Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Malachi 1:10 - 1:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mal 1:10. “O that there were one among you, who would shut the doors, that ye might not light mine altar to no purpose! I have no pleasure in you, saith Jehovah of hosts, and sacrificial offering does not please me from your hand. Mal 1:11. For from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is burned and sacrifice offered, and indeed a pure sacrifice to my name; for my name is great among the nations, saith Jehovah of hosts. Mal 1:12. And ye desecrate it with your saying: the table of Jehovah, it is defiled, and its fruit - contemptible is its food. Mal 1:13. And ye say: behold what a plague! and ye blow upon it, saith Jehovah of hosts, and ye bring hither what is robbed and the lame and the sick, and thus ye bring the sacrificial gift; shall I take pleasure in this from your hand? saith Jehovah.” The construction מִי בָכֶם וְיִסְגֹּר is to be explained in accordance with Job 19:23 : “Who is among you and he would shut,” for “who is there who would shut?” and the question is to be taken as the expression of a wish, as in 2Sa 15:4; Psa 4:7, etc.: “would that some one among you would shut!” The thought is sharpened by gam, which not only belongs to בָּכֶם, but to the whole of the clause: “O that some one would shut,” etc. The doors, the shutting of which is to be desired, are the folding doors of the inner court, in which the altar of burnt-offering stood; and the object of the wish is that the altar might no more be lighted up, not “by lights which burned by the side of the altar” (Ewald), but by the shining of the sacrificial fire which burned upon the altar. חִנָּם, in vain, i.e., without any object or use, for Jehovah had no pleasure in such priests or such worthless sacrifices. Minchâh here is not the meat-offering as distinguished from the slain-offering, but sacrifice generally, as in 1Sa 2:17; Isa 1:13; Zep 3:10, etc. Such sacrifices God does not desire, for His name proves itself to be great among all the nations of the earth, so that pure sacrifices are offered to Him in every place. This is the simple connection between Mal 1:10, Mal 1:11, and one in perfect harmony with the words. Koehler's objection, that such a line of argument apparently presupposes that God needs sacrifices on the part of man for His own sake, and is only in a condition to despise the sacrifices of His nation when another nation offers Him better ones, has no force, because the expression “for His own sake,” in the sense of “for His sustenance or to render the perpetuation of His being possible,” with the conclusion drawn from it, is neither to be found in the words of the text, nor in the explanation referred to. God does indeed need no sacrifices for the maintenance of His existence, and He does not demand them for this purpose, but He demands them as signs of the dependence of men upon Him, or of the recognition on the part of men that they are indebted to God for life and every other blessing, and owe Him honour, praise, and thanksgiving in return. In this sense God needs sacrifices, because otherwise He would not be God to men on earth; and from this point of view the argument that God did not want to receive the reprehensible sacrifices of the Israelitish priests, because sacrifices were offered to Him by the nations of the earth in all places, and therefore His name was and remained great notwithstanding the desecration of it on the part of Israel, was a very proper one for attacking the delusion, that God needs sacrifices for His own sustenance; a delusion which the Israelitish priests, against whom Malachi was contending, really cherished, if not in thesi, at all events in praxi, when they thought any sacrificial animal good enough for God. Koehler's assumption, that Mal 1:11 contains a subordinate parenthetical thought, and that the reason for the assertion in Mal 1:10 is not given till Mal 1:12, Mal 1:13, is opposed to the structure of the sentences, since it necessitates the insertion of “although” after כִּי in Mal 1:11.
It is must more difficult to decide the question whether Mal 1:11 treats of what was already occurring at the time of the prophet himself, as Hitzig, Maurer, and Koehler suppose (after the lxx, Ephr., Theod. Mops., etc.), or of that which would take place in the future through the reception of the heathen into the kingdom of God in the place of Israel, which would be rejected for a time (Cyr., Theod., Jerome, Luther, Calvin, and others, down to Hengstenberg and Schmieder). Both of these explanations are admissible on grammatical grounds; for such passages as Gen 15:14 and Joe 3:4 show very clearly that the participle is also used for the future. If we take the words as referring to the present, they can only mean that the heathen, with the worship and sacrifices which they offer to the gods, do worship, though ignorantly yet in the deepest sense, the true and living God (Koehler). But this thought is not even expressed by the Apostle Paul in so definite or general a form, either in Rom 1:19-20, where he teaches that the heathen can discern the invisible being of God from His works, or in Act 17:23. in his address at Athens, where he infers from the inscription upon an altar, “to the unknown God,” that the unknown God, whom the Athenians worshipped, is the true God who made heaven and earth. Still less is this thought contained in our verse. Malachi does not speak of an “unknown God,” whom all nations from the rising to the setting of the sun, i.e., over all the earth, worshipped, but says that Jehovah's name is great among the nations of the whole earth. And the name of God is only great among the Gentiles, when Jehovah has proved Himself to them to be a great God, so that they have discerned the greatness of the living God from His marvellous works and thus have learned to fear Him (cf. Zep 2:11; Psa 46:9-11; Exo 15:11, Exo 15:14-16). This experience of the greatness of God forms the substratum for the offering of sacrifices in every place, since this offering is not mentioned merely as the consequence of the fact that the name of Jehovah is great among the nations; but in the clause before the last, “the latter is also expressly placed towards the former in the relation of cause to effect” (Koehler). The idea, therefore, that the statement, that incense is burned and sacrifice offered to the name of Jehovah in every place, refers to the sacrifices which the heathen offered to their gods, is quite inadmissible. At the time of Malachi the name of Jehovah was not great from the rising to the setting of the sun, nor were incense and sacrifice offered to Him in every place, and therefore even Hitzig looks upon the expression בְּכָל־מָקוֹם as “saying too much.” Consequently we must understand the words prophetically as relating to that spread of the kingdom of God among all nations, with which the worship of the true God would commence “in every place.” בְּכָל־מָקוֹם forms an antithesis to the one place, in the temple at Jerusalem, to which the worship of God was limited during the time of the old covenant (Deu 12:5-6). מֻקְטָר is not a partic. nominasc., incense, suffimentum, for this could not signify the burnt-offering or slain-offering as distinguished from the meat-offering (minchâh), but it is a partic. verbale, and denotes not the kindling of the sacrificial flesh upon the altar, but the kindling of the incense (suffitur); for otherwise מֻגָּשׁ would necessarily stand before מֻקְטָר, since the presentation preceded the burning upon the altar. The two participles are connected together asyndetos and without any definite subject (see Ewald, §295, a). It is true that minchâh tehōrâh does actually belong to muggâsh as the subject, but it is attached by Vav explic. in the form of an explanatory apposition: offering is presented to my name, and indeed a sacrificial gift (minchâh covering every sacrifice, as in Mal 1:10). The emphasis rests upon tehōrâh, pure, i.e., according to the requirements of the law, in contrast to sacrifices polluted by faulty animals, such as the priests of that day were accustomed to offer.
(Note: In Mal 1:11 the Romish Church finds a biblical foundation for its doctrine of the bloodless sacrifice of the New Testament, i.e., the holy sacrifice of the mass (see Canones et decreta concil. Trident. sess. 22), understanding by minchâh the meat-offering as distinguished from the bloody sacrifices. But even if there were any ground for this explanation of the word, which there is not, it would furnish no support to the sacrifice of the mass, since apart from the fact that the sacrifice of the mass has a totally different meaning from the meat-offering of the Old Testament, the literal interpretation of the word is precluded by the parallel “burning incense” or “frankincense.” If burning incense was a symbol of prayer, as even Reincke admits, the “sacrificial offering” can only have denoted the spiritual surrender of a man to God (Rom 12:1).)
In the allusion to the worship, which would be paid by all nations to the name of the Lord, there is an intimation that the kingdom of God will be taken from the Jews who despise the Lord, and given to the heathen who seek God. This intimation forms the basis for the curse pronounced in Mal 1:14 upon the despisers of God, and shows “that the kingdom of God will not perish, when the Lord comes and smites the land with the curse (Mal 4:6), but that this apparent death is the way to true life” (Hengstenberg).
To this allusion to the attitude which the heathen will assume towards Jehovah when He reveals His name to them, the prophet appends as an antithesis in Mal 1:12, Mal 1:13 a repetition of the reproof, that the priests of Israel desecrate the name of the Lord by that contempt of His name, which they display by offering faulty animals in sacrifice. Mal 1:12 is only a repetition of the rebuke in v.7. חִלֵּל is really equivalent to בָּזָה שֵׁם and גָּאַל in Mal 1:6 and Mal 1:7, and מְגֹאָל to נִבְזֶה in Mal 1:7, which occurs in the last clause of Mal 1:12 as synonymous with it. The additional words וְנִיבוֹ וגו serve to strengthen the opinion expressed by the priests concerning the table of the Lord. נִיבוֹ is placed at the head absolutely, and is substantially resumed in אָכְלוֹ. נִיב, proventus, produce, income; the suffix refers to shulchan Yehōvâh (the table of the Lord). The revenue of the table of the Lord, i.e., of the altar, consisted of the sacrifices offered upon it, which are also called its food. The assumption is an erroneous one, that the sentence contains any such thought as the following: “The revenue drawn by the priests from the altar, i.e., the sacrificial flesh which fell to their share, was contemptible;” according to which the priests would be represented as declaring, that they themselves could not eat the flesh of the sacrifices offered without disgust; for they could not possibly speak in this way, since it was they themselves who admitted the faulty animals. If the flesh of blind, lame, or diseased animals had been too bad for food in their estimation, they would not have admitted such animals or offered them in sacrifice (Koehler). Even in Mal 1:13 this thought is not implied. מַתְּלָאָה is a contraction of מַה־תְּלָאָה (cf. Ges. §20, 2, a): What a weariness it is! The object, which the priests declare to be a burdensome and troublesome affair, can only be inferred from the following expression, vehippachtem 'ōthō. Hippēăch signifies here to blow away, like הֵפִיחַ בְ in Psa 10:5, which is radically connected with it, i.e., to treat contemptuously. The suffix אוֹתוֹ does not refer to אָכְלוֹ, but to שֻׁלְחַן יי. The table of Jehovah (i.e., the altar) they treat contemptuously. Consequently the service at the altar is a burden or a trouble to them, whereas this service ought to be regarded as an honour and a privilege. Jerome thinks that instead of אוֹתוֹ, we might read אוֹתִי, which is found in a good number of codices; and according to the Masora, אוֹתוֹ has found its way into the text as Tikkune Sopherim (compare the remarks at Hab 1:12 on the Tikkune Sopherim). But in this case also the reading in the text is evidently original and correct. They manifest their contempt of the altar by offering in sacrifice that which has been stolen, etc. (cf. Mal 1:8). The first הֲבֵאתֶם is to be understood as referring to the bringing of the animals upon the altar; and וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת־הַמִּנְחָה is to be interpreted thus: “And having brought such worthless animals to the slaughter, ye then offer the sacrificial gift.” There is indeed no express prohibition in the law against offering gâzūl, or that which has been stolen; but it was shut out from the class of admissible sacrifices by the simple fact, that robbery was to be visited with punishment as a crime. The reproof closes with the question, which is repeated from Mal 1:8 (cf. Mal 1:10), whether God can accept such sacrifices with pleasure. The prophet then utters the curse in the name of God upon all who offer bad and unsuitable sacrifices.