, though highly valuable, as not worth taking pains for. Those who live in a careless neglect of holy ordinances, who come to them and attend on them irreverently, and go away from them never the better and under no concern, do in effect say, " The table of the Lord is contemptible; there is neither virtue nor value in it, neither credit nor comfort from it."

(2.) They despised God's name in what they did, which was of a piece with what they said, and flowed from it; corrupt principles and notions are roots of bitterness, which bear the gall and wormwood of corrupt practices. They looked upon the table and altar of the Lord as contemptible, and then, [1.] They thought any thing would serve for a sacrifice, though ever so coarse and mean, and were so far from bringing the best, as they ought to have done, that they picked out the worst they had, which was fit neither for the market nor for their own tables, and offered that at God's altar. With every sacrifice they were to bring a meat-offering of fine flour mingled with oil; but they brought polluted bread (Mal 1:7), coarse bread, servants' bread, perhaps it was dry and mouldy, or made of the refuse of the wheat, which they thought good enough to be burnt upon the altar; for had it been better they would have said, To what purpose is this waste? And as to the beasts they offered, though the law was express that what was offered in sacrifice should not have a blemish, yet they brought the blind, and the lame, and the sick (Mal 1:8), and again (Mal 1:13), the torn, and the lame, and the sick, that was ready to die of itself. They looked no further than the burning of the sacrifice, and they pleaded that it was a pity to burn it if it was good for any thing else. The people were so far convinced of their duty that they would bring sacrifices; they durst not wholly omit the duty, but they brought vain oblations, mocked God, and deceived themselves, by bringing the worst they had; and the priests, who should have taught them better, accepted the gifts brought to the altar and offered them up there, because, if they should refuse them, the people would bring none at all, and then they would lose their perquisites; and therefore, having more regard to their own profit than to God's honour, they accepted that which they knew he would not accept. Some make Mal 1:8 to be a continuation of what the priests profanely said Mal 1:7, You say to the people, If you offer the blind for sacrifice, it is not evil; or the lame and the sick, it is not evil. Note, It is a very evil thing, whether men think so or no, to offer the blind and the lame, the torn and the sick, in sacrifice to God. If we worship God ignorantly, and without understanding, we bring the blind for sacrifice; if we do it carelessly, and without consideration, if we are cold, and dull, and dead, in it, we bring the sick; if we rest in the bodily exercise, and do not make heart-work of it, we bring the lame; and, if we suffer vain thoughts and distractions to lodge within us, we bring the torn. And is not this evil? Is it not a great affront to God and a great wrong and injury to our own souls? Do not our books tell us, nay, do not our own hearts tell us, that this is evil? for God, who is the best, ought to be served with the best we have. [2.] They would do no more of their work than what they were paid for. The priests would offer the sacrifices that were brought to the altar, because they had their share of them; but as for any other service of the temple, that had not a particular fee belonging to it, they would not stir a step, nor lend a hand, to it; and this was the general temper of them, Mal 1:10. There is not a man among the priests that would shut the doors, or kindle a fire, for nought. If he were required to do the smallest piece of service, he would ask, how shall I be paid for it? They would do nothing gratis, but were all for what they could get, every one for his gain, from his quarter, Isa 56:11. Note, Though God has given order that his servants be well paid in this world, yet those are no acceptable servants to him who are mercenary, and would never do the work but for the wages. [3.] Their work was a perfect drudgery to them (Mal 1:13): You said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! Both priests and people were of this mind, that they thought God imposed too hard a task upon them; the people grudged the charge of providing the sacrifice and the priests grudged the pains of offering it; they thought the feasts of the Lord came too thick, and they were forced to attend too often, and too long, in the courts of the Lord; the priests thought it a severe penance imposed upon them to purify themselves as was required when they attended the altar and ate of the holy things; they thought the duty of their office toilsome and troublesome, and snuffed at it as unreasonable, and bearing hard upon them; they did it, but it was grudgingly and with reluctance. God speaks of it, in justification of his law, that he had not made them to serve with an offering, nor wearied them with incense, Isa 43:23. Wherein have I wearied thee? Mic 6:3. But their own wicked hearts made it a weariness; and they were, as Doeg, detained before the Lord; they would rather have been any where else. Note, Those are highly injurious, both to God and themselves, who are weary of his service and worship, and snuff at it.

III. Observe how God expostulates and reasons the case with them, for their conviction and humiliation. 1. Would they, durst they, affront an earthly prince thus? "You offer to God the lame and the sick; offer it now unto thy governor (Mal 1:8), either as tribute or as a present, when thou art entreating his favour, or in gratitude for some favour received; will he be pleased with thee? Or, rather, will he not take himself to be affronted by it?"Note, Those who are careless and irreverent in the duties of religious worship should consider what a shame it is to offer that to their God which they would scorn to offer to their governor, to be more observant of the laws of breeding and good manners than of the laws of religion, and more afraid of being rude than of being profane. 2. Could they imagine that such sacrifices as these would be pleasing to God, or answer the end of sacrifices? " Should I accept this at your hand, saith the Lord? Mal 1:13. Have you any reason to think I should either not discern or not resent the affront, that I should connive at the violation of my own laws? No (Mal 1:10); I have no pleasure in you, and therefore, I will not accept an offering, such an offering, at your hand. "If God has no pleasure in the person, if the person be not in a justified state, if he be not sanctified, God will not accept the offering. God had respect to Abel first and then to his sacrifice. Note, In order to our acceptance with God it is not enough to do that which, for the matter of it, is good, but we must do it from a right principle, in a right manner, and for a right end. It was the ancient rule laid down (Gen 4:7), If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? Now, if we be not accepted of God, in vain do we worship him; it is all lost labour; nay, we are all undone, for ever undone, if we come short of God's acceptance. Those therefore make a bad bargain for themselves who, to save charges in their religion, miss all the ends of it, and, by thinking to go the nearest way to work, bring nothing to pass. Those who make it the top of their ambition, as we all ought to do, whether present or absent, to be accepted of the Lord, will not dare to bring the torn, and the lame, and the sick, for sacrifice. 3. How could they expect to prevail with God in their intercessions for the people when they thus affronted God in their sacrifices? So some understand Mal 1:9, as spoken ironically, " And now if you will do the duty of priests, and stand in the gap to turn away the judgments of God that you see ready to pour in upon us, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious to us, and to our land which is almost eaten up with locusts and caterpillars,"as appears Mal 3:11. "Try now what interest you have at the throne of grace; improve it for the removing of this plague, for it has been by your means; you have provoked God to send it. But as you go on thus to profane his sacred things will he regard your persons or your prayers? No, you cannot prevail with him to command it away."For, if we regard iniquity in our hearts, God will not hear us, either for ourselves or for others. 4. Had God deserved this at their hands? No, he had provided comfortably for them, and had given them such encouragement in their work as might have engaged them to do it cheerfully and well; so some understand Mal 1:10, " Who is there among you that shall shut a door, or kindle a fire, for nought? No, God does not expect you should serve him for nothing; you are well paid for it, and shall be so; not a cup of cold water, given for the honour of God, shall lose its reward. "Note, The consideration of our constant receivings from God, and the present rewards of obedience in obedience, very much aggravates our slothfulness and niggardliness in our returns of duty to God.

IV. He calls them to repentance for their profanations of his holy name. So we may understand Mal 1:9, " Now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious to us. Humble yourselves for your sin, cry mightily to God for pardon, and make up in the faith and fervency of your prayers what has been wanting in the worth and value of your sacrifices; for all the rebukes of Providence we are under are by your means. "Note, Those who have by their sins helped to kindle a fire are highly concerned by their repentance, prayers, and the personal reformation, to help to quench it. We must see how much God's judgments are by our means, and be awakened thereby to be earnest with him to return in mercy; and, if we take not this course, how can we think he should regard our persons?

V. He declares his resolution both to secure the glory of his own name and to reckon with those who profane it. Those who put contempt upon God and religion, and think to run down sacred things, let them know,

1. That they shall not gain their point. God will magnify his law and make it honourable, though they vilify it and make it contemptible; for (Mal 1:11) from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles. It might be said, "If these are not the worshippers whom God will accept, then he has no worshippers."As if he must make the best of their service, or else he would have no service done him; and then what will he do for his great name? But let him alone for that; though Israel be not faithful, be not gathered, yet God will be glorious. Though these priests provoke him to take down the ceremonial economy, and to abolish that law of commandments, which could not make the comers thereunto perfect, yet he will be no loser by that, at the long run; for, (1.) Instead of those carnal ordinances, which they profaned, a spiritual way of worship shall be introduced and established: Incense shall be offered to God's name (which signifies prayer and praise, Psa 141:2; Rev 8:3), instead of the blood and fat of bulls and goats. And it shall be a pure offering, refined, not only from the corruptions that were in the priests' practice, but from the mere bodily exercise that was in the institutions themselves, which are called carnal ordinances, imposed till the time of reformation, Heb 9:10. When the hour came in which the true worshippers worshipped the Father in spirit and in truth, then this incense was offered, even this pure offering. (2.) Instead of his being worshipped and served among the Jews only, a small people in a corner of the world, he will be served and worshipped in all places, from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same; in every place, in every part of the world, incense shall be offered to his name; nations shall be discipled, and shall speak of the wonderful works of God, and have them spoken to them in their own language. This is a plain prediction of that great revolution in the kingdom of grace by which the Gentiles, who had been strangers and foreigners, came to be fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God, and as welcome to the throne of grace as ever the Jews had been. It is twice said (for the thing was certain), My name shall be great among the Gentiles, whereas hitherto in Judah only he was known, and his name was great, Psa 76:1. God's name shall be declared to them, the declaration of it shall be received and believed, and there shall be those among the Gentiles who shall magnify and glorify the name of God better than ever the Jews had done, even the priests themselves.

2. That they shall not go unpunished, Mal 1:14. Here is the doom of those who do like these priests, for the sentence on them is a sentence on all such. Observe, (1.) The description of profane and careless worshippers. They are such as vow and sacrifice to the Lord a corrupt thing when they have in their flock a male. They have of the best, wherewith to serve and honour him, so bountiful has be been in his gifts to them, but they put him off with the worst, and think that good enough for him, so ungrateful are they in their returns to him. This was the fault of the people, but the priests connived at it, and indulged them in it. We find a distinction in the law which allowed that to be offered for a free-will offering which would not be accepted for a vow, Lev 22:23. But the priests would accept it, though God would not, pretending to be more indulgent than he was, for which he will give them no thanks another day. (2.) The character given of such worshippers. They are deceivers; they deal falsely and fraudulently with God; they play the hypocrite with him; they pretend to honour him, in making the vow, but, when it comes to be performed, they put an affront upon him, to such a degree that it would have been better not to have vowed than to vow and thus to pay; but let not such be themselves deceived, for God is not mocked. Those who think to put a cheat upon God will prove, in the end, to have put a damning cheat upon their own souls. Hypocrites are deceivers, and they will prove self-deceivers, and so self-destroyers. (3.) The doom passed upon them: They are cursed; they expect a blessing, but will meet with a curse, the tokens of God's wrath, according to the judgment written. (4.) The reason of this doom: " For I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and therefore will reckon with those who deal with me but as a man like themselves; my name is dreadful among the heathen, and therefore I will not bear that it should be contemptible among my own people."The heathen paid more respect to their gods, though idols, than the Jews did to theirs, though the only true and living God. Note, The consideration of God's universal dominion, and the universal acknowledgment of it, should restrain us from all irreverence in his service.

Keil-Delitzsch: Mal 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. Mal 1:6. "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? Mal 1:7. 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. Mal 1:9. 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. יכבּד 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 Exo 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 (Deu 32:6), inasmuch as He created and trained Israel to be His covenant nation; compare Isa 63:16, where Jehovah is called the Father of Israel as being its Redeemer (also Jer 31:9 and Psa 100:3). As Father, God is also Lord ( 'ădōnı̄m : 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 כּבודי and מוראי are used in an objective sense, as in Gen 9:2; Exo 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 Mal 1:6, and also in Mal 1:7, the participle מגּישׁים is parallel to בּוזי שׁמי , 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.

Mal 1:7 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 maggı̄shı̄m 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 בּאמרכם in Mal 1:7 to the reply made to this charge also; and this answer is explained in Mal 1:8 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 Lev 21:6, Lev 21:8, Lev 21:17, the food ( lechem ) of God (on the application of this epithet to the sacrifices, see the remarks in our comm. on Lev 3:11, Lev 3:16). The prophet calls this food מגאל , 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 Mal 1:8, the sacrificial animals were affected with blemishes ( mūm ), or had something corrupt ( moshchâth ) about them (Lev 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. נבזה 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 Lev 22:20. Thus they violated both reverence for the altar and also reverence for Jehovah. The words אין רע 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. רע , 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 ( פּחה : see at Hag 1:1) would accept such presents; and then in Mal 1:9 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 ( חלּה פני : see at Zec 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. פּני אל is selected in the place of פּני יהוה , 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 יחנּנוּ refers to the people, in which the prophet includes himself. The clause "from your hand has זאת (this: viz., the offering of such reprehensible sacrifices) proceeded"(cf. Isa 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 הישּׂא וגו is appended to the principal clause חלּוּ־נא , and מכּם פּנים does not stand for פּניכם : will He lift up your face, i.e., show you favour? but מכּם 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.

Constable: Mal 1:6--2:10

III. Oracle two: the priests' Illicit practices and indifferent attitudes 1:6--2:9

The first oracle ended with a statement of Yahweh's greatness. The second one opens with a question about why Israel's priests did not honor Him.

Constable: Mal 1:6-7

1. Disrespectful service 1:6-7

1:6 This second oracle begins like the first one, with a statement by Yahweh and a challenging response (cf. Isa. 1:2-3). The first oracle appealed to the Israelites generally, but this one is addressed to the priests. The priests were responsible to teach the other Israelites the Law, to mediate between Yahweh and His people, and to judge the people.

Almighty Yahweh asked the priests of Israel why they did not honor Him since sons honor their fathers (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16), and He was their Father (Exod. 4:22; Isa. 1:2; 63:16; 64:8; Hos. 11:1). Since servants respect their masters, why did they not fear Him since He was their Master (Isa. 44:1-2)?

Speaking for the priests, Malachi gave their response. They denied having despised His name.¹⁸ By asking how they had despised His name, rather than saying, "We have not despised your name," the priests were claiming ignorance as to how they were doing this. However their question also carried a challenge; they resented the suggestion that they had despised His name.

"Intimate familiarity with holy matters conduces to treating them with indifference."¹⁹

1:7 The Lord responded through Malachi that the priests had despised the Lord by presenting defiled sacrifices to Him (cf. Lev. 22:2, 17-30, 32). Defiled sacrifices were sacrifices that were not ritually clean or acceptable, as the Law specified. By doing this they defiled (made unclean) the altar of burnt offerings and the Lord. The Law referred to the offerings as food for God (Lev. 21:6), though obviously He did not eat them. The use of "food" for "sacrifice" and "table" for "altar" continues the human analogies already begun in verse 6. Moreover, these terms also connote covenant relationships because covenants were usually ratified when the participants, typically a king and his vassals, ate a meal together.²⁰

Guzik: Mal 1:1-14

Malachi 1 - "I Have Loved You"

A. God's love for a rebellious Israel.

1. (1-2a) God declares His love for Israel through the prophet Malachi.

The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. "I have loved you," says the LORD.

a. To Israel by Malachi: Malachi spoke to the exiles some 100 years after their initial return, after the days of Zechariah and Haggai. Malachi ministered either at the time of Nehemiah or immediately after his book closes.

i. We know this because in Malachi's day the temple was rebuilt (Malachi 1:13, 3:1, 3:10).

ii. We know this because the Jews were under a civil ruler (the governor of Malachi 1:8), and Nehemiah was the last civil ruler over Jerusalem.

iii. We know this because the sins that Malachi rebuked are the same sins Nehemiah rebuked.

· The priesthood was defiled (Nehemiah 13:29, Malachi 1:6-2:9)

· Marriage was corrupt in Israel (Nehemiah 13:23-25, Malachi 2:14-15)

· The tithe that should go to the Levites was kept from them (Nehemiah 13:10-11, Malachi 3:8-12)

iv. By now, the temple is rebuilt, sacrifice and feasts have resumed but the dramatic promises of the prophets like Haggai and Zechariah are still far from fulfillment. This left the nation languishing in the disappointment of unfulfilled hopes and has lulled them into a low regard for God. Israel needs an assurance of God's love and a challenge to their disobedience.

b. "I have loved you," says the LORD: Malachi will have a lot of specific correction for Israel, but before God corrects He assures them of His love. This lays a foundation for their obedience, because if they love Him, they will keep His commandments (John 14:15).

i. Morgan translates this as "I have loved you, I do love you, I will love you," says the Lord.

2. (2-5) Their first question: How has God demonstrated His love to Israel?

"Yet you say, 'In what way have You loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Says the LORD. "Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated, and laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness." Even though Edom has said, "We have been impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places," Thus says the LORD of hosts: "They may build, but I will throw down; they shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, and the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever. Your eyes shall see, and you shall say, 'The LORD is magnified beyond the border of Israel.'"

a. In what way have You loved us? This is the kind of question rarely spoken, but often harbored in the heart. It asks, "God, if you really love me why are things the way they are?"

i. The prophecy of Malachi is built around seven questions the people asked God. These questions revealed their doubting, discouraged, sinful heart.

· In what way have You loved us? (Malachi 1:2)

· In what way have we despised Your name? (Malachi 1:6)

· In what way have we defiled You? (Malachi 1:7)

· In what way have we wearied Him? (Malachi 2:17)

· In what way shall we return? (Malachi 3:7)

· In what way have we robbed You? (Malachi 3:8)

· In what way have we spoken against You? (Malachi 3:13)

b. Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated: God asks Israel to find assurance in His election. He wants them to understand that they are chosen and remain His chosen and favored people. When the people of Israel compared themselves to their neighbors the Edomites (the descendants of Esau), they saw that God chose to preserve Israel and punished the Edomites.

i. Obadiah promised judgment against the land and people of Edom. Apparently by Malachi's time it had happened, and God's choice of Israel assured His love for them.

ii. Understanding our election can bring a wonderful assurance of God's love. It means that God chose us before we existed and that the reasons for His choosing and loving us are based in Him, not in us. Knowing God chose us gives us a sense of boldness and confidence in our walk with Him.

iii. Understanding our election gives assurance of love but since the finished work of Jesus we have a new demonstration of love: But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

c. Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated: The choice of Jacob over Esau is a strong and classic example of God's election. God chose Jacob instead of Esau to carry the blessing promised to their grandfather Abraham. In some ways, Esau was a more likely candidate because though Jacob and Esau were twins, Esau was born first. Nevertheless Jacob was chosen, and chosen before he and Esau were ever born (Genesis 25:23).

d. Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated: How could God hate Esau? He didn't hate Esau in the sense of cursing him or striking out against him. Indeed, Esau was a blessed man (Genesis 33:9, 36:1-43). Yet when God chose Jacob, He left Esau unchosen in regard to receiving the blessing given to Abraham.

i. In his commentary on Romans (where Paul quotes this Malachi passage in Romans 9:13) Leon Morris cites examples where hate clearly seems to mean something like "loved less" (Genesis 29:31-33, Deuteronomy 21:15, Matthew 6:24, Luke 14:26, John 12:25). Yet he agrees with Calvin's idea that the real thought here is much more like "accepted" and "rejected" more than it is like our understanding of the terms "loved" and "hated."

ii. Remember the reason why election is brought up here: not to exclude, but to comfort and reassure. "A woman once said to Mr. Spurgeon, 'I cannot understand why God should say that He hated Esau.' 'That,' Spurgeon replied, 'is not my difficulty, madam. My trouble is to understand how God could love Jacob.'" (William Newell in his commentary on Romans)

iii. Malachi isn't teaching double predestination. "Malachi is not speaking of the predestination of the one brother and reprobation of the other; he is contrasting the histories of the two peoples represented by them . . . Both nations sinned; both are punished; but Israel by God's free mercy was forgiven and restored, while Edom was left in the misery which it had brought upon itself by its own iniquity." (Pulpit)

e. Our greatest error in considering God's election is to think that God chooses for arbitrary reasons, as if He made choices in an "eeny-meeny-miny-moe" way of choosing. We may not understand God's reasons for choosing and they may be reasons He alone knows and answers to, but God's choices are not capricious. They make perfect sense knowing everything God knows and seeing everything God sees.

i. Some consider God's election as conditional, in the sense that it is based upon foreknowledge. Others consider God's election unconditional, based on God's sovereign choice. Here, it seems that the election of Jacob was unconditional. Though God knew what sort of men Jacob and Esau would become His election was not based on that.

ii. One might say, "I don't believe in Jesus; therefore I must not be chosen." That is fine, but then that person cannot blame God at all for not choosing them if they refuse to choose Him.

f. And laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness: The idea of God's preference for Jacob over Esau also extended to their descendents. The nation descended from Jacob (Israel) was conquered by the Babylonian Empire, and so was the nation descended from Esau (Edom). Yet God restored Israel from exile and at this point Edom had not been restored. God chose to show more favor to Jacob and his descendants.

g. They may build, but I will throw down: God promises that Edom will be permanently ruined, and that their status as "unchosen" won't change. As a reflection of God's steadfast commitment to Israel, this is a comfort to God's people - once He chose Israel they stay chosen, and God will not forsake them and choose another.

B. Sacrifices dishonoring to God are exposed and condemned.

1. (6-8) Their second and third questions: How have we despised the LORD? How have we defiled His ministry?

"A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am the Father, where is My honor? And if I am a Master, where is My reverence? Says the LORD of hosts to you priests who despise My name. Yet you say, 'In what way have we despised Your name?' You offer defiled food on My altar. But say, 'In what way have we defiled You?' By saying, 'The table of the LORD is contemptible.' And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably?" Says the LORD of hosts.

a. Where is My honor? Through Malachi, God asks the priests of Israel why they show so little respect and honor to Him in their sacrifices. They call God Father, they call Him Master, yet they do not honor Him and reverence Him with their sacrifices.

b. To you priests who despise My name: The priests of Israel presided over the sacrifices and it was their duty to uphold the honor and dignity of the sacrifices. Yet they offered defiled food to God, and offered animals that were blind, lame, or sick.

i. Passages such as Leviticus 22:20-23 and Deuteronomy 15:21 clearly prohibited offering blemished sacrifices.

c. In what way have we despised Your name? The priests weren't even aware that they despised God with their actions. This means that it came by degrees; they probably did not know the extent of their offense, simply carrying on "business as usual."

i. In ministry, it is easier than many people think to blindly continue in sin or mechanical indifference. God wanted Israel's priests to think about their service to Him, and He wants today's ministers to think just as carefully.

ii. Richard Baxter, a great Puritan writer, carefully considered the walk of the minister: "But consider plainly that the great and lamentable sin of ministers of the Gospel is that they are not fully devoted to God. They do not give themselves up wholly to the blessed work they have undertaken to do. Is it not true that flesh-pleasing and self-seeking interests - distinct from that of Christ - make us neglect our duty and lead us to walk unfaithfully in the great trust that God has given us? Is it not true that we serve God too cheaply? Do we not do so in the most applauded way? Do we not withdraw ourselves from that which would cost us the most suffering? Does not all this show that we seek earthly rather than heavenly things? And that we mind the things which are below? While we preach for the realities which are above, do we not idolize the world? So what remains to be said, brethren, but to cry that we are all guilty of too many of the aforementioned sins. Do we not need to humble ourselves in lamentation for our miscarriages before the Lord?" (Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor)

d. You offer defiled food on My altar: The altar was the place of sacrifice, and it belonged to God. Yet the priests of Malachi's day disgraced God and His altar by offering defiled food to Him. Ministers today must never present defiled food to God in their ministry.

i. Pastor, your sermon is filled with funny jokes, clever anecdotes, and emotional stores but it lacks God's word. You throw in a few Scriptures here and there to illustrate or back up your stories, but your sermon is really all about you. It isn't about Jesus, it isn't about His Word. Pastor, you are setting defiled food on God's altar.

ii. Pastor, your sermon is sloppy - you don't do your work in the study, and you shoot from the hip. Worse yet, you don't labor in prayer and meditation over God's word and seek His message for the people. You don't hold fast the pattern of sound words. You don't rightly divide the word of truth. Pastor, you are setting defiled food on God's altar.

iii. Pastor, your sermon is cold - God forbid you should show some concern or passion in the pulpit. Your passion is reserved for other things - like football or golf. You can pontificate or argue with the best of them, but your messages have no deep passion for God or your people. You punch the clock and put in the time, but your heart for Jesus is cold. Pastor, you are setting defiled food on God's altar.

e. The table of the LORD is contemptible: The priests weren't grateful for their ministry, for their work before the LORD. They whined about what the people gave and the trouble of being a priest.

f. Offer it then to your governor! The priests and the people tried to give to God things that the government wouldn't accept as taxes. King David had a completely different heart, saying nor will I offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God with that which costs me nothing (2 Samuel 24:24).

2. (9-11) God will be glorified but will it be by His present people?

"But now entreat God's favor, that He may be gracious to us. While this is being done by your hands, will He accept you favorably?" Says the LORD of hosts. Who is there even among you who would shut the doors, so that you would not kindle fire on My altar in vain? I have no pleasure in you," says the LORD of hosts, "Nor will I accept an offering from your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; in every place incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name shall be great among the nations," says the LORD of hosts.

a. Entreat God's favor, that He may be gracious to us: This phrase is rich with irony. Moffatt's paraphrase gives the sense: Try to pacify God and win his favour? How can he favour any one of you, says the Lord of hosts, when you offer him such sacrifices?

b. Who would shut the doors: God thought it was better to shut the doors rather than to continue worthless worship. Not everything that is offered to God as worship is accepted by God as worship. Sometimes He would prefer that it just stop and simply says, "I have no pleasure in you."

i. We are concerned with church growth, evangelism, and planting churches. Yet in some cases the best thing we could do for the cause of the LORD is to shut the doors on many churches.

ii. "I am more afraid of profanity of the sanctuary than I am of the profanity of the street." (Morgan)

c. My name shall be great among the Gentiles: Yet, God will not go without worship. If the priests and people among the Jews will not worship Him in Spirit and in truth, God will find worshippers among the Gentiles.

d. In every place incense shall be offered to My name: This is a glorious promise that the true worship of God will extend all over the earth. Jesus' command to spread the Gospel and to go to every nation is part of God's way of fulfilling this promise.

i. "It is, therefore, inconceivable that a prophet should suggest that the nations of his own day were worshipping the Lord under another name (Isaiah 42:8). Rather is he proclaiming that the nations will come to know the God revealed in the Scriptures." (Baldwin)

3. (12-14) God promises to curse shallow, selfish, false worship.

"But you profane it, in that you say, 'The table of the LORD is defiled; and its fruit, its food, is contemptible.' You also say, 'Oh, what a weariness!' And you sneer at it," says the LORD of hosts. "And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick; thus you bring an offering! Should I accept this from your hand?" Says the LORD. "But cursed be the deceiver who has in his flock a male, and takes a vow, but sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King," says the LORD of hosts, "And My name is to be feared among the nations."

a. Contemptible . . . Oh, what a weariness! Their selfish, insincere worship was also unsatisfying to the worshippers. Because they did not meet God in their worship it was as hollow for them as it was for God. True worship is never contemptible or a weariness.

b. Cursed be the deceiver: In bringing God less than their best, they were deceivers, like Annanias and Saphira who pretended to surrender everything to God but really did not.

c. I am a great King: They simply did not treat God like a great King, one to be feared and honored. When we offer shallow, insincere worship to God we don't honor Him as a great King.

© 2001 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Malachi (Book Introduction)

MALACHI forms the transition link between the two dispensations, the Old and the New, "the skirt and boundary of Christianity" [TERTULLIAN], to which perhaps is due the abrupt earnestness which characterizes his prophecies. His very name is somewhat uncertain. Malachi is the name of an office, rather than a person, "My messenger," and as such is found in Mal 3:1. The Septuagint favors this view in Mal 1:1; translate, not "by Malachi," but "by the hand of His messenger" (compare Hag 1:13). Malachi is the last inspired messenger of the Old Testament, announcing the advent of the Great Messenger of the New Testament. The Chaldee paraphrase identifies him with Ezra wrongly, as Ezra is never called a prophet but a scribe, and Malachi never a scribe but a prophet. Still it hence appears that Malachi was by some old authorities not regarded as a proper name. The analogy of the headings of other prophets, however, favors the common view that Malachi is a proper name. As Haggai and Zechariah, the contemporary prophets, supported Joshua and Zerubbabel in the building of the temple, so he at a subsequent period supported the priest Ezra and the governor Nehemiah. Like that ruler, he presupposes the temple to have been already built (Mal 1:10; Mal 3:1-10). Both alike censure the abuses still unreformed (Neh 13:5, Neh. 13:15-30, the profane and mercenary character of the priests, the people's marriages contracted with foreigners, the non-payment of the tithes, and want of sympathy towards the poor on the part of the rich (Neh 6:7) implies that Nehemiah was supported by prophets in his work of reformation. The date thus will be about 420 B.C., or later. Both the periods after the captivity (that of Haggai and Zechariah, and that of Malachi) were marked by royal, priestly, and prophetic men at the head of God's people. The former period was that of the building of the temple; the latter, that of the restoration of the people and rebuilding of the city. It is characteristic of the people of God that the first period after the restoration was exclusively devoted to the rebuilding of the temple; the political restoration came secondarily. Only a colony of fifty thousand settled with Joshua and Zerubbabel in Palestine (Ezr 2:64). Even these became intermingled with the heathen around during the sixty years passed over by Ezra in silence (Ezr 9:6-15; Neh 1:3). Hence a second restoration was needed which should mould the national life into a Jewish form, re-establishing the holy law and the holy city--a work effected by Ezra and Nehemiah, with the aid of Malachi, in a period of about half a century, ending with the deaths of Malachi and Nehemiah in the last ten years of the fifth century B.C.; that is, the "seven weeks" (Dan 9:25) put in the beginning of the "seventy" by themselves, to mark the fundamental difference between them, the last period of Old Testament revelation, and the period which followed without any revelation (the sixty-two weeks), preceding the final week standing out in unrivalled dignity by itself as the time of Messiah's appearing. The seventy weeks thus begin with the seventh year of Artaxerxes who allowed Ezra to go to Jerusalem, 457 B.C., in accordance with the commandment which then went forth from God. Ezra the priest performed the inner work of purifying the nation from heathenish elements and reintroducing the law; while Nehemiah did the outer work of rebuilding the city and restoring the national polity [AUBERLEN]. VITRINGA makes the date of Malachi's prophecies to be about the second return of Nehemiah from Persia, not later than 424 B.C., the date of Artaxerxes' death (Neh 13:6). About this time Socrates was teaching the only approach to a pure morality which corrupt Athens ever knew. MOORE distinguishes six portions: (1) Charge against Israel for insensibility to God's love, which so distinguished Israel above Edom (Mal 1:1-5). (2) The priests are reproved for neglect and profanation (Mal. 1:6-2:9). (3) Mixed marriages, and the wrongs done to Jewish wives, are reproved (Mal 2:10-16). (4) Coming of Messiah and His forerunners (Mal. 2:17-3:6). (5) Reproof for tithes withheld (Mal 3:7-12). (6) Contrast between the godly and the ungodly at the present time, and in the future judgment; exhortation, therefore, to return to the law (Mal. 3:13-4:6).

The style is animated, but less grand, and the rhythm less marked, than in some of the older prophets.

The canonicity of the book is established by the references to it in the New Testament (Mat 11:10; Mat 17:12; Mar 1:2; Mar 9:11-12; Luk 1:17; Rom 9:13).

JFB: Malachi (Outline)

• GOD'S LOVE: ISRAEL'S INGRATITUDE: THE PRIESTS' MERCENARY SPIRIT: A GENTILE SPIRITUAL PRIESTHOOD SHALL SUPERSEDE THEM. (Mal 1:1-14)
• REPROOF OF THE PRIESTS FOR VIOLATING THE COVENANT; AND THE PEOPLE ALSO FOR MIXED MARRIAGES AND UNFAITHFULNESS. (Mal. 2:1-17)
• MESSIAH'S COMING, PRECEDED BY HIS FORERUNNER, TO PUNISH THE GUILTY FOR VARIOUS SINS, AND TO REWARD THOSE WHO FEAR GOD. (Mal. 3:1-18)
• GOD'S COMING JUDGMENT: TRIUMPH OF THE GODLY: RETURN TO THE LAW THE BEST PREPARATION FOR JEHOVAH'S COMING: ELIJAH'S PREPARATORY MISSION OF REFORMATION. (Mal 4:1-6)

TSK: Malachi 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mal 1:1, Malachi complains of Israel’s unkindness; Mal 1:2, of their irreligiousness and profaneness.

Poole: Malachi (Book Introduction)

THE ARGUMENT

Concerning this prophet, some have thought (but without good and sufficient ground) that he was an angel in the form of a man; others think him to be Ezra; but as it is the plainer, so the surer, opinion that he was a prophet of that name, and a man distinct from Ezra, and sent the last of all the prophets. His time of appearing among the Jews cannot be determined precisely, but it is best guessed to have been about the times of Nehemiah’ s reforming the strange marriages, Neh 13:23,28 , with Mal 2:11 , and when he reformed the sacrilegious detaining of tithes, Neh 13:10,11 , with Mal 3:8 , as Doctor Lightfoot observeth. Now this reformation of Nehemiah was about A.M. 3519, as Doctor Lightfoot, or 3545, as Helvicus, or 3589, as Archbishop Usher’ s Annals. Whatever was his time of appearing, it is certain he lived in a very vicious age, in which priests as well as people were leavened with either perverse thoughts of the Divine Providence, or brutish atheism, denying the Deity and Providence, contemptuous thoughts of the worship of God, sacrilegious practices, robbing God of tithes and offerings, shameless justifying these their practices, boundless or monstrous unfaithfulness to their wives, casting off Jewish to marry Gentile wives, or else superinducing the Gentile women, and enslaving the Jewish to them; casting off the law of God, or, which is equally bad, if not worse, wresting it to their own sinful sentiments. All which he doth severely reprove, and requires them to reform, and foretells the day of the Messiah’ s coming to sit as a refiner and purifier; whose appearing such sinners and sins would not be able to bear; and tells them of his forerunner, who in the spirit and power of Elias should come, and prepare a people for the Messiah: till then, (as their duty was,) he commands them in the name and by authority from God, that they remember the law of Moses, which God commanded in Horeb; hereby intimating some great change in the law at the coming of the Messiah; and intimating also, that they should expect no more prophet till the Great Prophet himself should come unto them.

Poole: Malachi 1 (Chapter Introduction)

MALACHI CHAPTER 1

God by Malachi complaineth of Israel’ s ingratitude, Mal 1:1-5 and of the profane disrespect shown to God’ s worship, Mal 1:6-13 . The curse of corrupt offerings; Mal 1:14 .

MHCC: Malachi (Book Introduction)

Malachi was the last of the prophets, and is supposed to have prophesied B.C. 420. He reproves the priests and the people for the evil practices into which they had fallen, and invites them to repentance and reformation, with promises of the blessings to be bestowed at the coming of the Messiah. And now that prophecy was to cease, he speaks clearly of the Messiah, as nigh at hand, and directs the people of God to keep in remembrance the law of Moses, while they were in expectation of the gospel of Christ.

MHCC: Malachi 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mal 1:1-5) The ingratitude of Israel.

(Mal 1:6-14) They are careless in God's institutions.

Matthew Henry: Malachi (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Prophecy of Malachi

God's prophets were his witnesses to his church, each in his day, for several ages, witnesses for him and his authority, witnesses against sin and sinners, attesting the true intents of God's providences in his dealings with his people then and the kind intentions of his grace concerning his church in the days of the Messiah, to whom all the prophets bore witness, for they all agreed in their testimony; and now we have only one witness more to call, and we have done with our evidence; and though he be the last, and in him prophecy ceased, yet the Spirit of prophecy shines as clearly, as strongly, as brightly in him as in any that went before, and his testimony challenges an equal regard. The Jews say, Prophecy continued forty years under the second temple, and this prophet they call the seal of prophecy, because in him the series or succession of prophets broke off and came to a period. God wisely ordered it so that divine inspiration should cease for some ages before the coming of the Messiah, that that great prophet might appear the more conspicuous and distinguishable and be the more welcome. Let us consider, I. The person of the prophet. We have only his name, Malachi, and no account of his country or parentage. Malachi signifies my angel, which has given occasion for a conjecture that this prophet was indeed an angel from heaven and not a man, as that Jdg 2:1. But there is no just ground for the conjecture. Prophets were messengers, God's messengers; this prophet was so; his name is the very same with that which we find in the original (Mal 3:1) for my messenger; and perhaps from that word he might (though, probably, he had another name) be called Malachi. The Chaldee paraphrase, and some of the Jews, suggest that Malachi was the same with Ezra; but that also is groundless. Ezra was a scribe, but we never read that he was a prophet. Others, yet further from probability, make him to be Mordecai. But we have reason to conclude he was a person whose proper name was that by which he is here called; the tradition of some of the ancients is that he was of the tribe of Zebulun, and that he died young. II. The scope of the prophecy. Haggai and Zechariah were sent to reprove the people for delaying to build the temple; Malachi was sent to reprove them for the neglect of it when it was built, and for their profanation of the temple-service (for from idolatry and superstition they ran into the other extreme of impiety and irreligion), and the sins he witnesses against are the same that we find complained of in Nehemiah's time, with whom, it is probable, he was contemporary. And now that prophecy was to cease he speaks more clearly of the Messiah, as nigh at hand, than any other of the prophets had done, and concludes with a direction to the people of God to keep in remembrance the law of Moses, while they were in expectation of the gospel of Christ.

Matthew Henry: Malachi 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Thus prophet is sent first to convince and then to comfort, first to discover sin and to reprove for that and then to promise the coming of him who shall take away sin. And this method the blessed Spirit takes in dealing with souls, Joh 16:8. He first opens the wound and then applies the healing balm. God had provided (and one would think effectually) for the engaging of Israel to himself by providences and ordinances; but it seems, by the complaints here made of them, that they received the grace of God in both these in vain. I. They were very ungrateful to God for his favours to them, and rendered not again according to the benefit they received (Mal 1:1-5). II. They were very careless and remiss in the observance of his institutions; the priests especially were so, who were in a particular manner charged with them (Mal 1:6-14). And what shall we say of those whom neither providences nor ordinances work upon, and who affront God in those very things wherein they should honour him?

Constable: Malachi (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title and Writer

The name of the writer is the title of this book.

"Malachi" means "my messenger." We know nothing of the prophet's parentage, ancestral or tribal roots, geographical origin, or other vocation. All we know is that he received and communicated the word of Yahweh to the Jews of his day.

Some scholars have tried to prove that "Malachi" was not the name of a prophet but the title of an anonymous prophet. None of the references to this book in the New Testament mention Malachi by name (cf. Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). The arguments for anonymity rest on four points.¹ First, "Malachi" is a title rather than a name in its form. The Septuagint translators rendered it "my messenger" in 1:1. However, it could be a short form of a name such as Malachiyyah, "messenger of Yahweh." There are several other shortened forms of names similar to this in the Old Testament (e.g., abi in 2 Kings 18:2, cf. abiyyah in 2 Chron. 29:1; and uri in 1 Kings 4:19, cf. uriyyah in 1 Chron. 11:41).

Second, the Targum did not consider Malachi the writer but ascribed this book to Ezra.² The Talmud credited Mordecai with writing it.³ But there is little other support for Ezra or Mordecai's authorship of this book. Third, Malachi appears in 3:1 as an anonymous designation meaning "my messenger," so it may mean the same thing in 1:1. However, the Malachi in 3:1 seems clearly to be a wordplay on the name of the prophet in 1:1. Fourth, this book was the third of three oracles (Heb. massa', 1:1) the other two being in Zechariah 9-11 and 12-14 (cf. Zech. 9:1; 11:1). Yet Malachi introduced his oracle differently from the way Zechariah introduced his.⁴ Furthermore, other prophets introduced their books by calling them oracles (cf. Nah. 1:1; Hab. 1:1).

If Malachi is not the prophet's name, this would be the only prophetical book in the Old Testament that is anonymous, which seems very unlikely.

Date

"Haggai and Zechariah . . . are noteworthy for the chronological precision with which they related their lives and ministries to their historical milieu. This is not the case at all with Malachi. In fact, one of the major problems in a study of this book is that of locating it within a narrow enough chronological framework to provide a Sitz im Leben [situation in life] sufficient to account for its peculiar themes and emphases."⁵

Malachi referred to no datable persons or events in his prophecy, so we must draw our conclusions from implications in the text and traditional understandings of it. Malachi's place at the end of the twelve minor prophets in the Hebrew Bible and modern translations argues for a late date. The Talmud grouped Malachi with Haggai and Zechariah as postexilic prophets.⁶

Malachi's reference to "your governor" (1:8) indicates that he wrote after 538 B.C. when Cyrus the Persian allowed the Jews to return to their land, which was under Persian control. The word translated "governor" is pehah, a Persian title (cf. Ezra 5:3, 6, 14; 6:6-7, 13; Dan. 3:2-3, 27; 6:7). Zerubbabel had this title (Hab. 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21) as did Nehemiah (Neh. 5:14; 12:26). Malachi must have written after the temple had been rebuilt since he referred to worship there (1:6-14; 2:7-9, 13; 3:7-10). This would force a date after 515 B.C. when temple restoration was complete.

Since Malachi addressed many of the same matters that Nehemiah tried to reform, it is tempting to date Malachi during Nehemiah's governorship. Both Malachi and Nehemiah dealt with priestly laxity (Mal. 1:6; Neh. 13:4-9), neglect of tithes (Mal. 3:7-12; Neh. 13:10-13), and intermarriage between Israelites and foreigners (Mal. 2:10-16; Neh. 13:23-28). Some have conjectured that Malachi ministered while Nehemiah was away from Jerusalem.⁷ In the twelfth year of his governorship, Nehemiah returned to Persia for an unknown period of time (Neh. 5:14; 13:6). Malachi probably wrote during the years Nehemiah ministered (445-420 B.C), and perhaps between 432 and 431 B.C., the years when Nehemiah was away from Jerusalem.⁸

Historical Background

Malachi was one of the three post-exilic writing prophets along with Haggai and Zechariah, and he was quite certainly the last one chronologically, even though we cannot be dogmatic about a date for his writing.

The first group of almost 50,000 Jewish exiles returned from Babylonian captivity under Zerubbabel's leadership in 537 B.C. Ezra 1-6 records their experiences. Haggai and Zechariah ministered to these returnees in 520 B.C. and urged them to rebuild the temple. Zechariah's ministry may have continued beyond that year. The events recorded in the Book of Esther took place in Persia between 482 and 473 B.C. A second group of about 5,000 Jews returned in 458 B.C. under Ezra's leadership. Ezra sought to beautify the temple and institute reforms that would purify Israel's worship (Ezra 7-10). Nehemiah led a third group back of about 42, 000 back in 444 B.C, and the events recorded in his book describe what happened between 445 and 420 B.C. including the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall. Malachi evidently ministered in Jerusalem during that period.

". . . Malachi's concerns are much different from those of either Ezra or Nehemiah, for he was almost wholly transfixed by concerns about the cult [formal worship].⁹

Life was not easy for the returnees during the ministry of the fifth-century restoration prophets. The people continued to live under Gentile (Persian) sovereignty even though they were back in their own land. Harvests were poor, and locust plagues were a problem (3:11). Even after Ezra's reforms and Nehemiah's amazing success in motivating the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem's wall, most of the people remained cold-hearted toward Yahweh. Priests and people were still not observing the Mosaic Law as commanded, as is clear from references in the book to sacrifices, tithes, and offerings (e.g., 1:6; 3:5). Foreign cultures had made deep inroads into the values and practices of God's people. The Israelites still intermarried with Gentiles (2:11), and divorces were quite common (2:16). The spiritual, ethical, and moral tone of the nation was low.

Place of Composition

Malachi ministered in Jerusalem, as is clear from his numerous references to practices that were current in that city and throughout Judah.

Audience and Purpose

The prophet addressed the restoration community of Israelites who had returned to the land not many years earlier from Babylonian captivity. His purpose was to confront them with their sins and to encourage them to pursue holiness.

Theological emphases

Like all the writing prophets, Malachi's chief revelation was the person and work of Yahweh. He presented Israel's God as sovereign over Israel and the whole world and as very patient with His wayward people.

Malachi also used the Mosaic Covenant as the ruler by which he measured Israel's conduct. He pointed out instances of covenant unfaithfulness and urged return to the covenant. He also reminded the Israelites of Yahweh's faithfulness to His covenant promises including promises of future blessing. Thus he sought to motivate his hearers to return to the Lord by convicting them of their sins and converting them to love for their Savior.

His notable messianic prophecy deals with His forerunner (3:1; 4:5). He would be like Elijah and would call the Israelites to repentance (cf. Matt. 11:14; 17:12-13; Mark 9:11-13; Luke 1:17).

Literary form and characteristics

Malachi's style is quite different from that of any other writing prophet. Instead of delivering messages to his audience, he charged them with various sins, six times in all. His was a very confrontational style of address. After each charge, he proceeded to back it up with evidence.

"Even a casual reading shows Malachi's use of rhetorical questions. Seven times he put them into the mouths of his audience (1:2, 6, 7; 2:17; 3:7, 8, 13, and perhaps 2:14). In addition he asked the people several rhetorical questions (e.g., 1:6, 8, 9; 2:10, 15; 3:2).

"The format of 1:2 is typical of Malachi's style. First there is God's statement: I have loved you.' Then follows the popular objection that questions the truth of God's statement--viz., How have you loved us?' Finally there is the justification for God's statement."¹⁰

Malachi used the question and answer method extensively. This method became increasingly popular, and in the time of Christ the rabbis and scribes used it frequently, as did the Lord Jesus. They also used rhetorical questions as a teaching device (cf. Matt. 3:7; 11:7-9; 12:26-27; Luke 14:5; John 18:38; Rom. 3:1-4; 4:1-3; 6:21; 7:7; 1 Cor. 9:7-13; Gal. 3:21; Heb. 1:14).

This book consists of several short paragraphs on various themes. There are no oracles against foreign nations nor any extended burden against Israel. There are no personal experiences to which the prophet referred, yet his style is straightforward, easy to understand, and beautifully designed.

Unity, canonicity, and text

Most scholars view the book as the product of one writer, and there is no textual support for viewing some verses as later additions. The dialog pattern that appears throughout the book argues for its unity. Its canonicity has never been challenged because it appears in all the authoritative lists of canonical books and is quoted in the New Testament. The text is well preserved.

Message¹¹

Malachi prophesied during the times of Nehemiah. The dates of Nehemiah's ministry were about 445-420 B.C. Possibly Malachi ministered during the time when Nehemiah returned to Babylon following the completion of Jerusalem's walls and Nehemiah's term as Governor of Judah (432-431 B.C.). This is only a guess, but it seems likely that God might have moved this prophet to minister when their godly leader was absent from them.

The conditions described in this last prophetical book are the same as those described in the last historical book of the Old Testament. Nehemiah deplored the defiled and corrupted priesthood, and Malachi's central charge was that the priesthood had corrupted the covenant (cf. Neh. 13:29 and Mal. 2:8). Nehemiah dealt with the mixed marriages and the evil that resulted from this condition, and Malachi spoke against the same evil (cf. Neh. 13:23-25 and Mal. 2:11-12). Nehemiah charged the people with neglecting the support of the priests so the priests had to become farmers to support themselves, and Malachi addressed the same condition and its underlying spiritual cause (cf. Neh. 13:10-11 and Mal. 3:8-10).

Ezra and Nehemiah had sought to correct certain external conditions as well as certain internal conditions that characterized the Jews who returned from Babylonian captivity. The external conditions that needed correcting were the rebuilding of the altar of sacrifice, the temple, and the walls of Jerusalem. They were successful in changing these external conditions, but they were less successful in changing the internal conditions of the people. It is these conditions that Malachi addressed.

Malachi charged the Jews with seven specific sins. In each case his contemporaries responded by challenging his criticism. They said, "How have we done that?" (cf. 1:2, 6; 2:14, 17; 3:7, 8, 13). Their response indicated a hardness of heart, a resistance to deal with the internal conditions in their hearts that needed correcting. Malachi revealed the sensitivity of Yahweh to their condition and the insensitivity of the people to it. They believed that since they were serving God as He had directed He was pleased with them. Malachi said that their hearts were not right with God, and that He was not pleased with them. The people had a form of godliness, but they were devoid of the power of godliness.

Malachi is different from Haggai and Zechariah, the other two postexilic prophets. Haggai's mission was to stimulate the returnees to finish the temple reconstruction. Zechariah's mission was the same but also to reveal the future as a hope that would inspire them to work. Malachi's mission was to move the returnees to get back into fellowship with their God. Haggai focused on the material, Zechariah on the material and the spiritual, and Malachi on the spiritual.

Specifically, Malachi revealed three things to the physically restored Jews to move them to spiritual restoration: the unfailing love of Yahweh, their failures, and the secrets of strength in an age of failure. Let me explain each of these major revelations.

First, Malachi revealed the unfailing love of Yahweh for His people. This is the master theme that recurs throughout the book. It is like the main melody that keeps coming back in a great piece of music. We find this theme introduced at the very beginning of the book (1:1-2a). We could render it, "I have loved you in the past, I love you in the present, and I will love you in the future." In other words, this is a revelation of the continual, unfailing love of Yahweh for His people. His love for His chosen people was constant. This is a wonderful declaration especially when we remember that it came to the Jews when they had no king, no high priest, and no spiritual power--only an outward form of worship in which the people trusted. Bear in mind, too, that this is the last prophetic message that came to the Jews before 400 years of silence from heaven and the provision of their Messiah.

It is a message that God still loved His people as He always had and as He always would. The dominant theme in this book is God's "I love you." As we hear the sub-themes of Israel's sevenfold spiritual failures, this major theme constantly keeps coming back and reminding us of God's love in spite of His people's many sins. The mixing of these themes reveals that God was conscious of His people's sins and loved them anyway. So the book is not only a revelation of the constancy of God's love but also a revelation of the constancy of His love in view of His consciousness of their sins. The chief sinfulness of form without reality is that it hurts the heart of God because it expresses a heartless response to God's love.

Second, Malachi reveals human failure. It clarifies that no motive other than love for God can sustain a proper spiritual relationship with God (cf. John 21:15-17). It is possible to attend the place of worship, to go through the motions of worship, and even to make sacrifices of worship, and still not worship God--to have no fellowship with God. When these Jews lost their love for Yahweh, all their religious observances became as a noisy gong and as a clanging cymbal, noise but not music.

When true love departs, a certain callousness sets in. We see this in the people's response to the Lord's reminder of His love for them. They replied, "How have you loved us?" (1:2). That attitude is the root of all sin (cf. Gen. 3). Since this is how these Jews felt, it is no wonder that, as Malachi pointed out, they failed God in so many other specific ways. The hour in which we begin to cease to love God is the hour in which we begin to wonder whether God really loves us. Then our worship of God, if we continue it, becomes only formal, not real. Then there is no real power in our lives, only a form of godliness.

Third, Malachi reveals the secrets of strength in an age of failure. We hear this theme in 3:16. There was a smaller remnant among the remnant who returned from Babylon. This faithful remnant listened to and heeded the prophet's words. Notice what they did that led God to take note of them and to honor them in a special way.

They feared the Lord. "Fear" is the term that throughout the Old Testament refers to someone's reverence for the Lord that arises from an awareness of His love, on the one hand, and His wrath, on the other. Some of Malachi's hearers, reminded of His constant love for them, feared Him. And they esteemed His name. That is, they gave some thought to the wealth of goodness that had flowed, was flowing, and would flow from Himself. God's names reveal aspects of His character, for instance, Yahweh Jirah, Yahweh Nissi, Yahweh Shalom, Yahweh Tsidkenu, Yahweh Shammah, etc. As these people meditated on their God, as He had revealed Himself, they remembered how rich they were. Proverbs 18:10 says, "The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runs into it and is safe." These Jews had nowhere else to run. Their nation was no longer grand and glorious, their priests had corrupted the covenant, and the kings had passed away. All they had left was the name of their God, so some of them thought about that and found wealth in their spiritual poverty.

Notice that these remnant Jews who feared the Lord "spoke to one another" (3:16). Not only did they think on the name of the Lord individually, but they also shared their common thoughts with one another. That is the essence of fellowship. So a second resource for times when people fail to have fellowship with God because of lack of love for Him is fellowship with like-minded believers who do appreciate His name.

The result of this activity, fearing the Lord and having fellowship with the faithful, was that "the Lord gave attention and heard" (3:16). The word translated "gave attention" means "hearkened," as when a dog picks up its ears when it hears its master's voice. What these people did caught the Lord's attention. He hearkened to them, and He "heard" or listened attentively to what they said. God always listens carefully to the conversation of those who bind themselves together with other believers who genuinely fear Him and who reflect on His great name.

The fourth secret of strength is hope (4:1-2). Malachi revealed that the sun of righteousness will appear. That is, righteousness will dawn on the earth like the rising sun. This will happen when Jesus Christ appears bringing righteousness to the earth. Then two things will happen. He will burn up, like the sun, what is dead and dry, those whose relationship with God is only a formal one. But He will also provide healing for those whose relationship with Him is real, those who love to meditate on God and fear Him. Thus the same sun will burn some and heal others. This happened initially when Jesus came the first time, but it will happen finally when He comes the second time.

The last word of the Old Testament is a reminder of the coming of this day of the Lord. So is the last word of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation. Therefore it must be very important that all people remember that this day is coming and live in the light of it. Let us, too, live by meditating on God and fearing Him, maintaining fellowship with others who do the same, with our eyes on the horizon of history waiting for "the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).

I would summarize the message of this book this way. Appreciating God's constant love is the key to revitalizing present spiritual life and assuring future divine blessing.

Constable: Malachi (Outline)

Outline

I. Heading 1:1

II. Oracle one: Yahweh's love for Israel 1:2-5

III. Oracle two: The priests' illicit practices and indifferent attitudes 1:6-2:9

A. The priests' sins 1:6-14

1. Disrespectful service 1:6-7

2. Disqualified sacrifices 1:8-10

3. Disdainful attitudes 1:11-14

B. The priests' warning 2:1-9

IV. Oracle three: The people's mixed marriages and divorces 2:10-16

V. Oracle four: The problem of God's justice 2:17-3:6

VI. Oracle five: The people's sin of robbing God 3:7-12

VII. Oracle six: The arrogant and the humble 3:13-4:3

A. The people's arrogance 3:13-15

B. The remnant's humility 3:16

C. The coming judgment of Israel 3:17-4:3

VIII. A concluding promise and warning 4:4-6

Constable: Malachi

Malachi

Bibliography

Alden, Robert L. "Malachi." In Daniel-Minor Prophets. Vol. 7 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 1964; revised ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Blaising, Craig A. "Malachi." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 1573-89. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Bright, John A. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Does God Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99.

_____. "A Theology of the Minor Prophets." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 397-433. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H. Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. London: SCM, 1967.

Freeman, Hobart E. An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Kalluveettil, Paul. Declaration and Covenant. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982.

McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Merrill, Eugene H. An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Moran, William L. "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963):77-87.

Wood, Leon J. The Prophets of Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Malachi (Book Introduction)

THE PROPHECY OF MALACHIAS.

INTRODUCTION.

Malachias, whose name signifies "the angel of the Lord," was contemporary with Nehemias, and by some is believed to have been the same person with Esdras. He was the last of the prophets, in the order of time, and flourished about four hundred years before Christ. He foretells the coming of Christ; the reprobation of the Jews and their sacrifices; and the calling of the Gentiles, who shall offer up to God in every place an acceptable sacrifice. (Challoner) --- He also clearly speaks of the twofold coming of Christ, preceded by [John] the Baptist and by Elias. Nothing is known for certain respecting this prophet. He inveighs against the same crimes as Nehemias, to whose covenant he alludes, chap. ii. 4. None was afterwards recognized for a prophet till the Baptist appeared. (Calmet) --- Both priests and people are here reproved, and the Jewish law yields to that of Christ. (Worthington) --- No date is prefixed no more than to the works of Jonas, Nahum, &c. St. Jerome seems to fix on the seventh year of Artaxerxes, when Esrdras came to Jerusalem. Liber ejus pro titulo sit. (Haydock)

Gill: Malachi (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI

This book, in the Hebrew copies, is called "Sepher Malachi", the Book of Malachi; in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Malachi"; in the Syriac and Arabic versions, "the Prophecy of the Prophet Malachi"; According to Lactantius ^a, Zechariah was the last of the prophets; but the more commonly received opinion, and the truest, is, that Malachi was the last; hence Aben Ezra calls him Myaybnh Pwo, "the end of the prophets"; and by Kimchi he is said to be, Mbv Nwrxa "the last of them"; and sometimes, by the Rabbins, Myaybnh Mtwx, "the seal of the prophets" ^b; by whom they are all sealed up, concluded, and finished. His name signifies "my angel", as is commonly said; though Hillerus ^c makes it to signify "the angel of the Lord"; hence some have thought that he was not a man, but an angel; and so the Septuagint render ykalm dyb, in the first verse Mal 1:1, "by the hand of his angel"; and others have thought that the book takes its name, not from the author of it, but from the mention that is made of the messenger or angel of the Lord, John the Baptist, in Mal 3:1 but the more prevailing opinion is, that Malachi is the name of a man, the writer of the book, about whom the Jews have been divided. Rab Nachman says Malachi was Mordecai; and that he was so called because he was second to the king. R. Joshua ben Korcha contradicts him, and affirms Malachi is Ezra; and to him agrees the Chaldee paraphrase on Mal 1:1 which says, that Malachi, his name is called Ezra the scribe; but, as Kimchi observes, Ezra is never called a prophet, as Malachi is, only a scribe; wherefore in the Talmud ^d, where this matter is debated, it is concluded thus; but the wise men say, Malachi is his name; that is, it is the proper name of a man; there was a man of this name, that wrote this prophecy; not Mordecai, nor Ezra, nor Zerubbabel, nor Nehemiah, as some have thought; but Malachi: and if the accounts of Epiphanius ^e and Isidore ^f are to be credited, this prophet was born at Sapho, in the tribe of Zebulun; and had his name from his beautiful form, and unblemished life; and that he died very young, and was buried in his own field. The time of his prophesying is not agreed on: the Jews commonly make him contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah; they say ^g that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, all of them prophesied in the second year of Darius; and Ganz, their chronologer ^h, places the death of these prophets together in one year; but he seems to be later than they: Haggai prophesied before the building of the temple; Zechariah about the time of it; and Malachi after it, when the temple was rebuilt, and the worship of God restored and settled; and when both priests and people were become very corrupt and degenerate, of which he complains; so that it is possible that he might live a century after the other prophets, and about four centuries before the coming of Christ, during which time prophecy ceased; though some think he lived not long before the times of Christ, which is not probable. Bishop Usher ⁱ makes him contemporary with Nehemiah, and places him in the year 416 B.C.; and Mr. Whiston ^k in the year 400 B.C.; Mr. Bedford ^l in the year 424 B.C.: however, this book has been always accounted authentic, and a part of the canon of the Scripture; and is confirmed by the passages cited out of it, and the references made unto it, in the New Testament, Mat 11:10. The general design of it is to reprove the Jews for their ingratitude to the Lord, their neglect and contempt of his worship, and breach of his laws; and to raise in the minds of the truly godly an expectation of the Messiah, and his forerunner, John the Baptist.

Gill: Malachi 1 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 1

In this chapter the Lord declares his love to the people of Israel, and proves it; and complains that the honour due unto him was not given him; which he demonstrates by various instances. The inscription is in Mal 1:1 showing the name and nature of the prophecy; the author of it; the people to whom it was sent; and the name of the person by whom. In Mal 1:2 the Lord affirms his love to the people of Israel, which they called in question; and proves it to be real, special, and distinguishing, by the instance of Jacob and Esau, two brothers; yet one, their ancestor, was loved, and the other hated; which latter is proved by the desolations made in his country, and by the fruitless attempts made to repair and rebuild; which was so clear a proof of the Lord's indignation against him, that the Israelites could not but see it, and would be obliged to confess it, to the glory of God, Mal 1:3 hence he passes on to observe the honour and fear that were due to him as a Father and master, which were not shown him; but, instead thereof, he was despised, and even by the priests themselves, with which they are charged, Mal 1:6 and which being objected to by them, is proved by offering polluted bread on his altar; and by polluting him, in saying his table was contemptible; and by sacrificing the blind, the lame, and the sick, unto him; things which would be justly resented, if offered to a temporal prince and governor, Mal 1:7 wherefore they are called upon by the prophet to pray to the Lord for grace and mercy for the people, seeing it was by their means (the priests) that these things were done; though it was questionable whether the Lord would have any regard to them, Mal 1:9 their sins being so dreadfully aggravated; and particularly, inasmuch as they did not serve in the temple, not so much as shut a door, or kindle a fire on the altar, for nothing, without being paid for it; hence the Lord declares he had no pleasure in them, nor would he accept their offerings; but would call the Gentiles by his grace, among whom his name would be great from one end of the earth to the other; and incense and pure offerings would be offered by them to him, Mal 1:10 and then he renews the charge against them, that they had profaned his name, by saying that his table, and the fruit thereof, were polluted, and his meat contemptible; by expressing a weariness in his worship, and a contempt of it; and by bringing the torn, the lame, and sick, as an offering to him, Mal 1:12 upon which such sacrificers are declared deceivers, and pronounced accursed, which they might assure themselves was and would be their case; since he was a great King, and his name dreadful among the Heathen, Mal 1:14.