Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryMalachi 1

MALACHI INTRODUCTION 1. Title. Malachi, Heb. Mal’aki, means “my messenger.” However, the word may be a contraction of Mal’akiyah, meaning “messenger of Yahweh.” Because the name occurs nowhere else in the OT, some have felt that Malachi was not the prophet’s name, but merely a designation of him as God’s “messenger.” 2. Authorship. The prophet makes no reference to his personal life and gives no dates for his ministry. Yet there remains little doubt that he was the last of the OT prophets. That Malachi prophesied when the Captivity was little remembered, and after the Temple had been restored and its worship had for some time been instituted, is evident from the contents of his book. The abuses condemned by Malachi are very similar to the abuses that arose during Nehemiah’s absence from Jerusalem at the Persian court (see Neh. 13:6), and thus it is quite possible that Malachi was written about 425 B.C. At any rate, it is probable that the book should be dated either during Nehemiah’s time or shortly thereafter. 3. Historical Setting. When, many years after the original return from Babylonian captivity, Nehemiah, as King Artaxerxes’ “cupbearer” (see on Neh. 1:11), heard that conditions were not right in Jerusalem, he requested permission to visit his countrymen there. The king readily acceded to the request, granting Nehemiah a leave of absence for an unknown period of time (Neh. 2:5, 6). Nehemiah was appointed governor, and beginning in 444 B.C., carried on a mighty work of reformation among the returned exiles for a period of 12 years (see on Neh. 5:14). After he was called back to Babylon, some years passed before he returned to Judea. Upon his return he found a state of marked spiritual declension, which he endeavored to correct. It was during this general period, perhaps between Nehemiah’s two terms as governor, that the Lord raised up the prophet Malachi to turn the people back to wholehearted service for God. For a more complete survey of the historical background of Malachi see Vol. III, pp. 73–79. 4. Theme. In contrast with Zechariah’s thrilling prophetic outline of the limitless possibilities that lay before the Jews upon their return from exile (see pp. 29–32, 1085), Malachi’s prophecy, a century later, presents a dismal scene of progressive spiritual declension. To be sure, the exiles had returned from the land of their captivity to the Land of Promise, but in their hearts they remained in the far country of disobedience and forgetfulness of God (see pp. 31, 32). Their “failure to fulfill the divine purpose was very apparent in Malachi’s day” (PK 705). In fact, things had come to such a pass that even the priests despised the worship and service of God and were weary of religion (ch. 1:6, 13); and on His part, God was weary of their faithlessness and found their worship and service entirely unacceptable (chs. 1:10, 13; 2:13, 17). Although, for practical purposes, the covenant had lapsed by default, God mercifully continued to bear with His wayward people. He commissioned the prophet Malachi to bear a stern message of warning, reminding the Jews of their past experiences as a nation and calling upon them to return to God and to the requirements of the covenant relationship (PK 705). Eight times the Lord addresses the people and their religious leaders, graciously and patiently calling attention to one aspect after another of their apostasy, and eight times they petulantly deny any degree of imperfection (chs. 1:2, 6, 7; 2:13, 14, 17; 3:7, 8, 13, 14). God’s patient endeavor to elicit

recognition of past mistakes, coupled with their progressively vehement denial of having made any, constitutes the theme of the book. This theme develops as follows: a. Tactfully, God begins by reminding Israel of His eternal love, but they callously protest a lack of evidence that He loves them. God responds by reminding them that it was by virtue of His love that they had become a nation (ch. 1:2–4). b. Observing that Israel owed Him the honor due a father from his son, God charges them with despising Him instead of requiting His love. They obtusely deny the charge. (v. 6). c. God submits evidence of their contempt for Him, pointing out their attitude toward the sacred rites of the Temple as an illustration. They have “polluted,” or made common, the most sacred things. But their response indicates utter blindness to any distinction between what is sacred and what is common (v. 7). They have a “form of godliness” but know nothing of its “power” (2 Tim. 3:5). d. God explains at length the worthlessness of their hollow round of religious ceremonies (chs. 1:8 to 2:12), concluding with the announcement that He will no longer notice or accept their offerings (ch. 2:13). Unabashed, and with a pretense of injured feelings, the people demand why God should thus ignore their worship and service (v. 14). Patiently He explains that the forms of religion are worthless when its principles are not applied to the practical problems of daily living (vs. 14–16). e. He is weary also of their hypocritical pretense at piety. The people defend themselves by insinuating that God’s charge is unwarranted and unjust. God answers: Their failure to distinguish between the sacred and the common in acts of worship is matched by a comparable failure to discriminate between good and evil in daily life. They condone evil with the excuse that it really does not matter, and imply that God should not care so long as they keep up the forms of religion (v. 17). But God warns them that obdurate impenitence will inevitably hasten the day of final judgment (ch. 3:1–6). f. God now charges Israel with complete apostasy, yet accompanies the solemn charge with a gracious invitation to return to Him. The people, however, profess utter surprise and indignation at the thought of having in any way departed from the path of strict obedience to His requirements (v. 7). g. God answers their challenge with specific, tangible evidence of their departure from Him. He charges them with robbery, but they refuse to admit the charge. However, silence on their part is tacit acknowledgment of its truth (vs. 8–12). h.Finally, God indicts the Jews for their brazen retorts to His successive attempts to get them to see their spiritual condition, but they refuse to admit that anything they may have said is untrue or improper (v. 13). God meets this denial by pointing to the crux of the problem—their mercenary, self-seeking spirit. They have not been serving God with sincere hearts, but in the hope of profit and personal advantage (see pp. 32, 33). Utterly and incurably defiant, they are ready to put God to the test. They declare their readiness to hale Him into court, as it were, rashly confident of proving His charges against them invalid (vs. 14, 15). In chs. 3:16–18 and 4:2 God acknowledges the faithful few in Israel who remain loyal to Him and assures them of His unfailing love. At the same time (ch. 4:1, 3) He warns the wicked of their fate on the day of final judgment. The message of Malachi closes with the assurance that prior to the great day of the Lord a messenger will appear to assist Him in the work of preparing the “jewels” for His crown and preserving them through the day of judgment (chs. 4:4–6, 2; 3:17).

The message of Malachi is particularly appropriate for the church today, and is comparable to the Laodicean message of Rev. 3:14–22. Like the Laodiceans, the Jews of Malachi’s day were utterly insensitive to their true spiritual condition and felt their “need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). They were “poor” in heavenly treasure, “blind” to their errors, and “naked,” or not clothed with the perfect character of Jesus Christ (v. 17). Like the man in the parable without a wedding garment (see on Matt. 22:11–13), they stood before the King of the universe, despising the garment of His righteousness and fully content with their own moral rags. 5. Outline. I. Divine Love Unappreciated and Unrequited, 1:1–6. A. Introduction, 1:1. B. God’s eternal love for Israel, 1:2–5. C. Israel dishonors and despises God, 1:6. II. The Degenerate State of Religious Life, 1:7 to 2:17. A. Failure to distinguish between things sacred and common, 1:7–10. B. Failure of the Jews in their mission to the Gentiles, 1:11, 12. C. Failure of the priests to provide spiritual leadership, 1:13 to 2:13. D. Failure to apply the principles of religion to daily life, 2:14–17. III. A Summons to Judgment, 3:1–15. A. A warning of the day of judgment, 3:1–6. B. A specific indictment for robbery of God, 3:7–12. C. An indictment for contempt of God, 3:13–15. IV. Preparation for the Day of Judgment, 3:16 to 4:6. A. Deliverance for those who fear the Lord, 3:16, 17. B. Annihilation for those who despise the Lord, 3:18 to 4:1, 3. C. Divine guidance assured those who fear the Lord, 4:2, 4–6.

Burden. Heb. maśśa’, “burden,” “hardship,” or “utterance” (see on Isa. 13:1). The “burden” of Malachi was that Israel should not forget the lessons of the past.

Ellen G. White

I have loved. Endeavoring to awaken His people to a realization of their ingratitude, the Lord asks certain pointed questions. His love had constituted them a nation (Deut. 7:6–9). See p. 1122. Wherein? This is the first of a series of questions, characteristic of the book of Malachi, which expose the self-justifying attitude of the people of Malachi’s day. These questions may not have been actually voiced by the people, but they truly reflect the inner thinking of the nation. The word “wherein” epitomizes the utter unconcern of the people for spiritual things and sounds the keynote of the book. Yet I loved. Using this reference to brothers who were twins (Gen. 25:24–26), who thus had the same heredity and environment, the Lord endeavors to make plain to the Jews that the divine favor did not come to Israel because of birth, but because of character. Jacob was the one who, although he made painful mistakes, finally devoted his life to God’s service.

Hated Esau. From the context it seems that Edom, the nation of Esau’s descendants, is primarily referred to here rather than the man Esau himself. The use of

the word “hate” is a typical Oriental hyperbole (see Gen. 29:33; Deut. 21:15; see on Ps. 119:136), and should not be taken in its strongest sense. The Lord here makes plain His preference for Jacob and his descendants over Esau and his descendants. This preference arose, of course, out of the relationship of the two brothers to God. Because Jacob was spiritually-minded and had soul-saving faith, loving the things of God, his sins were forgiven and he enjoyed God’s favor and fellowship. Esau, on the other hand, was a worldly-minded, “profane person,” with no desire or love for divine things, and so he put himself outside the divine favor (Heb. 12:16, 17). Waste. Whereas after their return from captivity the Israelites again took possession of and cultivated their land, restoring Jerusalem and its Temple, the Edomites do not seem to have made a similar recovery from the desolation and destruction brought upon them by the Babylonians. Dragons. Rather, “jackals” (see on Ps. 44:19). The country of Edom was left to the prowling of these wild beasts.

Whereas. Or, “because,” or “if.” Should the Edomites resolve to restore their habitations, contrary to God’s purpose, the Lord would interpose to prevent their so doing. Lord of hosts. See on Jer. 7:3. This title occurs frequently in the book of Malachi. For ever. Heb. ‘ad ‘olam (see on Ex. 12:14; 21:6; 2 Kings 5:27).

Your eyes. That is, those of Judah. When the people sense the reality of God’s love, their complaining and murmuring will give way to praise and gratitude for His goodness. From the border of Israel. The LXX reads “above the borders of Israel”; this is probably an expression meaning the entire world.

Mine honour. As their Creator, the One who had specially chosen, kept, and guarded them, God was the Father of His people (see Ex. 4:22; Deut. 32:6). He was, therefore, entitled to receive their reverence and respect. O priests. God now turns in reproof to those who represented religion to the people and who should have been examples, as well as teachers (see on 2 Chron. 15:3), of obedience and sanctification. Wherein? See on v. 2. Insensible to their spiritual condition, the priests plead not guilty. See p. 1122. Despised thy name. Instead of returning His love in kind, they despised God (see v. 2).

Bread. Heb. lechem, sometimes used of food in general (see Gen. 3:19; 43:32; Ex. 2:20). “Bread” could not refer to the shewbread, for it was not offered on the altar. Possibly “bread” here refers to the flesh of the sacrificial victims (see Lev. 3:9–11, 15, 16). This is probably but one example of many that might be given of their carelessness in following the ritual law. Wherein? See on v. 2. In their state of spiritual blindness the priests did not see that by offering “polluted [common] bread” they had dishonored the Lord. In that ye say. They probably did not openly express contempt for the altar of the Lord by their words, but rather by their actions, namely, by bringing “polluted bread” to the altar. See p. 1122. Table of the Lord. Evidently a reference to the altar of sacrifice.

Offer the blind. Since the law required sacrificial victims to be “without blemish” (Lev. 22:19), those mentioned in this verse were an offense to God. The people reasoned that it made no difference whether victims to be sacrificed were perfect. They might as well get rid of the deformed sheep and cattle and keep the healthy, perfect ones for themselves. God designs that men shall render Him their best. Reserving the best for some other purpose is evidence that God is not first in the life. To offer God less than first place is, in reality, to offer Him no place at all. Governor. Heb. pachah, “a provincial governor” (see on Haggai 1:1). To offer such a dignitary what was defective would be an insult. If this was true in regard to a human being, how much more would it be true in regard to the great and exalted “Lord of hosts” (see on Jer. 7:3). Accept thy person. Literally, “lift up thy faces,” meaning to receive with favor.

Beseech. Here Malachi pleads mightily for repentance on the part of the priests. This hath been by your means. Literally, “This was from your hands”; or, alternatively, “Was this from your hands?” In other words, Is this action what you dare to do, or this gift what you dare to bring? Regard your persons. See on v. 8.

Who is there? The prophet rebukes those serving the Temple in a mercenary spirit, those who did not perform their work for God faithfully and efficiently, though they were remunerated for even the smallest service. Offering. Heb. minchah, ordinarily the “meal,” or “cereal,” offering (see on Lev. 2:1). Perhaps the prophet here means that these meal offerings, which were not naturally polluted, were unacceptable to God because of the wrong spirit in which they were offered.

Ellen G. White

From the rising. It was God’s purpose that His true worship should be spread throughout the earth (see pp. 25–38). In every place. See Isa. 19:18, 19; Zeph. 2:11.

Ellen G. White

Profaned it. That is, God’s “name” (see v. 11). Ye say. See on v. 7. Table of the Lord. See on v. 7. Meat. That is, “foods” in general.

Ye said also. See on v. 7. What a weariness An allusion to the priests’ contemptuous boredom in carrying out their Temple services. Snuffed. This expression indicates the extent to which the priests despised the altar. That which was torn. Literally, “that which was seized by violence,” that is, things stolen or wrongly taken. Lame, and the sick. See on v. 8. Should I accept? They knew well that no human recipient would be pleased with such gifts (see v. 8). Why did they think God would be pleased?

Ellen G. White

Cursed. Divine judgment will descend upon him who, having an acceptable “male” sacrificial victim, offers instead a “corrupt,” that is, a blemished, sacrifice (see Lev. 3:1, 6). Dreadful. Heb. nora’, from the verb yara’, “to fear” (see on Ps. 19:9). “Dreadful” is used here with the meaning “regarded with reverence and fear.”