Lectionary Calendar
Tuesday, April 29th, 2025
the Second Week after Easter
the Second Week after Easter
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
Take your personal ministry to the Next Level by helping StudyLight build churches and supporting pastors in Uganda.
Click here to join the effort!
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Commentaries
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers Ellicott's Commentary
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Malachi 1". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers". https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/ebc/malachi-1.html. 1905.
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Malachi 1". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers". https://studylight.org/
Whole Bible (48)Old Testament (1)Individual Books (7)
Verse 1
1-5. These verses are introductory to the whole prophecy. God had shown His love to Israel; Israel ought to have made a proper return, but, on the contrary, Israel had abused Godâs loving-kindness.
(1) The burden.âSee Notes on Isaiah 13:1; Jeremiah 23:33-40; Zechariah 9:1; Zechariah 12:1.
Malachi.âSee Introduction.
Verse 2
(2) I have lovedâi.e., shown abundant proof of my love. The prophet goes on to show how God has shown so great proofs of His love.
Was not Esau Jacobâs brother?âAnd would not one suppose from that fact they would have similar privileges? But not so.
I loved Jacob, (3) and I hated Esau . . .âThe ethical reason for Godâs love of Jacob and hatred of Esau is not touched upon here, nor is it necessary to the argument. It is Godâs love for Israel that the prophet wishes to dwell on, and he mentions the hatred towards Esau merely for the sake of a strong contrast. The nations, Israel and Edom, are here referred to, not the individuals, Jacob and Esau. This passage receives a graphic illustration from the words of Psalms 137:7, composed after the return from the captivity: âRemember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof.â (On St. Paulâs application of the words of Malachi, see Notes on Romans 9:13.)
Laid his mountains . . . waste . . .âIt is a somewhat disputed point to what historical fact this refers. But, on the whole, we may reasonably infer from Jeremiah 49:7; Jeremiah 49:17-21, compared with Jeremiah 25:9; Jeremiah 25:21, that the subjugation of the Edomites by Nebuchadnezzar is here referred to.
Dragons.âBetter, jackals. The LXX. and Gesenius render the word âhabitations,â by comparison with a similarly sounding Arabic word.
Verse 4
(4) Whereas . . . saith.âBetter, If Edom say.
We are impoverished.âBetter, we are broken to pieces. Edomâs ineffectual attempts to restore itself will be looked on as proofs of Godâs wrath against the nation on account of its wickedness, and will acquire for it the titles âborder of wickedness,â âthe people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.â âBorderâ means âconfines,â âterritory;â Latin, fines.
Keith, Evidence of Prophecy, pp. 309, 310, in reference to the literal fulfilment of this prophecy, writes as follows:ââIn recording the invasion of Demetrius, about three hundred years before the Christian era, into the land of Edom, Diodorus describes the country as a desert, and the inhabitants as living without houses; nor does he mention any city in that region but Petra alone. Yet the names of some of the cities of Arabia PetrĂŚa, enumerated by Josephus, as existing at the time when the Romans invaded Palestineâthe names of eighteen cities of Palestina Tertia, of which Petra was the capital, and the metropolitan see, in the times of the Lower Empireâand the towns laid down in DâAnvilleâs map, together with the subsisting ruins of towns in Edom, specified by Burckhardt, and also by Laborde, give proof that Edom, after having been impoverished, did return, and build the desolate places, even as âthe ruined towns and places,â still visible and named, show that though the desolate places were built again according to the prophecy, they have, as likewise foretold, been thrown down, and are âruined placesâ lying in utter desolation.â
Verse 5
(5) And your eyes shall see.âComp. such expressions as Psalms 37:34; Psalms 52:6; Psalms 91:8. As with the individual, so with a nation: to stand in safety and be a witness to the destruction of the enemy is looked on as a sign of Godâs favour.
The Lord will be magnified . . . Israel.âSome render, let the Lord be magnified, as in Psalms 35:27; Psalms 40:16; others, the Lord is great: i.e., has exerted His greatness. The latter seems the more appropriate rendering here.
From the border.âSome say, beyond the border. This translation is not in accordance with the usage of the expression, which means simply âoverâ or âabove.â (Comp. Jeremiah 4:6.) The meaning seems to be this: The Lord, whose protecting presence hovers specially over the border of Israel, is now great, in that He has restored Israel, but hath destroyed the nationality of the wicked descendants of the godless Esau. âBorder of Israelâ is purposely used in contrast to âborder of wickedness.â
Malachi 1:6; Malachi 2:9.âThe priesthood rebuked. A close connection subsists between the different parts of this section; it ought therefore to be read as one continuous paragraph. The sub-divisions of it are Malachi 1:6-14; Malachi 2:1-9.
Verse 6
(6) A father.âGod is distinctly called the Father of Israel in Deuteronomy 32:6; Deuteronomy 32:18. (Comp. Exodus 4:22 : âMy son, my firstborn, is Israel.â)
A master.âComp. Isaiah 1:3.
Mine honourâi.e., the respect due to me.
My fearâi.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.
Verses 6-14
(6-14) The prophetâs rebuke for the dishonouring of Godâs name is addressed to the priests as the responsible persons, but applies to the whole nation.
Verse 7
(7) Ye offer.âLiterally, offering.
Bread.âThis is not the shewbread, which was not offered upon the altar. The word rendered âbreadâ means in Arabic âflesh;â in Hebrew, âfood generally.â This word is applied (Leviticus 3:11; Leviticus 3:16) to the fat portions of the peace offerings, which were burned, and is there translated âfood.â (See references there.) In Leviticus 21:6; Leviticus 21:8; Leviticus 21:17; Leviticus 21:21-22; Leviticus 22:25, it is used of the sacrifices generally, but is there inconsistently translated âbread.â
Polluted.âThe Hebrew word does not occur in this sense in the Pentateuch, but we have it in Daniel 1:8 in the reflexive conjugation: âto allow himself to be defiledâ with food, and in the active (âpolluted theeâ) in this verse. The context shows that the words âpolluted breadâ means âfood unfit to be offered.â âPolluted meâ is the same as âprofaned [my name]â (Malachi 1:12); for in the Hebrew Scriptures âGodâ and âGodâs nameâ are often equivalent expressions (Comp. Malachi 2:5). Keil takes the words, which he wrongly translates, âye that offer polluted bread,â as parallel to the words âdespisers of my name,â and to a certain degree explanatory of them; while he finds the actual answer to the questions, âWherein have we despised?â âWherein have we polluted?â is given in the words, âIn that ye say,â &c. He renders the passage thus:â
Saith the Lord of hosts unto you,
âYe priests, who despise my name!â
And yet say, âWherein have we despised thy name?â
âYe who offer on mine altar polluted food.â
And yet say, âWherein have we polluted thee?â
(Ans.) [Ye have despised my name and polluted me], in that ye say, âThe table of the Lord is contemptible.â
The error of this rendering consists in supposing that âoffering polluted food,â which is anathrous, can be parallel to âYe priests who despise my name,â which is defined by the definite article. In truth, the English Version is perfectly correct. We will repeat it with only the slightest possible verbal alterations. and with such parenthetical explanations as are required to make it quite intelligible:âSaith the Lord of hosts unto you, âO priests, that despise my name!â
[This is the commencement of a prophetic rebuke to the priests; but they, in accordance with the prophetâs graphic style of writing, are supposed to catch him up at the first clause of his utterance.]
âButâ [despisers of Godâs name!] say ye, âwherein have we despised thy name?â
(Ans.) âOffering [as ye do] polluted food upon mine altar.â
â But,â say ye, âwherein have we polluted thee?â
(Ans.) âWhen, now, ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil?â &c.
Sayâi.e., show by your conduct that such is your feeling. âThis was their inward thought . . . he puts these thoughts into abrupt, bold, hard words, which might startle them for their hideousness, as if he would say, this is what your acts mean. He exhibits the worm and the decay which lay under the whited exterior.ââPusey.
Tableâi.e., altar, as in Ezekiel 41:22 : âThe altar . . . this is the table that is before the Lord.â (Comp. Ezek. 49:16.)]
Verse 8
(8) If.âBetter, when.
Blind . . . lame . . . sick.âThis was contrary to Leviticus 22:22, &c. And now, to show them the heinous nature of their offence against the majesty of God, the prophet asks them whether they could offer such unsound animals to their civil ruler with any chance of acceptance.
Governor.âThe word in the Hebrew is probably of foreign origin, but it occurs as early as to refer to the governors of Judah in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 10:15). On the date of the book of Kings see Introduction to that book.
Verse 9
(9) This verse is severely ironical. The word âGodâ is expressly used, rather than âthe Lord,â as a contrast to the human âgovernorâ mentioned above. The meaning is: âYou know you dare not treat thus contemptuously your human governor, what hope then is there of such disrespectful conduct finding favour with Godâthe Judge of all the earth?â
That he will be gracious.âThese words refer, perhaps, to the wording of the sacerdotal benediction (Numbers 6:24).
Unto us.âThe prophet includes himself with the people, as Moses did (Exodus 34:9): âAnd pardon our iniquity and our sin;â and as, in fact, God Himself included Moses (Exodus 16:28): âAnd the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments?â
This hath been by your means.âBetter, by your means hath this been. âBy your meansâ is emphatic by position. The meaning is: âBy means of you (priests), who ought to have directed the people aright, has this disgraceful conduct been occasioned.â Or, perhaps, in view of Malachi 1:8, and the wording of Malachi 1:10, we should render the words thus: âFrom your hands is this [despicable offering] !â This being used contemptuously like Lat. istud. In either case the clause is parenthetical, so that âwill he regardâ must be taken in close connection with the preceding, âbeseech God that he will be gracious unto us.â
Will he regard your persons?âBetter, will he, on your account, show favour to âany one? That is, can ye be deemed worthy intercessors, when these are the actions ye perform? The question is, of course, a practical negation. (Comp. Zechariah 4:10.)
Verse 10
(10) The prophet is now supposed by many commentators to say that the Temple might as well be closed, as far as concerns any pleasure the Lord takes in their offerings.
Who is there even among you . . . doors . . . altar for nought.âThose that take the above-mentioned view of the passage would render, O that there were one among even you who would shut the doors, that ye might not light mine altar to no purpose. âTo no purpose,â like δĎĎξΏν (Galatians 2:21). The rebuke contained in this verse is, according to this interpretation, very similar to that of Isaiah 1:11-15. But the word âeven,â which can only refer to âyouâ (Keil thinks differently), seems to us almost fatal to this interpretation. For we could only explain its use in the forced sense of: âWould that some one, among even you (who ought to be the promoters of Godâs service), would (since His service has now become a mockery) shut, &c.â We are therefore inclined to retain the simple rendering of our venerable English Version. In that case, âeven among youâ (perhaps better, among even you) would mean: âeven among you whose duty it is, and chief pleasure it ought to be, to minister unto Me,â which, in that context, so far from being forced, would be most natural.
For nought.âComp. the attitude of the priests in 1 Samuel 2:13-16.
Verse 11
(11) This verse contains no verb, and, as far as the rules of grammar are concerned, its participles may be rendered either by presents or futures. If we take the words as referring to the present, we are met by the insurmountable difficulty that in no sense, at the time of Malachi, could the Lordâs Name be said to be great over all the earth, or pure sacrifices to be offered to Him in every place. Nor can we, with many commentators, suppose that heathen rites are here referred to as being offered ignorantly, through idols, to the one true God. (Comp. Popeâs universal prayer:â
âFather of all, in every age,
In every clime adored,
By saint, by savage, and by sage,
Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!â)
For there is no hint given of any such meaning being intended; and, moreover, such a sentiment would be quite foreign to the Old Testament, which always represents heathen rites as being an utter abomination, and always speaks of the adhesion of the Gentiles to the worship of the true God as a thing of the future. We are compelled, therefore, to take the words as a prophetic announcement of the future rejection of Israel and calling of the Gentiles.
In every place.âIn contradistinction to the one place (Deuteronomy 12:5-7). (Comp. our Lordâs words to the woman of Samaria: John 4:21-24.)
Incense shall be offered . . .âThis is a possible rendering of the words; but this Hebrew word is not elsewhere used for âincense,â and may more naturally be rendered shall be burnt, as the passive participle of the verb used in Leviticus 1:9. Dr. Puseyâs footnote on this passage is well worth reading, as, indeed, his footnotes usually are. We prefer, therefore, to take the words thus: âan oblation shall be burnt to my name, even a pure offering.â In any case, unless we are to expect some future establishment of a universal offering of material sacrifices, we must understand both expressions in a spiritual sense, which is, in truth, the only reasonable way of interpreting such passages. (See Notes on Zechariah 2:6-13; Zechariah 3:8-10; Zechariah 6:9-15, and especially 14:16-21.) If, therefore, any Christians would claim this verse as a support for their custom of offering incense in churches, they must conform also with Zechariah 14:16-21, and go up every year to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. The word âoffering,â as in the preceding verse (comp. 1 Samuel 2:17; Isaiah 1:13), denotes sacrificial gifts in general, not the flour offerings as distinguished from the flesh offerings. The word âpureâ is emphatic, not as signifying the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass (Council of Trent), as distinguished from the bloody sacrifices, but as the converse of âpollutedâ (Malachi 1:7). The above remarks we have made in no controversial spirit, but simply in the interests of truth; and lest any should suppose us to imply that the above interpretation was originated by the Council of Trent, we refer the reader to Dr. Puseyâs Commentary, in which he shows, by quotations from SS. Justin, IrenĂŚus, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, as also from Tertullian, Eusebius, and Theodoret, that it is quod semper, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique. Those, therefore, who prefer so-called authority to the results of calm criticism are bound to disagree with us.
Verse 12
(12) But ye have.âBetter, but ye profane itâviz., âmy nameâ (Malachi 1:11). The word âitâ is said by Jewish tradition to be an euphemism for âme.â The present contemptuous conduct of Godâs priests is contrasted with the prophesied reverence of heathen nations.
Fruit . . . meat, denote the same as âbreadâ of Malachi 1:7. They show that they think it contemptible by not taking the trouble to offer such things as are prescribed by the Law.
Verse 13
(13) Said.âBetter, say.
And ye have snuffed at it.âBetter, and ye puff at itâthat is, treat it with contempt, âpooh-pooh it,â as we say. The service of the Temple, which they ought to have regarded as their highest privilege and pleasure, they look on as burdensome and contemptible. For âbrought,â read bring.
Torn.âThe word GâzĂťl elsewhere means âstolenâ (Deuteronomy 28:31), or ârobbed ââi.e., âspoiledâ (Deuteronomy 28:29). It is perhaps not impossible that it may here be a later word for trĂŞphâh, âtornâ (comp. the cogn. Arabic ajzal, âgalled on the backâ), but it is not so used in post-Biblical Jewish writings. On the contrary, Rabbinic tradition uses our word when expressly mentioning that which is stolen as unfit to be offered as a burnt offeringâe.g., the Sifrâ, (Vayyikrâ, Perek 6, Parashta 5, ed. Weis 7b), commenting on the words of Leviticus 1:10, says: â âFrom the flock,â and âfrom the sheep,â and âfrom the goats:â These words are limitationsâviz., to exclude the sick (comp. also Malachi 1:8), and the aged, and that which has been dedicated in thought to an idol, and that which is defiled with its own filth; âits offeringâ [English Version, his offering, comp. Note on Zechariah 4:2], to exclude that which is stolen.â (See also Talmud Babli, Baba Kamma 66b.) The English Version has the same in view in its rendering of Isaiah 61:8, where it has the authority of Talmud Babli, Sukkah 30a, and of Jerome and Luther. Perhaps the reason why people were inclined to offer a stolen animal may be, that it might very likely have a mark on it, which would render it impossible for the thief to offer it for sale, and so realise money on it, for fear of detection; so then he makes a virtue of a necessity, and brings as an offering to God that which he could not otherwise dispose of.
Verse 14
(14) Some consider that two cases are mentioned in this verse. (1) One who acts deceitfully (by offering a female as a burnt offering, which is contrary to the Law, while there is in his flock a male); (2) and one who makes a vow (to offer a sacrifice of peace offerings, for which either a male or a female was allowable, provided it were without a blemish: Leviticus 22:23), and then offers an animal that has a blemish. But it is better to understand but one case to be mentionedâviz., that of a man who vows, and while he has a male in his flock offers a female with a blemish. A female without blemish would be admissible as a vow offering, but a male without blemish would be the most valuable, because it could be offered as a burnt offering, whereas a female could not; while a female with a blemish would be the very worst, and actually illegal. A man is not bound to make a vow, but if he make one his offering should be of the very best, just as he would not dare to offer to a king or to his ruler (Malachi 1:6) anything but the best. How cursed, then, must he be who, while he possesses the best, deliberately makes a vow to God, and then offers Him the very worst.