Malachi 1

Introduction

Malachi is the last book in our English Old Testament. Malachi is also likely the last prophet who spoke to Israel for about four hundred years, until John the Baptist appeared in the first century AD. We know almost nothing about this important prophet. We do not have his genealogy or the place of his birth. There is no information given about his personal life or his calling from God. We even have to guess at the timeframe in which he ministered. We might note that the prophets Obadiah and Habakkuk also have the same problem with the lack of information.

Some scholars have tried to say that this prophet did not even have a personal name and that his name in Hebrew simply means “God’s messenger.” Jewish historian Charles Feinberg seems to squelch this idea saying: “No prophetic book of the Old Testament has come down to us anonymously, so we can hold with assurance that Malachi was the name of the last prophet in Israel…” [1]

There is quite a question as to when Malachi ministered. He appears to be dealing with very similar problems that were dealt with by Ezra and Nehemiah in the mid to late fifth century BC. The fact that the temple was already built and sacrifices instituted is important in our dating. What is more important is that people had already lost their zeal for God’s things and were growing weary of their religion.

Many people date Malachi sometime after the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, possibly around 420 BC. He could be later. Feinberg says, “Malachi is the last of the great succession of prophets who foretold the coming of Messiah for over one thousand years.” [2]

One of the most interesting theories of Malachi’s dating came from Sir Robert Anderson, who was a theologian and intelligence officer for the London police. He based his theory on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9:24-27). The Seventy Weeks were seventy time periods of seven years each, leading to the end of the age. This period is considered to have begun with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 445 BC. The first period of seven sevens or 49 years is listed separately as if to emphasize it. Anderson feels this marks the date of Malachi’s prophecy and the closing of the Old Testament canon in 396 BC. [3] When we consider the pitiful state of Israel’s faith at the time, it is easy to believe that a good deal of time had passed since the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Moody’s Dr. John Phillips has this to say: “The total moral collapse Malachi addressed could hardly have taken place in the short time the reformer [Nehemiah] was away in Babylon.” [4]

The US President Ronald Reagan once said that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction…” [5] We can probably say the same thing about godliness. One generation can have a revival of religion but by the next generation, the revival is often gone. Sometimes there is hardly a taste of it left. This likely happened in the days of Malachi when even the great revivals of Ezra and Nehemiah were already forgotten.

As to the style of this book, we would have to see it as a diatribe. It is in a question-and-answer format where an objector asks a question and in which the speaker responds to it. In the process, the truth is made plain. Paul and James often used such a method in their teaching. Because of his diatribe method, Malachi is sometimes called the “Hebrew Socrates.” [6]

A prophecy: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. Malachi 1:1

The prophet begins with the Hebrew word ma-sah, as in Zechariah 9:1 and 12:1. This word can mean a prophecy or oracle, but it can also mean “burden.” [1] The prophets came with a burden from the Lord – with a difficult weight upon their hearts. That burden was not easily carried or shared. In fact, as many of the prophets related their burdens they were persecuted and even killed for it. “‘Prophets were twice stoned,’ said Christopher Morley, paraphrasing Matthew 23:29-31, ‘first in anger, then, after their death, with a handsome slab in the graveyard.’” [2]

When we see the name “Israel” we are apt to think only of the ten northern tribes that revolted and were taken into captivity by the Assyrians in 722 BC. However, Israel never ceased to be a name that was applicable to the whole nation. [3]

“‘I have loved you,’ says the LORD. But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ declares the LORD. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob,’” (1:2). God is God. He has a right to choose those he wants to love and serve him. He knows the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10) so choosing is not difficult for him.

But in Israel’s response, we see some unbelief registered. They simply could not believe that God loved them. To their unbelief, God gave them a quick answer. God loved Jacob but he did not love Esau. The two were twin brothers and Esau was the firstborn, who would normally receive the father’s blessing and his special love. However, God loved Jacob instead. We note something here that is seen throughout the Bible and that is God’s election based on his foreknowledge and his grace. God not only loved Israel but he loved them with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3). The Irish Anglican clergyman A. R. Faussett remarks, “God’s love is often least acknowledged where it is most manifested.” [4]

Undoubtedly, there were some things that made Israel wonder about God’s love for her. Years and decades had now passed since the earlier prophets of restoration, but where were all the beautiful things the Lord promised? Where was all the prosperity they spoke of? Why were they still under the rule of Persia? Why were they still subservient to Gentile nations? [5] At times God does tend to move exceedingly slow. It was Henry Wadsworth Longfellow who penned the lines: “Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all.” [6]

“but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (1:3). Feinberg tells us how the Chaldeans invaded Edom five years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. [7] Unlike Israel they were not restored to their land. Earlier they had waited at the crossroads to cut down the Jewish fugitives or hand them over to the enemy (Obad. 1:14). In Obadiah, God announces their sentence: “ Because of the violence against your brother Jacob, you will be covered with shame; you will be destroyed forever” (Obad. 1:10). They were later pushed out of their country by the Nabateans and found lodging in the southern portions of Israel. This area was later known to history as Idumea (1 Maccabees 4:29; 5:65; Mk. 3:8).

Now, what can we make of the Righteous God hating Edom? Certainly, we do not subscribe to a double predestination, where God chooses one group and dooms another. We see in Genesis 29:31, that Leah was “hated” by Jacob (Heb. Se-na ). [8] For sure, God did not hate her in any normal sense of the word because he gave her many children. She was also not even hated by Jacob but rather she was loved less than Rachel. Several translations use “unloved” here (NAS, NET, NKJ, NRS).

Feinberg says: “Many interpreters of the book see the word “hate” in a comparative sense and point for this usage in Genesis 29:30-31; Deuteronomy 21:15, 16; Proverbs 13:24; Luke 14:26 with Matthew 10:37, where the thought is love less or love more…” [9]

“Leon Morris cited examples where hate seems to mean something like ‘loved less’ (Genesis 29:31-33, Deuteronomy 21:15, Matthew 6:24, Luke 14:26, John 12:25). He agreed with Calvin’s idea that the real thought here is much more like ‘accepted’ and ‘rejected’ more than it is like our understanding of the terms ‘loved’ and ‘hated.’” [10] “A woman once said to Mr. Spurgeon, ‘I cannot understand why God should say that he hated Esau.’ ‘That,’ Spurgeon replied, ‘is not my difficulty, madam. My trouble is to understand how God could love Jacob’” (William Newell in his commentary on Romans). [11]

In the case of Esau, there was a huge problem and God knew all about the problem long before he was born. He held a grudge and planned to kill his brother (Gen. 27:41). He violated the covenant and married pagan women, mostly it appears to distress his mother and father (Gen. 26:34-35). In Genesis 25:34, we saw that Esau even despised his godly heritage. So, while God initially loved Esau less, that love eventually turned to a pure, holy hatred and judgment. For such transgressions, God wiped out Esau’s nation (cf. Psa.137:7; Isa. 34:5-17; Joel 3:19; Amos 1:11-12; Obad.1:1-21).

“Edom may say, ‘Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.’ But this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD.’ ‘You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the LORD – even beyond the borders of Israel!’” (1:4-5). Although God blessed Esau and his people in the beginning, at last the pure wrath of God fell on them for their utter godlessness. They would build but he would tear down. The Bible says, “Unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the guards stand watch in vain” (Ps. 127:1). It is interesting that the “Lord Almighty” in Hebrew is known as the “Lord of Hosts,” or the Lord of the armies of heaven. Phillips points out that this “is the characteristic name of God in the book of Malachi, where it occurs twenty-four times.” [12]

In the Isaiah 34 passage mentioned above we see that Edom will be a desolate land forever with no one passing through. It is amazing how Christians sometimes overlook these passages about Edom’s eternal doom. Today the ruins of Edom are hotspots on the Christian tour circuit. Many Christians feel that during the Great Tribulation the Jews will escape to Edom and to the Rose City of Petra, although there is nothing at all about this in the Bible. Edom was the heart of antisemitism in the ancient world. To send Jews escaping to Edom would be like telling them to escape to Auschwitz.

Half-Hearted Worship

“A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the LORD Almighty. “It is you priests who show contempt for my name. But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’” Malachi 1:6

In ancient Jewish society, the father was to be greatly honored. In fact, D. Guthrie of London Bible College says, “…this attitude towards one’s father was stressed above all others.” [13] With such demanding requirements in their culture, how could priests show such a disrespectful attitude toward their Father God? Of course, God is presented as the Father of Israel throughout the Old Testament (cf. Exo. 4:22; Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; 64:8). God charged the priests with contempt for his name and they acted surprised that such a thing could possibly happen. We would say today of them that they just didn’t understand the program! It would have been bad enough if the common people had dishonored God, but for priests – it was unthinkable!

“By offering defiled food on my altar. But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ By saying that the LORD’s table is contemptible” (1:7). The scripture gives us several examples of what is meant by defiled food. This would include any sacrifice with a blemish or defect (Exo. 12:5; Lev. 22:20-23; Deut. 15:21). We can imagine a selfish and lazy Israelite noticing a little lame sheep among his flock and saying, “Well hallelujah, I feel it is about time for a sacrifice to God!”

Of course, God always required unblemished sacrifices so that they could be a picture of the Perfect Lamb who would someday come and be offered for the sins of the people. The offerings were a type, pattern and shadow of the Perfect Lamb who was to come (1 Pet. 1:19). The Perfect Lamb was unimaginably expensive – it cost everything. David once said: “…I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing…” (2 Sam. 24:24).

All this makes us wonder about some of our sacrifices today, particularly the sacrifices of ministers, of which I am one. David Guzik, pastor, teacher and writer, says: “… If the pastor’s sermon is filled with funny jokes, clever anecdotes, and emotional stories but it lacks God’s word – this is like defiled food…If the pastor’s sermon is sloppy, without doing the work in the study when there was the opportunity to do that work, that is like offering defiled food before God…” [14]

I fear that so many sermons today are the polished kind that sound really good. Viola & Barna say: “Chrysostom and Augustine stood in the lineage of the Greek sophists. They gave us polished Christian rhetoric. They gave us the ‘Christian’ sermon: biblical in content, but Greek in style.” [15] Looking back over the centuries we might wonder about the “biblical” content.

In this postmodern era, we might wonder if many preachers are able to sincerely present a sound biblical sermon due to their physical, psychological, emotional and often spiritual condition. Christian researchers Viola & Barna give us some statistics that may cause us to wonder. Of a half-million active pastors surveyed in the US here are some of the alarming statistics:

94 percent feel pressured to have an ideal family.

81 percent say they have insufficient time with their spouses.

80 percent believe that pastoral ministry affects their family negatively.

80 percent are discouraged or deal with depression.

70 percent do not have someone they consider a close friend.

70 percent have lower self-esteem than when they entered the ministry.

50 percent feel unable to meet the demands of the job

40 percent report that they are suffering from burnout, frantic schedules, etc.

33 percent consider pastoral ministry an outright hazard to the family.

33 percent have seriously considered leaving their position in the past year. [16]

These statistics would make us think that we either need to change the ministers or else change the ministry.

“‘When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?’ says the LORD Almighty” (1:8). “Every year before Thanksgiving Day, the Butterball Turkey Talk-Line receives hundreds of calls from people seeking advice on how to thaw, prepare, and roast their holiday turkey. One year, a woman called to ask if the turkey in her freezer was still good to eat. The Butterball Turkey expert asked how long the bird had been in the woman’s freezer. The caller replied: ‘Twenty-three years.’ The turkey expert told her that after more than two decades in the Deepfreeze, the turkey would probably have a distinct ‘freezer taste,’ and he recommended the woman discard it and buy a new turkey at the market. ‘That’s what I was thinking,’ the woman said. ‘Well, we’ll just donate the old turkey to the church.’” [17]

We certainly would not feed such an offering to a friend. Neither would we make such an offering to a person of high authority. It would be unthinkable. Yet, we offer such garbage to God. All this reminds me of the shipments of clothing that used to be sent to Israel by Christians abroad. I remember actually finding sacks of their garbage in the midst of their clothes offering. Also, I remember throwing a lot of utterly worn-out clothes away. I do not think God was at all humored by such contributions.

“‘Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?’ – says the LORD Almighty” (1:9). It was the British evangelist G. Campbell Morgan who said, “I am more afraid of profanity of the sanctuary than I am of the profanity of the street.” [18] Obviously, the Lord was not pleased with their offerings. They were indeed profane. I cannot help but wonder if he would be pleased with some of our other offerings today. We have worship services but do we really worship? Below we have the results of some more Barna surveys on worship:

The biweekly attendance at worship services is, by believers’ own admission, generally the only time they worship God. Eight out of every ten believers do not feel they have entered into the presence of God, or experienced a connection with him, during the worship service. Half of all believers say they do not feel they have entered into the presence of God or experienced a genuine connection with him during the past year. [19]

And what about much of our “worship” music?

David Wells analyzed hundreds of modern hymns and praise songs in relation to classic hymns. He concluded that recent worship lyrics express a “postmodernist spirituality” that emphasizes the individual over the church, felt needs over God’s requirements and power over truth…Sadly much postmodernist spirituality expressed in music never addresses God as God at all, let alone reveling in his attributes and praising his person. [20]

“‘Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,’ says the LORD Almighty, ‘and I will accept no offering from your hands’” (1:10). Bible professors Charles Pfeiffer and Everett Harrison say, “No worship would be better than contemptible worship.” [21] London’s Peter Pett adds: “We cannot offer him more than we have, but woe betide us if we do not offer him the best that we have.” [22]

It is hard to imagine God saying a thing like this. He would prefer that the fire would go out on his altar and that the temple doors should be closed rather than receive insincere and contemptible offerings.

When we think of pure offerings and pure worship it may be that William Temple, the Archbishop of Canterbury summed up true worship best saying: “For to worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open up the heart to the love of God, to devote the will to the purpose of God.” [23] World renowned Christian teacher, Derek Prince, describes the pure worship of God by saying of the Seraphim: “Covering the face and covering the feet were acts of worship. The remaining two wings were used for flying, which was service. In heaven, there is twice as much emphasis on worship as on

service.” [24]

The Greatness Of God

“My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty. Malachi 1:11

Pett tells us: “The verbs ‘is/will be’ are not in the Hebrew text so that the prophet may have in mind both the present and the future…However, the phrase ‘For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same,’ points to an eschatological and therefore Messianic interpretation (cf. Psa. 50:1; 113:3; Isa. 45:6; 59:19).” [25]

There is a problem with this verse if we make a claim that that pagan worship is acceptable or honoring to God. Had pagan worship been acceptable, then God’s whole work with Israel and with the Messiah would have been unnecessary. American Presbyterian theologian Albert Barnes says: “A Hebrew prophet could not be an apologist for pagan idolatry amidst its abominations or set it on a level with the worship which God had, for the time, appointed; much less could he set it forth as the true acceptable service of

God.” [26]

It is true that God’s name is now praised among the Gentiles all over because of the sacrifice of Jesus and the proclamation of the Gospel message worldwide. However, there was a sense in which the truth of God was proclaimed among the Gentiles in Bible times. At every synagogue door, there were crowds of Gentiles who were known as God-fearers. Although they were not Jews they nevertheless respected the Bible and honored God. They later became fertile ground for the spread of the Gospel as we see from the story of Cornelius in Acts 10.

“But you profane it by saying, ‘The Lord’s table is defiled,’ and, ‘Its food is contemptible.’ And you say, ‘What a burden!’ and you sniff at it contemptuously,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘When you bring injured, lame or diseased animals and offer them as sacrifices, should I accept them from your hands?’ says the LORD” (1:12-13). The expression “the Lord’s table” as also seen in verse 7 is probably a reference to the altar of burnt offering [27] and could include the tables for cutting up sacrifices. It has no reference to the table of showbread. If the priests were allowing defiled animals to be offered then they were partly to blame for the situation. When there are no standards even the most holy enterprise can become contemptable. Trinity College dean, Joyce Baldwin, comments, “Thus the inadequacies of the sacrificial system, which had so troubled the prophets, were seen by Malachi as about to be transcended, as indeed they were in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.” [28]

Because the offerings were defiled by both those offering and by the priests themselves for allowing such offerings, the whole system fell into contempt. We are told that the priests sniffed at it all. In modern language, they turned up their noses at it. [29]

“‘Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock and vows to give it, but then sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord. For I am a great king,’ says the LORD Almighty, ‘and my name is to be feared among the nations’” (1:14). We have to say that Malachi was bringing some pretty tough language to the influential priestly class. He was a very bold man to do that. [30] None of us like to be accused of being cheats. It is always more comfortable for us to put the spotlight on someone else in this regard. Religious broadcaster and writer Warren Wiersbe tells this story: “A church member scolded her pastor for preaching a series of sermons on ‘The Sins of the Saints.’ ‘After all,’ she argued, ‘the sins of Christians are different than the sins of other people.’ ‘Yes,’ agreed her pastor, ‘they’re worse.’” [31]

Footnotes

1. Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1948), p. 249.

2. Ibid.

3. John Phillips, Exploring The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1998), p. 319.

4. Ibid., p. 317.

5. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/13915-freedom-is-never-more-than-one-generation-away-from-extinction

6. Dr. Bob Utley, Free Bible Commentary, Int. http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/old_testament_studies/VOL12OT/VOL12DOT_01.html

Chapter 1

1. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver & Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Glasgow: Great Britain, 1953, 1957), p. 672.

2. Quoted in Warren W. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2007), p. 1524.

3. Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 221.

4. Robert D. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on Malachi, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. 1871-8, v. 1:2.

5. Peter Pett, Commentary on Malachi, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, 2013, v. 1:2-5.

6. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/255749-though-the-mills-of-god-grind-slowly-yet-they-grind

7. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets, p. 251.

8. Albert Barnes, Commentary on Malachi, Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible, 1870, v. 1:2. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/malachi-1.html.

9. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets, p. 251.

10. Quoted in David Guzik, Enduring Word Bible Commentaries, Malachi, 2018, vs. 1:2-5.

11. Ibid., vs. 1:6-8.

12. Phillips, Exploring The Minor Prophets, p. 321.

13. D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer, A.M. Stibbs, D. J. Wiseman, The New Bible Commentary: Revised (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 806.

14. Guzik, Enduring Word Bible Commentaries, vs. 1:6-8.

15. Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 2002, 2008), p. 94.

16. Ibid., p. 138.

17. Michael Youssef, 15 Secrets to a Wonderful Life (New York, Boston, Nashville: Faith Words, 2008), pp. 15-16.

18. Quoted in Guzik, Enduring Word Bible Commentaries, vs. 1:9-11.

19. George Barna, Revolution, (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2005), pp. 31-33.

20. Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), pp.

21. Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), p. 915.

22. Pett, Commentary on Malachi, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 1:10.

23. Quoted in Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT, p. 729.

24. Derek Prince, War in Heaven (Grand Rapids: Chosen Books, 2003), p. 123.

25. Pett, Commentary on Malachi, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 1:1-12.

26. Barnes, Commentary on Malachi, Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible, v. 1:11.

27. Pett, Commentary on Malachi, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 1:7.

28. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 230.

29. James Burton Coffman, Commentary on Malachi, Coffman Commentaries on the Bible (Abilene, TX: Christian University Press, 1983-1999), v. 1:13. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bcc/malachi-1.html.

30. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 224.

31. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, OT, p.1524.