“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, then where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is the respect due me? Says Yahweh of Armies to you, priests, who despise my name. You say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ You offer polluted bread on my altar. You say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table is contemptible.’ When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil? Present it now to your governor! Will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person?” says Yahweh of Armies.
“Now, please entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With this, will he accept any of you?” says Yahweh of Armies.
“Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you,” says Yahweh of Armies, “neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv6–10 God as already proved that he had by many…
God as already proved that he had by many favors been a Father to the Jews. They must have felt that he had indeed bound them to himself, provided they possessed any religion or gratitude. He now then concludes his address to them, as though he had said, that he had very ill bestowed all the blessings he had given them; and he adopts two similitudes; he first compares himself to a father, and then to a master. He says, that in these two respects he had a just cause to complain of the Jews; for he had been a father to them, but they did not in their turn conduct themselves as children, in a submissive and obedient manner, as they ought to have done. And farther, he became their master, but they shook off the yoke, and allowed not themselves to be ruled by his authority.
As to the word, Father, we have already shown that the Jews were not only in common with others the children of God, but had been also chosen as his peculiar people. Their adoption then made them God’s children above all other nations; for when they differed nothing from the rest of the world, God adopted them. With regard to the right and power of a master, God, in the first place, held them bound to him as the Creator and former of the whole world; but he also, as it is well known, attained the right by redemption. That he might then enhance their crime, he not only expostulates with them for having abused his favors, but he charges them also with obstinacy, because they disobeyed his authority, while yet he was their Lord.
Read full note →
He says, that a son who honors his father, and a servant his master. He applies the same verb to both clauses; but he afterwards makes a difference, ascribing honor to a father and fear to a master. As to the first clause, we know that whenever there is authority, there ought to be honor; and when masters are over servants, they ought to be honored. But in a subsequent clause he speaks more distinctly, and says, that a master ought to be feared by a servant, while honor is due to a father from a son. For servants do not love their masters; not being able to escape from their power, they fear them: but the reverence which sons have for their fathers, is more generous and more voluntary. But God shows here, that the Jews could by no means be kept to their duty, though so many favors ought to have made it their sweet delight. God had indeed conciliated them as much as possible to himself, but all was without any benefit. The majesty also of God ought to have struck them with fear. It was then the same, as though he had said, that they were of so perverse a nature, that they could not be led to obedience either by a kind and gracious invitation, or by an authoritative command.
The Lord then complains that he ass deprived by the Jews of the honor which sons owe to their fathers, as well as of the fear which servants ought to have for their masters; and thus he shows that they were like untameable wild beasts, which cannot be tamed by any kind treatment, nor subdued by scourges, or by any kind of castigation.
He then adds, To you, O priests. It is certain that this complaint ought not to be confined to the priests alone, since God, as we have seen, speaks generally of the whole race of Abraham: for he had said that Levi was advanced to the sacerdotal honor, while the other brethren were passed by; but he had said also, that Jacob was chosen when Esau was rejected; and this belonged in common to the twelve tribes. Now it ought not, and it could not, be confined to the tribe of Levi, that God was their father or their master. Why then does he now expressly address the priests? They ought indeed to have been leaders and teachers to the rest of the people, but he does not on this account exempt the whole people from blame or guilt, though he directs his discourse to the priests; for his object was to show that all things had become so corrupt among the people, that the priests were become as it were the chief in contempt of religion and in sacrileges, and in every kind of pollution. It hence follows that there was nothing sound and right in the community; for when the eyes themselves are without light, they cannot discharge their duty to the body, and what at length will follow?
God then no doubt shows that great corruptions prevailed and had spread so much among the people, that they who ought to have been examples to others, had especially shaken off the yoke and given way to unbridled licentiousness. This then is the reason why the Prophet condemns the priests, though at the beginning he included the whole people, as it is evident from the context.
We must at the same time bear in mind what we have elsewhere said -that the fault of the people was not lessened because the sin of the priest was the most grievous; but that all were involved in the same ruin; for God in this case did not absolve the common people, inasmuch as they were guilty of the same sins; but he shows that the most grievous fault belonged to the teachers, who had not reproved the people, but on the contrary increased licentiousness by their dissimulation, as we shall presently find again.
He says that they despised his name; not that the fear of God prevailed in others, but that it was the duty of the priests to reprove the impiety of the whole people. As then they allowed to others so much liberty, it appeared quite evident that the name of God was but little esteemed by them; for had they possessed true zeal, they would not have suffered the worship of God to be trodden under foot or profaned, as we shall presently find to have been the case.
It then follows, Ye have said, In what have we despised thy name? As the Prophet at the beginning indirectly touched on the hypocrisy and perverseness of the people, so he now no doubt repeats the same thing by using a similar language: for how was it that the priests as well as the people asked a question on a plain matter, as though it were obscure, except that they were blind to their own vices? Now the cause of blindness is hypocrisy, and then, as it is wont to do, it brings with it perverseness; for all who deceive themselves, dare even to raise their horns against God, and petulantly to clamor that he too severely treats them; for the Prophet doubtless does not here relate their words, except for the purpose of showing that they had such a brazen front and so hard a neck, that they boldly repelled all reproofs. We see at this day in the world the same sottishness; for though the crimes reproved are sufficiently known, yet they, even the most wicked, immediately object and say that wrong is done to them; and they will not acknowledge a fault except they be a hundred times convicted, and even then they will make some pretense. And truly were there not daily proofs to teach us how refractory men are towards God, the thing would be incredible. The Prophet then did no doubt by this cutting expression goad and also wound the people as well as the priests, intimating that so gross was their hypocrisy, that they dared to make shifts, when their crimes were openly known to all.
Ye have said then, by what have we despised thy name? They inquired as though they had rubbed their forehead, and then gained boldness, “What does this mean? for thou accuses us here of being wicked and sacrilegious, but we are not conscious of any wrong.” Then the answer is given in God’s name, Ye offer on mine altar polluted bread. A question may be here asked, “Ought this to have been imputed to the priests as a crime; for had victims been offered, such as God in his law commanded, it would have been to the advantage and benefit of the priests; and had fine corn been brought, it would have been advantageous to the priests?” But it seems to me probable, that the priests are condemned because like hungry and famished men they seized indiscriminately on all things around them. Some think that the priests grossly and fraudulently violated the law by changing the victims — that when a fat ram was offered, the priests, as they suppose, took it away, and put in its place a ram that was lean, or lame, or mutilated. But this view appears not to me suitable to the passage. Let us then regard the meaning to be what I have stated — that God here contends with the whole people, but that he directs his reproofs to the priests, because they were in two ways guilty, for they formed a part of the people, and they also suffered God to be dishonored; for what could have been more disgraceful than to offer polluted victims and polluted bread?
If it be now asked, whether this ought to have been ascribed as a fault to the priests, the answer is this — that the people then were not very wealthy; for they had but lately returned from exile, and they had not brought with them much wealth, and the land was desolate and uncultivated: as, then, there was so much want among the people, and they were intent, each on his advantage, according to what we have seen in the Prophet Haggai, (Haggai 1:4,) and neglected the temple of God and their sacrifices, there is no doubt but that they wished anyhow to discharge their duty towards God, and therefore brought beasts which were either lame or blind; and hence the whole worship of God was vitiated, their sacrifices being polluted. The priests ought to have rejected all these, and to have closed up God’s temple, rather than to have received indiscriminately what God had prohibited. As then this indifference of the people was nothing but a profanation of divine worship, the priests ought to have firmly opposed it. But as they themselves were hungry, they thought it better to lay hold on everything around them — “What,” they said, “will become of us? for if we reject these sacrifices, however vicious they may be, they will offer nothing; and thus we shall starve, and there will be no advantage; and we shall be forced in this case to open and to close the temple, and to offer sacrifices at our own expense, and we are not equal to this burden.” Since then the priests spared the people for private gain, our Prophet justly reproves them, and says, ye offer polluted bread
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv6–10 He noteth their gross hypocrisy, which would not see…
He noteth their gross hypocrisy, which would not see their faults, but most impudently covered them, and so were blind guides.
Besides the rest of the people he condemneth the Priests chiefly, because they should have reproved others for their hypocrisy, and obstinacy against God, and not have hardened them by their example to greater evils.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv6–10 Mal 1:6 A son honoureth [his] father, and a…
Mal 1:6 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?
Ver. 6. A son honoureth his father] Heb. Will honour his father. Nature teacheth him this lesson, to reverence his father. Pater est, si pater non esset, said the young man in Terence; It is my father, I must not cross him. Our parents are our household gods, said another heathen, Yεοι εφεστιοι (Hierocl.), and to have all possible respect from us. To God and our parents, saith Aristotle, we can never make recompense. There is no nation so barbarous that acknowledgeth not this natural axiom, A son must honour his father, and a servant his master; as Eliezar did Abraham; the centurion’s servants him, by being at his beck and call in all things. Servus est nomen officii, A servant is not one who moveth absolutely of himself; but he is the master’s instrument, and wholly his, saith Aristotle, και ολος αυτου, and therefore oweth him all love, reverence, and obedience, as if he were many masters in one: the word here used for master is plural. Now from this principle in nature thus laid down, the Lord tacitly accuseth them:
Read full note →
First, Of ingratitude for his great love to them, evinced and evidenced in the former verses.
Secondly, Of contempt cast upon him and his service; as appeareth, first by the application of that natural law confirmed by the custom of all countries.
If then I be a father, &c.] As you commonly call me, and claim me, Jer 3:4 Joh 8:41 "We have one Father, even God." And you have been long since taught so to do by Moses, and told by what right I come to be your Father, though with an exprobration of your detestable undutifulness, Deu 32:6 "Do ye thus requite the Lord?" Is not he thy father (and is not he by the same right and reason thy master too?) that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established or preserved thee? Hath he not (more than all that) adopted and accepted thee so for his child; begetting thee again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1Pe 1:3, unless thou be still in thy sins, than the which thou canst not choose unto thyself a worse condition? All which considered, what more equal than that I should have both love from thee as a father and fear as a master? A mixture of both is required of all God’s children and servants, that they yield unto him an amicable fear and a reverent love, that they look at once upon his bounty and severity, Rom 11:11, and so call God Father, that they spend the whole time of their sojourning here in fear, 1Pe 1:17; that they fear God and his goodness, and Jacob-like, when they see nothing but visions of love and mercy, as he did at Bethel, yet then to cry out, "How dreadful is this place! There is mercy with thee, that then mayest be feared," Psa 130:4.
Unto you, O priests] Whom I look upon as the chief of my children, given me in lieu of Israel’s firstborn, the lot of mine own inheritance, that stand ever before me, and should by soundness of doctrine and holiness of life vindicate my name from contempt, and get me honour before the people. Singular holiness is required of ministers above others; a double spirit they had need to wish for, as Elisha. Things in the sanctuary were double to those that were common; as the shekel, cubit, &c. Ministers are called angels, and they must walk as angels, ne sit nomen inane crimen immane, lest God renew his old complaint, "The leaders of his people have caused them to err," Isa 9:16. It was the complaint of Pope Pius II that there was no notorious wickedness committed in the Catholic Church, cuius prima origo a sacerdotibus non dependent, the first beginning whereof arose not from churchmen. John Huss cries out of the priests of his time, Multa quae illi ordinem dicunt, &c. Many of these things that they call by the name of order have brought all things in Christendom out of order. Cornelius a Lapide, upon this text, in his Popish way, bewaileth it, that the ignorance and profaneness of many of their priests had given occasion to Luther’s heresy to spread the further. We also have no less cause to complain that the insufficiency and impiety of some of our ministry hath opened the black mouth of Campian and his Popish accomplices, to bark out, Ministris eorum nihil villus, their ministers are very base. For prevention, let the souls of ministers be purer than the sunbeams, as Chrysostom saith they should be; and let their lives be so unblameable that no man may speak the least evil of them without a manifest lie, &c.
That despise my name] This is the crime they are directly and expressly charged with. They had not honoured God as a father, feared him as a master; therefore they had despised and slighted him. Not to do God right is to do him wrong; not to reverence him is to rob him; not to bless him is to blaspheme him, Job 1:5. That is an excellent saying of Fulgentius, Deum si quis parum metuit, valde contemnit; huius, qui non memorat beneficentiam, auger iniuriam; i.e. whoso feareth God but a little slights him overmuch; and he that maketh not honourable mention of his bounty doth him a great deal of injury. The very not serving of God, the not sacrificing to him, is a crime, Mal 3:18 Ecc 9:2. How much more, then, a slubbered service, a corrupt sacrifice! There is a contempt in this latter which is worse than a bare neglect; and displeasing service is double dishonour. Hence the present contest with those greasy priests that despised God’s name: the Septuagint hath it, Ye that esteem my name at a low rate, οι φαυλιζοντις το ονομα μου, that misprise it (as the French translateth it), that have base and bald conceits of me and of my nomen maiestativum, majestic name (as Tertullian termeth it), that take me not into your hearts under the name and notion of an infinite highness, the great and mighty Maker and Monarch of the whole world. Our safest eloquence concerning God is our silence, saith Hooker. But if we take in hand to say anything of him, Nullis vocibus tam plene Deum significamus (saith learned Scaliger), quam iis quae ignorantiam nostrum praetendunt, we can set forth God so fully by no words as by those that set forth our ignorance of his excellence. The very heathens, when they would swear by their Jupiter, out of the mere dread and reverence of his name, forbare to mention him. The Jews would not pronounce the name Jehovah, here used in the text. The first among the Christians that pronounced Jehovah was Petrus Galatinus, following the pronunciation of the Syriacs and Greeks. If at any time we take God’s holy and reverend name into our thoughts, Psa 111:9 (and truly we should think of him almost at every breath we draw, according to that "Let every breath praise the Lord," Psa 150:6), remember to think of God as of one at all to be thought of; as one whose wisdom is his justice, whose justice is his power, whose power is his mercy, and all himself, good without quality, great without quantity, everlasting without time, omnipresent without place, containing all things without extent, &c. This is to magnify God, to make room for him in our hearts, and the contrary is to despise his name.
And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?] Lo, the impudence of these frontless hypocrites. They traverse their accusation, stand upon their justification, and put God to his proofs. How ordinary is it with people still to palliate their sins and plead their innocence! Hos 12:8 "In all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin," that were a foul businness. But men have learned to draw a fair gloss upon a foul hand, to cast a colour, as the calf fish doth, to deceive the fisherman; to hide their sins, as Adam, Job 31:33, by downright denial, as did Cain, Gehazi, Ananias, and Sapphira, Gen 4:9 2Ki 5:25 Act 5:8; or else by excusing and extenuating, as Saul, 1Sa 15:20-21; or at least by a senseless silence, not acknowledging their sins, or being affected with them; but rather outfacing, as Judas, Joh 13:21 cf. Mat 26:23. Sin and shifting came into the world together, and so they continue. Satan knows there is no way to purge the sick soul but upwards; therefore he holds the lips close, that the heart may not disburden itself, and have ease, Pro 28:13.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv6–10 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his…
A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: this is a practical principle engraven on the hearts of mankind, a law which all own, a truth written with a sunbeam, and which is violated by none but unnatural, brutish men.
If then I be a father: this if no way doubts, but it is made a supposition grounded on a confessed, ancient, and peculiar adoption and redemption, by virtue whereof the seed of Jacob had God to their Father and Master; and this undisputed relation,
Read full note →
If I be, & c., doth more piercingly affect the mind when it is demanded, Where is your performance of duty, where the honour you give me?.
Where is mine honour? the internal, in high apprehensions and esteem with answerable affections; the external, in dutiful behaviour and carriage; where the ready, ingenuous, and delightful obedience, &c.?
If I be a master, where is my fear? servants do fear their masters, and this fear, though servile, yet is due to a master, it is a quality suiting the relation; and now where is either of them?
Unto you, O priests: had undutifulness and irreverence been found among the ignorant people who knew not the law, nor were in capacity of knowing me as yon, it might have been a little excusable, yet a great sin; but you, O priests, nearest of any to me, whose business is to know me, who live upon my sacrifices, have me in a most peculiar manner your portion, you have, like Eli’s sons, despised me yourselves, and made others do so too; thought and spoke contemptibly of what is most venerable.
My name; God, his sacrifices and oblations, his law and worship.
And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? proud and hardened, they dispute it with God and his prophets.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v6 The prophet is here, by a special commission, calling…
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?
Read full note →
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 (Kg2 16:14, Kg2 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv6–10 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his…
A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master,.... Or, "will honour", or "should honour"; it is their duty to do so, both according to the laws of God and man; and so the Targum,
"lo concerning a son it is said (or commanded) that be should honour his father; and of a servant, that he should fear (or show reverence) before his master;''
Read full note →
see Exo 20:12,
if then I be a Father; as he was the Father of his divine and eternal Son; the Father of spirits, angels, and the souls of men; the Father of all men by creation; and the Father of all mercies to them in providence, as he was to Israel; and, besides, was their Father by national adoption, as he was not to other people; and to many of them stood in this relation by special adopting grace:
where is mine honour? there is an honour due to God on account of this relation; which should be shown by loving him, trusting in him, calling upon him, imitating and obeying him, and by making use of what he has given for his glory; he is to be honoured in heart and life, by words and actions, and with our substance. This question suggests, that he had not the honour given him, which belonged unto him:
and if I be a master; the word is in the plural number, and may be understood of Jehovah, Father, Son, and Spirit; though the first Person seems rather designed, who stands in this relation to Christ, as Mediator; to the angels, his ministering spirits; to the ministers of the Gospel, and to all the saints; and indeed to all men, and particularly to the Israelites; as appeared by the special laws and commands he enjoined them, and by his special government, protection, and care of them:
where is my fear? fear and reverence are due to the Lord from his people, considered in such a relation to them; not a slavish fear of wrath and punishment; but a godly filial fear, which is influenced by the goodness of God, and appears in a carefulness not to offend him, and by the performance of all religious worship, both private and public; and in this not only natural men, but professors of religion, and even God's own people, are wanting; yea, those that should set examples to others, as men in public office, and of a public character, as follows:
saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name; for what is before said is not only said to the people in general; but to the priests in particular, who ought to have honoured and feared the Lord; and yet they despised his name, or made it contemptible; by not paying that regard to his authority, as a Father and master, they ought; by neglecting his worship, and not taking that care of offerings and sacrifices as became them:
and ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? as if they were entirely innocent and guiltless.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv6–9 O priests - Had undutifulness been found among the…
O priests - Had undutifulness been found among the ignorant people, it might have been a little excusable. But you, O priests, whose business is to know me, have like Eli's sons despised me yourselves, and made others do so too.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv6–10 Verse 6. A son honoureth his father] I am…
Verse 6. A son honoureth his father] I am your Father - where, then, is my honour? Where your filial obedience?
If I be a master, where is my fear?] The respect due to me.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 9 Mal 1:6. A son honoureth his father, &c. —…
Mal 1:6. A son honoureth his father, &c. — Since it is evident I am not only your Lord, and have a right to govern and command you by my creation of you, but also may be esteemed your Father, on account of the extraordinary benefits I have bestowed upon you, where are those proper dispositions which I might expect to find in you in return? namely, reverence for me, and fear of offending me, as your Lord and Master, and love and honour toward me as your Father. Unto you, O priests, &c. — What is here said is addressed in particular to you priests, because, being chosen and appointed, according to your office, to honour and glorify me, you ought to have been the first and most forward to do it; but, instead of that, you have been the first to dishonour me. Had undutifulness been found among the ignorant people, it might have been, in some measure, excusable; but you, whose calling and business it is to know, love, and serve me, are without excuse, because, like Eli’s sons, you have despised me yourselves, and made others do so too. The prophet adds, that perhaps they would have the assurance to pretend they had not done it, and to ask in what particular such a charge could be alleged against them? if so, he would enumerate the particulars to them, which he does accordingly in the following verses.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv6–10 A son honoreth his father, and a slave his…
A son honoreth his father, and a slave his lord - Having spoken of the love of God, he turns to the thanklessness of man. God appeals to the first feelings of the human heart, the relation of parent and child, or, failing this, to the natural self-interest of those dependent on their fellow-men. A “son” by the instinct of nature, by the unwritten law written in the heart, “honoreth his father.” If he fails to do so, he is counted to have broken the law of nature, to be an unnatural son. If he is, what by nature he ought to be, he does really honor him. He does not even speak of love, as to which they might deceive themselves. He speaks of “honor,” outward reverence only; which whoso showeth not, would openly condemn himself as an unnatural son, a bad slave. “Of course,” the Jews would say, “children honor parents, and slaves their masters, but what is that to us?” God turns to them their own mental admission.
“If I am a Father.” “Although, before ye were born, I began to love you in Jacob as sons, yet choose by what title ye will name Me: I am either your Father or your Lord. If a Father, render me the honor due to a father, and offer the piety worthy of a parent. If a Lord, why despise ye Me? Why fear ye not your Lord?” God was their Father by creation, as He is Father of all, as Creator of all. He had come to be their Father in a nearer way, by temporal redemption and adoption as His special people, creating them to be a nation to His glory. This they were taught to confess in their psalmody Psa 100:3, “He hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people and the sheep of His pasture.” This title God had given them in sight of the Egyptians Exo 4:22, “Israel is My son, My firstborn:” of this Hosea reminded them; Hos 11:1, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt;” and Jeremiah reassured them Jer 31:9, “I am a Father to Israel and Ephraim is My firstborn:” this, Isaiah had pleaded to God Isa 63:16, “Doubtless Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not. Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer, Thy name is from everlasting Isa 64:8. And now, O Lord, Thou art our Father; we the clay, and Thou our potter; and we all, the work of Thy hands.” God had impressed this His relation of Father, in Moses’ prophetic warning; Deu 32:6, “Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? hath He not made thee and established thee?” “God is the Father of the faithful:
Read full note →
1) by creation;
2) by preservation and governance;
3) by alimony;
4) by fatherly care and providence;
5) by faith and grace, whereby He justifies and adopts us as sons and heirs of His kingdom.”
“If I am a Father.” He does not throw doubt, that He is our Father; but, by disobedience, we in deeds deny it. Our life denies what we in words profess. “Where is My honor?” “Why obey ye not My precepts, nor honor Me with acts of adoration; praying, praising, giving thanks, sacrificing, and reverently fulfilling every work of God? For Jer 48:10. cursed is he that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully.”
“And if I am your Lord, as I certainly am, and specially by singular providence.” “He is our Lord by the same titles, that He is our Father, and by others, as that He has redeemed us, and purchased us to Himself by the Blood of His Son; that He is the Supreme Majesty, whom all creation is bound to serve; that, setting before us the reward of eternal glory, He has hired us as servants and laborers into His vineyard.” God Alone is Lord through universal sovereignty, underived authority, and original source of laws, precepts, rights; and all other lords are but as ministers and instruments, compared to Him, the Lord and original Doer of all. Hence, He says Isa 42:8, “I am the Lord; that is My Name, and My glory will I not give to another.”
“Where is My fear?” which ought to be shown to Me. “If thou art a servant, render to the Lord the service of fear; if a son, show to thy Father the feeling of piety. But thou renderest not thanks, neither lovest nor fearest God. Thou art then either a contumacious servant or a proud son.” “Fear includes reverence, adoration, sacrifice, the whole worship of God.” “Whoso feareth is not over-curious, but adores; is not inquisitive, but praises, and glorifies.”
“Fear is twofold; servile, whereby punishment, not fault, is dreaded; filial, by which fault is feared. In like way service is twofold. A servant with a service of fear, purely servile, does not deserve to be called a son of God, nor is in a state of salvation, not having love. Whence Christ, distinguishing such a servant from a son of God by adoption, saith Joh 8:35, “The servant abideth not in the house forever, but the son abideth ever: and again Joh 15:15, The servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth.” But a servant, whose service is of pure and filial love, is also a son, of whom the Saviour saith, Mat 25:21, Mat 25:23, “Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” But since a distinction is made here between the son and the servant, he seems to be speaking of servile fear, which, although it doth not good well and meritoriously, i. e., with a right intention and from love, yet withdraws from ill, and is the beginning of wisdom, because it disposeth to grace. Whence it is written (Ecclesiasticus 1:21), ‘The fear of the Lord driveth away sins,’ and again Scripture saith Pro 16:6, “By the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.”
“God requireth to be feared as a Lord, honored as a Father, loved as a Husband. Which is chiefest of these? Love. Without this, fear has torment, honor has no grace. Fear, when not enfreed by love, is servile. Honor, which cometh not from love, is not honor, but adulation. Honor and glory belong to God Alone; but neither of them will God accept, unless seasoned with the honey of love.”
“Saith the Lord unto you, O priests, who despise My Name,” literally “despisers of My Name,” habitually beyond others. The contempt of God came especially from those bound most to honor him. priests, as consecrated to God, belonged especially to God . “Malachi begins his prophecy and correction by the correction of the priests; because the reformation of the state and of the laity hangs upon the reformation of the clergy and the priest, for Hos 4:9, “as is the priest, such also is the people?” He turns, with a suddenness which must have been startling to them, to them as the center of the offending.
“And ye say, Wherein have we despised Thy Name?” Before, it was ignorance of God’s love: now it is ignorance of self and of sin. They affect to themselves innocence and are unconscious of any sin. They said to themselves doubtless (as many do now) “we cannot help it; we do the best we can, under the circumstances.” Without some knowledge of God’s love, there can be no sense of sin; without some sense of sin, no knowledge of His love. They take the defensive, they are simply surprised, like Cain, Gen 4:9, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” or many of the lost in the day of judgment Mat 7:22-23, “Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy Name? And in Thy Name have cast out devils? And in Thy Name done many wonderful works?” and yet were all the while “workers of iniquity,” to whom He will say, “I never knew you.” And Mat 25:44, Mat 25:46 says: “Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee?” And yet they “shall go away into everlasting punishment.”
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 10 Father. God sometimes took this title, Exodus iv. 32.…
Father. God sometimes took this title, Exodus iv. 32. But he was oftener represented as a master; and the old law was a law of fear. (Calmet) --- Servant et mertuunt jus. (Juvenal xiv.)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v6 Mal_1:6 to Mal_2:10
SECTION II
Mal_1:6 to Mal_2:10
Read full note →
Rebuke of the Priests
6A son honoreth7 his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father [but if I am] where is mine honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, O [ye] priests, that despise my name. And ye say, 7 Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer8 [offering] polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. 8And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice. It is not evil.9 And if ye offer the lame and sick, It is not evil. Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person, saith the Lord of Hosts? 9And now, I pray you, beseech God that He will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means10 [hand]; will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of 10Hosts.11 Who is there12 even among you [O, that there were one among you !] that would shut the doors for nought?13 Neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. 11For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and [ indeed, Keil and Köhler] a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts. 12But ye have profaned it, in the ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, [its food] is contemptible. 13Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it ! and ye have snuffed [puffed] at it, saith the Lord of Hosts: and ye brought that which was torn14 [stolen], and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should15 I accept this of your hand? saith the Lord. But 14[And] cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing16 [an unsuitable animal]; for I am a great King, saith the Lord of Hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.
2
1And now, O ye priests, this commandment17 [sentence, decree] is for you. If ye Will not hear, and 2if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings : yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3Behold, I will corrupt18 [rebuke, as in Mal_3:11; Psa_106:9; Isa_17:13] your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.19 4And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of Hosts. My 5covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. 6The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. 8But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted20 [or made void] the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of Hosts. 9Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as21 [because] ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mal_1:6. A son honoreth his father, etc. Jehovah expostulates with the priests for the unnaturalness of their disobedience. They stood in a peculiar relation to Him, were under peculiar obligations to sanctify Him in the eyes of the people, and yet they had profaned his name, and made Israel to sin. Jehovah begins with an indisputable moral principle. No one would deny that a son was bound to love and obey a father, and a servant to fear and obey his master. But if I am a father. He speaks in a conditional form, though Israel could not deny it, as though He would leave it to Israel to acknowledge Him as such or not. Jehovah was the Father of Israel, and Ephraim was his son. He was without dispute their master.
My honor, my fear. The suffixes are used here in an objective sense, the honor due me, the fear of me. The priests, instead of confessing their guilt, with hypocritical self-righteousness deny the charge of despising Jehovah’s name, and demand the proofs of this charge. Yet ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? A new sentence should begin with this clause.
The answer to this question is to be found in the first clause of Mal_1:7 : Offering polluted bread.
This we regard, with Maurer and Ewald, as an answer to the question proposed in the last clause of the preceding verse. By bread is meant here not the shew bread, which was not offered upon the altar, but any sacrifices, as the mention of the blind and lame shows. Sacrifices are often called in the law, the bread or food of God; Lev_21:6; Lev_21:8; Lev_21:17; Lev_21:21-22; Lev_22:25; Num_28:2; Lev_3:11; Lev_3:16. The bread is called impure, or polluted, because it does not correspond to the offering of a sacrifice with any blemish, such as blindness, or lameness, or any evil-favoredness; Lev_22:20; Lev_22:25; Deu_15:21. To pollute Jehovah is to offer polluted sacrifices. In poof of the charge against the priests, which they denied, Jehovah refers to what they said and did. They represent the altar as contemptible by their practice of offering sacrifices expressly forbidden.
The words, There is no evil, are not to be taken as a question, this would weaken their force, but are used in the sense of the priests, and in the mouth of the prophet are words of angry rebuke and bitter irony.
Mal_1:8. The prophet now uses an argumentum ad hominem, to show that they had treated Jehovah with less respect than they would have treated any human governor. Offer it now to thy governor.
The word translated, governor, is found in Jer_51:28; 1Ki_10:15; Neh_2:7; Neh_5:14, and means a heathen governor of a province. To accept a person, is to be favorably disposed towards any one, to espouse his cause.
Mal_1:9. And now I pray you, beseech God, etc. The prophet proceeds to make an application of the illustration in. Mal_1:8. If the governor will not receive worthless gifts, how much less will Jehovah!
The challenge to the priests to beseech God has been regarded by Jerome, J. H. Michaelis, and Hitzig, as an earnest call to repentance, and prayer for God’s mercy. But as the parenthesis (This has been by your hand!) most naturally means, Such sins have been committed by you ! and seems to be inserted to reiterate the charge, and silence any reply; as the question, Will he accept your persons? intimates that God will not do so, which is never the case where there is sincere prayer for his mercy, and as the next verse expresses a wish that the doors of the Temple were altogether closed, it is better to regard it with Calvin, Maurer, Ewald, Keil, Köhler, and Henderson, as conditional, and with a shade of irony. Should you intercede with God, will He accept any? The Septuagint puts it in the first person; “Shall I accept of you your persons?” The word מִכֶּם is understood by Keil and Köhler as meaning, on your account, but it is better to regard it, with the LXX. and Maurer, as partitive and emphatic: No one of you. The prophet adds; Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, that we may not forget that what he says was inspired of God.
Mal_1:10. Who is there among you, or rather, O, that some one among you would even shut the doors of the temple! The first clause is to be explained in accordance with a well-known Hebrew idiom as a wish, 2Sa_15:4; 2Sa_23:15; Psa_4:7; Job_19:23. Jehovah is so provoked by their illegal offerings, and the spirit which actuated them, that He would gladly see his whole worship discontinued. גַם, though placed first, belongs to the whole sentence, and is emphatic. By the doors are meant the folding doors, which led from the outer court to the court of the priests, where was the altar of burnt offerings. The reason for this wish is given, that the priests may not light a fire uselessly, to no purpose, upon Jehovah’s altar. The for nought, in the first clause in our version, is unnecessary. Jehovah characterizes their sacrifices as vain, because they did not accomplish their end. Jerome, Grotius, Henderson, understand by it in vain, gratis, without payment, and refer it to the avaricious disposition of the priests; but it is better to consider it to mean, without an object, An offering (מִנְהָה), by this is meant not the unbloody sacrifice of fine wheat-flour, mentioned in Lev_2:1-15, but all kinds of sacrifice, as the context shows where only animal victims are spoken of, and from its use in this sense in Gen_4:4, where Abel’s sacrifice of a lamb is called מִנְהָה, 1Sa_2:15; Isa_1:13; Zep_3:10.
Mal_1:11. For from the rising of the sun, etc. In contrast with the sacrifice which Jehovah rejects, he declares, that the hour is coming when the true worshippers, not in Jerusalem only but in every place, shall offer a pure, a sincere offering in spirit and truth, and a living sacrifice of their souls and bodies to the name of Jehovah, which has been despised. What an insight into the most distant future! How much is involved in this prophecy? The kingdom of God taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, the abrogation of the old dispensation wherein the worship of the Father was confined to one place (Deu_12:13), the coming of the hour “when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth:” the universal spread of Christianity. This prophecy is regarded by some of the Jewish Commentators, and by the Septuagint, and by Hitzig, Ewald, Maurer, Umbreit, and Köhler as a declaration of what was already the fact among the heathen who worshipped ignorantly the unknown Jehovah, under different names. If so, it would amount to the lines in Pope’s universal Prayer:—
“Father of all! in every age,
In every clime adored,
By saint, by savage, and by sage,
Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!”
In opposing this view we first deny the fact. So far from the name of Jehovah being great among the heathen, and a pure worship offered Him, they were sunk into the most abominable and inexcusable idolatry, they worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is God over all, blessed forever! It would be in conflict with other prophecies, Isa_11:10; Zep_2:11. Zec_9:10; Isa_66:20, and many others, which speak of such a worship as in the future.
Pocock, speaking of this Jewish interpretation, adopted by Ewald and others, well says, “What is it less than even an excuse, or apology for, if not a commendation of idolaters, and idolatry, as from the mouth of God himself, who all along showed them and their ways to be all most abominable to him.”
By incense is here meant prayer, of which it is a frequent symbol. This is admitted by the Roman Catholic commentator, Reinke, who observes. “that Malachi could not refer to literal incense is evident from the fact that the offering of incense could only take place in the temple.” If this is true of incense, why is it not true of the offering in the same sentence, associated with it here and in the law (Lev_2:15)? Yet Reinke understands it with the Church of Rome, as referring to the “bloodless sacrifice of the New Testament, the holy sacrifice of the Mass.” It is well known that the Church of Rome makes use of this text as its principal proof-text for the doctrine of the Mass. “That in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.” In the Canons of the Council of Trent, Sess. 22, we read, “that the Mass is that pure sacrifice which the Lord predicted by Malachi should be offered to his name in every place.”
Whately remarks of such a use of Scripture to support certain practices, that “the misinterpretation has sprung from the doctrine.” The doctrine has arisen first, and then the texts of Holy Writ are assigned to support it.
“In religion,
What error, but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text?”
The Church of Rome appeals here as elsewhere, to the almost unanimous consent of the Fathers. We may spend a little time in showing the unfairness of such an appeal, by quoting the principal passages in which they refer to this verse. They were governed by no fixed rules in their interpretation of Scripture, and were in the habit of accommodating every text which came to hand, to serve their purpose. An important distinction should be made between their interpretation and application of texts. They were given to a florid and ornate style, and their rhetoric has often been converted into logic. Köhler has very briefly brought together the principal passages from the Fathers, a synopsis of which we here give. Justin Martyr speaks of “the heathen offering to God, according to Mal_1:11, the bread and cup of thanksgiving,” but he proceeds to explain it, as used by metonymy for the true sacrifice of prayer and praise.
Irenæus also refers one passage to the elements of the Lord’s Supper, but only in the sense, “that Christians symbolically offer bread and wine to God in proof of their thankfulness, and after the offering pray the Holy Ghost that he would render them the body and blood of Christ, so that those who received them might obtain forgiveness of their sins and eternal life.” Irenæus regards faith, obedience, praise, righteousness, and prayer as the true sacrifices.
Origen, on Prayer, proves from our passage, “that every place is adapted to prayer.”
The Apostolic Constitutions require “the faithful to assemble for prayer on the Lord’s day, in order that, according to Malachi, their sacrifice may be acceptable to God.”
Eusebius Pamphilus sees in Mal_1:11 a prophecy of the abrogation of the Jewish ritual, “while Christians would offer to God the sacrifices of love, prayer, and remembrance of the great sacrifice, ἡ μνήμη τοῦ μεγάλου θύματος.”
Jerome, in his Commentary, explains this passage as, “spirituales victimœ sanctorum orationes Domino offerendœ.”
Augustine understands it of “works of mercy either to ourselves or to others.” “We ourselves are the best and noblest sacrifice” He speaks of the Lord’s Supper as shadowing forth the self-sacrifice of the Church to its Lord.
Chrysostom quotes this passage in proof, that the worship of God in spirit and truth should take the place of the Jewish service. He calls the Lord’s Supper only so far a sacrifice, as by the invocation of the Holy Ghost, the body and blood of the Lord are present for the enjoyment of the believers.
Cyril Alex., understands by this text in Malachi “the sacrifices of faith, hope, love, and good works which the heathen in the future shall offer.”
We thus see with what justice the Church of Rome appeals to the Fathers, and from this case we may judge of others, ab uno disce omnes. Then is not the slightest warrant to suppose any allusion to the Lord’s Supper in this verse; nothing is more common than to use sacrificial terms borrowed from the Old Testament ritual, in a spiritual sense, of the sacrifices of praise and good works, of the royal priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, and of the bodies of believers as living sacrifices.
Mal_1:12. But ye profane it. The prophet renews the charge of Mal_1:7 against the priests, that they profane the name of the Lord by offering defective animals.
And the fruit thereof, even its food. Its provision, that is, of the table, or altar, even its food.
Mal_1:13. Ye say also, Behold what weariness! Instead of regarding their service at the altar as an honorable privilege, they look upon it as an oppressive drudgery. Ye snuff at it, you show without any concealment and publicly your contempt.
Ye bring that which was torn, or rather plundered. Two bringings are mentioned, the first preparatory to the second, when the victim was presented, ready for sacrifice. The verse closes with an appeal to the priests, as in Mal_1:8, as to Jehovah’s acceptance of such sacrifices.
Mal_1:14. And cursed be the deceiver. The ו here should be translated, And cursed, cursed be he, who, when the law requires a male, brings one of less value. The law permitted and enjoined sacrifices of female animals in some cases (Lev_3:1; Lev_4:32; Lev_5:6).
We had better understand corrupt or blemished, (as in Lev_22:25), with Keil and Köhler, as masculine, and not as feminine, as Ewald, Maurer, Hitzig, and regard the curse as pronounced upon any one who redeemed his vow with an inferior animal.
The argument by which this rebuke is enforced is, that Jehovah is a great king, “Rex tremendœ majestatis,” and must therefore be served with reverence and godly fear.
Mal_2:1. And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. The rebuke to the priests is now followed by a threatening of the punishment which would ensue, if they did not repent. The word מִצוָה, commandment, is to be understood as in Nah_1:14 in the sense of decree, sentence.
Mal_2:2. I will curse your blessings. This has been understood by De Dieu, Rosenmüller, Hitzig, in the sense of revenues. Keil and Köhler interpret it of the blessings pronounced upon the people by the priests; these God will turn into curses; but it is not necessary to depart from the common and general sense of the word. Yea, I have cursed them. This is not a simple emphatic repetition of the proceeding “I will curse, as the LXX. (Κατάρασομαί), the Targum, Vulgate, Hitzig, Umbreit, Reinke, and Henderson maintain, but as the וְגַם, requires, is to be understood of what has already taken effect, the curse has begun. So Ewald, Keil, Köhler. The singular suffix attached to blessings is distributive, referring to every blessing.
Mal_2:3. Behold I will rebuke your seed. For you the seed, is emphatic. In Mal_3:11 we find the same word גָעַר used in the promised blessing. I will rebuke the devourer, or the locust. In Joe_1:13 the priests are called upon to lament for the meat-offering withholden, because the seed is rotten. In Hag_2:17 we find, “I smote you with blasting and mildew.” The passage in Joel shows, that though the priests did not till the ground, yet they were dependent for their tithes upon the harvest, so if the seed was cursed they would themselves suffer. This renders it unnecessary to change the punctuation of זֶרַע (seed) to זְרֹע (arm), with the LXX., Vulgate, Ewald, Reinke, Keil, Köhler, Pressel. Köhler has a peculiar view, that it refers to the arm which the priests raised to bless the people, but the hand would more naturally have been mentioned. It is understood by other Commentators to refer to the perquisite of the priests—the shoulder, but they were entitled not only to the shoulder but to other parts (Deu_18:3; Lev_7:32).
Still further to show how displeasing the conduct of the priests was in his eyes, Jehovah threatens that the dung of the victims, which was to be burned without the camp (Exo_29:14; Lev_16:27), should be spread on their faces.
And ye shall be carried to it. This clause has been differently understood, some making the dung the nominative, as the Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Ewald, Reinke, Bunsen; others, Jehovah. It is better to regard the subject as indefinite, they, some one—the people, as in Joh_15:6. “They shall gather them, and cast them into the fire,” or, more according to our idiom, it is to be translated ye shall be taken away with, or to it, where it is deposited, ye shall be treated as dung, as God said to Jeroboam (1Ki_14:10). The LXX. have, “I will take you to the same.”
Mal_2:4. Ye shall know that I have sent this sentence, etc. The word commandment is to be understood as in the first verse, as sentence, decree of punishment.
That my covenant may continue with Levi. Different interpretations have been put upon this sentence. Ewald, Reinke, Henderson, Rosenmüller translate it, Because my covenant was with Levi. Hitzig, Maurer, De Wette, Noyes, That my covenant might rémain with Levi.
The view more generally adopted and advocated by Luther, Calvin, Umbreit, Keil, Köhler, Pressel, is, that my covenant is the predicate, and that the decree of punishment is to be henceforth God’s covenant, that according to which he should deal with Levi, or the priests; the decree of punishment shall take the place of the earlier covenant with the priests. The objections to this interpretation are, that it is not plain and simple; that a different form of expression would have been made use of had this been the meaning, such as—My decree shall be instead of my Covenant; that covenant is immediately after used in its common sense; and that Levi, or the priesthood, is regarded as one throughout.
We may understand it as an elliptical construction. This decree is sent to you, that by your laying it to heart my covenant may be, may continue to be with Levi, as it was in the beginning, which he goes on to speak of; that you may not make null and void the covenant made in the beginning with Levi, and which Jehovah would have continued in his posterity.
Mal_2:5. My covenant with him was (of) life and peace, etc. Jehovah now speaks of the nature of the covenant made with Levi, or the priesthood, in order to contrast the character of the priests with that of their pious predecessors.
My covenant with him was life and peace. These nouns are not in the genitive, as the Septuagint, Vulgate, and the English Version make them, but are the nominative of the predicate. It is not necessary to confine this description to Phinehas, as Henderson does, though in Num_25:12 they are specially addressed to him.
And I gave them to him for fear. The design of the Covenant was to inspire him with holy fear and reverence. For fear, put by metonymy for the effect of fear; and the original priesthood corresponded to this divine intention: And he reverenced my name.
Mal_2:6. The law of truth was in his mouth, etc. His exposition of the law was according to truth, its true nature, and there was found in him no perverseness, no self-seeking, nor partiality. Thus he walked in most intimate and endearing communion with Jehovah, as did Noah and Enoch, in integrity of heart and life, and by his faithful instructions and warnings turned many to righteousness. Thus he fulfilled the design of the priesthood, which was to expound and apply to every case the will of God, as expressed in his law, and to be always ready to instruct the people. It was for this end the priesthood was appointed of God.
Mal_2:7. The priest is an angel, or messenger of Jehovah to negotiate the grand concerns of judgment and of mercy. This is the only passage, with the exception of Hag_1:14, where it is applied to the prophet, where we meet with such an application. Elsewhere it is applied to the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of the Presence, the Angel of the Covenant, in whom God revealed Himself, and through whom He transacted with man from the beginning.
Mal_2:8. But ye have departed from the way. Jehovah now reminds the priests how very different they were from their pious fathers. They had respect of persons; they had taught for hire (Mic_3:11). By their example and false expositions of the law they had misled many, and plunged them into sin, guilt, and perdition. They had made the law itself, instead of being a light and lamp to the people, a stumbling-block. As a just retribution for their sin, Jehovah will abandon them to the contempt of all Israel. According, in our version, should be rather, because.
DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL
Matthew Henry: “Nothing profanes the name of God more than the misconduct of those whose business it is to do honor to it.”
Mal_2:7 (1). What is the duty of ministers? The priests’ lips should keep knowledge, not keep it from his people, but keep it for them. Ministers must be men of knowledge, for how are they able to teach others the things of God who are themselves unacquainted with these things, or unready in them? They must keep knowledge, must furnish themselves with it, and retain what they have got, that they may be like the good householder, who brings out of his treasury things new and old. Not only their heads, but their lips must keep knowledge; they must not only have it but they must have it ready, must have it at hand, must have it, as we say, at their tongues’ end, to be communicated to others, as there is occasion.
(2.) What is the duty of the people? They should seek the law at his mouth; they should consult the priests, and not only hear the message, but ask questions upon it, that they may the better understand it. We must not only consult the written Word, but must have recourse to God’s messengers’ and desire instruction and advice from them in the affairs of our souls, as we do from physicians and lawyers concerning our bodies and estates.
Mal_2:8. The feeling of proper reverence for God and the services of his altar would indeed alone have dictated that what was offered to him should be the best and most perfect of its kind. Even the heathen were sensible of this propriety, and were careful that their victims were without blemish or imperfection. Thus, Homer in the Iliad, 1:66, makes Achilles propose to consult some priest, prophet, or interpreter of dreams to know whether the angry Apollo might not be, “Soothed with steam of lambs or goats unblemished.” Cowper’s Transl.)
Maimonides says: “There were no less than fifty blemishes, enumerated by him, which rendered an animal unfit to be offered on the Lord’s altar.”
Wordsworth: On Mal_2:7. The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, a memorable statement. The offering of sacrifices was indeed an essential part of the priestly office; but Malachi declares that all sacerdotal sacrifices are of no avail without religious knowledge, sound learning, and wholesome teaching. The first duty of the Levitical Priests,—and how much more of the Christian!—was to keep, or preserve knowledge; the knowledge of God as revealed in his holy Word, and so to discharge their sacred office, that, according to the Word of God, the people should resort to them for instruction in holy things, and not resort in vain, and unless this was done by them all their offerings and sacrifices were nugatory, and God would “spread dung on their faces,” in token of his displeasure. Here is a solemn warning to the Christian clergy. If such was the duty of the Levitical priesthood, and such the penalty of not performing it aright, how much more imperative is the obligation of the Christian Priest to “keep knowledge,” and to instruct the people in sound doctrine; or, as St. Paul expresses it, “to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, to meditate on these things, and give himself wholly to them,” to speak the things which become sound doctrine, to hold fast the faithful word, so that he may be able by sound doctrine to convince the gainsayers. And how much surer will be his punishment if he fails to discharge it! It is to be feared that this warning is greatly needed at the present day. The clergy of the Eastern Church, especially in Asia and Greece, have been degraded to a low condition with regard to religious and secular knowledge. Celebrated Roman Catholic writers deplore the ignorance of a great part of their clergy, consisting of mere illiterate Mass-Priests. See Dr. Dollinger’s The Church and the Churches.
In Protestant Germany the theological chairs of the universities are filled by those who have no pastoral experience in the cure of souls, and have none of that wisdom which is found at the side of sick beds and death-beds, and in church-yards at the grave, and have no mission from Christ, and no unction from the Holy Ghost; and many among them treat the Holy Scriptures as if they were a mere common book. Hence the theological teaching of the Schools has been divorced from the Christian Priesthood.”
W. Pressel: The requisition of the Old Covenant that the sacrifices offered should be unblemished and perfect, and that by a defective sacrifice the altar of God and the offerer himself were polluted, grew out of the truth which Malachi here in most convincing language represents to the priests, that defective offerings betray a defective disposition, a want of reverence for the Holy God. In the New Covenant, where all sacrificial worship has ended, this rebuke applies to all divided service of God, to all half Christianity, and to all those Christians, who, not influenced by reverence of the Holy One, and by earnestness in sanctification, think to discharge their Christian duty by certain ceremonies or good works. Where this is the case with ministers of the Gospel there is, as in the case of the Priests, double guilt, partly because they preach what they themselves do not practice, and partly, because they thereby cause a special scandal. The motives of the majesty of God, the example of the first priests, and the dignity of their calling to be a messenger of Jehovah, apply with no less force to those under the New Covenant. These arguments will have little effect, where personal thankfulness to God for his great love to us in Christ, and concern for our salvation through Him are wanting, but where they animate ministers of the Gospel, they must urge them to fulfill more truly and actively their high calling.
HOMILETICAL REMARKS BY PRESSEL
The close connection of the first and fourth commandments. He only, who has a lively sense of the presence of his God and Father, will honor and obey the fourth commandment, and he only, who knows what an earthly Lord and Father must require of his own, will feel himself impelled to obey the first commandment. In what way can we now pollute the table of the Lord? (1.) In the Sacrament, when we ourselves partake of it unworthily, or do not enough arouse the consciences of others. (2.) In life, when we allow in ourselves or in others committed to us, a half-way devotedness to the Lord.
How far does the seventh verse apply to a minister of the Gospel? He is still a Priest, so far as he should point to the sacrifice on Golgotha, and should bear his Church upon his interceding heart, and should bless them in the name of Jesus Christ. He is still a messenger of God to those committed to him, and should preserve his Word in the Church, should teach young and old out of it, and should testify fearlessly and faithfully what the Lord bids him testify.
Footnotes
[7]Mal_1:6.—יְכַבֵּד is not to be understood as Jussive, in the sense of a should honor, but as a future of custom or usage. The suffix in כְּבוֹדִי, my honor, is objective, as in Gen_9:2; Exo_20:17; Psa_90:11.
[8]Mal_1:7.—The first clause is the answer to the last clause of Mal_1:6 מַנִּיש is used in Mal_2:12; Mal_3:3, and in Lev_2:8, Amo_5:25, of offering. קַרב, used in Mal_1:8 : Offer it now to thy governor, is the more common word for offering.
[9]Mal_1:8.—No question. This greatly weakens its force.
[10]Mal_1:9.—Means (Hebrew יָד, hand.)
[11]Mal_1:10.—מִכֶּם, not causal, but emphatic, and partitive.
[12]Mal_1:10.—Who is there, etc., for: O, that there were! For the Hebrew idiom, expressing a wish, see Psa_4:7; 2Sa_15:4; 2Sa_23:15; Job_29:23.
[13]Mal_1:10.—הִנָּם, to no purpose, not gratis.
[14]Mal_1:13.—גָזוּל, stolen, not torn.
[15]Mal_1:13.—מַתְּלָאָה for מה־תְּלָאה.
[16]Mal_1:14.—מָשְׁחַת. Fem. Part. Hophal. The old versions, and many modern commentators, punctuate it with a final Kamets, as masculine. It occurs in this form in Pro_25:26. It corresponds to זַכָר, male.
[17]Mal_2:1.—מִצְוָה, sentence.
[18]Mal_2:3.—גָרַו. This verb, translated “corrupt,” occurs twelve times elsewhere, and is always translated: rebuke.
[19]Mal_2:3.—לָכֶם. Dative of disadvantage.
[20]Mal_2:8.—שָׁתַת, to make void.
[21]Mal_2:9.—כְּפִי, because (De Wette, dafür) (Köhler, Dieweil).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv6–10 Turning from the people to the priests, Jehovah asks,…
Turning from the people to the priests, Jehovah asks, whereas His love to the people was so great, where was their love towards Him? If the priests, as they profess, regard Him as their Father (Isa 63:16) and Master, let them show the reality of their profession by love and reverential fear (Exo 20:12; Luk 6:46). He addresses the priests because they ought to be leaders in piety to the rest of the people, whereas they are foremost in "despising His name."
Wherein have we despised, &c.--The same captious spirit of self-satisfied insensibility as prompted their question (Mal 1:2), "Wherein hast Thou loved us?" They are blind alike to God's love and their own guilt.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 9, 10 Rebuke of the faithless priests and people, Mal_1:6-14.
Rebuke of the faithless priests and people, Mal_1:6-14.
6. The prophet starts from a generally recognized truth. Son… servant Every one would admit that a son owes loving reverence to his father or that a servant should regard his master with respect and honor. But though Jehovah was the father of Israel (Exo_4:22; Hos_11:1; Jer_31:9) and his master, Israel being his servant (Isa_41:8; Isa_42:1; Isa_44:1), the nation has failed to render to him that which rightfully belongs to him.
Read full note →
Fear — Better, reverence (compare Isa_8:13).
O priests — Though the priests are addressed as the “soul of the national life,” the reproof applies with equal force to the whole people.
Despise my name — See on Amo_2:7; Mic_4:5. In the place of honor and reverence they bestow upon Jehovah insult and shame.
Wherein have we despised? — The prophet knows that this question might be raised by those who were accustomed to pass through the forms of religion but were unable to enter into the spirit of it (see on Mal_1:2); hence he immediately proceeds to answer it.
ISRAEL’S NEGLECT OF JEHOVAH, Mal_1:6 to Mal_2:9.
Throughout the entire history of Israel Jehovah showed himself a loving father and kind master; this would seem to entitle him to the people’s gratitude and reverence, but they fail to give him his dues (Mal_1:6), as is clearly shown by the fact that they offer to Jehovah gifts which a human governor would reject with scorn (Mal_1:7-8). No wonder that Jehovah refuses to listen to their prayers (Mal_1:9). It would be far better to close the temple and extinguish the altar fires than to continue this sort of service (Mal_1:10). The service rendered to Jehovah among the nations is preferable to that of the Jews, for it is pure and generous, while that of the Jews is corrupt and heartless; the offerings are small, the sacrificial animals diseased and worthless, and the little they do give they give grudgingly (Mal_1:11-13). Cursed be everyone who dares to insult Jehovah in this manner (Mal_1:14). If the priests do not heed the warning and render unto Jehovah the service acceptable to him he will send his curse upon them, that they may understand his purpose to maintain the ancient covenant with Levi (Mal_2:1-4). According to this covenant Jehovah promised to Levi life and peace, while Levi promised to fear Jehovah. Both parties kept the covenant faithfully; Levi served God, and by his faithfulness turned many to righteousness (Mal_2:5-6). Similar conduct is expected of all his priests (Mal_2:7), but how far short of the ideal do they come (Mal_2:8)! Therefore disgrace and contempt will be their portion (Mal_2:9).
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv6–10 Ch. Mal_1:6 to Mal_3:6. Rebuke and threatened punishment of…
Ch. Mal_1:6 to Mal_3:6. Rebuke and threatened punishment of the Priests and People
Ch. Mal_1:6-14. Rebuke of the Priests
Read full note →
O priests] On them first the rebuke justly falls, because they were chiefly responsible for the ungrateful return made by the people to the love of Jehovah. But in them, as its representatives, the whole nation is addressed and reproved.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv6–10 (6) A father.—God is distinctly called the Father of…
(6) A father.—God is distinctly called the Father of Israel in Deu_32:6; Deu_32:18. (Comp. Exo_4:22 : “My son, my firstborn, is Israel.”)
A master.—Comp. Isa_1:3.
Read full note →
Mine honour—i.e., the respect due to me.
My fear—i.e., your dread of me. Fear is twofold: servile, whereby punishment, not fault, is dreaded; filial, whereby fault is feared. The fear and love required by God of his children, are that reverence which loveth to serve Him, and that love which dreadeth to offend Him.
(6-14) The prophet’s rebuke for the dishonouring of God’s name is addressed to the priests as the responsible persons, but applies to the whole nation.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv6–10 Vers. 6-14. Israel had shown no gratitude for all…
Vers. 6-14. Israel had shown no gratitude for all these proofs of Gods love, and the very priests had been the chief offenders by offering defective sacrifices, and profaning the temple worship.
A son honoureth his father. The prophet commences with a general principle which every one allows, and argues from that what was the attitude which they ought to assume towards God. A father. God was the Father of Israel by creation, election, preservation, watchful guardianship. (see Exo_4:22 Deu_32:6 Isa_63:16 Isa_64:8, etc.) My fear. The fear, respect, reverence, due to me. O priests. He addresses his reproof to the priests, as the representatives of the people, and bound to lead them to obedience and holiness, and to be a pattern to the flock. Wherein have we despised thy Name? The priests have grown so callous, and have so obscured true religion by Pharisaical externalism, that they profess to be utterly unconscious how they have shown contempt of God. The Name of God is God himself and all that has to do with him.
Read full note →
The reverence due to God.
Earthly analogies to Divine relationships are instructive though imperfect. Neither the most absolute master nor the most affectionate father can adequately represent God. Yet God reminds us of the reverence due to himself from the fear and honour expected by them. The appeal should be most powerful to those who, like the priests here appealed to, are in any positions of authority. It should be a most tender plea to all parents. It falls in tones of deepest pathos on those who have received the adoption and the spirit of sons through Jesus Christ. But the appeal binds all to whom in any sense God stands in the sacred relations of "the Father of spirits". (Exo_4:22 Deu_32:6 Isa_63:16 Isa_64:8) We assume the case of a father who combines that wise authority and tender love which makes him a type of the heavenly Father. A son honoureth such a father
I BY OBEDIENCE. This is the first lesson a child must learn. After the early conflicts with self-will, it becomes part of the child-nature. It may rise to self-denial or even heroic self-sacrifice. Illust.: Henry Havelock, as a boy, waiting for hours in a crowded street of London, in obedience to his father, who had forgotten him; or Casa Bianca"s son blown up in the French flag ship at the Battle of the Nile. God is greatly honoured when our obedience is habitual and cheerful, when we "worship" the "sweet will of God," and can say, "I delight," etc. (Psa_40:8 Psa_119:128)
II BY LOVE. The instinctive love of an infant makes way for the intelligent affection, founded on esteem, which the youth feels towards a father who has trained him in habits of obedience. Disobedience begets dislike; submission strengthens love. The pruning and training of wise discipline is rewarded by the copious fruits of love. We most honour God when our love is not merely the love of gratitude even for redemption, but of complacent delight in the character of our Father. In that character there are no flaws such as a partial son may nevertheless see in his earthly father. (Jam_1:17) Let him not have to say Joh_5:42.
III BY REGARD TO HIS REPUTATION. A boy"s eye flashes with indignation if a stranger assails his father"s reputation. How do we regard the dishonour done to God by profanity, by reckless criticisms on his character and government, and on the work of Christ ("The Father wounded through the Son")? Can we say, with Christ, "The reproaches,"? (Psa_69:9) Let us beware, however, of the zeal of a Jehu (2Ki_10:16-31) or of the Pharisees. (Mat_23:15) Let our lives he answers to our prayers, "Hallowed be thy Name.
IV BY UPHOLDING HIS AUTHORITY.
1. When it has to be exercised in discipline on ourselves. (Heb_12:5-11)
2. When it is resisted by others. There is a rebellion in the great family of God which requires every true child to take an active part on the side of God. While grieved (Psa_119:158) and indignant, (Psa_139:21) we shall yet be labourers together with God, that in the spirit of the sinless Son we may seek by all means to save some. (1Pe_4:10, 1Pe_4:11)
Human claims impressing Divine claims.
The figure of fatherhood is used in Scripture to suggest God"s peculiar relation to Israel; and we are therefore invited to use the family sentiments and responsibilities in the endeavour to realize our obligations to God. Our Lord, in his teachings, made a similar appeal to family feelings: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews argues in a similar way, "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" It is true that arguments based on human relationships must take due account of human infirmities; but there is an ideal human relationship in every case, which men in their hearts recognize, and the obligations connected with it may always be safely applied to our relations with God. But there is a special point in Malachi"s pleading with the priests of his day. In common with Jehovah"s people, they came under the children"s claims and responsibilities; but, as priests, they were children honoured with special trusts. They were favoured children, and were bound to be model children. The obligation of the servant to the master is similar to that of the son to the father, but in the case of the child there is the help of personal affection. The two figures may be used to illustrate the point of this passage.
I A MASTER"S CLAIM ILLUSTRATES THE DIVINE CLAIM. "If I be a Master, where is my fear? saith the Lord." This is taking the lowest ground. There is no necessary affection in this relationship, There is simply obligation and duty. A servant is bound to serve. Apply to the priests, who were precisely the servants of Jehovah"s house, or temple. He had a right to claim service that would honour him, that would show a cherished sense of reverence and fear, and would make others think highly of him. But just that service the priests of the day were failing to render. Still, if no higher relation be realized, God claims our service as his servants.
II A FATHER"S CLAIM ILLUSTRATES THE DIVINE CLAIM. This is higher ground to take, because it is a relation involving personal affection, and the refusal of the claim is therefore the more unworthy. Work out that if the father figure as presented in the Old Testament was a great persuasion of the Divine claims, much more must the Father figure be as revealed in the teaching and Sonship of Jesus Christ. R.T.
Vers. 6-9. The profession and the practice of religion.
"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?" etc. The subject of these words is the profession and the practice of religion; and they suggest two thoughts.
I THE PROFESSION AND THE PRACTICE SHOULD ALWAYS BE IN ACCORD. "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master." This is stated as a fact. The son here, of course, must be supposed to be worthy of the name son. There are some children who are destitute of natural affection. What Aristotle of old said will be endorsed by all thoughtful men. "A son must always be his father"s debtor, because he can never repay him for those greatest of all benefits, birth and upbringing, and in these the fathers resemble God." This being so, and you Israel being "my son, my firstborn, a relationship which you profess, where is mine honour? If the language is, as some suppose, specially addressed to the priests, the appeal gets new emphasis. The idea is You profess to regard me as your Father and your Master, and you should, therefore, in your life treat me with honour, reverential fear, and loyal devotion. "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?" Any discrepancy between our profession and our practice is morally unnatural. Our conduct should accord with our creed, our deeds with our doctrines.
II THE PROFESSION AND THE PRACTICE ARE OFTENTIMES AT VARIANCE. The priests to whom these words were addressed practically contradicted their profession. They called him Father and Master, and yet see how they treated him in their sacrifices in the temple. Look at them in their offerings. They showed:
1. A lawless spirit. "Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar." This is directly contrary to the Law as given in Deuteronomy: "If there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the Lord thy God." "The sin with which the priests are charged is that of polluting God"s altar by offering beasts not ceremonially clean, unfit for sacrifice. Any beast was passed as good enough for sacrifice, the lame or blind, that had become useless for work, sick or torn, the beast that was dying on its feet, and could not be used for meat, or that which had been stolen, and so marked that it would not sell anything, in short, that could serve no other purpose, was good enough for God. His courts had the appearance of a knacker"s yard.
2. A niggardly spirit. Not only were they polluted, which is contrary to ceremonial law, but they were worthless: blind, lame, wretched skeletons were the beasts offered, worth nothing in the tidal or the market, mere refuse. "A cheap religion," says one, "costing little, is rejected by God, worth nothing: it costs more than it is worth, for it is worth nothing, and so proves really dear." God despiseth not the widow"s mite, but he disdains the miser"s gold.
3. A captious spirit. They say, "Wherein have we despised thy Name?" "Wherein have we polluted thee?" So blind aunt so insensible were they to moral propriety that they insulted the Almighty even in their formal efforts to serve him.
4. A thoughtless spirit. "Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts? And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts." This sentence is ironical: Ye dare not go before your governor with such presents; but come now, I pray you, enter God"s presence, and use your stock phrase of supplication, (Num_6:25) that he "would be gracious unto us." Will he regard your persons? How many who profess God to be their Father and their Master act out, even in their religious services, this lawless, niggardly, captious, thoughtless spirit! Herein there is the discrepancy between profession and practice. But, alas! how common is it!
With lip we call him Master, In life oppose his Word, We ev"ry day deny him, And yet we call him Lord!
No more is our religion Like his in soul or deed Than painted grain on canvas Is like the living seed.
In the balance we are weigh"d And wanting we are found, In all that"s true and Christly The universe around.
CONCLUSION. A fact narrated to me by the late Revelation Dr. Leifchild some years ago affords a striking illustration of the discrepancy between profession and practice in religion. He told me that there was an old lady in his Church, very wealthy, and very loud in her professions, and apparently very enthusiastic in her devotions, but whose contributions for religious purposes were of the most niggardly kind. One Sunday, in singing a hymn with which they closed the service of the Lord"s Supper, she being near to the table, be observed her as the deacons were going round, according to their custom, collecting subscriptions for the poor. It so happened that the verse they were singing at the time the deacon came to her with the plate wasWere the whole realm of nature mine, That were a present far too small: Love so amazing, so Divine, Demands my heart, my life, my all.
No one in the whole congregation seemed more hearty in shouting out those words with his voice than she. Meanwhile the deacon held the plate right under her eye, but she let it pass without enriching it by even a copper. D.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv6–10 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his…
Mal_1:6
A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master.
Read full note →
Christian reverence
There is a sin common among us, which we may be unwilling to recognise, the sin of irreverence; a want of respect for the presence, power, and majesty of God, arising from thoughtlessness or practical unbelief. We need not attempt to prove that God has a right to expect from us the fullest tribute of veneration which we can offer, for this truth is a self-evident one. He is the Creator; we are the creatures. He is the Redeemer; we are they whom He has purchased to Himself. He is the Sanctifier; we are they who need sanctification. He is Eternal, Almighty, Infinite; we are mortal, weak, finite. As His mercy claims our love, so do His power and goodness claim our reverence. This conclusion we must have arrived at, if we had only the light of nature; it is fully sustained by revelation. In order to serve God acceptably, we must serve Him with reverence and godly fear. But on this point we are lamentably defective, so that the reproof addressed to Israel in the days of Malachi may, with as great, or even greater, appropriateness, be applied to ourselves. Malachis censure was, in the first instance, applied to the priests. But as it was with the priests, so is it now with all. We do not deny that God is our Father and Master. With our lips we acknowledge Him, but our hearts are far from Him. We do not consider the force of our words when we confess Him, or what they involve. We speak of Him as our Father and Master, but we tacitly persuade ourselves that in His case the paternal and domestic relation is something different from what it is among ourselves; that we are not His servants and children in the same sense as we are with regard to such of our fellow-creatures as hold such a connection with us. And it is true God has this further claim upon us, that He is our God. But this is a consideration from which we shrink, and so endeavour to persuade ourselves that His Godhead rather diminishes than enhances His claims upon us on other grounds. Irreverence in Malachis days was shown by the character of the offerings made to God. Instead of bringing the best and most perfect, men thought it sufficient to sacrifice what was torn and crippled, what was cheap and paltry, what was of no value in the market. They offered to God of that which cost them nothing. Have we no temptation to commit precisely the same kind of sin? Look at the state of our churches; and negligence in church-repairs. It may be said, so as our hearts be right, it matters little under what external circumstances we worship. The Israelites might have offered a similar plea. But let us examine whether our hearts are right, and whether we have as much reverence for Gods presence in His house as we ought to have. It is not in Gods own house only that we show our indifference to Him. The manner in which we treat His name, His day, His Word, His ministers, His sacraments, all is so much evidence against us that we have not that abiding awe of Him which is due to Him. From what causes such a spirit of irreverence has grown, and spread till it has taken possession of us; in what was its origin, and how it has been fostered, I cannot now stop to express an opinion. The fact is before us, and the bitter fruits of our profaneness and irreverence are ripening day by day. I do not say that our national and individual irreverence will end in open apostasy, but the tendency is, of course, that way; and we are in the greater peril, because the infection has spread both silently and universally. What then must be done? Let each endeavour to realise to himself more fully than he has yet done, the presence of God among us. He is present in His Church, in His sacraments, in His ministers, in His poor; present among us everywhere, and at all seasons. We must watch ourselves in little things, and reflect continually before whom they are done. We must avoid speaking of religious subjects before those who are likely to ridicule them. As a Father, we must pay God the honour that is due. We must not forget that, as our Master, He claims our fear as well as our love. (F. E. Paget, M. A.)
The honour due to God
This text is identified with general and permanent principles, and it admits of a general and permanent application, to be interpreted as a just pleading by Jehovah on behalf of His own glory, with the whole family of man.
I. Whence the claim of god upon the young arises. From His character as Father. The reason why the Most High is thus represented is, because from His creative will and power men derive their being, and because by His providential arrangements and care their being is supplied and preserved. Hence His paternal character is extensive as the world and permanent as time. It is designed to be recognised by us as involving the two great attributes of authority and kindness--authority which is supreme and unimpeachable, kindness which is unfailing and unbounded.
II. What the claim of God upon you involves. He claims a Fathers right to be honoured. The mode of address here implies the guilt omission of men to render to God what is His due. Where Is Mine honour? A vast proportion of the human family have attempted to banish God as an alien from the universe He has made.
1. The honour which your Father requires is your adoring reverence of His perfections.
2. Your practical obedience of His law.
3. Your zealous devotedness to His cause.
III. How Is the claim of God upon you commended? He whom you are summoned to honour possesses an absolute right to you.
1. Your compliance with the claim of God as your Father will secure your dignity.
2. It will secure your usefulness.
3. It will secure your happiness.
Your consciences will be perturbed by no agitations. Your happiness will be that arising from gratitude and from benevolence. The knowledge that you have imparted happiness to others will be delightful. (James Parsons.)
The Fathers honour
The claim of God upon the confidence and obedience of man is based upon the unalterable fact that man is the son of God. For the answer to this ceaseless appeal to the filial instinct of humanity the worlds Father stands waiting with tireless patience and unspeakable compassion at the door of every heart. There is a stage in the spiritual development of most lives when this transcendent truth passes from a dim instruct into a radiant certainty, it is the stage of knowing the Lord. The instinct of sonship has never been absent from the race. The ancient Aryans spoke of the Eternal as Dyaus Pitar; the Greeks as Zeus Pater; the Latins as Jupiter; the Norsemen as Thor, each word foreshadowing with stammering lips the Pater-noster--our heaven Father. Christ alone revealed the truth in perfection, and taught it in power. He, the revealer of the Fathers moral and affectional nature in the limitations of a human body. This new clement infused into the thought of the world possesses individual hearts but slowly. The mind perceives that as the self-existent primal cause of all has conditioned Himself in natural phenomena that all thinkers might recognise Him as an Intelligence; so Almighty fatherhood has conditioned His moral attributes, His love, tenderness, and sacrifice in the workings of a human mind, and the words of a human voice, and the actions of a human life, in the Incarnation. As he looks on Jesus he sees Him as the great Sacrament of the Fatherhood, the visible embodiment of the all-pervading Father-Spirit. Just here comes in the searching power of the individual application of the appeal of God for the spiritual evolution of man. If I be a Father, where is Mine honour? The test of knowing the Lord is hearing the voice: ears that are deafened by the din of second causes hear not the voice. The conscious moral act whereby a son of God accepted the challenge, is deliberate mental disentanglement from second causes, and the recognition of God in every concern of life. The Fathers demand, Where is Mine honour? is not satisfied without witness, enthusiasm, and loyalty. The duty of witness is clear and inalienable. No son of God can claim exemption. As to enthusiasm; one characteristic of the civilised heathenism of the age is the undisguised contempt ever poured upon enthusiasm. The Archetypal Man was an enthusiast; He loved the people with passion, and He turned the world upside down. And loyalty to the heavenly citizenship, and the guidance of the Eternal Spirit. (Canon Wilberforce, D. D.)
A Fatherly exposulation
Every relationship has its rights and duties. Gods claims are paramount. As our Father He has a right to our veneration and love. He requires us to possess the filial spirit.
I. Consider the truth assumed. If then I be a Father. Gods Fatherhood has been generally recognised. He has always acted as a Father towards men--
1. In bringing them into existence.
2. In stamping upon them His own image.
3. In providing for their needs in the bounties of nature.
4. In redeeming them from sin.
5. In adopting them into His heavenly family.
6. In arranging life so as to discipline them.
II. Gods appeal in view of this truth. Where is Mine honour? This appeal is just and right. It is our duty to render honour to God. This involves--
1. Reverence toward Him. Always to speak of Him with respect and love; revering His ordinances; worshipping in His sanctuary.
2. Obedience to His commandments. Making them the rule of our lives, and delighting in them as the expression of His will.
3. Trust in His goodness. Believing that He will never err in the arrangements of His providence, but that all things will work together for our good.
4. Submission to His chastisements. Bearing affliction as from His hand.
5. By revealing His image. Showing in our dispositions and deeds that we are His children.
III. How this appeal should be responded to.
1. By serious reflection.
2. By true repentance.
3. By earnest prayer for the possession of the spirit of sonship promised in Christ.
4. By constant efforts to honour God in the future. (W. Osborne Lilley.)
Of Gods being the Father and Master of mankind
Consider--
I. How truly God is the Father, and the Master of mankind.
1. The Father. God gave being to the world and all things in it. St. Paul styles Him the Father, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, the Head of the rational system, the Father both of angels and men, who all derive their being from Him, and in the constitution of their nature bear some features and resemblances of the great original from whence they sprung. God created man in His own image. It is evident from our consciousness and experience, that we have such powers of perception and understanding, such a sense of good and evil, right and wrong, and such principles of honesty and goodness in our nature as ally and unite us to the Father of spirits, and give us a striking resemblance of Him, in some of His most glorious attributes and qualities. God is also to be considered the Father of mankind, as He has made an ample provision for the improvement and happiness of the excellent nature which He has given them.
2. The Master. As God hath all power in Himself, and as by this alone the universe subsists, all creatures whatsoever are necessarily in a state of subjection to Him. There is something implied in the notion of Gods being the Master of men, more than His merely exercising an uncontrollable dominion over them. But God is a perfectly holy, righteous, and good Potentate, governing rational agents according to the dictates of the highest sanctity and justice, and consulting their happiness in all His administrations towards them. That He is the righteous Governor of men is evident from His having laid us under the law of righteousness in the constitution of our being. The foundation of Gods moral government over men is firmly laid in His own nature and in ours. A just order is plainly prevalent in the conduct of human affairs, notwithstanding the irregularities and confusions which are to be observed in them.
II. What is that duty which we owe to God as Father and Master? Expressed in the terms honour and fear.
1. Honour. No sentiments are made universal and better known to the mind than those of respect, duty, and submission, which children entertain for their parents in this world. If this be the temper which becomes us with respect to the fathers of our flesh, how much more must we cultivate the same temper towards the Father of our spirits. Surely the devotion of our minds towards Him must rise into a perfect adoration of His goodness, accompanied with the sincerest gratitude and love, the firmest affiance in Him, the most absolute resignation to His will, and the most earnest endeavours to obey His laws and to imitate His purity and benignity in our whole conversation.
2. Fear. As the masters of this world are of different tempers and characters, so the fear of their subjects or servants in regard to them is of very different kinds. God has nothing in His nature resembling the qualities of the arbitrary or oppressive masters and rulers of this world. His government is founded on the maxims of perfect wisdom, goodness, and righteousness, therefore a slavish fear of Him can be no part of thee homage which His worshippers and servants are to pay to Him. The only fear of God which it becomes us to entertain, is a mixed affection of mind, made up of a high reverence of His perfections, particularly His wisdom, justice, purity, goodness, and power; an affectionate esteem of His laws, an earnest solicitude to obey those laws, and a great dread of transgressing them, from a sense of the baseness and odiousness of trampling upon the authority of our rightful and most gracious Lord and Saviour. The cultivation of these principles, the honour and fear of God, should be earnestly commended. Let us not, upon any pretences, excuse ourselves from the cultivation of a becoming temper towards the Deity, but cheerfully pay Him all that honour and love, that obedience and submission which, as our most compassionate and indulgent Father, and our most gracious and righteous King and Lawgiver, He claims and demands from us. (J. Orr, D. D.)
Truth learned from our human relations
As we form our notions of the Divine character and perfections from our consciousness of similar affections in our own minds, so all our ideas of the relations in which we stand to Deity are derived from the relations in which we am placed to our brethren of mankind. We could have no ideas or conceptions of the perfections of God unless we had some corresponding and similar powers in our own minds. Man was formed after the image of God; and, although that image has been tarnished and defaced by his fall and his transgression, he retains those capacities and susceptibilities of soul, which remind him of the moral glory from which he has fallen. He knows, from reflection on his own nature, and capacities, what is meant by wisdom, power, justice, truth, goodness. When he views these qualities as attributes of Divinity, he regards them as free from every imperfection, uninterrupted in their operation, and incapable of change or decay. In a similar manner we form our notions of the relations in which we stand to Deity, and of the affections and duties which these relations imply and demand. As we know of the relation of a father to his children, the Scriptures do not explain the nature of the relation, but urge the duties which it implies. In the very forcible and touching appeal of the text, we are reminded of that honour and obedience which we owe to God as His children and servants, and are pointedly charged with having withheld them. Endeavour to state the nature and reasonableness of that claim which God, as our Father and Master, has to our honour and fear, and urge the inquiry, whether the claim has been recognised and obeyed. The first characteristic of that honour and fear which a son and servant show to a father and master, is delight in his presence and society. Wherever the filial relation is felt and sustained with the affection which it implies, it prompts the child to seek the presence and company of his parent. A servant, too, that fears his master with sincere regard, delights in his presence. Similar to this is that honour and fear which God requires of those who profess to be His sons and His servants. If our relation to God be anything more than a name, His presence will be the object of our most ardent desire, and communion with Him the highest happiness we shall seek to know. But can this be said to be the experience or the taste of many who call God their Father and Master? In the second place, obedience to the Divine commandments is another indication of that honour and fear which God, as a Father and Master, demands of those who profess to be His sons and His servants. An implicit confidence in the wisdom of his parents is one of the earliest instincts which nature has implanted in the bosom of a child; and to merit parental approbation and love is one of the most amiable and powerful desires that influence his conduct. Every expression of a fathers will commands respect, and the sweetest music that falls upon the ear is the voice of paternal applause. It is this cheerful, childlike, and affectionate obedience which our heavenly Father claims from those who profess to be His sons and servants. We say, He is our Father--let Him have our filial love and obedience. We profess to bow to Him as our Master and Lord--let us devote ourselves unreservedly to His service and honour. In the third place, the relation should prompt a desire after resemblance of God in His moral excellence. The principle of imitation is one of the earliest and most active tendencies of our nature. As reason advances, the principle of imitation retains its power, and exerts its influence. Its power and influence are chiefly discernible in the resemblance which it generates in the temper and affections of the child to those of the parent. It is true that the tendency may be very strikingly modified by counteracting circumstances. But the truth holds good, that there is a strong and ever-operating tendency in a son to imitate his father; and where this imitating tendency is exercised by virtue in the parent, it is the source of the highest reciprocal satisfaction and delight, what the Father of our spirits requires of us is to elevate and ennoble this tendency to imitation by directing it to Himself. In the New Testament this imitation or resemblance of God is repeatedly pointed out as the prominent and characteristic distinction of His children. The moral excellences of the Divine character are presented as at once the sources of our comfort and the objects of our imitation. Only at an infinite distance from the moral glory of the Divine character the sons of mortality must for ever remain. In every renewed heart there is the ardent and ceaseless, and ever active desire to grow in resemblance to the moral grandeur which it adores and loves. In the fourth place, acquiescence in the appointments of His providence, and submission to His chastisement, distinguish those who are the sons and servants of God. In the exercise of his authority, and to promote the happiness and preserve the virtue of his children, the father must sometimes insist on privation and restraint, and give inflictions which he administers with reluctance and pain. Our Heavenly Father, who knows our waywardness and frailty, puts forth His hand in chastisement upon us. He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men. Then what is the state of mind in which they should be met and endured? Have the visitations of Providence always been met in a right spirit? Have we not often, by the fretfulness of our temper in the hour of visitation, evinced the absence of the childlike spirit that becomes those who profess themselves the sons of God? (J. Johnston.)
Obedience the practical test of affection
This address was made to the priests of the Lord, at a very corrupt age of the Jewish Church. The whole Church was exceedingly polluted. Every precept of the law was violated and every rite of the sanctuary perverted. It will be no violation of the spirit of the text if we apply it to an impenitent world, embracing those who have no show of godliness, as well as the whole family of false professors. We find in the lips of many who make no pretensions to a change of heart, high professions of respect for the character and government of God. They claim Him as their Father, and would have us believe that they respect and obey His laws. We inquire whether men of this character yield Him that filial esteem, that dutiful subjection, which are due to a Father and a Master.
I. Contemplate the government of God, and see if we can discover Him dealing with all His rational creatures as a Father and a Master.
1. As a Father and Master He protects them. This the son and servant expect. God keeps His eye on all His intelligent creatures, and puts underneath them His arm of mercy.
2. He provides for all His creatures. No man could make his seed vegetate, or render his fields fertile, or ensure success in trade independently of his Maker.
3. He makes us know His will. We have some lessons from the broad sheet of nature; but in His Word He has opened all His heart; has made every duty plain, and placed it in the power of every son and servant of His to do His pleasure.
4. He has made our duties light. The service He requires is pleasant and easy.
5. He provides for our future happiness.
II. How will a kind and dutiful son or servant treat a Father or Master?
1. The son loves his father, and the good servant his master. If we have any love to God, we must love His whole character, and must learn His character from the Bible. The question is, do that class of men who speak so highly of their Maker, love the whole of the Divine character? They are pleased with only a part of the Divine character. Hence they will deny such doctrines as clash with their views of God. If they loved God they would believe what He says.
2. The good child loves the society of his father; and the faithful servant loves to be with his master.
3. A good son and a faithful servant will be cheerfully obedient. A dutiful temper is indispensable in either of these stations. Will the class of men addressed in the text stand this test? Are they uniform in regard to their duty? Have they a tender conscience which fears to do wrong, fears to neglect a duty, fears to violate an obligation, dreads the least deviation from the most perfect rectitude?
4. The son and servant will each be attached to his father s or his masters family. Do these people attach themselves to the family of Christ? Do they love His disciples and choose them as their intimates?
5. The servant and son are very jealous of the honour of their father and master. But do we discover this delicacy of feeling in that class of men who would be esteemed religious, but who have no pretensions to a change of heart?
6. The kind son and the dutiful servant will wish to have others acquainted with their father and their master. (D. A. Clark.)
Devotion to a master
Admiral Sir George Tryon, to whose fatal error of judgment (his only mistake as a commander, it is said) the loss of the Victoria was due, was much beloved and trusted by his subordinates. As he stood on the bridge of the fast sinking ship, he was heard to say to a midshipman standing beside him, Go, my lad. Save yourself while theres time. But the midshipman answered, Id rather stay with you, sir. And he did. Christian! The duties and trials of life are daily testing your devotion to a Master who makes no mistakes. (S. S. Chronicle.)
Honour shown in conduct and in sentiment
A young man who occupies pleasant rooms in a large city was entertaining a guest from his country home. You see I honour my father and my mother, he said, pointing to two portraits which hung in prominent positions on the walls of his sitting-room. You do in sentiment, Frank, answered his visitor; but if you will forgive an old friend speaking plainly, your principles do not honour them to the same degree. Those portraits have looked down on a good many card parties and wine suppers and wasted hours. They have seen neglected the work which you came to the city to do, and your old habits of plain living and high thinking forgotten very often. Think it over, wont you? The young man, it may be said, did think it over, and he did not need another such reminder. Instances of inconsistency between sentiment and rules of conduct can be discovered by everyone in persons around him easily, in himself not quite so easily perhaps, but pretty surely. (Christian Age.)
A life expected worthy of the Divine Master
A former queen of Madagascar, gathering some of the palace officers together, said to them, I am aware that many of you are numbered among the praying people; I have no objection to you joining them if you think it right, but remember, if you do so, I shall expect from you a life worthy of that profession.
O priests, that despise My name.
The priests challenged
And ye say, Wherein have we despised Thy Name? This is the worst kind of impiety, because it displays utter ignorance of ones self. The caution is not against open or violent hostility; there may be simple ignorance, or unconscious contempt, or that sort of passivity and indifference which amounts to positive neglect. We go down not by a plunge, but by an inclined plane. The plane is lubricated, is well-oiled, so that we slip own little by little, and hardly know that we are slipping. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar. The retort is, Wherein have we polluted Thee? In this way. Ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. There the error was fundamental. This is the charge that is levelled against all men to-day. Why patter with incidental errors, why not lift up the impeachment to its proper dignity, and charge men with having left the Lord, with having turned their backs upon the Lord? (J. Parker, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v6 From Gods Love, which Israel have doubted, the prophet…
2. "HONOR THY FATHER"
Mal_1:6-14
Read full note →
From Gods Love, which Israel have doubted, the prophet passes to His Majesty or Holiness, which they have wronged. Now it is very remarkable that the relation of God to the Jews in which the prophet should see His Majesty illustrated is not only His lordship over them but His Fatherhood: "A son honors a father, and a servant his lord; but if I be Father, where is My honor? and if I be Lord, where is there reverence for Me? saith Jehovah of Hosts." We are so accustomed to associate with the Divine Fatherhood only ideas of love and pity that the use of the relation to illustrate not love but Majesty, and the setting of it in parallel to the Divine Kingship, may seem to us strange. Yet this was very natural to Israel. In the old Semitic world, even to the human parent, honor was due before love. "Honor thy father and thy mother," said the Fifth Commandment; and when, after long shyness to do so, Israel at last ventured to claim Jehovah as the Father of His people, it was at first rather with the view of increasing their sense of His authority and their duty of reverencing Him, than with the view of bringing Him near to their hearts and assuring them of His tenderness. The latter elements, it is true, were not absent from the conception. But even in the Psalter, in which we find the most intimate and tender fellowship of the believer with God, there is only one passage in which His love for His own is compared to the love of a human father. And in the other very few passages of the Old Testament where He is revealed or appealed to as the Father of the nation, it is, with two exceptions, in order either to emphasize His creation of Israel or His discipline. So in Jeremiah, {Jer_3:4} and in an anonymous prophet of the same period perhaps as "Malachi." This hesitation to ascribe to God the name of Father, and this severe conception of what Fatherhood meant, was perhaps needful for Israel in face of the sensuous ideas of the Divine Fatherhood cherished by their heathen neighbors. But, however this may be, the infrequency and austerity of Israels conception of Gods Fatherhood, in contrast with that of Christianity, enables us to understand why "Malachi" should employ the relation as proof, not of the Love, but of the Majesty and Holiness of Jehovah.
This Majesty and this Holiness have been wronged, he says, by low thoughts of Gods altar, and by offering upon it, with untroubled conscience, cheap and blemished sacrifices. The people would have been ashamed to present such to their Persian governor: how can God be pleased with them? Better that sacrifice should cease than that such offerings should be presented in such a spirit! "Is there no one," cries the prophet, "to close the doors" of the Temple altogether, so that "the altar" smoke not "in vain?"
The passage shows us what a change has passed over the spirit of Israel since prophecy first attacked the sacrificial ritual. We remember how Amos would have swept it all away as an abomination to God. So, too, Isaiah and Jeremiah. But their reason for this was very different from "Malachis." Their contemporaries were assiduous and lavish in sacrificing, and were devoted to the Temple and the ritual with a fanaticism which made them forget that Jehovahs demands upon His people were righteousness and the service of the weak. But "Malachi" condemns his generation for depreciating the Temple, and for being stingy and fraudulent in their offerings. Certainly the post-exilic prophet assumes a different attitude to the ritual from that of his predecessors in ancient Israel. They wished it all abolished, and placed the chief duties of Israel towards God in civic justice and mercy. But he emphasizes it as the first duty of the people towards God, and sees in their neglect the reason of their misfortunes and the cause of their coming doom. In this change which has come over prophecy we must admit the growing influence of the Law. From Ezekiel onwards the prophets become more ecclesiastical and legal. And though at first they do not become less ethical, yet the influence which was at work upon them was of such a character as was bound in time to engross their interest, and lead them to remit the ethical elements of their religion to a place secondary to the ceremonial. We see symptoms of this even in "Malachi," we shall find more in Joel, and we know how aggravated these symptoms afterwards became in all the leaders of Jewish religion. At the same time we ought to remember that this change of emphasis, which many will think to be for the worse, was largely rendered necessary by the change of temper in the people to whom the prophets ministered. "Malachi" found among his contemporaries a habit of religious performance which was not only slovenly and indecent, but mean and fraudulent, and it became his first practical duty to attack this. Moreover the neglect of the Temple was not due to those spiritual conceptions of Jehovah and those moral duties He demanded, in the interests of which the older prophets had condemned the ritual. At bottom the neglect of the Temple was due to the very same reasons as the superstitious zeal and fanaticism in sacrificing which the older prophets had attacked-false ideas, namely, of God Himself. and of what was due to Him from His people. And on these grounds, therefore, we may say that "Malachi" was performing for his generation as needful and as Divine a work as Amos and Isaiah had performed for theirs. "Only, be it admitted," the direction of "Malachis" emphasis was more dangerous for religion than that of the emphasis of Amos or Isaiah. How liable the practice he inculcated was to exaggeration and abuse is sadly proved in the later history of his people: it was against that exaggeration, grown great and obdurate through three centuries, that Jesus delivered His most unsparing words.
"A son honors a father, and a servant his lord. But if I am Father, where is My honor? and if I am Lord, where is reverence for Me? saith Jehovah of Hosts to you, O priests, who despise My Name. Ye say, How then have we despised Thy Name? Ye are bringing polluted food to Mine Altar. Ye say, How have we polluted Thee? By saying, The Table of Jehovah may be despised; and when ye bring a blind beast to sacrifice, No harm! Pray, take it to thy Satrap: will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith Jehovah of Hosts. But now, propitiate God, that He may be gracious to us. When things like this come from your hands can He accept your persons? saith Jehovah of Hosts. Who is there among you to close the doors" of the Temple altogether, that ye kindle not Mine Altar in vain? I have no pleasure in you, saith Jehovah of Hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hands. For from the rising of the sun and to its setting My Name is glorified among the nations; and in every sacred place incense is offered to My Name, and a pure offering: for great is My Name among the nations, saith Jehovah of Hosts. But ye are profaning it, in that ye think that the Table of the Lord is polluted, its food contemptible. And ye say, What a weariness! and ye sniff at it, saith Jehovah of Hosts. When ye bring what has been plundered, and the lame and the diseased, yea, when ye so bring an offering, can I accept it with grace from your hands? saith Jehovah. Cursed be the cheat in whose flock is a male beast and he vows it, and slays for the Lord a miserable beast. For a great King am I, saith Jehovah of Hosts, and My Name is reverenced among the nations."
Before we pass from this passage we must notice in it one very remarkable feature-perhaps the most original contribution which the Book of "Malachi" makes to the development of prophecy. In contrast to the irreverence of Israel and the wrong they do to Jehovahs Holiness, He Himself asserts that not only is "His Name great and glorified among the heathen, from the rising to the setting of the sun," but that "in every sacred place incense and a pure offering are offered to His Name." This is so novel a statement, and, we may truly say, so startling, that it is not wonderful that the attempt should have been made to interpret it, not of the prophets own day, but of the Messianic age and the kingdom of Christ. So, many of the Christian Fathers, from Justin and Irenaeus to Theodoret and Augustine; so, our own Authorized Version, which boldly throws the verbs into the future; and so, many modern interpreters like Pusey, who declares that the style is "a vivid present such as is often used to describe the future; but the things spoken of show it to be future." All these take the passage to be an anticipation of Christs parables declaring the rejection of the Jews and ingathering of the Gentiles to the kingdom of heaven, and of the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the bleeding and defective offerings of the Jews were abrogated by the sacrifice of the Cross. But such an exegesis is only possible by perverting the text and misreading the whole argument of the prophet. Not only are the verbs of the original in the present tense-so also in the early versions-but the prophet is obviously contrasting the contempt of Gods own people for Himself and His institutions with the reverence paid to His Name among the heathen. It is not the mere question of there being righteous people in every nation, well-pleasing to Jehovah because of their lives. The very sacrifices of the heathen are pure and acceptable to Him. Never have we had in prophecy, even the most far-seeing and evangelical, a statement so generous and so catholic as this. Why it should appear only now in the history of prophecy is a question we are unable to answer with certainty. Many have seen in it the result of Israels intercourse with their tolerant and religious masters the Persians. None of the Persian kings had up to this time persecuted the Jews, and numbers of pious and large-minded Israelites must have had opportunity of acquaintance with the very pure doctrines of the Persian religion, among which it is said that there was already numbered the recognition of true piety in men of all religions. If Paul derived from his Hellenic culture the knowledge which made it possible for him to speak as he did in Athens of the religiousness of the Gentiles, it was just as probable that Jews who had come within the experience of a still purer Aryan faith should utter an even more emphatic acknowledgment that the One True God had those who served Him in spirit and in truth all over the world. But, whatever foreign influences may have ripened such a faith in Israel, we must not forget that its roots were struck deep in the native soil of their religion. From the first they had known their God as a God of grace so infinite that it was impossible it should be exhausted on themselves. If His righteousness, as Amos showed, was over all the Syrian states, and His pity and His power to convert, as Isaiah showed, covered even the cities of Phoenicia, the great Evangelist of the Exile could declare that He quenched not the smoking wicks of the dim heathen faiths.
As interesting, however, as the origin of "Malachis" attitude to the heathen, are two other points about it. In the first place, it is remarkable that it should occur, especially in the form of emphasizing the purity of heathen sacrifices, in a book which lays such heavy stress upon the Jewish Temple and ritual. This is a warning to us not to judge harshly the so-called legal age of Jewish religion, nor to despise the prophets who have come under the influence of the Law. And in the second place, we perceive in this statement a step towards the fuller acknowledgment of Gentile religiousness which we find in the Book of Jonah. It is strange that none of the post-exilic Psalms strike the same note. They often predict the conversion of the heathen; but they do not recognize their native reverence and piety. Perhaps the reason is that in a body of song, collected for the national service, such a feature would be out of place.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv6, 8 Mal 1:6 - Mal 1:7.
Malachi
A DIALOGUE WITH GOD
Read full note →
Mal 1:6 - Mal 1:7.
A charactistic 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?’ {Mal 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?’ {Mal 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 oar 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.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv6, 10 if then I be a father
if then I be a father
Cf. (See Scofield "Isa 63:16"). The relationship here is national, not personal Jer 3:18; Jer 3:19 here, apparently, the Jews were calling Jehovah, "Father," but yielding Him no filial obedience. See; Joh 8:37-39; Rom 9:1-8.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v6 The Rebuke of the Priests
The Rebuke of the Priests
CHAPTER 1:6-2:9
Read full note →
The priests, the religious leaders of the people, are described first in their evil ways, and rebuked. But the rebuke includes the entire people, for it is true, “like priests like people.” The Lord called Israel to be His firstborn son, and therefore, nationally, He is their Father. He is the Lord, and Israel called to be His servant. But they had not honored Him, as a son should honor the father by obedience; they did not fear Him, but despised His Name. This charge brought forth from the side of the priests another brazen statement, the result of their hypocritical self-righteousness. They answered back, demanding proof of the charge by saying, “Wherein have we despised Thy Name?” They seemed to be hardened in their consciences, though they kept up outward appearances. Such, too, is the religious condition in much of Christendom. Another charge follows, the charge that they offer polluted bread, which brought forth the retort, “Wherein have we polluted Thee?” They had considered the table of the Lord contemptible; instead of offering upon the altar the very best, as demanded in the law, they showed their contempt by bringing the blind, the lame and the sick, a thing which they would never have done to an earthly governor, who would have been sorely displeased at such an insult and rejected their person on account of it. They had treated the Lord of Hosts shamefully in their worship. Is it different in Christendom? Under such conditions, even if they were to pray to Him to be gracious, would He, or could He, regard their persons and listen to their prayers (Mal 1:9) ?
Mal 1:10 has often been interpreted to mean that the priests were covetous and demanded money for every little service, the opening of doors and the kindling of a fire. It has another meaning. The better rendering is, “O, that some among you would even shut the doors of the temple.” The doors are the doors which lead from the outer court into the holy part. The Lord declares that it would be more profitable if they would shut these doors, and kindle no longer a fire upon the altar for nought; in other words, He wishes that the whole outward worship might be stopped. The last sentence of this verse shows this is the correct interpretation. “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.” Nor has He today any pleasure in the unscriptural worship of ritualistic Christendom, or the dead, Spiritless worship of an apostate Protestantism.
The next verse (Mal 1:11) is a prophecy. Is it fulfilled today, during this age? We think not; it refers to the millennial age. Critics say that the passage refers to the worship of God among the heathen, under different names, as expressed lines by a poet (Pope) :
Father of all! in every age,
In every clime adored,
By saint, by savage, and by sage,
Jehovah, Jove or Lord.
Canon S.D. Driver says on this passage, “It is a tribute to the truer and better side of heathen religion.” It is no such thing. But why should it not be applied to this gospel age, in which among all nations His Name is known and called upon? There is a statement which excludes this interpretation: “and in every place incense shall be offered unto My Name, and a pure offering.” The Romish Catholic Church uses this passage as one of her proof texts for that abomination, the Mass. In the canons of the Council of Trent we read that “the Mass is that pure sacrifice which the Lord predicted by Malachi should be offered to His Name in every place.” Another prominent writer declares that it is “the bloodless sacrifice of the New Testament, the holy sacrifice of the mass.” All this is Satanic invention. It is true the Name of the Lord is known among the nations, but no incense, sacrifice or offering is connected with the worship of the Lord in the true Church. For His heavenly people the earthly sacrifices and incense, offering and priesthood, are all passed; and more than that, these things would be inconsistent with their heavenly standing and calling. It will be different during the age to come, the Millennium. The last chapters of Ezekiel reveal the fact that with the millennial worship in the millennial temple incense and offerings are connected. The prophecy of the eleventh verse will be fulfilled during the millennium. Now His Name is not universally great among the Gentiles; it will be otherwise when the Lord Jesus Christ has come back.
Then follow additional expostulations on account of these conditions. In the second chapter the priests are again addressed. If they do not hear, do not lay it to heart, if their consciences are not aroused, to give glory unto His Name, He would curse their blessings; yea, they had been cursed already; He would punish them severely for their contempt. Levi and the covenant with him is especially mentioned, on account of his faithfulness at the time when the golden calf had been set up by Israel in the wilderness, in contrast with Aaron who gave way to the demand of the people. But what a contrast between Levi and the priests in Malachi’s day! For the priests’ lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. Such is the calling of the priest. But they had departed out of the way; they caused many to stumble at the law; they had corrupted the covenant of Levi. Therefore the Lord made them contemptible and base before all the people.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v6 A Rebuke of the Priests
A Rebuke of the Priests
v. 6. A son honoreth his father and a servant his master, in agreement with the commandment of God; If, then, I be a Father, where is Mine honor? Why were they persisting in their unnatural behavior and denying Him the obedience which He had a right to expect?. And If I be a Master, where is My fear? Why did they not give Him the reverence and respect which were His due?. salth the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise My name, the very ones who should have been leaders of the people in keeping the Law being their leaders in transgressing the Law. And ye say, as if honestly resenting the charge against them, Wherein have we despised Thy name? But the Lord has His answer ready,
Read full note →
v. 7. Ye offer polluted bread upon Mine altar, in connection with some of the offerings brought to the Lord; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted Thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible, their practise of offering sacrifices which were expressly forbidden by God and their manner in the entire administration of their work being an insult to the holiness of Jehovah. Cf Leviticus 22; 22.
v. 8. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? or, "there is no evil," that is, in their opinion. And if ye offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil? The Lord had expressly forbidden the members of His people to bring animals as sacrifices that had any kind of blemish. Offer it now unto thy governor, so the Lord ironically bids them do; will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts. Tile Jewish priests were offering tile Lord an insult which they would not have dared to offer an earthly ruler.
v. 9. And now, I pray you, beseech God that He will be gracious unto us, they should just make an attempt to serve Him with such worship, this hath been by your means, that is, this their hand had done:. will He regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts. If not even an earthly ruler would accept imperfect gifts at their hands, how much more was this true of Jehovah, the God of the covenant!
v. 10. Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for naught? rather, "Oh, that there were one among you that would even shut the doors of the Temple!". neither do ye kindle fire on Mine altar for naught. If one would but lock the doors leading to the altar of burnt offering, in order to keep the priests from bringing such vain oblations!. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, being thoroughly disgusted with their behavior, neither will I accept an offering at your hand, no matter of what kind it was.
v. 11. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, as far as the world extends, My name shall be great among the Gentiles, among the recruits gained for the Church of the New Testament from the heathen world; and in every place Incense, namely, that of the prayers of the faithful, shall be offered unto My name and a pure offering, on the part of those who had accepted the God of the covenant as their God; for My name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts, for the kingdom of God was taken from the Jews, since they openly rejected the Messiah and His grace, and was given to the Gentiles.
v. 12. But ye have profaned it, have brought disgrace upon the name and the glory of the one true God, in that ye say, The table of the Lord Is polluted, Cf v. 7, and the fruit thereof, even His meat, is contemptible, for the priests themselves did not regard the sacrifices brought on the altar as in any way efficacious.
v. 13. Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! They regarded their service at the altar as an offensive drudgery. And ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of hosts, publicly showing their contempt for the work of their ministry; and ye brought that which was torn and the lame and the sick, in a contemptuous disregard for the Law of the Lord; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this at your hand? saith the Lord. He expresses in a most emphatic manner that He would not permit His glory thus to be despise.
v. 14. But cursed be the deceiver, the hypocrite, which hath in his flock a male, a sound and normal animal for sacrifice, and voweth, as if preparing to bring the good animal as a sacrifice, and sacriflceth unto the Lord a corrupt thing! one with a blemish; for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and My name is dreadful among the heathen, mentioned only with fear and trembling. God will not permit any one to heap disgrace upon His majesty by hypocritical worship.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv6, 8, 10 General Information:
General Information:
Yahweh rebukes the priests using an imaginary conversation in which the priests protest that they are doing right and Yahweh tells them what they are doing wrong.
Read full note →
despise my name
Here "my name" stands for Yahweh himself. AT: "treat me as though you hate me" (See: Metonymy)
How have we despised your name?
Here the priests are asking a question in order to state that they have not really despised Yahweh. This can be expressed as a statement. AT: "We have not really despised your name." or "Tell us how we have despised your name, because we do not think that we have done so." (See: Rhetorical Question)
polluted bread
Here "polluted" describes anything that is not suitable to sacrifice to God. (See: Metaphor)
How have we polluted you?
Here the priests are asking a question in order to state that they have not really polluted Yahweh. This can be expressed as a statement. AT: "We have not polluted you." or "Tell us how we have polluted you, because we do not think that we have done so." (See: Rhetorical Question)
polluted you
This expression refers to insulting God by giving him unsuitable sacrifices. (See: Metaphor)
table
This refers to an altar.
By saying that Yahweh's table is contemptible.
This is the answer that Yahweh gives to the priests, but the full answer is only implied. This can be made explicit. AT: "You have polluted me by saying, 'Yahweh's table is contemptible.'" (See: Ellipsis)
contemptible
regarded as worthless
translationWords
ancestor
servant
lord
Yahweh of hosts
priest
name
altar
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv6–8 1:6–2:9 Malachi’s second message affirms the Lord’s role as…
1:6–2:9 Malachi’s second message affirms the Lord’s role as God and Father of Israel; he alone deserves true worship. The first part (1:6-14) shows how the Israelites had dishonored God in spite of his fatherly care and masterly power. The second part (2:1-9) warns the priests of Judah against sacrificing sick and defective animals and faults them for not teaching God’s instructions (2:6-8).
1:6 shown contempt for my name: God’s name is his reputation or character (cp. Ezek 36:19-24). The Judeans were showing how little they thought of God by giving him worthless offerings.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.