Malachi 2:10-16 Rebuke 3: The people are acting treacherously

The second and third rebukes are connected through the theme of covenants. Men are dealing treacherously with one other which also pollutes the covenant of the fathers. The first problem is that Judah has defiled the holiness of God by marrying foreign women, and then we find out that this is after these men divorced the wives of their youth.

First issue: Judah marries a women of a foreign god

The prophet begins with a series of three rhetorical questions. These are to motivate the hearers to change their conduct.[1] It makes no sense given the brotherhood between the people that they would deal treacherously with one another defiling the covenant of their fathers (Malachi 2:10).

What is he referring to? Judah acted treacherously, an abomination was made, he married the daughter of a foreign god (Malachi 2:11). Three verbs are connected to Judah בָּגְדָה (3fs) חִלֵּל (3ms) and וּבָעַל (3ms). These verbs change from feminine to masculine as the Lord goes from talking about Judah, the nation to the person.^[2] Judah, the person, did marry the daughter of a Foreign God (Genesis 38:2), and then slept with his daughter in law as she was a temple prostitute. Malachi is using the Torah to explain what is happening to the people now.

 The prophet then exclaims that whoever (עֵר וְעֹנֶה)^[3] did this and is continually bringing (וּמַגִּישׁ)^[4] offerings to the Lord should be cut off (יַכְרֵת, Hiphil jussive) from the community of Israel. (מֵ‍אָהֳלֵי יַעֲקֹב)^[5]

Second issue: Divorcing the wife of their youth.

The prophet continues in verse 13 with a second part to the rebuke. Talking in general to the people, who are covering the Lord’s altar with tears (דִּמְעָה), weeping (בְּכִי) and groaning (וַאֲנָקָה) because there is no (מֵ‍אֵין)^[6] attention paid to their offering. The tears can be seen as hypocritical.^[7] The people are seeking attention. They want to manipulate the Lord in feeling sorry for them, and accepting their offering. The truth is that the Lord is not going to turn to their offerings, and he will not be fooled. Offerings from their hand are completely worthless. We have the third verbal exchange in Malachi. It takes the smaller form (1.2.1). The people want to know why the Lord would not accept their offering. The prophet answers that the Lord bears witness between a man and the wife of his youth, against whom he has dealt treacherously. His wife is called companion (חֲבֶרְתְּךָ) and the “wife of your covenant” (וְאֵשֶׁת בְּרִיתֶךָ). The reason God does not accept their offering is because they are not treating their wives well, acting treacherously against them.   

Malachi 2:15-16 are hard to translate. Gesenius identifies Malachi 2:15 as abrupt with transition from one person to another, from the second person to the third.^[8]

Understanding Malachi 2:15-16

My paraphrase is that: a man who has not acted treacherously, is a man in the right disposition, he is one seeking godly offspring. So keep yourselves and do not act treacherously with the wife of your youth, because the Lord, the God of Israel says he hates divorce. The one who divorces covers his garment with violence says the Lord of Hosts, keep yourselves in good disposition and do not act treacherously.

Verse 15

I am going to take these verses clause by clause. The first part of verse 15 is in the third person. וְלֹא־אֶחָד עָשָׂה can be translated either taking “one” (אֶחָד) as the subject or as the object: “not one has made” or “he did not make one”. Following verse 14 about the man having acted treacherously against his wife, I take the one to be the subject. וּשְׁאָר רוּחַ לוֹ translates literally : “and a remnant of the spirit to him”. רוּחַ is a disposition of various kinds.^[9] The first two clauses give us: “No one with any good disposition left has done this.”

Still referring to this person (הָאֶחָד), the prophet asks the rhetorical question: “what is he seeking?” The answer is “זֶרַע אֱלֹהִים” which is “offspring of God” or “godly offspring”.

There is then an abrupt change from the third person to the second: “and keep yourselves in your spirit”^[10] and with the wife of your youth, “let him not act treacherously” (אַל־יִבְגֹּד). Gesenius believes we must “undoubtedly” read  יִבְגֹּד as תִּבְגּׄד, to read: “and you shall not act treacherously” to be consistent with the pronouns.^[11]

I understand verse 15 to continue to be a critique of those who have acted treacherously with their wives. They did not have any “spirit” (or right disposition). Those who did not act treacherously against their wives, did have the right disposition and by being faithful to their wives are seeking to have godly children, faithful children. Malachi calls the men to keep themselves in the right disposition and not acting faithlessly with their wives.

Verse 16

 The call against acting treacherously is followed by a reason in verse 16. “Because the Lord, the God of Israel says he hates divorce.” We can also assume for the first time that this is what they are doing. Acting treacherously towards the wives of their youth means, they are sending them way, getting divorced. Verse 16 is really hard to translate, but our translation must make sense in the context of God rebuking those who are acting treacherously towards the wives of their youth. Literally “כִּי־שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח” is translated: “because he hates divorce”. Gesenius takes שָׂנֵאto be a participle with a missing first person pronominal suffix,^[12] so it would translate “I am hating divorce”.  The Septuagint “ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαποστείλῃς” translates: “if after hating (participle, aorist) you send out (2^nd person second aorist subjective)…. you will cover.” In my translation, I am trying to stay faithful to the first verb “שָׂנֵא” which is a perfect 3 person singular and then “שַׁלַּח” which is an infinitive.

The end of the verse is straight forward. The one who divorces covers his garment with violence says the Lord of Hosts, so he urges people to keep themselves (וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם) in a right disposition (Spirit) and to not act treacherously. Both verses 15 and 16 are connected, ending in the same way with a plea to keep themselves and to refrain from dealing treacherously with the wives of their youth.

---

[1] Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 342.

^[2]Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 392.

^[3] עֵר וְעֹנֶה literally means “the ones waking and answering” it is difficult to know what this means, but it seems like it good refer to a teacher (one who wakes) and a pupil (one who answers), or in the context of “the tents of Jacob” it could relate to the practice of keeping guard in a camp with a person calling (the one who wakes) and another answering. Whatever this meant, it is generally accepted that the two terms formed a proverbial pair to include everybody. Clark and Hatton, A Handbook on Malachi, 414.

^[4] מַגִּישׁ is an active participle indicating that the person is “conceived as being in the continual uninterrupted exercise of this activity” Gesenius, F. W. (2003). Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 356.

^[5] Literally meaning The tents of Jacob, this expression is also seen in Jeremiah 30:18 to refer back to the nomadic times. In Malachi’s day it meant the community of Israel. Clark and Hatton, A Handbook on Malachi, 414.

^[6] Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 35.

^[7]Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 199.

^[8]Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 462.

^[9] Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 925.

^[10] וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם is a niphal, and so translates to “guarding oneself” or “taking heed” Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 1037.

^[11]Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 462.

^[12]Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 462.

Malachi - Rebuke 2, Part 2 - Rebuke of the Priests relating to the Law (Malachi 2:1-9)

In Malachi 2:1-9 we are still dealing with the Priests despising the Lord. In the second half of this rebuke, the priests will be warned about how they will be cursed unless they change (Malachi 2:1-3). This is followed by a reminder of the standards for priests and their role (Malachi 2:4-7). The section ends with a final rebuke of the priests because they have failed to live up to their calling (Malachi 2:8-9).

A warning (Malachi 2:1-3)

The priest were those who received the command (Malachi 2:1) but if they do not listen or honor the Lord he will sent a curse among them (Malachi 2:2). The promise of a curse for disobedience echoes Deuteronomy 28:15. The Lord says he will curse their blessings, or prosperity^[1] (וְאָרוֹתִי אֶת־בִּרְכוֹתֵיכֶם). It turns out in Malachi 2:3 that they are not honoring God, so the Lord is indeed rebuking them by scattering fecal matter upon their faces, fecal matter from their sacrifices. At the end, for despising the Lord, the priests themselves are being made unclean.^[2] In this verse we have a change from the first person: “I will be scattering” (וְזֵרִיתִי, first person) to the third person: “he will lift you to it” (וְנָשָׂא third person). It looks like Malachi was first reporting direct speech from the Lord, and the commenting in the third person, to complete the statement.

Standards for the priests (Malachi 2:4-7)

In Malachi 2:4-7, the priests are reminded of their role as ministers of God’s word. The commandment was sent to be a covenant with Levi (Malachi 2:4). This covenant was with him (the priest) to be life and peace, he was given fear and he feared (וַיִּירָאֵנִי Qal 3ms + 1cs) the Lord, and he was dismayed (וַיִּירָאֵנִי Ni 3ms) before his name (Malachi 2:5). Both the wayyiqtol and qatal show the fear and dismay are actions that are completed in the past. They no longer fear him.

We can wonder in verse 2:3 if a rebuke was all that the priests were getting for the sake of the Lord’s covenant with Levi mentioned in Malachi 2:4-5. If it was not for this covenant the priests could have been alienated. This idea is repeated in Malachi 3:6, where it is clear that the reason the children of Jacob remain is that the Lord remains the same, faithful to his promises in Malachi 3:6.

The priests were to keep the instruction of truth, walk in peace and uprightness with the Lord and help turn many from iniquity (Malachi 2:6). The first two clauses in Malachi 2:6 are parallel. They place in contrast what was to be in the mouth of the priest and what was not to be found. The words of truth were to be in his mouth, but no injustice. Priests keep knowledge and instruction is sought from them as they are messengers from the Lord (Malachi 2:7). When we think about the identity of Malachi, we see that his name means “My messenger”, and priests in this verse are also called messengers of the Lord. It is probable that Malachi was a priest, and this fits with Targum Jonathan identifying Malachi as Ezra. On top of this, Ezra is dealing with similar issues found in Malachi.[3]

Malachi 2:8-9 Final rebuke and humiliation

This second section of Malachi ends with a final rebuked. The standards for the priests have just been presented, and now we see how the current priests compare to such standards. Instead of turning people from their iniquity, these priests are turning people from the way of the Lord. They cause many to stumble in the instruction of the Lord and they are ruining the covenant of Levi (Malachi 2:8).

The Lord humiliated them, made them^[4] despised and low to all the people, as (כְּ‍פִי אֲשֶׁר) they are not keeping the ways of the Lord,^[5] and showing partiality ( וְנֹשְׂאִים פָּנִים )^[6] in the instruction.

---

^[1] Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 139.

^[2] Walvoord, Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1579.

[3] Similar themes founds in both Malachi and Ezra/Nehemiah are the perversion of the sacrificial system (Mal 1:6-14, Neh 13:4-9, 30), intermarriage with foreigners (Mal 2:11-15, Ezra 9-10), Cheapening of the tithe (Mal 3:8-10, Nehemiah 10:32-39, 13:10-14, social exploitation (Mal 3:8 and Neh 5:1-12). David W. Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi NIV Application,(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 208

^[4]נָתַתִּי from נָתַן which as well as “to give” can also mean to make, Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 678.

^[5] כְּ‍פִיis an idiom meaning I”in proportion” but here it is followed  by אֲשֶׁר  so together כְּ‍פִי אֲשֶׁר can just be translated “as”, Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 805.

^[6] literally : lifting face, Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 670.

Malachi 1:6-14 Rebuke 2, Part 1 The Priests have despised the name of the Lord

The second section of Malachi is a rebuke concerning the Priests despising the Lord’s name. Malachi addresses the priests directly (Malachi 1:6, Malachi 2:1), as they fail to honor him in allowing unclean offerings to be made (Malachi 1:6-14) and by failing their role as messengers of the Lord (Malachi 2:1-9).

Malachi 1:6-14 By bringing defiled sacrifices

Malachi 1:6-8 Second verbal exchange

In order to express the first rebuke against the priests for permitting unclean sacrifices, Malachi begins with the longer form of the verbal exchange discussed in 1.2.1. The statement of rebuke deals with the priests having despised the name of the Lord. This statement begins first with the general statement with an ellipses that as “a son honors (יְכַבֵּד imperfect) his father, and a servant his master”. The imperfect is used with יְכַבֵּד to express an action that is customary.^[1] Honoring parents was generally assumed as right by the people of Israel, as it is part of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:12, Deut. 5:16) and the punishment for disobedience was death (Deut. 21:18-21). ^[2] Appealing to this general knowledge, and reminding the people that the Lord is both a father and a servant, we can imply easily that honor is due to the Lord. The prophet then uses two rhetorical questions in a row to create a dramatic effect. These questions involve the audience directly and create a tension that requires a resolution.[3] The prophet only reveals at the end of the verse who he is addressing this next rebuke, the priests. By placing those targeted by this rebuke at the end, we have an element of surprise. People would not expect the priests to be the ones who dishonor the Lord.^[4]

There is an objection to the statement (Malachi 1:6), and it is then defended (Malachi 1:7-8). The Lord mentions their unworthy offerings that would not even bit fit for an earthly governor.[5] The Lord appeals to the polluted food (לֶחֶם)^[6] that they brought to his altar. Malachi is admonishing them based on the instruction on defective sacrifices from Leviticus 22:17-30.^[7]

By their words, we see that the priests do not know that think they have done anything wrong. They do not see the connection between the altar and the Lord. The altar is connected to the Lord by being his table. Despising the table, is despising to the Lord. The priests have despised his name because they have brought blind sacrifices, to which the priests answer: “there is no evil”, and they are admonished for bringing lame and sick offering to which they also respond: “there is no evil”. The Lord tells them that their sacrifices would not even be worthy of an earthly governor, who would not be pleased with them. הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ  literally means « will he lift up your face » it is figurative for being gracious or showing favor.^[8]

Malachi 1:9-11 Call to repent, and to stop the sacrifices

Malachi urges the priests to repent, and appease the face of the Lord (Malachi 1:9). They can cease these offerings, closing the doors, and no longer burning offerings. They are pointless, as they are of no delight to the Lord (Malachi 1:10). Worthy offerings are being brought to the Lord in all places (Malachi 1:11). גָּדוֹל שְׁמִי בַּגּוֹיִם the Lord’s name is great among the nations. Contextually we see that it was a Pagan king, Cyrus who was the one to command the rebuilding of the temple. Mentioning the other nations helps gives strength to the rebuke, maybe similarly to Romans 11:11, 14 to purpose could be to motivate the Jews to change.

Concluding the rebuke of the sacrifices

In verse 1:12-13 similar ideas to Malachi 1:7-8 are repeated. The priests are saying that the table of the Lord is despised, because unlawful offerings are being brought to the Lord. Malachi ends the talks concerning the sacrifices with a warning of a curse. The Lord will curse the one being deceitful, who has a worthy animals to offer in his flock (זָכָר)^[9] but is vowing and slaughtering the spoilt to the Lord. The offerings are unworthy, because the Lord is a great king among the nations as we have already seen in Malachi 1:5.

---

^[1] Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 315.

^[2]John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), 1577.

[3] Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry , (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1986) 341.

^[4] David J. Clark and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on Malachi, UBS handbook series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2002), 380.

[5] There were no governors before the exile so this word is key to dating the text, after the exile.  

^[6]Meaning food in general. The use of food to talk about an offering also used in Leviticus 21:6.  Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 537.

^[7]Walvoord, Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary,1577.

^[8]Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 669.

^[9] זָכָר just means male but when it refers to animals, it if often for sacrifices Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 271.

Malachi 1:2-5 Rebuke 1: A Failure to recognize God’s love.

In this first section we have the first rebuke against the people of Israel who have failed to see that God loves them. It begins with the first verbal exchange. It takes the shorter form (discussed in 1.2.1). Malachi begins with a statement: “I have loved you” (Malachi 1:2a) and it is followed by an objection, the people are presumably not seeing how it is that God is loving them (Malachi 1:2b). This is followed by a defense of the first statement (Malachi 1:2c-4), and the section concludes with the appropriate response to God’s love (Malachi 2:5).

Malachi 1:2-4 Defense: You can see that I love you by how I hated Esau

To show that the Lord loves Jacob, the focus is brought to Esau. The Lord makes the following statement: “I have loved Jacob and Esau I have hated.” In his sovereignty God has chosen Jacob over Esau (Genesis 25:23). Verses 3 and 4 develop the theme of God’s rejection of Esau, which is recurrent in the Prophets (Isa 11:14; 34:5–6; Jer. 49:7–22; Eze. 25:12–14; 35:15; Joel. 3:19; Am. 1:11; and all of Obadiah).[1]

Concerning God’s hatred, Targum Jonathan translates it with רַחֵיקִית to be distant. This takes it to mean God’s hatred is a form of neglect. It is difficult to take it this way when the following verses describe the Lord opposing Esau. God’s hatred is manifested with the wayyiqtols which show a sequence in the events that follow.[2] First וָאָשִׂים אֶת־הָרָיו הָרָיו שְׁמָמָה the Lord is saying “I will place his mountains desolation”. It should probably be understood “for desolation” but a word is missing, which could be a sign of poetry. Secondly וְאֶת־נַחֲלָתוֹ לְתַנּוֹת מִדְבָּר “his inheritance to jackals wilderness”, again we have the omission of some words that would likely be present in prose. These expressions are hard to understand and we find textual variants because of the difficulty in comprehension. The Vulgate translates לְתַנּוֹת as dragon or serpent because they took a different root: תַּנִּין , the Septuagint has “gift”, taking the root נָתַן. It is not that they have different vorlage but rather it is a mistake in the translation. The Targum goes further in its interpretation. It seeks to explain the figures of speech, interpreting “to the jackals of the wilderness” with “desolation of the wilderness” it is clear that the place described is not habited if there are wild beasts.

Verse 4 continues with what it looks like for the Lord to hate Esau. Edom says רֻשַּׁשְׁנוּ “we are beaten down”, וְנָשׁוּב וְנִבְנֶה חֳרָבוֹת but they are determined: “and we will return and we will build ruins” again the article is missing but it should be “the ruins”. In response, the Lord says: הֵמָּה יִבְנוּ וַאֲנִי אֶהֱרוֹס they are building, which has an ongoing aspect marked by the imperfect יִבְנוּ, and God is tearing down also has an ongoing sense, so as much as Edom builds, the Lord is tearing down.[3] We see that God’s goes beyond him being distant, as he is in the process of actively destroying. God’s hatred of Edom is visible to the nations. First וְקָרְאוּ לָהֶם גְּבוּל רִשְׁעָה literally “they will call them border of wickedness. The verb “to call” is active and plural, maybe referring to other people groups as this verse deals at a “people” level. The people will be called אֲשֶׁר־זָעַם יְהוָה עַד־עוֹלָם which translates "whom the Lord is indignant forever.”

Malachi 1:5 Israel will respond positively and God will be praised.

There was a change from the second person to the third to talk about what it meant for God to love Israel. The Lord talked about his hatred for Esau in the third person. Now, in this final component, the prophet returns to the second person. In response to God’s work against Esau, Israel will see and will say: “the Lord is great beyond the border of Israel” יִגְדַּל is in the imperfect that it is not referring to something complete,[4] the statement is a response to what Israel sees outsides its borders, the Lord in his actions against Edom shows himself to be great outside the borders of Israel. This is a significant statement when we deal with groups of people worshipping local deities, the Lord is Lord of all things, and not limited to one place, the worship given to the Lord is greater than what one nation can give as it is beyond the borders of Israel.




[1] Alden, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets, 709–710.


[2]Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2006), 326.


[3] Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 313.


[4] Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 313.

Malachi 1:1 Prescript

Malachi opens with an introductory verse, identifying this writing as an oracle “מַשָּׂא” by the hand “בְּיַד” the messenger of the Lord “מַלְאָכִי” (Malachi). In this first verse I want to highlight some hints about the kind of message that is going to be presented and some information on the author. First, מַשָּׂא expresses the idea for an utterance or oracle but this word also derives from נָשָׂא which means to lift or carry.[1] Figuratively, the oracle of the Lord is a heavy load, or burden, through the weightiness of the message to be delivered.[2] This weight of the message is felt in the six rebukes that are to come. Concerning the author, this message is בְּיַד, meaning “by the hand” which could mean that it has been written by the hand of מַלְאָכִי the Lord’s messenger. In the Vulgate the Hebrew for “my messenger” is translated as a proper name: “Malachi”. This change has been kept in translations that have followed. Earlier that the Vulgate, the Septuagint translated it ἀγγέλου αὐτου̂ (his messenger), and Targum Jonathan דיתקרי שמיה עזרא ספרא (my messenger, is called Ezra, the scribe). It would fit that both Ezra and Malachi be the same person given the common themes that are to come in Malachi and those found in the period of Ezra and Nehemiah.




[1] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 669.


[2] Brown, Driver, Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 672.